Solomon and Sheba

Previous reviewers did not like this film, but it kept my attention to the end. Compared to other great biblical spectacles, this one has some true moments, due mainly to the strong cast and the director's restraint. This was King Vidor's final film. Remember, he made "The Great Parade,""The Crowd" and other early silent hits. What I liked about this film was Brynner's dignity and kingliness. For someone born a gypsy, Brynner had an innate aristocracy and gravitas; in any scene, he holds your attention and roots the action. And he could deliver the lines elegantly. Could you imagine Tyrone Power in this role? It would be a bit of fluff by comparison (remember him as the feckless husband in "Witness for the Prosecution"?), or perhaps, one might say, Power would have been an equal to George Sanders'surface play of the role.

Another thing going for the film is the consistent delivery of lines by all the actors. Most of the other players were English (Harry Andrews, David Farrar) or Italian (Lollobrigida, Pavan), or foreign, and that gave the dialogue a certain musicality. If all actors had been been "amurican," the tone of the dialogue would have been flatter and much less interesting to listen to. Probably the weakest actor was Lollobrigida, with her masklike visage. She delivered her lines credibly, but there was really no frisson between her and Brynner, (certainly not as there was between Brynner and Deborah Kerr), so that the love scenes came across as a tad dull.

As for the combat and action scenes, Vidor's background in silents shows in the way he holds back with the soundtrack, even as horses, chariots and warriors are running headlong over a cliff. The final sword fight between the brothers was certainly no 10-minute "Prisoner of Zenda", but it was not the fighting itself that was important, but the confrontation between the brothers themselves, reliving the Caine and Abel tragedy. The director is presenting the story as a parable of a failed brotherhood (regardless of how it jives or not with the Biblical text or historical accuracy) that bows before allegiance to a single God and social covenants, so the action is on a straight and simple level that some viewers may find too simple. This sense of the parable guides the actors' delivery of their lines, all with a distinctly measured rhythm that some may consider artificial, and others elevating, as if it were verse.

One can compare Vidor's approach in this film with the many other Biblical spectacles before and after (such as "David and Bathsheba," "Ben Hur," even "Spartacus"), and this movie comes out very "clean" in the battle scenes and refusal to focus on the blood and gore of battle. Vidor's pacing in the dialogue (not quite Shakespearean, but close to it) is consistent with the overall sense of restraint that he excercised.

The clarity of the film's message is reinforced by the costumes, which are openly differentiated as to Egyptian or Israelite,making it easy to distinguish the sides in the battle scenes.

Of five *****, three and a half, it's still worth watching as the swansong of one of Hollywood's great directors.

King Vidor, one of the most famous figures in movie history, the director of Tolstoy's classic on screen (WAR AND PEACE), was not known for making biblical epics. Nobody associates him with this genre that much as we do Cecil B DeMille or D.W.Griffith, for instance. Yet, his last film, SOLOMON AND SHEBA, has a straight reference to the Bible. Nevertheless, the movie can hardly be seen as a biblical epic due to one important factor, its content.

Solomon...what can we say about him from the Bible?...a famous third king of Israel (after Saul and David), a man known for exceptional wisdom, a builder of the splendid first temple of Jerusalem... there is indeed much about him in the Old Testament. But Sheba? All we know is that she, as a queen of a distant land (today's Yemen), paid a visit to Jerusalem in order to see the splendor of the city and of the entire kingdom as well as to admire the wisdom of its king. However, what we find in the movie deals primarily with Solomon-Sheba relations: first a conspiracy, evil intentions, then weakness, desire, treason, finally sacrificial love and mercy. And now we would have to ask ourselves "is it a historical movie or a fairy tale with some historically accurate background?"

I think that in order to understand the director's intentions, we have to look deeper at the cinema of that time and King Vidor himself. SOLOMON AND SHEBA with its title refers to a 1951 Henry King's movie, "David and Bathsheba." Making films at that time was much like this: the producers picked up some aspect from history or the Bible and created a movie out of this containing lavish costumes, great cast, campy spectacle but barely any historical accuracy - all for entertainment. And this is clearly noticeable in SOLOMON AND SHEBA. Besides, there is one more factor that helps get the idea of this film...the content of SOLOMON AND SHEBA was partly inspired by a long ago forgotten movie, one of the most gigantic spectacles of all time, still presumed lost, THE QUEEN OF SHEBA (1921) with Betty Blythe and Fritz Leiber. A love affair of the wise Israeli king and an exotic lustful queen was something particularly entertaining for 20th century viewers. Therefore, we cannot treat Vidor's film as a biblical epic, it's only INSPIRED by the Bible. However, while many people concentrate on the film's weak points: inaccuracy, unnatural battle scenes, etc, I rather feel compelled to focus on some of its strong points.

It is, indeed, a lavish spectacle. There are many scenes that reveal the spirit of grandeur. Here, it seems necessary to mention the two consecutive moments: Solomon enters the temple of luxury devoted to the only God (he says his famous prayer) and the next moment in the Land of Sheba where its queen is surrounded by the luxurious sets, a dedicated servant and a parrot. This contrast has its roots in one major factor Israel differed from other kingdoms and nations: the Israeli king was a servant of God while other rulers were masters of their own. That was the genius and righteousness of the Israel of that time! Another moment worth seeing is the Israel-Egypt battle and the shields shining in the sun. Quite an interesting idea...

The performances are worth consideration. Yul Brynner is different than in his other films (primarily due to hair on his head) but does a nice job as Solomon. He expresses the pride, power, wisdom but also desire that he is driven by. The best scene played by Yul in this movie is, I think, when Solomon is tempted to take part at Ragon celebration. Although virtuous Abishaq (Marisa Pavan) tries to discourage him from joining the orgy, he is not able to listen to her. Consider his face and the whole performance... masterpiece! Gina Lollobrigida plays well but she holds one disadvantage. Most people (particularly men) focus on her sex appeal forgetting that she has one primary task as an actress: to act and feel the role. The similar problem is, nowadays, with Monica Bellucci (also Italian). Men cannot be objective in the evaluation of her performance because the sex appeal steps in and makes them blind to possible shortcomings in acting. I liked Gina Lollobrigida in the role not only because of her beauty but also because of her good acting, sometimes exposed to difficulties! The moment Solomon is making love to Sheba in a cave at the pagan celebration dedicated to god Ragon is quite freely treated for the 1950s... The supporting cast also give memorable performances including George Sanders as Adonija and Harry Andrews as Baltor, the queen's second.

I also liked the whole atmosphere. Although there are historical inaccuracies in the reconstruction of Jerusalem, the film has a charm and historical mood. It is definitely not the perfect one but I could not evaluate this as a movie without any entertainment. If it weren't for the ridiculous ending (Sheba miraculously healed and speaking with God Jehova???), the film would be equal to such epics as DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS (1954), SAMSON AND DELILAH (1948) and THE CRUSADES (1935). It's not that great but, in its inaccuracy, it definitely cannot be compared to Bruce Beresford's movie (1985) since we do not expect the biblical story from SOLOMON AND SHEBA that much as we do from a movie entirely described as a biopic of king David.

Not a bad film and worth seeing particularly for epic movie fans. Moreover, it is one of the rare films that shows one down to earth fact: wisdom does not mean that desire is conquered... 6/10

Solomon and Sheba is directed by King Vidor and collectively written by Anthony Veiller, Paul Dudley, George Bruce and Crane Wilbur. It stars Yul Brynner, Gina Lollobrigida, Marisa Pavan, George Sanders, David Farrar, Harry Andrews, John Crawford and Laurence Naismith. Music is by Mario Nascimbene and cinematography by Fred A. Young.

A fictionalised screenplay cribs from parts of the Bible, where the story here follows the relationship between Solomon of Israel and the Queen of Sheba, a problem because initially Sheba is in league with Israel's enemy, Egypt. All that and Solomon has to deal with his nefarious brother, Adonijah, who is a little miffed that Solomon has inherited the crown of Israel.

Famously it was the production that saw the sad death of the leading man, Tyrone Power, while Vidor was so disillusioned about the whole film he quit making feature length films. It's a very mixed bag, very much showing the good and bad sides of the big historical epics that dominated Hollywood back in the day. In part it's a grandiose melodrama, in others it's cheap looking and given to campy histrionics (the orgy operatics sequences are just awful), while the screenplay jostles with itself as to being biblical blarney or potent pontifications.

Costuming and colour photography smooths the eyes, but then the optical nerves are shredded by set design so poor a child making paper mache boulders could have done better. The cast are also in and out, Brynner is fine as Solomon (broody, brainy but troubled), as is the lovely Lollobrigida as Sheba (stoic, smart and sexy), but the support slots barely convince. Sanders is badly miscast as Solomon's warrior brother Adonijah (he was 53 at the time), 10 years earlier in Samson and Delilah his villain turn worked, but not here.

Sword fighting choreography is poor, as are the miracle effects work, but conversely the big battle that crowns the story is smart in writing and in execution, where not even the model work can dim the thrill of it all. Released in the same year as "Ben-Hur" obviously does it no favours by comparison! But then so many other big swords and shields epics would also struggle as well. Vidor's movie is just above average in the genre pantheon, but the faults are irritable and hardly render it as a must see film for genre enthusiasts. 6/10

As a real fan of 'La Lolla' (meaning I believe she is a fine actor as well as a drop dead gorgeous looking woman) I recall the anticipation in originally viewing this movie. Unfortunately the film is too long - surely it could have been cut by 30 mins or more. Battle scenes in particular were way too lengthy and somewhat mundane - the all too obvious fake horses and soldiers 'forever' falling into the great ravine prompted much laughter at the time! In addition, the acting of George Sanders and Marisa Pavan was below standard, indeed Sanders was completely miscast and fairly woeful for the most part. It does not concern me greatly that the story in the film did not even closely follow the biblical narrative nor that the accents were a hotch-potch nor (as one critic here points out) that the soldiers' shields would have been of a different design! The central concern is that the plot provides a good yarn, the cinematography is excellent, the musical score is appropriately utilised and the two leading characters are played well by Yul and Gina. It was a box-office success, so despite its faults, the movie had lots of admirers. And apart from the obvious sex-appeal of La Lolla, the fact that her portrayal was suitably conniving, intelligent and sexually alluring played a large part in the film's overall appeal.

Yul Brynner and Gina Lollabridgida are "Solomon and Sheba" in this 1959 Biblical epic directed by King Vidor. Also starring are George Sanders, Marisa Pavan and Finlay Currie.

The main problem with "Solomon and Sheba" is that a) it's bad; and b) no one infuses any energy into it, understandably. When Tyrone Power died during the swordfight with George Sanders, the producers decided to cash in the insurance check and start over. A mistake. It's hard to imagine what these actors went through, standing in a freezing cold Madrid studio, watching the 44-year-old star, who had a pregnant wife, die suddenly, and having production shut down amidst tremendous publicity. On top of which, Brynner asked for rewrites, and believe me, they weren't for the better.

Lloyds of London stipulated, on payment of the insurance, that Power could not appear in any part of the film. Obviously the producers weren't about to shoot those battles scenes again, so Power IS in the longshots.

Tyrone Power was a co-producer of this movie, and it was part of his deal with Arthur Hornblower, who wanted him for Witness for the Prosecution and this. Power knew that audiences were used to seeing him in this type of film, and he had given up on Hollywood and committed himself to theater work. This was his one film a year where he could make big bucks and then spend the rest of his time doing plays.

One thing about Power that no one can ever take away from him - he could make the world's worst dialogue sound absolutely believable. Brynner, alas, though very dignified in this role, didn't have that gift. Power had to develop it fast working for Zanuck. I've seen some of the footage of Power in this role - he was much more energetic and intense than Brynner. Having done Shakespeare and recorded poetry, he had a real feel for this language as well. It's not Brynner's fault - I'm sure no one wanted to do the movie once Power died. Brynner couldn't have known how it would have felt to be in that atmosphere ahead of time.

There are spurts here and there - one of the battle scenes is very good, and Gina is gorgeous (Power referred to her as "Lolly" in his letters). She's just not really into it. The audiences who saw it in the theater undoubtedly weren't either.