Solomon and Sheba

I saw this on its original release as a child. My mother, a great movie buff, was greatly excoriated by other members of the family for taking me along when she went shopping in downtown Manila and decided to see it. The reason? It was classified as either for adults only or more likely as "Objectionable in part for all" by the Legion of Decency. Why? There was this exotic belly dance by Gina Lollobrigida. Then there was this bathing scene which although did not show much skin had her rising out of the pool while her serving maids obstructed the view with a large cloth. As she wrapped the cloth around her shapely body, she said in a very sexy voice and tone: "Dry me." I narrated this scene to my poor friends who couldn't afford to go to a first run movie but they didn't get excited. I saw a re-run of the movie on a religious channel recently and I didn't see the belly dance scene.

This is the only other movie where I saw Yul Brynner with hair. He also had hair in The Sound and the Fury.

But now let's get serious. There is no mention in the bible of the Queen of Sheba as a temptress and spy for the Pharoah. All it says is that she was an admirer of Solomon who brought him lots of valuable gifts when she visited him to learn from his wisdom. If there should be a re-make of this film, it is suggested that Sheba be played by a black actress as we now know that Sheba was in what is now modern Ethiopia and even in those days, the inhabitants of that area were black. Also, Sheba was not the name of a queen but of the country that the "Kandake" (a title from which the name Candace is derived) ruled. Other than her title, therefore, we do not know the name of the Candace of Sheba.

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.

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.

When I first saw "Solomon and Sheba" as an 11-year old in 1959, I knew that every time Gina Lollobrigida's Sheba entered the scene, the action would slow down. Now, six decades later, I think she is about the only reason to watch it.

Set in Israel back in the BC, peace-loving Solomon (Yul Brynner) inherits the kingdom from his father King David (Finlay Currie). However Israel is surrounded by enemies; mainly Egypt, but also his brother Adonijah (George Sanders), who feels he should have inherited the throne.

There were a couple of surprises early in the movie: Yul Brynner with hair and George Sanders as a warrior. More at home in formal wear, George Sanders, the master of sophisticated wit, was getting a bit old for this type of thing, but he wasn't a good fit anyway; it was almost as silly as dressing him up as a cowboy. In the battle that opens the movie, he handles his sword as though he was tossing a light summer salad.

As the story progresses, Gina Lollobrigida's Queen of Sheba is in an alliance with the Pharaoh of Egypt and heads to Israel to use her ample charms to seduce Solomon into a false sense of security. Sheba hits the ground dancing, and in a scene of frenetic pagan ritual, she wears a bra that almost seems like two wiry hands clasping her breasts from behind.

Along with Sophia Loren and Claudia Cardinale, 'La Lollo' was one of that fabulous trio of Italian actresses that heated up the screen in the 50's and 60's. Like the others, she had what was usually described as a full figure - pretty much the accepted shape for females before the arrival of personal trainers.

The interiors of the film were shot on dull, chunky looking sets. However the film lifts when the story moves outdoors and gets some sand. Eventually the big battle arrives and it's not too bad as these things go. The director King Vidor could conduct a good battle (The Big Parade, War and Peace). Here he mixes dust and chariots well. In the climactic battle, Pharaoh's army falls for it again; instead of the Red Sea closing over them, this time they are blinded by the polished shields of Solomon's men and topple over a cliff - not a bad effect for that CGI-less era.

These days I think "Solomon and Sheba" might just be too heavy going for a modern audience - La Lollo's bra notwithstanding. Anyway Ridley Scott seems to be remaking all those old sword and sandals numbers so you could just wait until he gets around to this one.

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.