Gli schiavi di Babilonia

For a low-budget Biblical epic from the Sam Katzman stable, this is decidedly above-average and definitely superior to the turgid (and recently-viewed) SINS OF JEZEBEL from the same year. It deals with only a partially-familiar episode in the Old Testament (that of Daniel and the Lions) – working it into a plot wherein the Jews, somewhat surprisingly, intend to overthrow the Pagan realm of Babylon!

Typically, it features an incongruous lead in Richard Conte (who is perhaps too good an actor to be entirely defeated by the genre trappings, though his hairstyle is unforgivably unflattering!) who is chosen by the placid Daniel figure to escape from captivity and go seek and indoctrinate a boy shepherd (actually a royal off-spring) whom Divine inspiration has decreed as the Savior of His People. Incidentally, Daniel is favored by King Nebuchadnezzar but his son (played by Michael Ansara) is jealous of his influence over Dad and decides to strike at him where it hurts the most i.e. persuading the King to order the (previously-tolerated) worshipping of gods other than those of Babylon as forbidden. When the Holy Man keeps at his daily piety (easily detected by the fuming Ansara), he is thrown into prison and left at the mercy of a bunch of lions that are unleashed upon him; arriving the next day and jokingly querying whether there will be enough of him to be identified, the King's son is shocked to find Daniel is still alive (the latter simply walks out of the cell, leaving Ansara to pick up his jaw from the floor)! The young man is adamant, however, and he throws three other Jews who have dared defy the restricted practice of religion, into a furnace this time around…and, once again, he has to witness their unscathed – and nonchalant – exit from the flames (though the special-effects in this scene leave a lot to be desired)!

On the heroic front, however, things are not rosy either as Conte's efforts to elevate the shepherd-boy's status are largely unappreciated by the brash kid. Things come to a head when the latter entrusts the protagonist with taking a princess (lovely and well-cast Linda Christian, better-known as Mrs. Tyrone Power) he had abducted while on her way to marry newly-appointed Babylonian king Ansara to the city for himself(!) – needless to say, she prefers her rugged escort to both his immature 'leader' and the scowling ruler of her new home! Anyway, Daniel's prophecy comes true at the end – the catch being that his ultimate intention was not to gain Babylon but to liberate the Jews, and we are shown a more modest exodus to the more famous one co-ordinated by Moses out of Egypt. While the film is relatively sober for the duration, a howler is nonetheless reserved for the finale: Conte, who had in any case already been betrothed to a rather frumpy Jewish woman, exits the gates of Babylon without having deigned his intended of a word or even a look…as she has to earnestly call out to him amidst the crowds in order to be re-united with her lover and ensure the obligatory (and, under the circumstances, inevitably lame) fade-out clinch!

One of the most popular genres in American films of the 1950s were Biblical epics. Some of the films (such as "The Ten Commandments", "Ben Hur" and "Quo Vadis") were huge epics...others were silly and trivial ("David and Bathsheba")...but they were very popular. One of the lesser known Biblical films is this movie, "Slaves of Babylon". While it was filmed in color (as ALL these films were), it stars second-tier actors and tells the story of the Jews during their captivity in Babylon...as well as their rescue by the Persians.

When the movie began, I laughed because I noticed that almost all the Jews in the film were made to look 'Jewish' by having them wear Stars of David...even though the symbol only dates back to the 17th century. Plus, the omnipresent stars just look silly.

The story is based VERY loosely on the book of Daniel. Some of the characters have names from the Bible (like Nahum and Daniel) but otherwise almost none of this film is from any ancient writing...just some modern Hollywood writers.

The Jews are not happy in Babylon and Daniel sends Nahum to look for a shepherd named Cyrus and convince him to become the leader of the Persians as well as to free the Jews. Now, in real life, Cyrus was a prince...never a shepherd...and never being raised by foster parents. Together, Nahum and Cyrus do great things.

Like nearly all the Biblical epics, the language is rather stilted and they are only Biblical in a very broad sense. It also includes dancing girls and lots of other time-fillers. It's modestly entertaining but not much more.

A swift canter through the Old Testament visualising in Technicolor for Sunday school students as vividly as the budget will allow the hanging gardens of Babylon, Daniel in the lions' den and Belshazzar's feast.

Unreliable biblical sword and sandal (a genre which became very popular in US and mainly in Italy in the fifties and the early sixties ) , this little movie suffers from an obvious lack of means and from weak acting by Terry Kilburn as listless conqueror Cyrus and Linda Christian as a sulken princess "whose beauty would equal that of Helen of Troy "; the total absence of chemistry between them makes the viewer wonder why the victor wants to marry this vapid virgin.

The screenplay is based on the legend :Cyrus was never a shepherd ,except in bedtime stories ; here he is given a treatment which will remind you those of Oedipus ,Romolo and Remo and even Mosis ;hence the invention of the principal of the film :Nahoum ,the deus ex machina,without whom ....Fortunately ,he is portrayed by the great film noir character actor Richard Conte. He and Maurice Schwarz as prophet Daniel (who was really a king's counselor) give the peplum some substance ;anyway the Hebrews were not mistreated in Babylone and,except for Daniel's jealous enemies , their religion was respected .There's the de rigueur scene of the lions pit though . Cyrus did help them get back to their country ,but Daniel was too old to accompany them and according to historians,died in Babylon.

Like many of the Katzman-Castle films of this era, Slaves of Babylon renders the color process a gimmick by purveying it through a hollow vehicle. This film is the hole in the biblical doughnut. The acting is poor (comical, in fact) and the dialogue is wasteful in service of irritating 'bible-speak' quips. I won't split hairs on the use of Stars of David embroidery for all Jewish characters, but will mention that the history is off by over a thousand years. As for Castle's direction, there are some moments of mobile framing and oblique staging, but they seem to remain in service of promoting the color process itself (Nahum at the river). Dramatic scenes are continuously cut short or dealt with indifferently from the point of direction. The most absurd example of this indifferent direction is when future King Cyrus is told by his father that his mother was raped to conceive him... we don't even get a front view of Cyrus at any point during this reveal! Continuous high and low angle framing never clarifies its purpose as being that of a transcendental historical subject or a diegetic critic of the relationship of servant and master. Needless to say, this film is the epitome of anti-dramatic and is conflated with inconsistency in tone, pace and sense of itself as a text. The mise-en-scene is too tableau to be considered painterly. The painted backdrops are positioned to announce themselves confidently as fake. There is a theme of tapestry in this film and that is perhaps the only true thing about the story. With no depth perceivable, I would have to remark the only single vanishing point as being the interest of the audience member.