Sodoma e Gomorra

With the filming of Sodom and Gomorrah, Stewart Granger began a phase of his career on the European continent. Not that Sodom and Gomorrah is any great film, but it was certainly better than some of those spaghetti westerns he did in the Sixties to pay for his hedonistic life style. Something like the one they allegedly lived down Sodom way.

Of course Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't stick to the biblical version of the tale, but then neither did those DeMille epics, Samson and Delilah and The Ten Commandments. Nor is homosexuality singled out as THE sin that got the Deity all upset that he wanted to destroy the place. Then again it isn't even in the Bible.

Lot as portrayed by Stewart Granger doesn't take just his family there, he leads a whole tribe of Hebrew people there after he parts from Uncle Abraham. Pretty soon he gets all tangled up in Sodomite politics and gets a bit entangled himself with Pier Angeli who is a slave girl to Queen Anouk Aimee.

Villain of the piece is Stanley Baker who always improves every film he was ever in. He's Anouk's brother and he's got the idea he ought to be running things. He's also got an eye for Lot's daughters.

There's a very nicely staged battle sequence with the Hebrews defending the land granted them by Anouk. But the script is definitely out of the Cecil B. DeMille school of arcane Victorian writing.

Still it's entertaining in many respects.

I have to admit that I've never been able to see this film in one sitting all the way through, partly because I happen to just channel surf on TV and stumble upon it after its started and partly because I seem to catch it about an hour before I go to bed and miss the ending. Still, from what I've seen, this is a very good film about Lot, who led the Hebrew people to a fertile land on the border of the cities of Sodom and Gomorroah. Anouk Aimee does a great job portraying the queen of the cities, and Stewart Granger plays a great Lot. The supporting actors and actresses contribute quite a bit of talent as well, but what really struck me was the costumes. For a 1962 biblical film, some of the outfits that the actresses wore were a bit racy, but that is intentional as it shows the sinful ways of the city-dwellers as opposed to the practical costumes of the hard-working free Hebrews (in fact, Lot has a discussion with a slave girl who is struggling to adapt to the ways of field work and field dress after living a captive life as a well-kept palace servant). The fight scenes are particularly well done, employing a cast of thousands as opposing armies and refugees. The scene where the Hebrews defend themselves by first lighting a pit of oil and then breaking a dam to flood a valley are well done. Even though the story may not follow the tale as told in the Bible, there's enough of it there that the viewer comes away with the overall concept of the story. But - I feel that this movie could be redone to stick a bit closer to the original tale. While the queen and her brother may have been evil, there just wasn't enough evil in the cities (limited by 1962 values, I suppose) to warrant their destruction. A good film for the whole family. No nudity, no harsh language.

Sodom and Gomorrah was a big flop when it was released and has been almost forgotten since then. This is a shame. It's certainly no classic like Ben Hur or Spartacus,and it has the obvious flaws many films like this share-corny dialogue,women's make-up and hair which betrays the decade the film was made in,to name but two-but if you like this kind of film it's very entertaining and worth a watch. At times you could swear De Mille directed it,but it was actually directed by Robert Aldrich,a real curio in his career.

The first hour does dawdle along a little,but the middle of the film contains a very lengthy battle sequence which is extremely impressive. In these days of CGI,it's great to see hundreds of REAL people fighting on the screen,and it's great the way the battle is in stages and shows various tactics by the two sides instead of just being a chaotic mess. The climatic destruction {well,it's based on a well known Bible story, so I don't think this is a spoiler!} of the twin cities of Sodom and Gommorah {although we only seem to see Sodom} is still quite a well achieved spectacle,in fact technically the film still generally holds up,except for a few very unconvincing shots when an army is engulfed in water.

Those who find some of the film a little heavy can enjoy the odd touch of vivid sadism {people on a wheel lowered into fire,a prisoner threatened by a blind man whose armour produces spikes when he breaths} and plenty of references to the 'sins' of the Sodomites-nothing is explicit,but things such as incest,sexual servitude and lesbianism are certainly hinted at. Yet the Hebrews,by comparison,are such a dull humourless lot,one might occasionally sympathise with the Sodomites,and this was maybe intended. As with most of Aldrich's films,it's actually quite cynical,and doesn't take easy sides.

Stuart Granger is fine as Lot but it's the underrated Stanley Baker,as the scheming Astorath who chases anything in a skirt, who gives the stand-out performance,memorably corrupt. One should also mention Miklos Rozsa's superb score which ranks along side his other classic scores for related films like Ben Hur and El Cid. He superbly evokes the period and setting whilst providing a gorgeous love theme and a number of other great themes. Of course it's very melodramatic,but it suits the film!

Sodom and Gomorrah exists in several heavily cut down versions which may quicken the pace but are extremely choppy,often cutting into scenes when they are obviously half way through. The full 155-odd minute version is sometimes shown,and is available in some countries on DVD,but really demands a proper,remastered,etc. release. It's really worth seeing,as long as you like this kind of stuff of course!

An overlooked movie of a whole genre of films that was popular during its era. Like most biblical epics of this type they sometimes wonder away from the scriptural story as recorded in the Bible and this may be its one drawback. In a way it drifts just a little to far away from the scriptures so most bible purists will have trouble accepting this film as a close representation of the scriptures. However, overall it's an interesting and entertaining film.

Robert Aldrich has directed an entertaining, though far from serious retelling, of the Old Testament saga. The story starts out sticking close to the original. Lot ( Stewart Granger) decides to split with his Uncle Abraham and take his group of Hebrews on a different route as they make their nomadic way across the desert. Of course they come upon the evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The characters they meet there are bigger than life. The Queen of Sodom is wickedly played by the wonderful Anouk Aimee. She rules the twin cities of the Plain with her leering brother portrayed by Stanley Baker. They both have a ball chewing the scenery and seducing whomever strikes their fancy. The Queen has the eye for young female beauties. Her brother has an eye for both of Lot's daughters. These fun plot additions are distinct divergences from the Old Testament tale. Lot himself falls for the slave girl (Pier Angeli). Royal intrigues and political betrayals run rampant. There are also some good action sequences. One in particular has the Hebrews protecting the cities from invading intruders by destroying a dam they have built inundating their enemies as Moses would do centuries later. Of course, the spectacular finale is the destruction of the cities followed by the Pillar of Salt transformation of Lot's wife. The script writers have left out the tidbit about Lot's own daughters getting him drunk and taking him to bed because they think they are the last people on earth. I guess that was a bit too racy for the audiences in 1962. "Sodom & Gomorrah" came at the tail end of the cycle of biblical spectacles. It certainly wasn't the worst. Its entertainment value includes a superb score by Miklos Rozsa which raises all of the fighting and heavy breathing to a higher level than one would expect.