Salomone e la regina di Saba

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

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.

I do like epics and I wanted to see it for Yul Brynner, George Sanders, the master of suavity, smarmy menace and charisma and the fact that apparently this was the film where Tyrone Power died on set. However, despite some obvious good things, Solomon and Sheba just didn't do anything for me, and I feel really apologetic for saying that because it was a film I genuinely wanted to like.

I will start with the good things. The film is exquisitely mounted, with photography that is ravishing, sets and scope that are well and truly lush and costumes that are beautifully tailored and elegant. The music also does a fine job with enhancing the mood, and the climax is great and the only scene of the film that I would call riveting. And there are two good performances, The King and I's Yul Brynner who is very charismatic and sexy, and I Pagliacci's Gina Lollobridgida, who is alluring and to say she is smoking hot is an understatement in itself.

Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the rest of the actors, whose performances range from just okay to lousy. Yes, this is including the normally good Sanders, this is a role he should have been perfect for but mainly because the character is written in such a clichéd and uninterested fashion, all he becomes is seemingly a sad caricature of his former self.

Solomon and Sheba feels much too long for me too especially in the battle sequences which are too long-winded for their own good. I wouldn't have minded this so much if the pace and script were any decent and the story at least interesting, but to me the film doesn't succeed in any of those areas. I am not going to go into the numerous inaccuracies there are in the story as I would be here all day, but that is the least of its problems. The story is just so dull and didn't engage me in any way, and this is further disadvantaged by really stodgy pacing, awkward direction and a horrendously stilted script.

In all honesty I wasn't taken with the belly dance scene either. It wasn't like Salome, which had Dance of the Seven Veils, which apart from Hayworth was that film's highlight, but not only was the dancing here rather unexciting but I felt it wasn't done with any passion and only had the sensuality of Lollobridgida going for it.

All in all, there are moments but they aren't enough to save Solomon and Sheba from leaving me cold. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.