Exodus

The title really fits, because in the first half Jewish refugees (mostly Holocaust survivors) are trying to escape a British detention camp and they get blockaded in a harbor while their leaders try to convince the British to let their people go. It then follows the struggle in Palestine to establish a Jewish state. I especially liked the arc of Ari and how he goes from hardline "we can never trust anyone but ourselves" to eventually falling in love with a non-Jewish woman.

It's a great historical epic, although the subject matter is admittedly extremely controversial. Nevertheless, I really liked it, and I got really invested in the outcome of the characters. One criticism I see is that it drags on for too long, although I didn't think even its long running time was enough to tell all of the stories and do them justice. So perhaps this would have been a better mini-series than movie, as other Leon Uris books were, but then there would be no such thing as the mini-series until the 1970s.

One comical moment is when Paul Newman's character, Ari Ben Canaan, is listening to Peter Lawford, playing a British officer, talk about how he can spot a Jew a mile away. Ben Canaan asks Lawford to look in his eye for a cinder, Lawford's character obliges as he continues to go on about Jewish stereotypes. Of course, blonde blue-eyed Paul Newman is Jewish, as is his character.

There's great tragedy here too though, particularly at the end. There's also the fact that the refugees' own lives having been made cheap during the Holocaust has made others lives seem cheap now. This is especially true of Dov Landau (Sal Mineo) who witnessed unspeakable horrors during the Holocaust, and that experience has made him hard enough that he can blow up 83 people who are guests in a British hotel in Palestine and consider it a job well done.

I'd recommend this one, but if you have time to read the book that is also time very well spent.

1. This is a movie, folks. Yes, based on a novel, but it was just that - a novel. Uris didn't claim to be writing a history textbook. As with all memorable literature, he tweaked some facts and embroidered his landscape with memorable fictional characters (although yes, many were based on real-life people.) So it's not appropriate to criticize either the novel or the book for not getting every historical fact absolutely right.

2. This is a MOVIE, folks. Based on a novel, but it's still a movie. Which meant that the actors were cast for a variety of reasons, one of which was solid bank-ability at the box office. To those who complained that Eva Marie Saint is too old in this film, I'd like to remind them that she was only a few months older (in real life) than Paul Newman was. And having her a bit older than the character in the novel is fine, since she brings a different life perspective than someone in her 20s would have. Especially since she was playing a widow. just mho.

3. What has depressed me is that this IMDb discussion of a movie has brought out the Haters. I don't mean people who hated the movie; I mean people who hate Jews and the State of Israel. Apparently, no amount of art, or even actual history, will ever be enough for some people to stop hating, to get them to stop looking for every possible opportunity to malign any group of people they get something -- however perverse or destructive -- out of hating.

4. My personal opinion of this movie is that it's an excellent MOVIE. It entertains. It teaches us a few basic facts about the creation of Israel that most of us never learned in school. It is well-cast, well-acted, well-directed, and well-photographed. In addition, it has a great score throughout the film (not just the very memorable main theme.) I saw it at a movie theater when I was fairly young, and I've probably seen it on TV over a dozen times since then. I also read the novel (a long time ago), but if I've learned anything over the years, it's that movies and novels are different animals that can't fairly be compared page-for-page, so to speak. Heck - ever read "Gone With The Wind?" In the novel, Scarlett has one child with each of her husbands, but in the movie, she only has the one child, with Rhett. But no one complains about it because it's a damn good movie. And so is "Exodus." It's damn good movie.

I saw Exodus when it first came out in 1960. I lived in a New Jersey community with a large Jewish population and many of this population were Holocaust survivors. I also read the book in 1964 and although the movie couldn't include all of the events in text, it did give people an idea of the struggle to form a Jewish Homeland. I recommended it recently to a Palestinian young woman to give her some idea of this struggle by Israel to survive in a hostile environment. I also suggested that she read the book. In a world in which some people prefer ideas condensed, the movie at least gave some idea of the formation of a new country. Paul Newman was every Jewish girl's dream husband and every mother's son-in-law in my neighborhood, Sal Mineo was convincing in his anguish, the others did what they could. I would recommend it to people who aren't familiar with the events leading to today's difficulties in the Middle East. Perhaps Exodus should have been filmed like the Godfather movies. A movie depicting the past and the present lives of the characters could have helped. Hollywood wasn't in that mind frame in the 1950's and 1960's and that's too bad.

Growing up in Brooklyn in the Fifties and Sixties, I can tell you that every Jewish household seem to have a copy of Herman Wouk's Marjorie Morningstar and Leon Uris's Exodus. The characters in Exodus among the people I grew up with became as known as family members. So when Otto Preminger made the film, he had a built in audience, almost in the same way that every Star Trek movie has.

But we're not talking about a mythical future. The novel is about Israel's founding, but the issues still remain and Exodus should be required viewing for all who wonder about the need for a Jewish state. Wouldn't hurt to read the book either.

Exodus got only one Oscar, but there was really no competition there. Ernest Gold's musical score is one of the great ones done for the cinema. I remember how much it was played back when I was a lad. It's a vigorous and uplifting melody and like so many other good film scores it carries the viewer along in what is a lengthy movie.

Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint are capable enough leads, but it is the supporting characters that really make this film. Two of my favorites are David Opatoshu as Akiva Ben Canaan, an Irgun leader and Gregory Ratoff as Lazavitch who was the rabble rouser on the ship Exodus. You will remember both of these people after viewing Exodus. Why the Academy overlooked either of them for nominations is beyond me. But that was a year rich in supporting performances.

Making this film must have been the highlight of the career of David Opatoshu. He was a leading actor in the Yiddish Theater and to be in this film must have been a dream come true. Seeing him in various roles, Opatoshu never gave a bad performance in his career.

Sal Mineo as Dov Landau was nominated for Best Supporting Actor,the young concentration camp survivor who joins the Irgun. Sal had some stiff competition that year. Other nominees were Chill Wills for The Alamo, Jack Kruschen for The Apartment, and Peter Falk for Murder, Inc. Groucho Marx made a public declaration that his vote was for Sal Mineo after an appalling campaign appeal was started for Chill Wills. But the winner was Peter Ustinov for Spartacus.

According to a new biography of Sal Mineo, he was very jealous of Ustinov's victory and would curse him out if his name was even casually brought up in conversation.

I'm convinced that Leon Uris in writing Exodus was influenced by the Diary of Anne Frank in creating the character of Karen played in the film by Jill Haworth. Funny also that the film version of the play came out the year before Exodus. It was as if Anne Frank had survived the camps and had come to the birthing of Israel. She's an innocent child who still retains her faith in people like Anne Frank did, making what happens to her all the more tragic. If you've read the book before seeing the film, Haworth's performance was all the more poignant.

Unfortunately Exodus is not history because the war is still being fought by the Jewish people against those who would wish and do evil upon them. Would that it were just history.

I can't see how this movie was not even NOMINATED for best picture. It is on par with all the other big epic pictures that have won it, like Ben Hur. This movie deserved it more than the typical mushy love story Apartment - what is it with the Academy Awards and mushy love stories? Why can't they understand that this movie was not just a diversion, but a historical non-biased account on the foundation of one of the most critical countries of the world?