Les dix commandements

In the early twenties, it was perfectly alright to show sinners revelling extravagantly and unashamedly in the sins of the flesh. All you had to do was either punish or purify them in the end, and everything would turn out just fine. This is the lesson we learn from watching the second half of Cecil B DeMille's gargantuan epic or 1923. And it is the prologue of the movie that teaches us that deMille had more money to spend on his own films than the old man upstairs.

As a lavish production, TTC is probably one of CBdM's greatest achievements, surpassing in quality and size the 1950s remake, Cleopatra (1934) and all billion-or-so versions of The Squaw Man, all of which deMille would directed. His handling of his actors, his attention to detail and unbridled imagination call to mind a time when you could spend whatever amount of money you wanted on a film without being Jerry Bruckheimer.

Moses spent forty days on Mount Sinai where he received numerous commandments and laws, described in Exodus XX-XXXI. The Ten Commandments (Ex.XX) particularly apply to Christian religions and denominations.

Inspired by Griffith's 'Intolerance' DeMille uses two historical periods to emphasize the film's moral. DeMille does not modify the original Jewish origin of his source, although he underlines the Christian commandments. The script of the famous prologue was literally taken from Exodus. The church in The Story is not clearly a protestant or Roman catholic house of worship. However, when the orthodox Mrs. McTavish enters the church it collapses. Her famous last words: '...whatever you've done is all my fault. I taught you to fear God in stead of to love him..' also indicate that DeMille hardly sympathizes with orthodox denominations. In the prologue DeMille's epic reaches a magnificent high-point when the Red Sea tsunami protects the fleeing Jewish people before it swallows the Egyptian forces. The Story lacks such a climax. In fact Mrs.McTavish and her Bible becomes tedious in her struggle against the evil that her boys have ended up in. DeMille's 1923 version of The Ten Commandments may be a mega-tsunami against orthodox protestantism, it is still a mass of light for the less orthodox moviegoer that believes in cinema only.

'The Ten Commandments' was released in 1923 and was directed by Cecil B. DeMille and is the first of two Ten Commandments films directed by him.

This version differs in more ways than one to the remake. While the remake primarily centers on the story of Moses, the original version only features Moses in the prologue (which runs for approximately 40 minutes). The rest of the film centers on an atheist man in present day (the 1920s) who sets out to break the Ten Commandments in order to become successful.

Comparing to the remake, the special effects in the 'parting of the waves' scene definitely look more realistic here (especially considering this was released in 1923) and the entire prologue I masterfully created - however I do wish it was longer since there was little to no development in the characters because of it's short runtime.

I was initially skeptical about the present day segment of the film but I was thoroughly impressed and the story was definitely intriguing, especially towards the end.

Overall, I do prefer the 1956 remake however you shouldn't turn your back on this one. It is definitely a must-watch, even if it just be for the prologue with Moses.

7/10

Oops, broke that one. All joking aside, this film is incredible. Astonishing effects for the early 20s, where you couldn't twist any digital domain to your whims. The parting of the Red Sea is pretty convincing, even if was Jello. (Can you imagine wading through Jello? Ick.)

This film is told in two parts, as we get to see Moses receiving the Ten Commandments from God in what looks like a Fourth of July celebration. One with good fireworks. Most people know that story--Moses goes to deliver the Commandments, only to find everyone involved in a massive orgy. Here de Mille is in his element. He did so many massive orgies that he should have copyrighted them. We see people making out (not having sex--that would be wrong), men licking wine off women's feet (that is wrong, by gum), and a huge number of people trying to climb up what looks like a curtain. Why they're doing this only de Mille knows. All we need is Gloria Swanson being pawed by a tiger to make everything perfect. As some viewers may not know, de Mille can show whatever sin and debauchery he wants, because the sinners are going to get it in the end. They're gonna get it bad. From the giddy Israelites and their golden calf we're transported to the modern day (1923), where a woman reads the Bible. She can't be the sinner. A son stands nearby, looking very noble and content. Can't be him. Then, we see the other son. He looks bored and disbelieving. We have a sinner! Oh, and he's a bad one. He dances on Sunday, he steals women from their intendeds, he's involved in dozens of dirty dealings, and he's dating an Oriental leper. Beg pardon? I guess she's just thrown in for fun.

Of course, all's well that ends well, and everything turns out okay. This movie is silent, so the acting is a bit in-your-face, and the characters are extreme, but hey. It's necessary--literacy wasn't rampant back then, so filmmakers had to make everything painfully obvious. Some people weren't able to read the title cards, and they'd be lost without the silent films' distinctive pantomime.

Side benefit--the version I have on video features a nifty soundtrack by that powerhouse of the movie palace, the Wurlitzer organ.

It's interesting just to watch DeMille's first, silent film version of "The Ten Commandments", and the picture itself is pretty interesting too. It is also occasionally impressive, sometimes with the kind of DeMille flourishes that one expects, sometimes with a satisfying dramatic turn. It's quite different in its conception from the more familiar 1950's version, and so direct comparisons are not always possible, yet it holds up well by itself anyway.

Rather than concentrating on the biblical story, as in the remake, here DeMille first tells an abbreviated version of the Moses/Exodus narrative, and then uses it as the thematic basis for a modern morality tale. There are many parallels between the two stories, and while the parallels are occasionally forced, they often work surprisingly well. The modern-day story is similar to many other films of the 1910's and 1920's, but it is interesting and it is told well.

Although DeMille is known for his lavish spectacles, he also knew how to create some more subtle effects when he wanted to. In the modern story, some of the developments are a bit contrived, but the characters generally ring true, and the story itself is worthwhile as well. While the lavish remake with color and sound is probably going to remain more well-known, this earlier version is well worth seeing, too.