Les dix commandements

Whenever anybody says THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, we think of the fun, uplifting 1956 epic made by DeMille and starring Charleton Heston, Yul Brynner, etc. etc. Not too many people know that film is a remake of DeMille's own 1923 film of the same name. The 1923 version has so much zip to it, mainly because in it's 90 minute plus time, DeMille has to tell TWO stories. The first is the story of Moses. He has to lead the exodus from Egypt, part the Red Sea (an awesome scene done in early two-tone Technicolor) and slap some sense in his followers who wrongly decide to worship the Golden Calf. All that in 45 minutes. That means it spools out really, really fast. The rest of the film takes place in modern day San Francisco, where two brothers, one a hard working carpenter, the other, a wealthy but scheming architect battle. We know their grey haired mom is a good Christian, because she constantly carries around a Bible as big as a cinderblock!

Beautifully restored, witha great piano and organ score. This is an energetic silent well worth catching.

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.

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.

Today,all his epics ("ten commandments" 1 and 2,"sign of the cross" "Samson and Delilah" ...° have worn remarkably well.

Like many people ,I saw the 1956 version well before the silent one.The prologue (which is very long for a prologue) has a plot similar to the 1956 version from the plagues to the golden calf orgy.Even the Parting of the Red Sea (and it's quite impressive for 1923!) and the writing of the Holy Tablets are here (it looks more like some kind of mystic firework here).As for the orgy,it's simply better than the color version.That said I like that latter version best,because the gap between the biblical tale and the modern one makes that the two parts do not hang very well,in spite of a brilliant transition : Moses and his people saga suddenly segues into a mother reading the Bible to her sons.

The second part will deal with the story of two brothers,one of whom trying to break these "fusty" commandments and not be broken by them. There are interesting parallels: the workers on the building site and the slaves working for pharaoh on the pyramids,the hero who ,like "pharaoh's tribe ,is drowned in the tide" .Little by little,the film becomes slowly but inexorably overtly Christian: the momma hints to carpenters,nice carpenters,there's a short return to biblical times but depicting a scene of Jesus' s life and unlike the bad woman who became a leper in the prologue,salvation is around the corner for the evil millionaire's wife.Lines from St Matthew ("he gained the world but lost his soul") add to this feeling a redemption.

Despite the reservations expressed above,De Mille was a storyteller extraordinaire,who equaled D.W .Griffith .Thou shalt not overlook him.

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.