Le roi David

Beautifully if somewhat glacially shot in Italy but sorely missing Miklos Rosza's music. Bruce Beresford rolled up his sleeves and got stuck into this throwback to the sort of thing that DeMille had made so profitably for Paramount during the twenties & thirties; but who this time took a bath to the tune of $2,500,000 on their original $22 million investment in this implausible project that was probably slightly ahead of it's time, five years before the huge success of 'Gladiator' made ancient history sexy again.

Described by David Thomson as "a genuine eccentricity", it's very much of it's time, including a spot of slow motion swordplay, gorier violence than in the fifties and the scruffy eighties beards and shaggy mullets worn by the men as they address each other in hushed tones.

This is one unjustly maligned film. For the most part, the acting is well above average. Edward Woodward's love/hate relationship (enfasis on the hate) with David comes across excelently. Richard Gere does an adequate job. I can't stand his style on most films that I have seen him but here he is just fine. The Jonathan character is heroic and handsome, while the actor who portrays the prophet Nathan does as best a job as anyone could do. Some minor problems/irritations, the location of Jerusalem should have been a more scenic and lush one, not desert-like. Jerusalem might be semi-desert today but 3,000 years ago it was a beautiful land flowing with milk and honey. Highlights include David's dance before the Ark of the Covenant, the battle scene versus the Phillistines where King Saul is killed with his sons (Mel Gibson must have seen it) is Braveheart light, but realistic nonetheless. There are many more, I just wish it could have been longer due to them skipping a whole part of his later life all the way up to his deathbed. One of the better Biblical adaptations nonetheless.

David is my favorite biblical character aside from JC himself. I never tire of reading the events of his life: the trials & perseverance, the agonies & ecstasies, the successes and failures.

"King David" (1985) stars Richard Gere in the titular role and covers the bulk of the events. You'll see all the following happenings in the picture:

Samuel's choosing of David as successor to King Saul; Israel's battles with the Philistines; the fight with the hulking Goliath and David's victory with a sling shot; David playing his harp to soothe Saul's torment; Saul's increasing jealousy and hatred of "the man after God's own heart"; David & Jonathan's brotherly love; David's wandering in the wilderness with his men, fleeing Saul; his stealing of Saul's spear while he sleeps in a cave, sparing him; Saul's suicide; David dancing in his skivvies when the Ark of the Covenant is brought into Jerusalem; Michal's love and, later, hatred of David (as he dances before the LORD); David secretly ogling the nude Bathsheba bathing from his palace roof and the ensuing adultery; David's indirect murder of Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) and Nathan's rebuke; Amnon's rape of his half-sister Tamar; Absalom's justified slaying of his half-brother Amnon; Absalom's stealing of the Israelite's hearts; Absalom's death and David's grieving

The film is worthwhile if you desire to see these numerous events depicted before your eyes. The cast, sets, costumes, locations and filmmaking are for the most part of the highest order for 1985. Edward Woodward is excellent as the jealous and bitter King Saul, even though he lacks Saul's height (as he was a head taller than any other Israelite). Most aspects of the David/Goliath challenge are great, like the troops shown on two separate hills. Cherie Lunghi possesses an intelligent and unique beauty as David's first wife, Michal, while Alice Krige is beautiful as Bathsheba.

Despite the numerous events covered in David's life, the film only runs 1 hour and 50 minutes before the closing credits. The problem with this is that there's at least 3 hours of material and shortening it down to less than 2 hours prevents the viewer from being captivated by the myriad characters and happenings. This will leave some struggling to connect with the people and their stories.

Regardless of the numerous events flying by, the film has a bit of a lazy vibe. There's very little spectacle like "The Ten Commandments," but it's more realistic. David was a ruddy and handsome man, according to the Bible, and Gere is quite good in the role. Yet David was a very passionate, a "man after God's own heart, which is effectively shown in some parts, like what he does with the model of the Temple at the end, but not in others, like when the boy fights Goliath there's zero passion and righteous ferocity as seen in the Biblical account (e.g. "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine who would defy the armies of the living God?!!"). Plus the film doesn't show the serious trash-talking that went back and forth between the two. The fight's just too low-key.

Although the gist of the story is accurate there are inaccuracies that some nitpick, e.g. Goliath challenged David and the Israelites himself, he didn't speak through another man; David picked up stones before going out to fight the giant, not while fighting him; Absalom waited a long time before slaying Amnon, he didn't do it immediately; etc. Changes like these aren't that big of a deal and were made for dramatic or condensing reasons.

Someone criticized the film for showing Bathsheba at fault for seducing David. Actually, they both shared fault equally. Everyone in Jerusalem knew the king stayed home while the troops were out fighting, so Bathsheba was likely fully aware that the king could catch a tantalizing glimpse of her while she was bathing on the nearby roof. Besides, even though David was the king, she could have said 'no' when the proposition of adultery later presented itself. In other words, she was both into it and into David.

I've seen "King David" four times now and enjoy it every time. It's a well-done cinematic account of David's life for 1985 with a kinda weak ending. But the picture cuts off more than it can chew in a mere 1 hour and 54 minutes, leaving the viewer detached from the characters and events beyond David, in particular those who know little about the biblical account.

But don't listen to those who give this film an absurdly low rating. They're way off. It's good; it just lacks the detail to make it great. Nevertheless, I'd watch "King David" any day over the overrated "Braveheart."

The movie was shot in Italy with studio stuff done Pinewood Studios, London.

GRADE: B

It's biblically accurate. It has a gritty and realistic feel. Unlike the great De Mille films, the location and sets give it that stone age look that the Judea of that era would look and feel like.

Edward Woodward's performance as Saul is strong. His ability to contort and rant makes a very believable fit of dementia. The only person I think that could have played that better would be Dennis Hopper. Who knows, maybe someone will create another biblical film with him as King Saul.

This is a very unsung, and underrated film. Richard Gere's performance was nothing short of stunning.

The giant Goliath was real, menacing and evil. Bathsehba was a real-world, believable stunning beauty-natural. I wish there were more films of this quality when it comes to biblical stories.

I never quite understood why Richard Gere became the Hollywood superstar he did, and films like this don't really help. It's a standard production depicting the rise to the throne of Israel of David. We start just as God is getting a bit irked with the behaviour of King Saul (Edward Woodward) and the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley) decides that the young David is to succeed. The King isn't so impressed with this and so sets about to ruin his would-be successor in the eyes of the army and the people. What now ensues takes us on some biblical adventures including that deadly slingshot moment and as it pitches father against son, an ascension to the throne and some tussles of his own with God - especially surrounding his relationship with Bathsheba (Alice Krige). As sword and sandal epics go, it's all rather ponderous with little by way of any notable acting going on and the soporifically dry adaptation from the Holy Bible isn't exactly setting the bush on fire either. If it serves to get folks to read the original stories from the Old Testament which are usually full of human skullduggery, naughtiness and corrupted souls then maybe it might serve a purpose, but otherwise it's an overlong television movie that looks like money has been spent on the costumes and locations, but that has little else to redeem it.