raphael65

Well, I won't bother to summarize what unfolds in this excellent suspense film starring the incredibly talented Charles Laughton, since other reviewers above have done so quite nicely, and have also touted the film's good qualities. I just watched my old VHS copy (taped off TV) last night (sort of fuzzy, but better than nothing). Why on earth Universal Pictures does not release this little gem on DVD, which it richly deserves, I will never understand. I am sure many discerning film buffs and Laughton fans would buy it in a New York minute. And, I mustn't forget to comment on how marvellously Rosalind Ivan portrays the wife from hell.

It would seem that I agree with about half of the other reviewers of this film. It HAS been unfairly blasted by Stooges fans because the emphasis is on the fantasy and not on the slapstick humour of the much-beloved trio. Personally, although I enjoyed their antics as a child, I was never a fan of the Stooges and would never put them in the same class as Abbott and Costello, for example. Nevertheless, they prove in this film that they are not bad actors at all. The sets and opulent costumes boost this film considerably, as do the presence of the very dark, traditional elements of European folklore, and I think this movie would have been a GREAT fantasy film if there had been seven dwarfs in it! I would agree that Carol Heiss is not a very good actress, but the character of Snow White does not call for the use of great thespian skills. I think that Patricia Medina makes this movie: she is gorgeous and exudes delicious villainy as the Queen/Witch. She was the major draw for me when I watched this film as a child. Guy Rolfe, as Count Oga, is also very effective, and the siege on the castle well-mounted. Fantasy film fans are bound to like this better than Stooges fans.

I, like many others, love this film. It is one of the greatest ever made, and most of those who condemn it do so either because they consider DeMille to have been talentless or because the film does not stick close enough to the Bible. The latter are generally ignorant of the research done for the film by Henry S. Noerdlinger (see his very informative book, "Moses & Egypt: The Documentation to the Motion Picture...")

Director's style: DeMille's family bible & those found in many 19th-cent. homes were graced by the engravings of Gustave Dore, a French artist of the mid-1800's. His style, like that of the 17th-cent. French painter Poussin, was highly theatrical, with figures being depicted in admittedly unnatural poses, looking as if they were sculpted figures lifted from the frieze of the Parthenon. These artists were depicting larger-than-life events (like the Exodus) & did not wish to show them as mundane, everyday occurrences. DeMille's critics should look at these artists' attention to colour, composition, and exquisite detail, & then compare them to the works of later, more famous artists and try to maintain that the earlier works are inferior. Indeed, they display a level of talent which the later ones either did not possess or chose not to display. It is thus unfair to condemn DeMille's style, as every director has his own, either flamboyant or low-key.

I won't address the question of whether or not Moses existed, but will say that the "Biblical Minimalists" who reject almost everything in the early part of the Torah have a very prejudiced agenda. Eager to destroy the hold that Judaism/Christianity have on people, they do their best to invalidate these religions' foundations. Appealing to questionable anachronisms in the Bible, they try to show that these cast doubt on the whole narrative, even though impartial, creditable scholars have found ample (though often circumstantial evidence) to support the existence of Abraham, Moses, etc. The question of who the Pharaoh of the Exodus was is tied to chronological considerations beyond the scope of this review, but many conservative scholars still put forth Rameses II as the best candidate.

Story: An intoxicating mix of the Bible & somewhat streamlined Egyptian history. The love affair between Moses & Nefretiri as well as the characters of Memnet & Baka were taken from "Prince of Egypt," a novel by Dorothy Clarke Wilson. Some liberties with the Bible are taken: one of them was a virtual necessity. In Ex. 32, when Moses finds his people worshipping the golden calf, he orders his fellow-Levites to slay 3000 of them. A mod. audience could not accept such brutality unless it came from God.. Thus the writers combined 2 incidents: the calf episode & the destruction of Dathan & Abiram, who were indeed swallowed up by the earth in a separate rebellion (Numbers 16). The writers incorporated traditions from the Midrash on Exodus into the film with consummate skill. The prominent role assigned to Dathan comes from such sources, as does the participation of Bithiah in the Exodus.

Performances: Heston & Brynner are superb. Their acting is, at times, rather histrionic, but it should be remembered that in an epic less than grandiose-style acting is not in keeping with the subject matter. Yes, Anne Baxter hammed it up (but less than Jethro's daughters, who gush like lovesick teenagers over Moses), but such minor complaints are eclipsed by the overall lustre of the film, which does not have a single boring minute. Some have said that Edward G. Robinson seems too much like the gangster characters he played in other films. I had never seen these films prior to watching "The 10 Commandments"; so this criticism only applies if one is accustomed to seeing him in such roles.

Costumes: EXCELLENT. Even Moses' red robe with black & white stripes is based on a Jewish trad. which ascribes these colours to the Levite tribe, to which Moses belongs. The Egyptians (except for the priests) did NOT only wear white & were able to produce very diaphanous materials, though not as gorgeous as those seen on screen, but all the jewellery is authentic. Also, the dress of Egyptian queens did not emphasize the breasts, but DeMille was shrewd enough to realize that Anne Baxter's cleavage would attract male audiences.

Sets & Props: VERY accurate: reliefs on treasure city's pylons were inspired by actual 19th Dynasty designs...throne seen in opening where Rameses I condemns all Hebrew male newborns to death is an EXACT replica of one found in Tutankhamun's tomb. Lettering on tablets is authentic Canaanite/Paleo-Hebrew.

Special FX: Still look fantastic, though matte lines can be detected; their surreal look is effective. Use of effects animation to create pillar of fire better than real fire, as the Bib. fire was an unearthly one.

An interesting & racially progressive element in the film is found in scene where Moses presents Ethiopian king & sister to Sethi. In 1956 racist America, it would have been unthinkable to show Moses involved with a black woman. But DeMille managed to suggest something here which would elude viewers unfamiliar with Josephus. In this source, Moses, as general of the Eg. army, cannot capture Saba, the Ethiopian capital, until Princess Tharbis (her name appears in the credits but is not spoken on screen) tells Moses that she will deliver the city to him if he weds her, to which he agrees. In the film, Tharbis (Esther Brown), with a provocative expression, hands a necklace to Moses, saying that he is "wise." Sethi: "It is pleasing to the gods to see a man so honoured by his enemies." "And such a beautiful enemy!" Nefretiri comments. Why is Moses wise? Because he married Tharbis to conquer Saba! And Nefretiri sees her as a rival! In a prejudiced era, DeMille was very daring. So much for accusations of his lacking subtlety! He was really quite progressive!