Easily one of the most famous sections of the Hebrew Bible
is the Book of Exodus, the story of how the Israelites, who were slaves of
Egypt, escaped captivity and left for what they called ‘The Promised Land’, the
land of Canaan, led by their leader Moses. Moses himself had originally been
born Hebrew but when the King of Egypt demanded that all newborn male Hebrew
babies were to be killed, Moses’ mother saved him from that fate by setting him
adrift on the Nile, where he was ultimately picked up by the Pharaoh’s daughter
who adopted him into the Royal Family. There have been multiple adaptations of
Exodus, including not one but two films of the same name; ‘The Ten Commandments’,
both of which were directed by Cecil B. DeMille. He first directed a silent
version of the story in 1923 and then ‘partially remade’ it in 1956, this one
starring Charlton Heston in the role of Moses and is commonly regarded as one
of the greatest film epics of all time. There’s also the 1998 animated, and in
some cases fairly underrated, adaptation titled ‘The Prince of Egypt’, which
was made by DreamWorks. This year, director Ridley Scott takes on the story
with ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’, a film that has received quite a bit of
controversy these past few months in regards to its casting. As for the film
itself, it’s a pretty decent take on this iconic story, even though there are
certain things it could’ve done better.
The film begins as Moses (Christian Bale) is already a part
of the Royal Family, serving as a general in the Egyptian Army working alongside
his ‘brother’, Prince Ramesses (Joel Edgerton). One day, Moses travels to the
city of Pithom to see into the current situation with Egypt’s slaves and while
there, one of the slaves, Nun (Ben Kingsley), tells him about his true lineage
as a Hebrew man who was raised by Pharaoh Seti’s (John Turturro) daughter after
he was saved from being executed as a result of Seti ordering that all Hebrew
newborn males were to be killed. Moses eventually reveals his true identity to
Ramesses, who becomes Pharaoh after Seti’s death, and is exiled because of it.
He soon begins a new life as a shepherd living in the town of Midian with his
wife Zipporah (Maria Valverde) but one day, after getting caught in a rockslide,
he comes across the famous ‘burning bush’ and is told by God, represented in
this film by a young boy named Malak, to return to Egypt to demand that the
Hebrews be set free. Moses does end up returning to Egypt, but Ramesses refuses
to free the Hebrews. As a result, God inflicts the ‘Ten Plagues’ upon Egypt in
order to try and change Ramesses’ mind, even if Moses isn’t exactly on board
with some of the things God does to the people of Egypt.
This film’s greatest strength is easily its visuals, which
do a phenomenal job of recreating key moments in the story of Exodus, from the
ten plagues of Egypt (e.g. the water in the River Nile turning into blood, the
swarms of frogs and locusts, etc.) to the parting of the Red Sea, even if the
sequence itself is admittedly a little lackluster. Still, this is easily one of
the biggest takes on the story of Exodus on film to date in regards to its
overall scale and scope, perhaps even more so than the Heston version. However,
the film does lack a bit in terms of character development, namely in regards
to the relationship between Moses and Ramesses. I don’t want to compare this
film too much with other adaptations of Exodus, but one of the biggest
strengths of ‘Prince of Egypt’ was that it really did a good job in conveying
the relationship of these two men in that, despite the fact that they ended up being
enemies, they were still brothers (not actual brothers, but you get the idea).
This film states that these two had grown up as ‘brothers’ but in the film
itself, they don’t spend that much time together before they become enemies. While
I’m not saying that this film should’ve 100% copied what ‘Prince of Egypt’ did
in terms of the ‘Moses-Ramesses’ relationship, it could’ve really benefitted
from more scenes between the two.
As noted earlier, there was quite a bit of controversy
surrounding this film, not over the film’s take on the story of Exodus like the
controversy surrounding the other major biblical film of the year, ‘Noah’, but
in regards to its casting. Namely, the thing that made a lot of people angry
about this film is that while the supporting cast of the film was probably cast
in terms of race, four of the main roles (Moses, Ramesses, Queen Tuya, and
Joshua) were all played by white actors (Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton,
Sigourney Weaver, and Aaron Paul, respectively). Because I never like to talk
about the subject of race in film, I won’t go into too much detail about it but
I do want to point out some recent comments made by Scott in regards to this
whole debacle. He said that the main reason as to why this film was cast the
way it was is due to the fact that if he had cast a lesser-name actor of proper
race in the lead role of Moses, then he would’ve been unable to get a movie of
this scale (on a budget of $140 million, for the record) financed. So ultimately,
regardless of what your stance is on this whole ordeal, Scott’s words are pretty
true, showcasing a prime example of the recent controversy surrounding the idea
of ‘whitewashing’ in Hollywood. Though like I said earlier, I won’t go any
further into this matter.
But I will say that from a performance-perspective, the
acting in this movie is pretty good, even with the whole ‘race’ controversy in
mind. The two biggest standouts are easily Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton in
the lead roles. Bale provides a pretty interesting take on Moses, who he
referred to as ‘schizophrenic’ (another controversial statement that I won’t be
going much into). This is definitely shown in scenes where Moses is talking to
God where, from the perspective on an onlooker, it looks like he’s talking to
himself. At the same time, Bale also does a great job at conveying both Moses’
leader-ship qualities and his humanity, the latter of which is highly emphasized
in scenes where Moses disagrees with some of God’s decisions. Edgerton, as
Ramesses, is a bit over-the-top at times but other times he also gives a very
subdued and emotionally powerful performance, like in a key scene near the end
where Ramesses experiences a personal tragedy. As I noted earlier, while the
film could’ve benefitted from having more scenes between the two before they
became enemies, Bale and Edgerton do work off each other really well. The rest
of the cast is solid too, but some don’t get as much to do as Bale and Edgerton.
Despite being one of the main characters in the film, Aaron Paul has arguably
only a few lines in the entire movie. The same can be said for Sigourney
Weaver, who has a very limited amount of screen-time.
This might end up being a case similar to Scott’s film ‘Kingdom
of Heaven’, which was mainly panned when it was initially released in theaters
but then got more recognition when the film’s ‘Director’s Cut’ was released.
Scott has stated that there is a ‘four-hour’ cut of the film so I won’t be
surprised if that version ends up getting released sometime in the near future.
As is, ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ isn’t a bad movie. It did hold my interest from
beginning to end and the film certainly delivers in terms of its visuals and
its overall scale and scope. However, the film can sort of be argued as being a
case of ‘style over substance’ as it is lacking a bit in terms of character
development. I wouldn’t say that the film is completely devoid of ‘substance’
but it really could’ve been better had certain things been done, like spending
more time developing the relationship between Moses and Ramesses and giving some
characters more to do. Still, the film definitely benefits from two strong
performances from Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton so as is, it’s a decent take
on the story of Exodus. I can’t say it’s the absolute best adaptation of the
story but I am interested in seeing the ‘Director’s Cut’ of the film to see if
it will fix any of the problems with the theatrical cut.
Rating: 3/5
