09.28.08

Sideways *minor spoilers*

Posted in Excellente tagged , , , , , , at 5:48 pm by thatmovieguy

Let’s confess some straight up bias, before I raise eyebrows. I am well aware that a majority of the people I know don’t like this film. But to me, it strikes that incredible balance of great nostalgia from the first time I watched it, characters I wholly throw myself at and into, an actor (Paul Giamatti) I am always excited to watch…the list goes on. To open the cork on a bottle of wine with a couple of friends and watch this movie might just be one of the best full movie experiences I have ever found…but I’m also a big believer in the communal elements of film, so that makes alot of sense. On with the review/discussion.

The movie, to me, starts off brilliantly. Almost pulling a page from Psycho by doing the exact opposite (for those who are unaware of what I’m talking about, go watch Psycho. I won’t spoil that one). There is pounding on the door, and we find a Miles getting asked to do something. Maybe he as told and forgot, maybe he’s just rolling with it. Soon we learn he’s late, and the lies start. While “on his way out the door” we see Miles reading a book, taking a long shower, floss, stop and buy a coffee and breakfast…and despite cruising down I-5, we see him whine about the traffic once he arrives at his destination. So we as the audience are left thinking, “What a SCHMUCK!” Nothing has really happened yet, no firm plans have been revealed, but we are left hoping and wanting some character is going to swoop in and be far more “protagonist” then this alcoholic washed up (can you be washed up if you never even had the writing career to begin with) liar, who steals a significant chunk of change from his mother. Enter Jack to the car. He’s getting married. He’s got his shit together…right? Oh, not so much…and so the movie goes on. And despite that initial impression, that Miles is a loser we come to know…Miles is a loser. And he’s not entirely lovable, as he brings much of his misery upon himself. He is wallowing in his own misery. But at some point, its gotta hit you. The guy is trying too hard. He wants to send his friend off into married life right. And all Jack wants to do is enjoy the frat boy life one last time. You might say, Jack has an unrefined pallete. So we see Miles torn. Is he supposed to refine Jack, or is he supposed to let his buddy do whatever he wants this week. This is by no means an easy choice, or a fun thing to watch in Miles. It’s awkward to watch these two squirm through a road trip. Exceedingly. The only thing we really see Miles put his foot down to the entire trip…of the many scandalous things he could have put his foot down to…was drinking Merlot. In particular when we see Jack going through a similar thought-stream.

Jack is concerned about his buddy Miles. He also rolls with it, and while he has no interest in spending time with Miles mother or learning the difference between a Cabernet and a Pinot (Miles’ favorite, and his effect on the wine industry…who knew so many people saw this movie?). And Miles doesn’t even make that easy, as on their first bottle after making an ignorant remark, Miles tells Jack everyone in wine country will think he is some kind of “dumbshit.” Jack wants to make his buddy happy…Miles has gone through a rough stretch after his divorce two years prior of where the movie begins.

And so our trip begins with to hopelessly human, middle-aged men, setting out on a quest of finding fulfillment in their weekend, and neither of them really knowing what that will look like for the other. Or maybe just not wanting to.

I admit, its a tad cliched. Had this not been with wine as a backdrop, this could be a father and son out on the road and coming of age. But the lives of grapes and wine as the backdrop, it changes things. I mean don’t get me wrong, grapes/wine used poetically as metaphor for life are oft used tool as well…but combining our two cliches with excellent performances, and we find ourselves on a new, exciting adventure.

I honestly don’t want to spoil much. I mean it’s not like there is some grand twist where we find out Miles has a twin brother who….nevermind, why get into the ridiculous things that aren’t there. But like any good road movie (though really wikipedia…Terminator as a road movie? c’mon), the journey should just be enjoyed without my ramblings already there. To speak in generalities about the film…it touches on what most road movies do. It touches a bit on humanity, it touches a bit on finding things out about ourselves that we aren’t thrilled to learn, it touches on relationships, it touches on…life.

And as the end of this road trip comes, and broken noses have been had…we learn what has not been learned, and maybe what can’t be learned. Is Jack merely justifying his actions? Or is there truth to his quote. After nearly wrapping up their weekend…Jack flirts with his waitress, who flatters him back as the TV star he somewhat is. And it soon becomes clear that Cammi (the waitress) is willing to take him home that night…which Miles is appalled by given recent events. And just plain sad that they can’t spend their final night relaxing, getting up early for a round of golf, or something to that effect. Setting the stage…

Jack: Listen, man. You’re my friend, and I know you care about me. And I know you disapprove, and I respect that. But there are some things that I have to do that you don’t understand. You understand literature, movies, wine… but you don’t understand my plight.

I’m not sure where the flaw is, actually. Is it that Jack doesn’t understand Miles’ plight either? Is it Jack not realizing what many hold as the heavy and joyous ramifications of marriage? Is it that Miles’ doesn’t understand Jack? And what does that list say in defining Miles? What follows becomes an excellent exclamation mark to put at the end of the road trip.

****MAJOR ENDING SPOILERS****

I guess I can’t resist bringing up the ending. I am in love with the ending of this movie. I found myself just wanting to cheer for Miles so badly…and to see him “make his own occassion” and opening his very classy wine, to sit in a fast food place and yet transcend it, is remarkable. And while we don’t know what happens after he knocks on that door, there is hope. For even if rejected, Miles has gotten back out there. We don’t know if he’s over his ex (in fact we can be pretty sure he isn’t), we don’t know if things would work out with Maya. But hope, as that powerful testament of why can be despite what is, makes for the happiest ending one could realistically ask for from this film.

******END OF SPOILERS*****

And in case you are looking to get back in touch with your Merlot loving self, check out (don’t laugh) Merlove.

09.17.08

Reflections on ‘The Savages’

Posted in Excellente tagged , , , , at 1:38 am by thatmovieguy

It’s been a long, long time since I saw a movie that made me squirm. Alot of squirming. And if you didn’t know better, with a name like “The Savages” and talk of squirming, you’d think this was some horror movie. You wouldn’t be that far off…the reality of aging parents being a heavy and possibly terrifying topic. And its the very reality of it that is so perfectly captured.

The American culture has struggled with this and been picked on for it: how we treat our elderly. What we don’t see in this movie, and barely ever get, is the history of The Savages. We learn, early on, that Jon and Wendy have reason to resent their father…but that’s all we ever get. And in doing so, all we really garner is that these choices and decisions they have to make, while attempting to respect any of the father’s feelings, come with an extra bite. It’s not just a matter of how we do treat our elders, or how we are supposed to. It’s the feelings that get associated with it. Actions, of course, speak loudest. But the turmoil surrounding those actions is what this movie focuses on, and what I believe adds the real power to it.

The movie, while focused around the present life of Lenny Savage (the father), we see it through the eyes of Jon and Wendy. They attempt to balance their father’s needs with their own issues currently going on in their life. It’s hard to grasp the relationship the two of them have. You get the feeling the siblings haven’t spoken in a while, or aren’t very close, as they catch up in very matter-of-fact ways about large events in life. Wendy is more open, and seems to be struggling with the choices before them far more then Jon. We get glimpses of Jon’s pain, but we don’t even always know what is really getting him. But when Jon speaks, he is blunt, not sugar coating things for his father. You just get the sense that his tough-man face gets overwhelmed once in a while. What seems to bring them together is having to find appropriate accommodations for their father, and their unsatisfactory experiences in the middle of their lives. Wendy…wants to be the opposite of Jon . A climatic quote:

Jon Savage: Dad’s not the one that has a problem with the Valley View. There’s nothing wrong with Dad’s situation. Dad’s situation is fine. He’s never gonna adjust to it if we keep yanking him outta there. And, actually, this upward mobility fixation of yours, it’s counterproductive and, frankly, pretty selfish. Because it’s not about Dad, it’s about you and your guilt. That’s what these places prey upon.
Wendy Savage: I happen to think it’s nicer here.
Jon Savage: Of course you do, because you are the consumer they want to target. You are the guilty demographic. The landscaping, the neighborhoods of care; they’re not for the residents, they’re for the relatives. People like you and me who don’t want to admit to what’s really going on here.
Wendy Savage: Which is what, Jon?
Jon Savage: People are dying, Wendy! Right inside that beautiful building right now, it’s a fucking horror show! And all this wellness propaganda and the landscaping, it’s just there to obscure the miserable fact that people die! And death is gaseous and gruesome and it’s filled with shit and piss and rotten stink!

Whether or not Jon is being fair, there is an accuracy to his statement that is undeniable. And thus, the awkwardness in the movie. It’s a whole movie devoted to pointing at the elephant in the room that everyone would be far more content to pretend isn’t there, or atleast pretend the elephant is something far more elegant.

In an early scene, Wendy undoes Lenny’s suspenders, trying to make him look more decent. In doing so, she only sets herself up more for embarrassment in a following scene. Yet her attempts are noble, and is the only one putting forth attempts. Jon, as the above lines show, to him his father has already become an afterthought. That seems to be how he has coped.

In another scene, in order to get into a higher-functioning home, Wendy attempts to help her father cheat on a verbal test to see how bad his dementia is. She justifies this in all sorts of ways…he’s better on other days, it will get him into a “nicer” facility, but as we see again and again, she continues to set up her father for failure. Meanwhile, Jon hurts his father deeply in the way he just tries to approach with a business demeanor. When asking if he wants tubes if in a coma, the father is quite put off by his way of questioning. But it also leads us to an inevitable truh that seems to be the thesis, life is pain.

There is seemingly no hope found within this movie. The characters we find are all struggling. And of course they are…what interest would a movie be without strife? But where is the upside? Where are those moments of uplifting hope. We find them at laughing at life’s absurdness, such as Jon’s incredible device for fixing neck pains. And in what I consider the most painful scene in the entire film, I find myself most often as Lenny, wanting to turn off our hearing aids and shut out the world. And in the movie, we watch these characters assess options, try to open doors, and try to find happiness…and it all too often ends the same way, and none of the options seem to bring anything hopeful.

But very notable, is the ending. Without spoiling anything, in the end, there is hope. There is moving forward, as painful as it may have been to get in that direction. And hell, who knows? Maybe it isn’t even moving forward, but there isn’t this stagnancy that runs rampid throughout the movie. And that is a great final message to leave with in a film such at this. Where it is all too easy to empathize with all of these characters, and I still find myself squirming just thinking of some of the scenes, (Lenny’s movie night, anyone?) I know that life moves forward, ready or not. And there are not perfect answer and perfect solutions in real situations. One cannot erase grudges, one cannot force bonding and love. One can not improve their own situation or other situations simply by trying to pretend they are different then what they are. And one can not improve their situation by just pretending they are tougher and above the situations they are in. The reality of burdens will always catch up.

Wendy Savage: Maybe dad didn’t abandon us. Maybe he just forgot who we were.

Maybe…maybe…the world may never know.

But the movie has a raw power to it that I haven’t seen in a while. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Laura Linney and Philip Bosco perform their parts brilliantly, along with the rest of the supporting cast. The settings, both interior and seasonal exteriors, set the perfect tones for all the scenes to come. And while its hard to say I really “enjoyed” the film, it is one of the best movies I have seen in the past year.

09.11.08

What’s wrong with me #2 (There Will Be Blood)

Posted in Haters tagged , , , at 7:08 pm by thatmovieguy

And there was leaving. Not on my part though. The hype had been huge, my friends were stoked, and so I went to this movie that I hadn’t quite bought into. Thankfully, this made it all the less of a disappointment since I only had my expectations met. The people I went with, while they didn’t find it totally living up to the hype still seemed to think it was good. And all I could think about, aside how the entire “milkshake” would end up being classic (and it has, I would say) was the couple that left two hours into the movie.

Only a couple times in my life have I not finished a movie. And in neither case, I hadn’t paid for a ticket or a rental. Both of which will, likely, be the subject of futures posts in this series. They were “What the %$&@ Do We Know?!?” and “Dances With Wolves.” Though the latter is simply entertaining as one of the many who are inexplicably entranced by the new Battlestar series. In both of those cases, I borrowed it from someone else, so I felt no need to “get my money’s worth” from the situation. For the sake of this conversation, “Dances With Wolves,” is more relevant.

Both “There Will Be Blood” and “Dances With Wolves” make me think of what the Oscars are all about. Undeserving films that reek of someone trying desperately to be artsy and proactive, while only coming across pretentious and dull. In other words, I see what the critics saw, I just never bought it.

DDL, as far as I’m concerned, deserved the Oscar. In many others (Gangs of New York come to mind) I wholy respected his talent and performance but still found the overall package of a movie dry and dull. When a movie blatantly attempts to be gritty, it feels false, and its hard for me to get sucked into the world and find it believable. And I found that to be the case here as well. That being said, there is no way that he lives up to the hype surrounding it. Would there have been a bigger upset (Norbit winning for makeup aside) at the past Oscars if he hadn’t won? I feel like this wasn’t due to his competition, or him having a legendary performance that will be held in an Anthony Hopkins/Silence of the Lambs sort of way. He was fabulous. A character completely driven by competition, will his only regard being how to 1-up himself and everyone around him. The movie opened with such promise, seeing this man push himself beyond the point of injury, and with no one crackin’ the whip above him. Self-made man and all that stuff. But were we so desperate for an interesting in a fictional biopic that anyone willing to become a tortured soul and expose the darkest parts of himself will make us stand and cheer? Granted, flipping through recent nominees for Best Actor, very few performances that “stood above the crowd stand out. PSH as Capote is the only other nominee/winner that made me pause to wonder. So maybe we were just due, and we were going to embrace whatever movie came along. But the over-hype kills it.

If I’d gone in expecting a grand performance and a solid movie, I think I could have left ok. But the critics lead you to believe that this was going to be the Next Big Thing. The acting is done well (I forgot to mention, kudos to Paul Dano for his preacher/scammer/who-knows-what performance) but the characters just leave you feeling like your watching segmented whiplash. It never comes together. You watch acts, the earth explodes, you watch people well past the brink of insanity, and then back. Sure, it is all connected, but for something that tries to hard to be a “era-piece” I just never cared or felt I could enter the world created. And the more I felt the movie trying to force me, the more I resisted and became aware that it was just trying to hard.

So in the end, I found a movie that was, taken in parts, OK. Lots of fun conversations could be had peering into these little windows of religious zealousness, family, greed, and too many things to distill. The sum of its parts were just mediocre, and especially in (mercifully) not winning “Best Picture) I can only hope is will have a quick death and fade away from everyone’s “Modern Day Top 100 Lists.”

But here’s an interesting note. Did you know that the milkshake bit was non-fiction? True story…from the Teapot Dome Scandal. Check it out…Senator Albert Fall is the original milkshake drinker.

09.02.08

Issues Within DeMille’s 1956 “The Ten Commandments”

Posted in Excellente tagged , , , at 6:32 am by thatmovieguy

A note before you read: This was a paper I wrote for a class in college…so if my voice seems a little funny, I was probably trying to do my best to please my prof. and sound academic. I also was too lazy to go through and delete citations…the bibliography is on a separate disc drive, so if by some chance I need to dig up for anyone, just drop me line.

“Moses…Moses…” We hear it often throughout the Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments. The one who says it, and the voice intonation changes pretty much every time. Surprisingly, we don’t find a large, stadium sized crowd cheering the name as you might find at a football game. Surprising, because as much as that running back on the field who scored a touchdown is a hero to all of his fans, Moses is turned into a mighty hero before our eyes. But to what means and to what ends does this Moses we witness attain his heroic status? Henry Noerdlinger, who directed research for DeMille said, “…It is presented to the public in the hope that it may convince the movie goer that what he sees on the screen is as honest and accurate a reproduction of historical events as time and money and research could combine to produce”(online database). Despite DeMille’s claim to have made a very accurate film, and in several cases he does succeed, we still see a whole lot of film-friendly plot devices. The important fact is that DeMille goes along with the biblical tradition the best he can, but still uses the stories to narrate a tale that could connect with its contemporary audience..

Moses has become our hero, in a nationalistic sense. He might as well start up a large “USA!! USA!!” chant. From the very outset of the movie, DeMille sets the tone as to what his agenda is in this movie. His speech, once broken down, tells us what our eyes and ears are to be alert too over the next few hours. One of the questions posed at the beginning is, “whether man ought to be ruled by God’s law, or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictators like Rameses.” We already know the answer to this, but the slightly more subtle use of “dictator” in this post-World War II generation brings about a new connotation. We just went from not liking an enemy we haven’t met to thinking of them as the most despicable evil to live. In case we didn’t get that this struggle rages on, DeMille reminds us that, “This same battle continues throughout the world today.”

In case we hadn’t been given enough to ponder about the type of Moses we are going to see in action, the movie actually starts. We’ve transitioned into hearing the words of the King James Bible, but not for long. Our story would be short and boring if we stuck with a version where thirty years of Moses’ life was omitted, and wandering around the wilderness for a majority of the movie. While such a premise might work for “Survivor 12: The Promised Land,” not so much for an epic movie.

As commentator Katherine Orrison , Author of “Written in Stone-Making Cecil B. Demile’s Epic, The Ten Commandments” notes on the DVD, Demille broke the story down into four sections. The first act is Moses Prince of Egypt, followed by Moses the Outlaw/Shephard, then Moses the Choosen Law Giver, and Moses the Patriarch of his People. Despite the obvious main character of each portion, Orrison also notes that it was of the utmost importance to DeMille that Heston never trump God. (Orrison, DVD commentary). While this is clearly a challenge, as we move through each act we shall be able to see DeMille attempted to make that happen.

As any good movie of this nature will do, we have re-occurring musical scores that will let us know who we are too be watching for, or who is in control of the scene. Every main character has atleast one, with some characters such as Moses getting multiple themes. Nothing out of the ordinary, but a nice touch to this rendering of the Moses story.

An ark brings baby Moses, played by Charlton Heston’s son to add to the realism, onto the scene. It is a classy maneuver to keep the theme up from the story of the flood, just so we know that the destiny of this child is to save his people. This important tie-in with other biblical stories is another reoccurring theme that DeMille did an excellent job of encompassing into his narrative.

Charlton Heston comes into the throne room, with riches from victories in far of lands. One must not look any farther then our political figures to see how Americans feel about their war heroes. Despite the celebratory feel of the scene, we actually miss out on some lost footage that DeMille cut. While there is a small bit of implication in the Ethiopian woman’s actions, DeMille originally had it filmed where it was quite obvious that this was Moses’ Ethiopian wife. Implication during the throne room scene with Moses Ethiopian wife. (Orrison, DVD commentary) Being as this is the 1950s, and having multiple lovers, of different ethnicities too just for kicks, is not going to fly with the stereotypical, American, nuclear family. So in this first real battle between historical accuracy and preserving the sanctity of our hero, our hero’s reputation wins. While other scenes had been filmed that kept such a plotline going, they were all cut.

It is again noteworthy to realize the deliberate choices DeMille has made here. In our first real scene with Moses, we see a young and gallant hero. Again, Orrison comments that DeMille was aware that Moses was supposed to have a stutter, even referencing the story he researched. The tradition was that Pharaoh feared the child would grow up to overthrow his kingdom from all the prophecy, so he gave the infant a choice between a hot coal and a ruby from Pharoah. He went for the hot coal, saving his life, but as he tried to put it in his mouth, thus his speech impediment (Orrison, DVD commentary). DeMille decided he couldn’t have his iconic hero stutter, so this point was tossed on the wayside for sake of cinema.

After being privileged to some of the filler between the Bible’s narratives, the drama behind Moses discovering his heritage certainly seemed to be a very movie-goer friendly version. He saves a random only woman slave only to find out later it happens to be his real mother. Nefertiti, scared of losing him tries to convince him that the power of the pharaoh is the only way to help the oppressed, but we start to see Moses getting the bigger picture now in the exchange. Nefertiti: “Cannot justice and truth be served better upon a throne where all men may benefit from your goodness and strength? Moses: “I do not know what power shapes me way, but my feet are set upon a road that I must follow.”

What follows is one of the better biblical connections we have come across yet. Moses, with his new identity and feeling a new calling starts back at the bottom not just as a slave…but as a mud creature. While its very easy too look too much into it, its too exciting to see Moses called a “man of the mud,” in a throwback to the creation story. Even Ramases II will refer to him as a “mud pit prophet.” It is now that everything will start to change. Moses refuses to sit by the wayside and let injustice happen, which eventually leads to his banishment from Egypt.

The scene at the well with the seven daughters DeMille has certainly made his own. Not only are they all just daydreaming of a studly man, Heston as Moses does one better then move the rock to feed their stock. He busts out his martial arts skills in an impressive display of staff whooping. Not exactly biblical, but nothing to get our britches in a bunch over. It is here that Moses settles into a new life and starts to reflect upon the nature of the God of the Hebrews.

When it came to the burning bush scene, it left a lot to be desired. A glowing halo around the bush was received as pretty pathetic by the Sunday School crowds DeMille aimed to please (Orrison, DVD commentary). It was also rather awkward that Moses somehow saw the burning bush from so far away without bionic vision. We don’t even get to see the LORD turn the staff into a snake, which was one of the more convincing parts of the biblical narrative. In all of this, credit must still be given where due. We miss one of the finer subtitles of the scene if we focus on all of the negative. Wanting to keep the tradition of God’s voice sounding like “the father of Moses,” they recorded Charleton Heston doing the lines of God, and then altered his voice to make it sound slightly older (Orrison, DVD commentary).

Once Moses has returned to Egypt and placed his demands on Ramases II, Nefertiti once again tries to take control of the situation. She quickly learns that Moses is not seducable for Moses is now more concerned of matters of the spirit. Nefertiri’s response is, “Beauty of the spirit will not free your people Moses You will come to me, or they will never leave Egypt.” Again, we see our hero coming through. This time, it is matters of honor in how he gets what he desires, as well as keeping the relationship with his wife and family. Yet, even that relationship will lose its luster later. One lost him when he went in search of God, one lost him when he found God. DeMille’s concern here is clearly showing that nothing, not even such values as family, will stand in the way of Moses, and thus give us a model to use in our daily lives or in fighting injustice.

For all of the film’s grandeur, we don’t get to see too many of the plagues. Sadly, cut from the final take was Nefertiti taking on the frogs within the palace (Orrison, DVD commentary). DeMille found the scene to be a bit too humorous, but by the same logic if there really was a biblical tradition of acting these plagues out like a children’s play, it is a shame that DeMille scrapped the comic relief!

When Pharaoh seems as though he is ready to give in, his heart is always hardened. While the Bible is not explicit as the reason, DeMille has decided to portray it by playing off the love triangle Rameses II, Nefertiti and Moses. Nefertiti seems to know just how to push the right buttons. Rameses fears the laughter his empire would endure were he to let the slaves run free. An interesting interpretation, that not only allows us to get sucked into the movie’s tension, but also quells questions a person might ask about why God would harden someone’s heart just to toy with them.

One the most classic and probably most recognizable scene from the movie is the parting of the Red Sea, and with good reason. DeMille did an excellent job of incorporating biblical features of the narrative as opposed to getting carried away with his miracle working. For example, DeMille wants to make sure he stays true to what is said about all of Pharoah’s army dieing. So once the army enters the sea, even Pharaoh’s own charioteer hops out to join in the fray, leaving a very lonely and mostly dry Pharaoh to return home. We do see bits added, but nothing tasteless. As Moses walks through the sea, he is seen carrying a little girl in his arms, just to hit the point home that Moses is the best.

If that’s a subtle nod to the Bible, it doesn’t have anything on the scene on Mount Sinia where Moses actually gets the ten commandments. DeMille wanted to use real granite from Sinia for the stone tablet to make everything completely legitimate (Orrison, DVD commentary). While this was going on, DeMille filmed the scene at the base of the mountain so that it would have an “orgy” like atmosphere without actually doing anything on camera that kids shouldn’t see. He wanted it to be so precise, in fact, that he made sure me each of the extras were met individually so they would all knew exactly what DeMille wanted them to do.

In the closing scene, Moses hands over the five books traditionally attributed to his authorship. While there will always be new discoveries as our historical criticism improves and there are many theories that are more popular then that, given the era and the tradition behind it, DeMille is justified in his enactment. Also, in order to keep God at the focus and keep Moses secondary, DeMille elected to keep God’s returning of Moses to heaven rather undramatic. So right up until the end, Moses is a top-notch hero, for we don’t even see what it is he did to keep him out of the promised land.

After having dealt with the individual events in the movie, it is important to take note of some of the over-arching themes. To the Egyptians, Pharaoh is god. To hear him say, “So let it be written, so let it be done,” is very reminiscent of God speaking the world we know into being. However, this notion of “who is God” gets challenged. The battle is set within the first five minutes, as God has made the light, and Ramases I has sent forth a decree to slaughter the newborn Hebrews. Moses plays the key role for both sides. Moses was an answered prayer to Bithiah, and when Moses was on the pharaoh track, his deity-ness was obvious. Even Ramases I once said to Moses, “Who is this fair young God that comes to the house of the Pharaoh.” Ironically, he then became God’s chosen, sent forth to proclaim the name of the LORD… “I am.” He even starts to head in that direction as the slaves rest one out of every seven days, they called it the day of Moses. Sure enough, Moses gets the final “So let it be written, so let it be done,” over Ramases II. But in the end, it is appropriately Yahweh who gets the very final “line” of the entire movie as it fades to black.

For all of the things DeMille researched about, he did manage one very classy accident. Moses blanket was actually the Levite tribes color, but the costume designer had just thought it looked good (Orrison, DVD commentary). The cloth is vitally important, as Moses sticks with it and thus that identity. He used it when he got kicked out of Egypt, as a Shepard, when he went to challenge Pharoah, when he got the commandments. Likewise, the staff Moses receives from Ramases to rule over

On a whole, despite there being numerous scenes where people suffer, die, or are harshly beaten, the violence mostly happens off camera. Were this movie to be remade (and scarily enough, the Hallmark Channel is as a mini-series) I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of changes be that it would be utterly brutal. Present day America seems to enjoy their heroes like Bruce Willis in Die Hard, not just the underdog, but bloodstained from struggles. One must not look any farther than Mel Gibson’s, “The Passion of the Christ” to recognize that as part of our image of “accuracy” we want to see just how gory and nasty things were.

Would Moses had approved of this script? I speculate Moses would have a good laugh at us for thinking over two billion people gathered around a lake to drink or marched around everywhere in formation. In the context of that, what’s a little cinematic flare? As Moses parts from us, he tells us to, “Proclaim liberty throughout the land,” a direct connection to the liberty bell. If the original Hebrew was used to help people understand their history and their mission while in exile, DeMille is using the same story in English to tell us what we have been called to do. We must stand up to oppressive rule, and fight for our rites with God on our side. Now that’s a message Moses can get right on board with.