Throughout his entire career, Ridley Scott has displayed a fascination with Christianity. Earlier films like “Blade Runner” and “Legend” made oblique references to stories from the Bible. Later films, like “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Prometheus,” would directly approach questions about God and faith. Despite this clear interest of his, and his tendency towards historical epics, Scott had never made a directly Biblical movie. That would change in 2012, when it was announced Scott was developing a film entitled “Moses.” By the time production was rolling along, the title had been changed to “Exodus.” The subtitle of “Gods and Kings” was later added, to differentiate the film from all the other ones entitled “Exodus.” The movie would generate controversy and tepid box office in 2014 by the time it blessed theater screens with its presence.
In 1300 B.C., Seti I rules over Egypt, its people, and hundreds of Hebrew slaves. His son, Ramesses II, is expected to inherit the throne with Moses, a general so beloved by the pharaoh that he is treated like a son, as his royal adviser. Following a battle where he saves Ramesses' life, Moses goes to inspect the slave sectors. This is when he is told a distressing rumor: Moses is not Egyptian but a Hebrew, who was floated down the river in a basket as a baby and adopted by the royal family. When it's discovered this is true, Ramesses II exiles Moses from Egypt. He comes to live in a community in the desert, marries a Hebrew woman and fathers a son. Following a head injury, Moses has a vision from the God of Abraham, who instructs him to free the Hebrews and lead them to the Promised Land. Soon, Moses is leading a slave rebellion against the rulers of Egypt and bringing the wrath of God down on the kingdom.
Even though he's obviously obsessed with religious themes and imagery, Ridley Scott has described himself as an atheist. Which means the director would bring a very different perspective than the usual one to the Biblical story of Moses and the Pharaoh. The retelling attempts to find a “realistic” explanation for most of the miraculous events in the story. Moses' visions from Yahweh are hallucinations, following a traumatic head injury. The Ten Plagues of Egypt are the result of ecological disaster setting off a domino effect. The parting of the Red Sea is explained by a tsunami elsewhere draining the waters. Never mind that a “realistic” version of the Exodus story is a wrong-headed idea to begin with, since historians and archaeologists agree that Hebrew slaves were never in Egypt and there's no basis in fact for any of the story's events. “Exodus: Gods and Kings” just goes ahead with the flawed thesis that this is a grounded, realistic version of the story of Moses.
Or, at least, the movie operates under an agnostic perspective for most of its run time. Everything that happens in the movie, for the first two hours at least, can potentially be explained by science. But any story of the Ten Plagues has to eventually address the final plague, the deaths of the first-born sons of Egypt. Instead of thinking of some sort of compromise – maybe a pandemic that children are most vulnerable to? – the movie outright admits that God did it. After operating under the idea for the majority of its run time that this is a “realistic” version of “Exodus,” which only possibly acknowledges the existence of a higher power, it wimps out before the end and admits, yeah, God did it. Ya know, I'd expect a movie about religion to at least commit to its ideas, to show some convictions to its premise. Instead of changing its approach entirely a half-hour before the end.
Even though it eventually abandons the pretenses of approaching the Exodus story from an agnostic perspective, this is still the grounded and gritty take on the Sunday school version. And so, “Gods and Kings” delivers a radical re-imagination of the prophet. I mean “radical” literally. Following his head injury, Moses goes from a hardened skeptic to a religious extremist overnight. He trains the Hebrews in the ways of war, leading them in raids on the Egyptian settlements and teaching them how to kill attackers. (Just to make sure you know this is the extra grim version of the Bible, Moses racks up a hefty body count even before he becomes a religious leader.) Granted, this is a pretty interesting interpretation of Moses, considering what he was chosen to do and what he had to work with to do it. But a prophet of at least three major religions being turned into a murderer who suffers from hallucinations pissed some people off.
It helps that the plague sequences are also the most exciting scenes in the movie. A moment where a boat is attacked by ravenous crocodiles is fantastically directed. The shots of frogs leaping onto the land or locust storming the royal palace are also thrilling in how they are shot and cut. These scenes are also notable for being one of the few times where “Exodus” feels a little more lively. So much of the movie is weighed down by portent, by this desire to be heavy and serious. Scott follows that lead by engineering an overall gray and gloomy visual design. There's not even much in the way of the trademark Ridley Scott lighting. “Exodus” is distressingly dull and uninteresting to look at for long stretches of its run time.
Not helping how lifeless so much of “Exodus” feels is the related sense I've seen this all before. Here, we have the story of a former military soldier being betrayed by his government and then leading an uprising among the slaves, to challenge the authority of the authoritarian leader. In other words: It's “Gladiator” again. You can also see shades of Marcus Aurelius choosing Maximus to lead Rome over Commodus in Rameses I favoring Moses over his own son. Considering “Kingdom of Heaven” and Scott's “Robin Hood” already had more than a few things in common with Scott's Best Picture winner, I'm coming to the depressing realization that Scott spent large parts of the 2000s and 2010s trying to remake his last really huge hit. Even when he was adapting the Bible!
Most of the controversy surrounding “Exodus” involves how it cast overwhelmingly white actors in this story about Egyptian and Hebrew characters. It's definitely ridiculous that we were still having this debate in 2014. And Scott's defense of the casting – that there are no A-list movie stars of Middle Eastern descent – was no defense at all. But considering previous cinematic Moses include WASP-y matinee idols like Charlton Heston and Val Kilmer, Christian Bale is pretty in keeping with that tradition. And he's fine in the part. Moses' rage at the Egyptian is exactly the kind of intense emotions Bale specializes in. His decision to play Moses as slightly unhinged is similarly what you'd expect from the star. The scenes were he argues with the messenger of God, questioning what took Him so long or how much of this butchery is necessary, are Bale's best moment. I guess it's not surprising that the character most comes to life when he's at his most conflicted.
The whitewashed casting is definitely most noticeable with some of the other performers. Actors like John Turturro or Sigourney Weaver – glorified cameos both, as Seti I and his queen – definitely stick out. Others, like Aaron Paul as Joshua, are given so little to do that you wonder why such a well-known performer was cast in such an ill-defined part. (Ben Mendelsohn and Ben Kingsley, who is at least some shade of brown, are a little better utilized.) The co-lead is Joel Edgerton – who looks kind of ridiculous in the pharaoh get-up – as Ramesses. While less memorable than Bale, Edgerton does manage to make the part his own. The way he plays his growing anger at the Hebrews as the plagues go on almost more like petty annoyance is a interesting touch. Any effective melodrama between Ramesses and Moses is mostly because of Edgerton, who does his best to sell the brotherly dynamic, even if the script lets him down.
45:05
No comments:
Post a Comment