Ridley Scott directs "Exodus: Gods and Kings", a film loosely based on the Biblical book of Exodus. The plot? In 1300 BC, Egypt is ruled by Seti I (John Turturro), a ruthless warrior king. When he's not expanding his empire, ordering the construction of giant monuments or slaughtering neighbouring tribes, Seti I's enslaving Hebrews. He thinks they're filthy subhumans.
Enter Moses (Christian Bale), a skilled warrior and member of the Egyptian royal family. When it is discovered that Moses is secretly the son of Hebrew parents, Moses is banished from Egypt. Whilst in exile, Moses encounters God. God orders Moses to wage a guerrilla war on Egypt and so free the Hebrews, God's "chosen people". Moses does as told. Assisting Moses is God himself, who assaults Egypt with plagues, diseases and casual infanticide. His mission completed, Moses escorts millions of freed Hebrews to Canaan, their land of origin. Egypt's non-Hebrew slaves apparently don't matter.
This is roughly where Scott's film ends. Were he to continue recounting this Biblical tale, "Exodus" would end on a much more macabre note: after forty years of wondering, the Hebrews slaughter the Canaanites and establish the Kingdom of Israel. Because these Israelites worship false idols, however, an angry God scatters them from "one end of the earth to the next", where they shall "remain in exile until forgiven". The notion that God has "banished" Jews from Israel is typically why many rabbis vehemently oppose Zionist movements; for many, a Jewish homeland is antithetical to the wishes of God.
The second book of both the Torah and the Tanakh, Exodus remains central to the identity of Jews and Israelis. From Exodus was the Jewish festival of Passover derived, as well as the Haggadah, a holy text. The Zionist movement - as well as Israel's long-standing practise of "denying the existence" of those it colonises - likewise has its roots in Exodus. Today, archaeologists, historians and Biblical scholars generally treat the contents of Exodus as being pure fiction. There was no homogeneous group of "Hebrews" during this period, there is no evidence of Egyptians enslaving "Israelites", there was no "exodus", no "plagues", no "forty years of wandering", and millions of "Hebrews" were not "cast out of Egypt". Throw in the fact that Scott's made a film set in North Africa which is devoid of brown and black faces, and you have a picture which would give most historians a stroke.
Ignoring its historical inanities, "Exodus" is schizophrenic for more fundamental reasons. Ridley Scott is an atheist, and is attempting to direct a religious epic which simultaneously appeals to secular audiences, as well as conservatives from the three main Abrahamic religions.
And so "Exodus" opens with characters discussing matters of "interpretation". Should certain earthly events be interpreted as coincidence or the will of God? Are events in the film supernatural or natural? Scott, of course, tries to have it both ways. Whilst his film's miracles can be explained away using scientific reasoning (madness, head concussions, lightning strikes, tsunami generating meteors etc), Scott makes sure to throw in little moments which contradict such readings. For religious film-goers, the film's God is undoubtedly "real".
But Scott doesn't let believers off easy. In his hands, God speaks to Moses via Malak, a messenger who takes the form of a petulant child. Scott's point is clear: God is an infantile jerk. "Is this the god you want us to worship?!" the Egyptians yell, when God has slaughtered all their children. "Is your god a child killer?!"
But whilst Scott denounces such murderous Gods, he also does the opposite. "When anger evolves, when a group is not being paid attention to, they resort to terror," Scott says in interviews. A similar line is contained in his film: "You have to kill the innocent," God tells Moses, "in order to warn their leaders and force them to liberate your people."
In the contemporary world, these divine words echo the statements of "terrorists" and "democratic governments", both of whom claim to be "justifiably killing civilians" in the name of "liberation". Scott's Moses is himself essentially a religious fundamentalist, a terrorist waging a guerrilla war on an Empire based solely on his personal visions and private beliefs. Figures like him are common in history. In the 1830s, for example, a black slave called Nat Turner believed he was receiving messages from God. Believing that he was "ordained for a higher purpose" and was "destined to free the slaves", Nat led a slave rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia. History is littered with countless similar examples. Oppressed people typically have nothing to turn to but their private Gods, who "give" them courage to resist. Usually these resistance movements fail, at which point the oppressed are further demonized.
In an era of rampant Islamophobia, and of superficial, wholly ahistorical hysteria about "terrorism", you'd think all these themes would lend "Exodus" all kinds of contemporary, political overtones. But no. The ridiculous "whiteness" of the film's westernised heroes, and the fact that the film's Egyptians literally are an evil, slave-reliant Empire, dilutes these possibilities. Scott's film is ultimately about god-fearing Judeo-Christian "good guys" who take on evil brown guys in the name of God and Freedom. When "we" do it it's righteous judgement. When the Other does it, it's barbarism.
Though silly in places, "Exodus" is exciting, brisk and oft spectacular. Working in the vein of Cecil DeMille, one marvels at how effortlessly Scott churns out massive historical epics. His film contains several gorgeous (if implausible) landscape shots of ancient Egypt, which seem inspired by 19th century Orientalist painters (Jean-Leon Gerome, Gustav Bauernfeind, David Roberts etc). Co-starring a miscast Joel Edgerton and the always ridiculous Ben Kingsley.
7.9/10 - See "Walker", "Burn!" and Scott's own "Kingdom of Heaven".
Enter Moses (Christian Bale), a skilled warrior and member of the Egyptian royal family. When it is discovered that Moses is secretly the son of Hebrew parents, Moses is banished from Egypt. Whilst in exile, Moses encounters God. God orders Moses to wage a guerrilla war on Egypt and so free the Hebrews, God's "chosen people". Moses does as told. Assisting Moses is God himself, who assaults Egypt with plagues, diseases and casual infanticide. His mission completed, Moses escorts millions of freed Hebrews to Canaan, their land of origin. Egypt's non-Hebrew slaves apparently don't matter.
This is roughly where Scott's film ends. Were he to continue recounting this Biblical tale, "Exodus" would end on a much more macabre note: after forty years of wondering, the Hebrews slaughter the Canaanites and establish the Kingdom of Israel. Because these Israelites worship false idols, however, an angry God scatters them from "one end of the earth to the next", where they shall "remain in exile until forgiven". The notion that God has "banished" Jews from Israel is typically why many rabbis vehemently oppose Zionist movements; for many, a Jewish homeland is antithetical to the wishes of God.
The second book of both the Torah and the Tanakh, Exodus remains central to the identity of Jews and Israelis. From Exodus was the Jewish festival of Passover derived, as well as the Haggadah, a holy text. The Zionist movement - as well as Israel's long-standing practise of "denying the existence" of those it colonises - likewise has its roots in Exodus. Today, archaeologists, historians and Biblical scholars generally treat the contents of Exodus as being pure fiction. There was no homogeneous group of "Hebrews" during this period, there is no evidence of Egyptians enslaving "Israelites", there was no "exodus", no "plagues", no "forty years of wandering", and millions of "Hebrews" were not "cast out of Egypt". Throw in the fact that Scott's made a film set in North Africa which is devoid of brown and black faces, and you have a picture which would give most historians a stroke.
Ignoring its historical inanities, "Exodus" is schizophrenic for more fundamental reasons. Ridley Scott is an atheist, and is attempting to direct a religious epic which simultaneously appeals to secular audiences, as well as conservatives from the three main Abrahamic religions.
And so "Exodus" opens with characters discussing matters of "interpretation". Should certain earthly events be interpreted as coincidence or the will of God? Are events in the film supernatural or natural? Scott, of course, tries to have it both ways. Whilst his film's miracles can be explained away using scientific reasoning (madness, head concussions, lightning strikes, tsunami generating meteors etc), Scott makes sure to throw in little moments which contradict such readings. For religious film-goers, the film's God is undoubtedly "real".
But Scott doesn't let believers off easy. In his hands, God speaks to Moses via Malak, a messenger who takes the form of a petulant child. Scott's point is clear: God is an infantile jerk. "Is this the god you want us to worship?!" the Egyptians yell, when God has slaughtered all their children. "Is your god a child killer?!"
But whilst Scott denounces such murderous Gods, he also does the opposite. "When anger evolves, when a group is not being paid attention to, they resort to terror," Scott says in interviews. A similar line is contained in his film: "You have to kill the innocent," God tells Moses, "in order to warn their leaders and force them to liberate your people."
In the contemporary world, these divine words echo the statements of "terrorists" and "democratic governments", both of whom claim to be "justifiably killing civilians" in the name of "liberation". Scott's Moses is himself essentially a religious fundamentalist, a terrorist waging a guerrilla war on an Empire based solely on his personal visions and private beliefs. Figures like him are common in history. In the 1830s, for example, a black slave called Nat Turner believed he was receiving messages from God. Believing that he was "ordained for a higher purpose" and was "destined to free the slaves", Nat led a slave rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia. History is littered with countless similar examples. Oppressed people typically have nothing to turn to but their private Gods, who "give" them courage to resist. Usually these resistance movements fail, at which point the oppressed are further demonized.
In an era of rampant Islamophobia, and of superficial, wholly ahistorical hysteria about "terrorism", you'd think all these themes would lend "Exodus" all kinds of contemporary, political overtones. But no. The ridiculous "whiteness" of the film's westernised heroes, and the fact that the film's Egyptians literally are an evil, slave-reliant Empire, dilutes these possibilities. Scott's film is ultimately about god-fearing Judeo-Christian "good guys" who take on evil brown guys in the name of God and Freedom. When "we" do it it's righteous judgement. When the Other does it, it's barbarism.
Though silly in places, "Exodus" is exciting, brisk and oft spectacular. Working in the vein of Cecil DeMille, one marvels at how effortlessly Scott churns out massive historical epics. His film contains several gorgeous (if implausible) landscape shots of ancient Egypt, which seem inspired by 19th century Orientalist painters (Jean-Leon Gerome, Gustav Bauernfeind, David Roberts etc). Co-starring a miscast Joel Edgerton and the always ridiculous Ben Kingsley.
7.9/10 - See "Walker", "Burn!" and Scott's own "Kingdom of Heaven".