When Orson Welles did not have anything to eat he had to become an actor in films that are hardly worth, at times, mentioning, and yet he tries to do what he can as an actor to save the film. That's typical in this one. The Bible is badly revisited in an episode that is not that particularly thrilling because too much known. The film more or less understands some political questions and sees in the attack of the Philistines against Israel an allusion to the menace against Israel from its Arab neighbors. But all that is naive. The stone civilization against the metal civilization from the north as Solomon will put it later is hardly seen. A sling and a stone against spears and a sword. This symbolism is present but unexploited. That also means The Semites (and that is a lot more than just the Jews) against those from the North, those who speak the Indo-Iranian languages of Mesopotamia, of Babylon, of Persia. All that is missed, and a lot more. The harp is also present but not used to its tremendous meaning. The oldest harp we know in this region is Sumerian and not Israeli or whatever. Israeli music is derived from that Sumerian music of some fifteen centuries before, and it is David who is going to establish the music school of the Temple, of the Levites, and also ,the singing school that will produce the prosody and the psalmody of the Ancient Testament, two musical forms that are both the results of older traditions and the root of twenty centuries to come. Apart from that the film is naive and primitive. I prefer the version given by Handel in his Saul.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines