if you enjoyed my REVIEW - here is EXTENDED VERSION

Title: BIBLE + DEMILLE + ROARING TWENTIES; 19 April 2013.

This nine decade-old picture still remains one great surprise. Seemingly inferior to its glamorous remake which dwelt in the majesty of spectacle and carved powerful religious, almost pious images in the minds of viewers, when seen today, this rather ‘forgotten’ production occurs to have stood a test of time. But what comes to mind first is not the entire movie which lasts a considerable time of 130 minutes but its renowned prologue, the
screenwriter Jeanie MacPherson's initial idea, the action of which is set more than 3,000 years ago when Children of Israel were miraculously led to freedom from bondage of false masters: a unique answer to human cry for a better world.

SIMILARITY TO SOME EARLIER EPICS: Made at the time when epics saw their beginnings and not being able to echo many earlier productions (except for only few made in Italy like CABIRIA or QUO VADIS or D.W. Griffith's INTOLERANCE), Cecil B DeMille's silent TEN COMMANDMENTS was a highly new, fresh screen experience. However, the ‘eggheads’ in the field of epic production may dig in the alleged ‘resemblance’ and rightly so. On the subject of Italian productions, we can say that not even DeMille, who was at the time rather inexperienced in the genre (he had only made JOAN THE WOMAN before this production) but also Griffith based considerably on Italian epics, particularly CABIRIA. Yet, this refers to certain glamour of costumes and exotic animals, the pets of Olga Celeste responsible for ‘big cats’ in many productions of the sort. When applied to Griffith’s spectacle of the ages, however, we may say that this movie bears some significance and draws more serious parallels to INTOLERANCE. Kyle Westphal accurately observes in his article “A Mental and Emotional Red Sea’ that “DeMille’s 1923 super-production stands as one of the very few Intolerance descendants to seriously attempt anything resembling Griffith’s thematic integration of parallel spectacles.” However, as Cecil B DeMille himself expressed his critical view of the picture that actually broke Griffith, let us leave Babylon or royal France and return to Egypt, to 1923 and this movie.

CROWNED BY REMAKE OR AN INDEPENDENT MOVIE? When the iconic screen Moses, the ‘Michelangelo screen incarnate model’ Charlton Heston, was born, Theodore Roberts (as Chris Scott Edwards described him "wild-eyed, ferocious and unkempt") embodied the prophet for the first time in cinema and for the first time under DeMille. More the leader of theocratic world than the cinema’s ‘make-believe’ approach, he leaves a lasting impression on the viewer, particularly at the super-threatening Mount Sinai sequence. Unlike the 'greater than life' overlong 1956 remake based on various sources which could have been titled MOSES' PHASES OF LIFE depicting a prince, an exile, a deliverer, the lawgiver, this 1923 version, though much tighter in its ‘Bible on screen’ method, is, actually, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS because of its two parts where not 'laws' but 'the Law,' as DeMille referred to it (influenced by his father Henry’s upbringing), is truly at the core of its broadest appeal. Moreover, due to the context it emerged from (post-Great War period with Hollywood incidents like Fatty Arbuckle scandal mentioned by DeMille’s scholar Katherine Orrison in the disc commentary), there was a need for a moral message through the medium. We can rightly claim that the 1956 version is called a remake only because of the same director and similar motives that drove the project. In hardly any case can the two be compared. The remake has its own crown of splendor, magnificence, attraction, imagination almost on the verge of fantasy but, unfortunately, some banal lines. Therefore, at the dawn of cinema, Paramount was lucky to 'promote' the Decalogue and release a skillful combination of the Bible as its source, DeMille as its deliverer and the roaring twenties as its initial addressee. Therefore, I have decided to present the title of my review in this combination, in this ‘trinity’ of aspects.

Since The Exodus and the modern part can be treated as two separate films and, moreover, have evoked different opinions from the start, let me divide my review in a similar fashion.

EXODUS. Lauded as "quite the landmark of the director" (Sean Axmaker, 2011); amazing with "their sheer weirdness and scale" filled with "Vegas-feel to this sermon" and “vigor as well as magic” (Christopher Scott Edwards); "DeMille's ultra drama of the ages" (Kyle Westphal), it is not hard to agree with all the 'praise the work' opinions. Everything is spectacular about it, including its imagery, its decors, its gorgeous sets, costumes, etc. 6 cinematographers, 500 carpenters, 400 painters, 600 chariots give us a clear idea why some people refer to this part as “Grand Atmospheric Egyptian Prologue.” Furthermore, its silent nature provides the movie with additional mystery. Yet, because of its considerably short length, it clearly corresponds to the intentions herein incorporated – short, clear, introductory message! As the aspect of the message is more clear in the modern story, let me now appreciate the feast for the eyes for a while.

VISUAL ASPECT: Great matte system by the technical director Roy Pomeroy provides an unforgettable experience of parting of the Red Sea (Katherine Orrison even claims that, in some way, she likes it more than the one in 1956 version). The marvelous City of Rameses (DeMille's Lost City rediscovered years later by Peter Brosnan) stuns a viewer to this day. The interior scene within the walls of the pharaoh’s court along with Terence Moore (Pat) as the son of the pharaoh whose sandals are made of the crowns of the conquered kings (what a fantasy and yet what a pompous depiction of power). And the cast including Estelle Taylor as Miriam (whom we actually see at the very beginning), Charles de Rochefort as Rameses (not very similar to Yul Brynner but equally memorable), Julia Faye as Pharaoh's wife (prototype of Nefretiri's character), Theodore Roberts as Moses, of course, and...hundreds of extras of Jewish ancestry.

UNITED WITH THEIR ANCESTORS: Although the filming locations were less authentic than in the remake (though still a 'location', no 'vacation' as Rita Kissin memorably recalls), the extras, authentically stun us including 250 Orthodox Jews from Los Angeles who really experienced deep personal contribution to the film. Marshall Weiss, the editor of The Dayton Jewish Observer, in his 2003 article “How DeMille Created a Sanctuary Out of the Exodus” memorably develops the topic of ‘Camp DeMille.’ This place, supplied with a synagogue, an interpreter, even kosher kitchen became their 'tent' while they could truly identify with their ancestors, renewing their identity, holding the banners with the Star of David with eyes filled with sand, perhaps, but hearts with praise and joy. DeMille himself, whose mother Beatrice was Jewish, stated about these extras that "they give the best possible performance as the Children of Israel." No accent was of any significance but just their looks and hearts set in the story. Marshall Weiss refers to these days as “deep in their hearts.” Los Angeles Times Reporter Hallet Abend, quoted by Marshall Weiss delivered an interesting line: “These Jews streamed out if the great gates with tears running down their cheeks, and then without prompting or rehearsal, they began singing in Hebrew the old chants of their race, which had been sung in synagogues for thousands of years.” Leatrice Joy, who, though having the part in the modern story, was also among the extras recalled in May 1985: They were living the time, these people. They weren’t acting."

CONCLUSION OF what remains in today's viewers' memories after viewing the Exodus? “Sights that amaze with their sheer weirdness and scale” (Chris Scott Edwards). Every minute seems precious from the very first image of the Sphynx, the colossal City of Rameses, the hauntingly effective organ score by Gaylord Carter digitally restored, the grandiose images of the pharaoh and his court, the Passover night, 600 chariots, the Red Sea sequence, the pillar of fire to the Mount Sinai sequence and the scenes with Golden Calf (Marshall). With the tablets of the Law and Miriam, Moses' sister uttering "I have worshiped idols and become a leper" our attention is drawn onto the roaring twenties when sin and righteousness clashed powerfully, perhaps more powerfully than in those days of yore when the Children of Israel had willing hearts to praise the Lord and come back to His Covenant...

MODERN STORY is touched by 'defiance' and 'redemption' and though it may appear a bit too simple for audiences that require a more sophisticated insight into human personality, it is a pure product of generation clash in the roaring twenties – the period that, undeniably, brought many changes within social, economic life. Kyle Westphal in the aforementioned article memorably points out that the film became “the quintessential frivolous-sincere expression of spirituality in Coolidge-era America.” It seems that this statement does not refer more openly to anything else than what we find here. But the modern story is a far more debatable part, not even when compared to the prologue but to most other movies of the time. Here, the opinions differ and tend to be critical of the entire achievement. Ranging as "dated" (Marshall Weiss); "split identity production" (Axmaker); "a series of disastrous plot turns" (Hal Erikson)... Among the critics there was also Mae Tinee of Chicago Tribune. Why such a reaction? Still politically incorrect? Disturbing? It is a very intriguing question but does not appear to be as simple as we could expect...

Inspired by F.C. Nelson's phrasing "You cannot break the Ten Commandments – they will break you," it appears to be a solid 'modern' parallel to the universalism of those commandments. Some viewers and movie scholars, both nine decades ago and nowadays, are more or less satisfied as long as the biblical (preachy) content remains in its distant history, a faded period. However, while it touches present time, the lives of modern men, many become quite suspicious of the hidden intentions and skeptical about prohibiting people from this or that. Psychologically, we could say, the ten commandments own negative directives: “Thou shalt not steal, commit adultery, etc.’ ‘Do not do this or that evil’ instead of ‘do this or that good’ promotes a different standpoint. As a result, modern man (touched by defiance rather than obedience) may appear to follow the stimulus for ‘not...verb’ rather than feel motivated to implicit goodness. And here, it all depends on audiences and rightly so. What if they don't agree? Danny (Rod LaRocque) says in one of his lines: “No one believes in these commandment things anymore.” making it clear that these commandments belong to the past and, consequently, such content appears dated.

Mr DeMille, in his defense, memorably observed the destruction caused by 'mental and emotional Red Sea.' Actually, I agree with him. Within this ‘mental and emotional’ aspect, Sanderson Beck points out: “the modern story reflects how stealing may be caused by the greed that cuts corners to make more profit.” If you stop at the word ‘greed’ and recall one of the most unsuccessful movies of the time titled GREED by one Austrian director in Hollywood, you will know what I mean. Isn’t greed something people interpret in various ways?

But just ignoring the philosophical dilemma, let me address the cinematic one and state: unlike the Exodus, the modern part requires a viewer to be accustomed to silent cinema, its style, methods and conventions. As the brothers may occur clichéd, you may be taken with many aspects of the part including some stunning cinematography, lavish decor, great images of San Francisco and, foremost, noteworthy performances. 'Villains are more memorable'
corresponds with the character of Dan (Rod LaRocque)- 'one emblematic modern man who violates all ten commandments' (Westphal). He gives a vibrant performance and agreeably “it’s more fun hanging out with Dan thumbing his nose at morality with his boozing, adultery and graft than watching good guy John try to pull his brother from the brink” (Sean Axmaker). The rotten concrete (of which the cathedral is being built) stands for his personal choices and deliberate intentions to break the commandments. In that aspect, there are both punishment and pure consequence. Mary Leigh (Leatrice Joy) parallels to Miriam, and, though Danny marries Mary, it is her who is offered redemption. Of particular interest (both visually and sensually) appears to be Nita Naldi as Sally Lung, the fire incarnate VAMPire who spreads leprosy (mind you the difference of depicting leprosy here with the purely Biblical context of sin and in BEN HUR two years later). She is unforgettable in her scene with a curtain – doom. And.. barely sexy but overly moral Edythe Chapman as Martha McTavish represents the old generation, the reminder of the covenant's timelessness. She undergoes the greatest change, though quite implicitly executed as in the death scene, she clearly makes her own Exodus from the Old Testamental 'law' to the New Testamental 'Love.’ In that significant moment for the entire modern story, DeMille makes his point most powerfully.

The viewing tours took more than a year throughout the USA and abroad, particularly the Prince of Wales is said to have seen the film. Two color system and many aforementioned triumphs of TEN COMMANDMENTS must have left viewers dazzled. After its re-release at the beginning of the 21st century, we may also appreciate its genius and uniqueness if we open our perceptions and skip the word ‘dated.’

In the final biblical reference, the divided becomes united in order to lead all to the light. With Christ as the new Passover of humanity, DeMille brings the movie to a jubilant Christian conclusion and a radiant renewing experience of risen human being.