Great movie
I loved this movie, and I can't understand why it's not higher rated.
Greg and Susan at their most beautiful..physical perfection.
I think it's because this film is simply far less well know than many Hollywood Biblical films and that in turn is because it really isn't terribly epic - which seems to be what people expect from movies based on the Bible. It has none of the monumentality of The Ten Commandments, the exotic dottiness of Solomon & Sheba or the imperial sweep of Ben Hur. It's a relatively intimate drama about adultery and hypocrisy that really doesn't make a big noise, with its less than ornate sets, unostentatious costumes and minimal crowds. It also isn't emphatically "religious". While various miracles in the three films I've mentioned unequivocally occur by the agency of God, the climax of this film can be read both supernaturally and naturalistically, whichever you prefer, making it surprisingly subtle for biblical films of the time. Too subtle for many, I suspect.
If you enjoyed this, I'd also recommend another classy David movie, the Italian Saul e David. It's even less well known than David and Bathsheba, but is another very subtle film, with a great performance by Norman Wooland as Saul, and directed at times as much like a Shakespearean tragedy (Hamlet, or Macbeth perhaps) as a conventional biblical movie. (Do however ensure that you don't confuse it with David and Goliath, a pretty daft movie that falls squarely into the classic sword and sandal genre; OK for the kids, I suppose, but that's all.)
Call me Ishmael...
I think Bosley Crowther correctly termed it upon release as a "biblical non-epic"...which is a correct assessment to me. Philip Dunne stated in his autobiography that he attempted to provide naturalistic explanations in his script for events in the film in a conscious effort to provide a different approach to the typical biblical film. Such a scene is developed when the soldier attempts to keep The Ark from falling and dies on the spot. David himself attempts a naturalistic explanation when talking to Nathan.
Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...
Well, I think Dunne succeeded beautifully, largely because he was rigorously consistent. When David touches the ark at the end and survives, this could be because God spares him or because the ark is, after all, just a box and the soldier had died earlier from natural causes; and the rain that falls at the end may come as a result of God relenting or as a natural consequence of the storm that has been brewing anyway. Very neatly and unostentatiously done.
Compare that to the TV remake of The Ten Commandments which was at times clearly tugging in the same direction, but was committed to portraying its big set pieces (The Red Sea, the giving of the Commandments) as 100% supernatural miracles. This resulted in a weird hybrid of a film that was confused and confusing. Very ironic considering that one of the source novels of DeMille's version (Dorothy Clarke Wilson's Prince of Egypt) had itself been a rigorously naturalistic version of the story, and a closer adaptation of that novel might have been far more successful.
Do try and catch Saul e David if you can. I highly recommend it.
Call me Ishmael...
The Naturalistic explanations for the miracles in this film require allot of coincidences, and like NCIS Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs I don't believe in Coincidences.
The Book of Esther is all about how God uses Coincidences.
The funny thing with The Ten Commandments is DeMIlle personally was all for such naturalistic explanations, the Audio Commentary mentions this in the scene where Ramses reads the report about that Volcano. But your correct the way their shown in the film doesn't work at all, if the Nile had turned Red because of some chemical reaction from a Volcano it wouldn't have started with where Are touched the River with his Staff.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
Austendw, I think you perfectly explained why this film was ahead of its time and, unfortunately for its filmmakers, not as popular at the time. I just saw "David and Bathsheba" for the first time today, and I was blown away by its progressive new approach, way back in 1951. The formula for a Hollywood biblical piece was to show grandeur in sets, action, and special effects to convey the supernatural power of god. "David and Bathsheba" does the opposite and tells a very intimate story of two people (or really one man, when you get right down to it) and his grapple with faith. There were so many tight, closeup shots on Peck where the camera would just sit and let him do all the work. Toward the end it struck me as a very claustrophobic Orson Wellesian approach rather than a majestic Cecil B Demille approach.
While many films of today are intimate & psychological, "D&B" went against the grain back in the glorious days of Technicolor. People went to the theater to see the Red Sea parting, dammit. And the whole idea of a secular Bible film... very daring, to say the least.
I enjoyed the movie. No, it's not a sweeping epic; which is what I like in my Biblical films but it's good.
I like the way the David's story unfolds. In this movie he struggles with his decisions and the consequences of them. Usually, in documentaries on the subject he's portrayed as more ruthless; heartless.
For most of the movie it doesn't even seem Biblical at all. It could be any other movie. The end is where the religious aspects come in. I like the movie but I think the rating is appropriate.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]