MovieChat Forums > The Egyptian (1954) Discussion > Sinuhe's ridiculous actions at the end (...

Sinuhe's ridiculous actions at the end (SPOILERS)

posted 11 years ago by hobnob53
42 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers below.

Near the end, Sinuhe conspires with the queen, Baketamon, to kill both Akhnaton (the Pharaoh) and Horemheb by serving them poisoned drinks. The plan is for him to then marry Baketamon and become Pharaoh so that they may rule together.

But when Akhnaton dies after drinking his cup, Sinuhe has a change of heart and stops Horemheb from drinking his poisoned brew, which ultimately leads to Horemheb becoming a cruel, dictatorial Pharaoh who oppresses his people, undoes all Akhnaton's good works, and exiles Sinuhe to a remote village. This allows Sinuhe his defiant farewell, declaring that there is a greater truth than anything Horemheb knows, that they live in the sunset of their world, and that a time will come when all men are free, etc., etc., etc. (This is a paraphrase but accurately conveys his sentiments.) We then see the eldery Sinuhe, many years later, dying as he completes his memoirs, and then the portentous words on screen stating that all this happened two thousand years before the birth of Christ -- which basically comes under the files of the Department of So What?

Okay, so Sinuhe gets to sound off nobly and satisfy his precious conscience by making all kinds of pretentious statements about the brotherhood of man. Meanwhile the tyranny he opposed has come down full force, and the lives of millions, for many centuries thereafter, are made more miserable and brief by the dictatorship of one man.

Well, good for Sinuhe. He gets to feel nice and smug about himself and live out his life quietly if completely uselessly and ineffectively, while millions suffer and the cause of peace and justice championed by the late Pharaoh dies. Not to mention he murders the one man he admired and who was bringing about change, while saving the ambitious and evil one who will do harm to his subjects.

First, if Sinuhe wants to repent his crime, let him do it on his own time, not in a way that millions of others will pay the price for. And if he's going to knock off someone, let it be the right guy. (What, killing one man is okay but killing two morally reprehensible?)

Second, he should have stuck to his agreement with the queen. If he's going to kill the Pharaoh, kill Horemheb as well, then assume the throne. He gets an ambitious but compliant queen who looks like Gene Tierney (not a bad fate) but more importantly -- he gets to rule. He gets power -- absolute power. Power to continue and expand the changes the late but weak Pharaoh wanted to bring about. Power to end oppression and slavery. Power to give people their natural rights. Power to save lives and improve his people's lot. Power to promote learning and science. Power to make peace with others and advance the brotherhood of man he claims to hold so dear. Power to state his ideas and put them into practice. Power to alter the course of history. Power to change the world for the benefit of mankind. Power, in short, to do something -- something good.

But no -- Sinuhe has to make a loser's grand stand on some alleged principle, while eviscerating all those other principles that would actually make a difference in people's lives and help better the world. He accomplishes precisely nothing of use or value. Oh, sure, he utters a few lofty phrases -- so what? What does that do? Who's the better for it? Nothing, and no one.

You only make a difference in this world by acquiring the power to effect change. Hopefully, noble principles attend this assumption of power. This would have been the case with Sinuhe. Instead, he throws this great opportunity away in favor of mouthing high-sounding platitudes while rebuffing the chance to actually put his so-called principles into practice. And again, this decision has real consequences -- it affects real human beings. This isn't some academic exercise. But self-important Sinuhe puts his own interests above the certainty of doing good for millions. He has a high old time with his conscience while tyranny and oppression continue. Oh, but don't worry -- it'll all end one day. Like...um, oh let me see...how about never.

"Power" is not a dirty word. Nor is it unprincipled. Noble declarations without effect are just ego. Sinuhe is a sap, and a fool. He takes his self-regardant stand even as millions of others will suffer for it. But he's just oh-so-high-minded and steadfast. Jerk.

[–] suzycreamcheese1 11 years ago

uh huh

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Meaning?

[–] dicooley 11 years ago

I agree with most of what you have say, hobnob. Here's my two cents though.
Unfortunately, usually by that point in the movie,even with as many times as I've viewed it, I've been frustrated by the way the wheels have fallen off in the assassination scene. H. knew very well how all the cups were poisoned, yet his outrage still flared at S. for 'daring' to poison -his- cup. Huh, Okay...
There was also the earlier ending of the tomb scene where S. yells, "Set them free!" or something like that. What a clunker.

But to get back to your condemnation, Yes, despite his anger at Ahkenaten for the death of Merit, he chooses the noble loser path. ("Anger and eloquence bleeding into fear...")

Power is not a dirty word, but the Sinuhe that chooses not to be Pharaoh is more sympathetic to me as a viewer(wouldn't he be Stewart Granger otherwise?).
And I'm a card-carrying member of that "living out one's life quietly if completely uselessly and effectively" club.
"We couldn't all be cowboys, some of us are clowns..."

So, yes, he's a jerk. You're right. But the Lenins and Henry VIIIs of this earth are not as plentiful as Blackberrys, and in this spot that lot was to fall to Horemheb("a man like that could never be hurt by a woman"), not the cowardly, human Sinuhe. That's who he is.

I enjoyed reading your post; lots of heat -&- light.

I'm supposed to be retired. I don't want to get mixed up in this darned thing.
--Vertigo

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

I agree with you, dicooley. Sinuhe is who he is and so takes the course his conscience and principles dictate...once he's murdered the good man. It seems as though he's decided to punish himself by not taking a second life, and allow Horemheb's wrath to descend upon him as the penalty for transgressing his own (Sinuhe's) "principles". (Read: his elevated sense of his own moral superiority.)

It's unfortunate that those noble principles so eloquently spouted attend the mind of a man so full of himself and the idea of freedom that he can't bring himself to actually do anything to advance his cause. Worse than that, what he does do -- knowingly, deliberately and with complete forethought -- is kill off the one man who could put his so-called ideals into practice and actually better people's lives -- then compounds this mistake by allowing the man who's the antithesis of everything he and the late Pharaoh believed in to ascend the throne and put back the cause of freedom thousands of years.

Sinuhe is a coward and a fool. He betrays everything he claims to believe in, and in the worst, most harmful ways possible. But then, we know he's a fool early on when he allows himself to be led astray by Nefer, which ultimately had its own tragic consequences.

Of course, the point of the movie (and book, I suppose) is to elevate high-minded platitudes to make Sinhue appear noble and insightful. Putting them into practice, on the other hand, apparently somehow detracts from the drama. There'd be no historical tragedy to lament -- even though that tragedy is completely avoidable and of the central character's own, deliberate, making. And this film has the audacity to proclaim that these events happened two thousand years before the birth of Christ. As I said before: so what? Utterly irrelevant. But Christ accomplished something. To infer that Sinuhe is somehow Christ-like in even a superficial or philosophical way is an insult. He's just a loser, and this entire story completely without point.

Lenin, Henry VIII, Stalin, Hitler and other venal or evil tyrants understood power and how to exercise it toward their ends -- which in their cases were war, murder and slavery. (Okay, Henry was a little better than those other guys.) Good people may have scruples such monsters don't but that doesn't mean they have to be weaklings unable to move. If Sinuhe couldn't bring himself to rule, he should have knocked off Horemheb and let the Pharaoh live. But then, of course, there'd be no movie, would there?

That's probably the main reason I dislike this bloated, self-important, vacuous film. Except for great music, some interesting sets, insights into portions of Egyptian culture, and a generally decent cast (though saddled with two-dimensional roles), The Egyptian is an overlong and insulting bore. Brando was right to bail.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

I think the film's writers were attempting to put the essence of Waltari's novel (actually all his historical novels) onto the screen. Sinhue is an ancient "everyman". His purpose in the story is to show that his humanness is an insufficient match to mankind's worldly challenges. Waltari is, in short, entirely pessimistic about our perennially ineffectual efforts to rise above the seductions (Nefer) of materialism (wealth and power - Horem heb). A weak hero (intentional) and a weak pharoah (intentional) lose in the end. Certainly an atypical formula for a Hollywood historical epic. Why I kinda like the film, but also why I don't think the film was very successful at the box office*.

Additionally, I don't believe the "3,000 years before the birth of Christ" was intended as a reference to Sinuhe but, rather, to the phenomenon of Akhenaten who is considered the first ruler of antiquity to have been a monotheist, and much of who's orthodoxy resembeled that of the Christanity of a later time.

*(In a telephone conversation, C.B. DeMille was told by Zanuck that he wouldn't do the picture if Brando opted out. Of course, he did it anyway. DeMille was concerned that the public might become jaded by Egyptian over-kill at the box office. DeMille was planning the "Ten C's" at the time they spoke. Since Brando opted out, DeMille went ahead with his plans. He didn't worry about the betrayal later on, however, as having seen the finished picture and noting the "weak" lead character - just as you point out - he correctly felt the film wouldn't be successful enough to damage the public's interest in his even bigger epic.)

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

A good analysis, cwente. If the intent of the screenwriters was to give the film some sort of uplifting Hollywood ending, it was so counter to the plot and tone of the previous two hours and fifteen minutes that it made it that much worse. Strength trumps weakness.

The insertion of that business about Christ (to whatever or whomever it referred) is clearly intended as a sort of superficial redemption of the weak and inept Sinuhe, whose life has indeed been wasted and without import...except for his direct involvement in regicide and responsibility for making the lives of his people immeasurably worse. To try to make this all better by saying that, isn't it uncanny, but all this amazing stuff happened 2000 (or 3000) years before the birth of Christ, is laughable, in its vacuousness, irrelevance and downright dramatic dishonesty. But I'm sure most audiences missed this hypocrisy in its entirety.

Interesting stuff about DeMille. Even with Brando in TE he would have had nothing to worry about. Biblical and ancient-world epics were a dime a dozen back then, and none matched C.B.'s scale anyway, even the biggest films. There was some criticism of Howard Hawks in 1955 when he released Land of the Pharaohs, for allegedly trying to "out-DeMille DeMille", which is not at all what he was attempting. For my money, LOTP is so vastly better and certainly more entertaining than TE that the latter's popularity with some people always surprises me. I even like it more than The Ten Commandments, which may be a "better" picture but, like so much of DeMille, is overlong, over-stuffed, over-produced, and pretty much over-everything...including over none too soon.

[–] molarmaven59 11 years ago

Dear hobnob53:

Sinuhe stated that Horemheb is the Pharaoh that Egypt WANTS(my emphasis).

He knew that he could never provide that.

That is why in the following scene we see Horemheb triumphant in battle subduing the Hittites, Egypt's traditional enemy.

The Christian "bandage" at the end was a reference to Ankhnaton's monotheistic enlightenment just before his poisoning.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Thank you, molarmaven, I understand all that, and my criticism is that I think these are stupid, hypocritical plot points.

Sinuhe's statement is one of the utmost cynicism. By extension, it can even be considered justification for his killing Ankhnaton -- after all, if Sinuhe isn't "the Pharaoh Egypt wants", neither, certainly, was the murdered Pharaoh.

But of course, there is no way Sinuhe could "know" what kind of Pharoah Egypt wanted. In any case, by simply quitting the field, going off in a high-minded, self-regardant sulk, trumpeting his own alleged moral superiority, all the while allowing Horemheb to reverse Ankhnaton's progress and put people back into ignorance and bondage, Sinuhe accomplishes precisely nothing of any good and condemns millions to misery.

The "Horemheb is the Pharaoh Egypt wants" line is a self-serving justification for empty preaching and wallowing in the paralysis of vacuous self-proclaimed "nobility". If Sinuhe believed in his principles the issue of whom Egyptians would "want" as Pharaoh -- as if they had a choice -- would be irrelevant. He should take action and fight for his principles, particularly if they're so much better for mankind. Even if he lost his battle, how much better to have stood and fought for something real, instead of hypocritically sounding off with a lot of meaningless platitudes that constitute Sinuhe's irrelevant coda.

The character of Sinuhe is a fool and a weakling. Why he should be considered the hero of the story, or someone to be admired, is bizarrely preposterous.

As to the "Christian bandage" (a good term) at the end, obviously we know what that's a reference to. So, essentially, was much of his oration before the Pharaoh, just before that final scene. And once again, that only reenforces my basic point. Sinuhe screws up everything he touches, and others suffer for it, yet he goes off in his high-sounding way, suffering nothing worse than a remote exile and an old age where he can look back and see all he has accomplished -- to wit, nothing. The fact that he had some supposedly noble principles for the betterment of man is not only irrelevant -- since he did nothing to propagate them when it mattered and he had the power to do so -- but given his role in actually destroying all chances for the advancement and enlightenment of humanity, having the "Christian" message tossed in at the end is an insult.

This tedious and bloated movie is much ado about absolutely nothing, thanks to its weak, inept and ultimately smug central figure.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

I take a somewhat different view of all this and, of course, the film itself:

"The Egyptian" is a Christian film set before the advent of Christ . . . as in the novel. Waltari was a dedicated Christian and though I can't speak for him, his work seems to indicate a marked cynicism about life's possibilities without Christ. Therefore, Ankhnaton is the "hero" of this tale, not Sinuhe, though Sinuhe is the central character. Much like "Ben-Hur". Though Judah is the central character (and a "strong" one, unlike Sinhue), the hero, or if you prefer, the nucleus of the message, is, also, Christ -- "Ben-Hur's" "A Tale of the Christ" sub-title. So, I don't think the "Christian bandage" is a bandage at all, but both Waltari's and the producers' "point".

Additionally, I think Sinuhe is to be "admired", however very late in the picture (and too late, I venture, for most audience's liking - poor box-office, as C.B. DeMille predicted after he saw the film). You're forgetting, too, I think, the "conversion" which is at Akhnaton's murder and dying speech. You say about Sinhue -- "He should take action and fight for his principles ...". But, he did that after the long-awaited conversion (He had no principles before then -- "I believe in nothing."), and in doing so, he brought himself before Pharaoh for a death or banishment sentence. Showed some guts -- finally!

Two smaller points -- 1) Horem-heb was the Pharaoh Egypt wanted, as Sinuhe believed. One doesn't have to "know" something to believe in it, and 2) it isn't always a good idea to disapprove of a film because the central character doesn't share your own personal moral code. Some of the best dramas center on characters with the most reprehensible values and motives. But, they're damn interesting characters nevertheless!

I like "The Egyptian" despite a poor script, imo, (much too wordy -- Sinuhe's final speech seems interminable to me) and because of the uniqueness of its period setting (Akhnaton's reign), as well as its philosophical precepts (Waltari's world-view). I like "Land of the Pharaohs" too but for entirely different reasons.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Of course The Egyptian is a "Christian" film -- that's precisely my point.

It seeks to have it both ways. First, it delivers a self-serving character with a self-serving, loudly proclaimed but utterly inconsequential (in the sense that it triumphs in the movie) "Christian" message. (You're right, Sinuhe starts out without principles and acquires them along the way -- a rather heavy-handed allegory for many early Christians a couple of millennia later.) Yet it doesn't allow him or his principles to actually make any difference. Instead, those principles are defeated (at least for the next couple of thousand years), and for what reason? For an insipid and meaningless plot development, the better to point up how "remarkable" Sinuhe's (and Akhnaton's) insights are.

I don't agree that Christ is the hero of this film -- unless you similarly argue that he's the "hero" of every so-called Christian film. I'm not sure in fact that there is a hero here -- I called Sinuhe the film's central character because he's anything but heroic -- if he's the hero it's only due to the lack of other candidates for the role. Akhnaton might be a kind of hero, but I wouldn't quite call him the film's hero...though at least he does more than Sinuhe to advance his principles.

Whether Sinuhe "knew" or "believed" Horemheb was the Pharaoh Egypt wanted is a sophistry -- six of one, half a dozen of the other. Whatever the case, he acts in the same, defeatist, do-nothing manner. If a principle is sound and you believe in it, fight for it -- don't just sit back and let the forces of evil overwhelm you without a struggle -- without even a protest, except his showy ex post facto and interminable peroration.

My argument is that the film (and I assume novel) makes sure Sinuhe is too weak, vacillating and gutless to effect the change he so loudly claims he believes in -- all so he can deliver his final, smug, self-satisfied, and utterly empty declamation, and then end with that portentous and meaningless nonsense, "All this happened twenty centuries before Christ", as if this was some weird, spooky example of supernatural foresight. Not to mention that Sinuhe precedes this by helping kill the one man who could bring about the principles he supposedly believes in, then makes sure the wicked man who will undo all these things and despotically rule is not similarly poisoned. There certainly isn't any "principle" here: say, against killing, as he has no problem killing the good man (or hero) while allowing the bad one to live. It's all for the sake of an inane plot twist, nothing more.

The "guts" he showed by laying himself open to Pharaoh's whimsical justice is just more self-serving crap: Look at me, I'm so noble. And this helps anyone how? This advances the cause of brotherhood in what way? There's nothing "heroic" in any of that -- it's all of a piece with the rest of the pious nonsense he proclaims when it makes no difference. But Sinuhe sure feels morally suprerior to everybody else...and that's the insipid point of the film and book. Millions will needlessly suffer and die -- but I sure like myself!

Finally, I don't disapprove of this (or any) film merely because the "hero" doesn't share my moral (or any other) values. I disapprove of it because of its hypocrisy...in addition to its poor script, overlength and other cinematic issues. Sinuhe is one of the least admirable characters in movies...not because he belatedly comes to his fine principles, but because he so easily throws them away, allowing evil to triumph while he gets to feel good about himself.

As to its supposed "world view", if Sinuhe had belatedly found his principles, too late to act, it might not have been so bad. Had he gone down fighting for them, it might have been semi-great. But he held them long before, and allowed bad things to happen while bringing about the downfall of the good by his own acts, for no purpose other than to set the stage for this last-minute speech of self-congratulation, and that pious, phony ending. The worst of all possible worlds -- or world-views.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

First, I'm not saying Sinuhe, or Christ, is a hero in the Greek sense, or in the conventional Western movie sense. I think I explained I was using the word in the sense you were using it as you were pointing out Sinuhe's failings as such, and that the closest one to a hero (indeed, a tragic hero) in the aforementioned sense would be Akhenaten.

Second, Sinuhe does fight for what he believes - when he believes it - which is at the end of the film. I'm repeating myself. Your criticisms of him seem focused on what he does not do when he has no beliefs -- before he murders the man who, with his dying words, ironically, converts him to the Aten.* He doesn't kill Horem heb and take a throne, and a gorgeous princess, because of that conversion (something, finally, to believe in!). Certainly a sacrifice, I'd say -- a noble act.

Third, Sinuhe, then, wanders the countryside (for how long no one knows) as a kind of prophet, contrary, it must be assumed, to pharaoh's orders. He may have converted numerous people in his wanderings (who knows?), and he was willing to risk life and limb to do so -- as we saw. And, how do we know the "I sure like myself" and "feeling morally superior" assignations are, well, appropriate? Of course, you may have them, but I simply don't see it. I guess, unlike yourself, I'm not looking for that interpretation.

Btw, how late is "too late to act", and what else, after all, could Sinuhe have done after his conversion to keep "millions from needlessly suffering and dying", with him being a murderer of a king and the confessed would-be murderer of the king on the throne whose authority he persistently challenges in his wanderings?

Indeed, the conversion comes very late in the drama and, in doing so, leaves a less than satisfactory conclusion to the whole business. That's why DeMille thought the picture would not do well at the box-office. He was right, it seems.

* A peculiar kind of Christ allegory is going on here. Akhenaten is murdered by a man he ventured to educate and to save in a spiritual sense. The crucifixion. And the accomplishment of the act . . . worked. It took no less than the tragic death of the better man (Christ) at the hand of the lesser man (us) to do it. A clear parallel, and Waltari's Christian point made.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Okay, first, as to the hero business, we're pretty much on the same page. I really don't think this film has a hero of any kind in any sense. Akhenaten would be the closest approximation, I suppose, but to me even he doesn't quite qualify. And understand, I'm not saying the film needs a hero...which, given its characters, is just as well.

As to your second point, I think the main difference we have here is the timing of Sinuhe's "conversion", if you want to call it that. I'm not sure that's quite the right term, but for our purposes here I'll use it. You believe that this "conversion" took place only after he'd poisoned the Pharaoh. But while I think that act was the final jolt to Sinuhe's conflicted mind, I don't believe he abruptly flipped into an entirely new set of beliefs (religious, ethical, moral and spiritual) in one revelatory instant. His conversion was a process, not an event.

Killing Akhenaten -- or more accurately, hearing what he had to say before he dropped dead -- may have been the final straw, but Sinuhe didn't suddenly become a full-fledged proto-Christian in one instant, "do a 180", if you will, from the set of beliefs he'd held four seconds before. He was already well along the path to these beliefs and in fact was only a step away from being in a position to implement them for the good of all when he threw it all away by stopping Horemheb from drinking his poison.

Yet even if we take your point that this was essentially an instantaneous conversion, Sinuhe still acted in the most defeatist, counter-productive way imaginable. What did it avail anyone for him to have stopped Horemheb from dying? This insured Horemheb's accession to the throne, his reimposition of dictatorial and cruel methods of rule, and a setback to his principles for millennia, or for all Sinuhe knew, permanently. Thanks to him, millions would now be enslaved, suffer or be murdered. The fact that Sinuhe was now supposedly acting in concert with his beliefs (new-found or otherwise) is no excuse.

Hence, my argument that all Sinuhe achieved was the sense of smug moral superiority that had absolutely no effect or meaning on any person or event. Whatever adjectives you may use to describe the nature of this outcome, what else did he achieve?

Granted also that I am arguing in favor of pragmatism as the means to a desirable end. Nobly declaiming your superior beliefs is fine and dandy, but actions -- or lack of them -- have human consequences, which seem to have troubled Sinuhe not a bit. His developing faith in Akhnaten's concepts and wish to do good for mankind didn't stop him from murdering the Pharaoh. Is a second murder to attain good for all somehow a more sinful or less worthy or defensible act? Even if you argue that he suddenly realizes that killing is wrong (really?), the first act is not negated or "forgiven". Sinuhe should have been willing to condemn his soul, assuming he believes in such a thing, in the cause of fighting injustice on Earth in the name of the brotherhood of man. Faith and theory are all very nice, but unaccompanied by power and determination they achieve nothing towards their stated ends.

As to point three, where do you get this business about Sinuhe's "wandering the countryside"? There's absolutely nothing in the movie indicating this. On the contrary, Horemheb sends him into exile in a remote part of the kingdom, where we began and end, with the aged Sinuhe writing his memoirs (which is what they were). Every indication we have is that he has spent his entire life in this small place, and more, that in his writings he's setting down for the first time all that has happened. There is no indication whatsoever that he has wandered about the country preaching to or converting people, or even that he has done so only in his place of exile.

"He may have converted numerous people in his wanderings (who knows?), and he was willing to risk life and limb to do so -- as we saw." No, we didn't see him risking his life to convert people -- we saw him risking his life just once, when he spared Horemheb and incurred his wrath. Nothing at all is said or even implied about his risking life and limb by wandering or converting others. "He may have converted people"? Your parenthetical aside -- "(who knows?)" -- is more apt. We don't know, but more crucially, there is no basis for even supposing that such things took place. Nothing. You want to presume this, but there is nothing said, done or indicated anywhere in the film to support this insinuation. (Or should I say, in-sinuhe-tion?)

Perhaps the book is different, but I can speak only to the film, which is what's at issue here.

If DeMille thought the film would fail solely because of Sinuhe's belated conversion, I'd be surprised. That may have been a factor, given my argument that this resulted in a futile, self-regardant, weak and utterly pointless finale that renders its central character an unadmirable ass. However, there were many more things wrong with this bloated picture to have scuttled it. It has its moments, but drowns them beneath a turgid script, confused plot and direction, overacting and overlength, and its smug and misplaced sense of its own self-importance.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

hob,

Let's take your last point first: Sinuhe's wanderings. This is made clear in the film. First, it's the reason he's brought before Horem-heb (I can't think of any other). The indictment read by the high priest states what Sinuhe's been up to -- at some length. Second, Sinuhe talks about where ever in the countryside he's been -- he's visited the women frying fish before their mud huts, etc., etc., and he's told them blah, blah, blah about Akhenaten's vision of truth, justice, etc. All "treasonable" activities according to the priest-prosecutor. As to "risking life and limb", well, we see the indisputable truth of that eventuality in his arrest (He wasn't arrested for Akhenaten's murder, or for considering the murder of Horem-heb.) and, ipso facto, in the trial before Pharaoh's court.

Additionally, and re the "conversion" or epiphany, whichever you prefer, Sinuhe says, in that same long, final speech, that he learned "all this" from the lips of a dying man. Sure, there's been a softening of the soil throughout the picture before the lotus flower of his redeemed self was planted in Akhenaten's garden (How's that for an appropriate Egyptian allusion?!), but when the title character, himself, explains to his judges that that's where he made the turn, well . . . ?

Perhaps I'm less a pragmatist than a humanitarian, but I have a problem understanding your objection to Sinuhe's decision not to commit a second, cold-blooded murder -- regardless the certain personal and possible national benefits to be derived therefrom. I think such considerations, considerations of conscience (even newly discovered, as in Sinuhe's case), rise above "pragmatism" and a belief in one's self and one's own importance in defining the common good. Are you suggesting Sinhue could justify, to himself, murder, because he believes he would make a better God-king than Horem-heb, who Sinuhe has already acknowledged will be the man who can save Egypt from destruction by the Hittites? How many dictators have excused their own murderous behavior for the same reason you believe Sinhue could justify his? I think Sinuhe's decision to stop Horem-heb from drinking the poison represents quite the opposite of "self-serving", "defeatist", "counter-productive", "smug", etc. behavior -- from a humanitarian standpoint -- and, certainly, from my own and Waltari's, I suspect, Christian standpoint.

"Faith and theory are all very nice but unaccompanied by power and determination they achieve nothing towards their stated ends."

I don't feel that way at all. Such thinking could justify almost any kind of despicable behavior to achieve that necessary power (like the murder we're discussing) in the name of the common good or, even, simple progress. (I'm not saying it's never been justified. Freeing a people from a dictator may be an exception -- but that's not what "The Egyptian" is about.) Leaving out "determination" (Sinuhe had that, or he wouldn't have been arrested and tried in the first place), neither do I think would Jesus, most of the Saints & prophets, preachers, missionaries, writers, painters, rabble-rousers with a cause of any kind, used-car salesmen, or any other kind of salesman you'd care to name. Who said, "the pen is mightier than the sword"? Jesus didn't even own a pen, much less an introduction to a Roman power-broker.

[–] suxxxann 11 years ago

I think you are making a great confusion between true hystorical records, the movie (which is a romaticized collection of some made up characters and events), and the fictionalization of Mika Waltari.

Needless to say that as for any hollywood movie, the original novel is somewhat different, both in tone, meaning and style and the story itself is what Mika Waltari made of it.

Your rant is really useless under this light, you might as well write 2 sentences about how much you think the movie is rubbish and be done with it.

By the time Sinuhe plots with Baketamon he is already a broken man, earlier he mentions that he does not believe in any god and everywhere he saw poverty and oppression, the death of the mother of his child and the fact that he has to part with him ('but you gave me something to live for, something I created and was not destroyed' [his child Tot]) probably was the final nail in the coffin for the human part of him before his epiphany years later.

If he spent his youth asking 'why', he spends his adulthood realizing he had his answer already and that he didn't like it.

Not everybody is the hero of the day and the far majority of people (you included) is not the 'saviour' type of actor, regardless of how much they beat their chest and scream from the top of their lungs how much do-gooers they are.

Leaving Horembeb alive is perfectly in character with such a personality type, also because wisely, vacuum of power is far worse than evil power (as we see around the world after the famous arab springs). Evidently the words of Horembeb made enough sense to Sinhue to spare his life (as a matter of fact, he didn't spare his life out of mercy, as he says in the movie). Add to that the fact that Baketamon (his eventual future wife) was as much as a warmonger and as strongwilled than Horembeb was. I can definately see her waging war with everybody even worse than Horembeb, her character is not the charitable type. Not much choice there if you ask me.

How can you say that Sinuhe would go on with Akhnaton's way of ruling is pure speculation as Sinuhe is a fictional character. If we must stand by what we see in the movie, Akhnaton's reign meant civil war (fomented by the powerful priests or from outside forces) and neighbours arming themselves to their teeth. It wasn't the kumbaya brotherhood of men you wet yourself over about (no people on earth is the kumbaya brotherhood of man you blab about at any time in hystory, unless you count the Jim Jones-kumbaya type and we know how it ended).

As rightly Victor Mature's character said "our enemies want power, goods, slaves" they couldnt care less about the cross of life and Pharao's hymns. This is in line with what is written in the book in much more detail. Countries subjected to Egypt were de facto arming themselves to overthrow them and were laughing behind Akhnaton's back about him being spineless (uh uh, a lot of similarities with USA today).

This is human nature 101, I don't see how you cannot notice it. Hard to see Hollywood being so sincere about human nature.

Sinuhe's epiphany is also in line with what happens to many middle age man and women when they realize they are 50, they made plenty of mistakes in their youth (neglecting a child, caring about material things etc) and they have a change of heart and you see them volunteering, getting involved in activities of tutoring young people and a lot of 'listen to me, don't do my same mistakes bla bla bla'. Honorable but too little too late. It might not make sense to everybody but it is really common. Again, Hollywood in the 60s is strangely in line with common sense.

Also, a lot of what you write is pure invention, what elements you have to say that Akhnaton would have advanced studies in science and Sinuhe would have continued that? Akhnaton in real life was famous for arts and architecture, not for pursue of science.

We have no hystorical records or elements from the book or the movie to know that Akhnaton was 'pro-science' as opposed to 'anti-science' (3400 years ago, much of medicine was closer to witchcraft than real science). It really sounds like your own speculation. In the book it is said that Sinuhe considered writing important with a set of characters that was universal and not Egypt-only. But there is no mention of this in the movie.

You state for certain that the people fared better under Akhnaton than under any other King before (both in reality and in the book). Again your misinterpretation. Not only it is not hystorically true but many times a period in time is plague by so many factors that no matter how clever and good-willed a ruler is, the people fare worse. Whether the proposed monotheism meant a better life for the ancient egyptians eventually plagued by famine, war and diseases remains to be seen. Hiltlerian Germany was pretty rich, the germans didn't have any poverty problems. Plenty of money flew to Germany from the conquered territories, so how you can say that Egypt was 'poorer' under Horembeb has got no basis.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

First, just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a "rant".

But to some of the points in your somewhat confused, misspelled and ungrammatical carryings-on (quotes from your post in blue italics):

I think you are making a great confusion between true hystorical records, the movie (which is a romaticized collection of some made up characters and events), and the fictionalization of Mika Waltari. No, I'm not "confusing" anything. I'm discussing this movie. Of course it has fictional characters and is at variance with actual historical events. So what? We're not discussing history. We're discussing the movie.

Not everybody is the hero of the day and the far majority of people (you included) is not the 'saviour' type of actor, regardless of how much they beat their chest and scream from the top of their lungs how much do-gooers they are. I haven't a clue what you even mean by that turgid sentence. It makes no sense whatever and is almost unintelligible. In any case, from what you wrote before that, it seems you think I believe Sinuhe is some kind of hero. I do not. He may have once been a "broken man", as you put it, and yes, people often do come to a midlife realization of things, or some sort of conversion in life. None of which has anything to do with anything I said.

How can you say that Sinuhe would go on with Akhnaton's way of ruling is pure speculation as Sinuhe is a fictional character. Of course it's speculation. So is most of what you're saying. And as to Sinuhe's being a fictional character, the point, once again (which seems to elude you) is that THIS IS A MOVIE. It's not supposed to be history. If we can't "speculate" on what kind of Pharaoh Sinuhe might have been, why are you speculating on what kind of man he was, what he believed, and so on? After all, he's a fictional character. By your idiot logic, that means we shouldn't bother discussing him at all.

If we must stand by what we see in the movie, Akhnaton's reign meant civil war (fomented by the powerful priests or from outside forces) and neighbours arming themselves to their teeth. It wasn't the kumbaya brotherhood of men you wet yourself over about (no people on earth is the kumbaya brotherhood of man you blab about at any time in hystory, unless you count the Jim Jones-kumbaya type and we know how it ended). That first sentence actually makes a good point -- even though now you're speculating about things you can never know. Obviously, we can't tell what would have happened if Akhnaten had lived. Maybe there would have been civil war. Maybe if Sinuhe had become Pharaoh the same thing would have happened. Maybe either man's attempt to establish a more just rule would have ended in failure.

But as usual, you miss my oft-stated point: the issue is not whether Akhnaten or Sinuhe tries and fails. The issue is that Sinuhe kills Akhnaten, then throws away his chance to carry on the Pharaoh's work, and instead chooses his self-important but meaningless stand that accomplishes precisely nothing. All Sinuhe accomplishes is a chance to make a lofty speech while millions are beaten down. This also allows the movie to end by pretentiously stating that all this took place 2000 years before Christ. It's a plot point, and it's a dishonest, pretentious, bull**** one. The film -- and book -- would have been much better if Sinuhe had tried to advance the Pharaoh's cause but failed. Instead, he simply gives up and self-importantly poses as a noble being in his final speech. This is empty, self-serving crap.

As to your inane ravings about "kumbaya brotherhood", me "wetting myself" and "blabbing" over it, and dragging in a lunatic reference to Jim Jones, I never said any such thing. Again, you speak as if we're discussing real history here instead of a fictional movie from a fictional novel. What I did say in this regard is covered in the paragraph above. If anyone is guilty of a "kumbayah" mindset, it's Sinuhe. But you do have some real emotional issues, I see.

Countries subjected to Egypt were de facto arming themselves to overthrow them and were laughing behind Akhnaton's back about him being spineless (uh uh, a lot of similarities with USA today). This is human nature 101, I don't see how you cannot notice it. Hard to see Hollywood being so sincere about human nature. First, it's interesting seeing you drag your irrelevant and nonsensical political biases about modern politics into this discussion.

Second, what you write about how other countries regarded Akhnaten is probably true. So what? Again, this has nothing to do with my point. But it does seem, from this and a number of other things you write, that you're all in favor of Horemheb taking power because he was ruthless and could defeat Egypt's enemies. That's probably true (even if you're speculating again). Nice to see you're in favor of dictatorships because of their supposed toughness.

Still, and third, you continue to miss the point: whether Egypt would have been attacked or become involved in civil war had Sinuhe taken power (or had Akhnaten not been murdered) is not the issue. The issue is that if Sinuhe believed in his so-called principles he would have fought for them and tried to do what he so loudly claimed was best for his people. Maybe he would have failed. But he didn't even try -- then had the audacity to compound this failure by making his ostentatious, self-important speech praising his noble stands on those "principles" long after they could do anyone any good.

Also, a lot of what you write is pure invention, what elements you have to say that Akhnaton would have advanced studies in science and Sinuhe would have continued that? Akhnaton in real life was famous for arts and architecture, not for pursue of science. Excuse me, where did I say any such thing? I never said Akhnaten had promoted science -- never, nowhere. My lone mention of science was in an offhand, incidental way, listing it with "learning" as things Sinuhe would have been free to pursue had he become Pharaoh. I never even said Sinuhe would do so -- only that he would have been "free" to, as one of many possible improvements to life he could have promoted. And the reason I mentioned science in that context was because Sinuhe, in fact, did have an early interest in science, of a sort, thanks to his surgeon father and his other studies. However, I never wrote that Sinuhe would have "continued" anyone's pursuit of science, or even promoted it on his own. Nor did I ever claim that Akhnaten or anyone else was "pro-science", as you inartfully write. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not "inventing" anything, I'm not "speculating" about anything, I'm not being "historically inaccurate" about Akhnaten. You're either not reading things carefully or not telling the truth.

You state for certain that the people fared better under Akhnaton than under any other King before (both in reality and in the book). Again your misinterpretation. Not only it is not hystorically true but many times a period in time is plague by so many factors that no matter how clever and good-willed a ruler is, the people fare worse. I said no such thing in any form, and I defy you to point out where I did. I didn't "misinterpret" anything because I never made any such statement. Once more you're either lying or too stupid to read what was actually written.

Whether the proposed monotheism meant a better life for the ancient egyptians eventually plagued by famine, war and diseases remains to be seen. Finally, one statement that is true...sort of. Of course, as this all took place thousands of years ago, we can pretty much say now that since monotheism never took hold what might have happened doesn't "remain to be seen" -- it can never be known.

Hiltlerian Germany was pretty rich, the germans didn't have any poverty problems. Plenty of money flew to Germany from the conquered territories, so how you can say that Egypt was 'poorer' under Horembeb has got no basis. Okay, first, I never said anything whatsoever about Egypt getting "poorer" (or richer, for that matter) under Horemheb. Again, you're either deliberately making things up or are just not paying attention to what's been said. I never addressed this subject in any form.

But as to your comments about "Hiltlerian" Germany, go back and check the historical record. (And please stop spelling "history" and related forms of the word "hy", as in "hysteria". It's a pretty basic word.) Germany had plenty of "poverty problems", only they were masked beneath a totalitarian veneer. "Plenty of money flew into Germany from the conquered territories"? Hah. The cost of their occupations far outstripped whatever economic gains Germany received, most particularly in Russia, where Germany got far more by trade before their invasion than they did during their occupation. Besides, what Germany did get was not "money" -- they got relatively little -- but mostly raw materials and slave laborers. In any case, comparisons between the Egypt of 20 centuries B.C. and 20th-century Nazi Germany, especially on economic questions, are pretty superficial if not downright meaningless.

[–] suxxxann 11 years ago

"So what? We're not discussing history. We're discussing the movie."

You aren't discussing the movie when you are predicting in detailed steps what would have been of Egypt under Sinuhe's reign, because that was NOT in the movie. Also your farnetications about justice and fairness were NOT in the movie, NOR in the book (which I have read), NOR in real ancient Egypt. They all reside in your wishful thinking. So why you are insisting you are discussing the movie? You are discussing an ever more fictionalized version of humanity that the one displayed in any movie.

"He may have once been a "broken man", as you put it, and yes, people often do come to a midlife realization of things, or some sort of conversion in life. None of which has anything to do with anything I said. "

He wasn't a broken man once, he has been a broken man pretty much all his life, particularly after his misfortunes (as he himself said in the movie, I am not making up stuff, I am following the narrative of the movie, unlike you). This bears much importance to what you said since you are making a (poor) psychological analysis of a fictional character completely ignoring the clues given by the screenplay authors. There were clear reasons for his actions, whether you like them or not.

"Of course it's speculation. So is most of what you're saying. "

I did not speculate anything since I did not write any forecast or any "what if" scenarios. I took some lines from the movie verbatim and described some events. Far from speculation.

"If we can't "speculate" on what kind of Pharaoh Sinuhe might have been, why are you speculating on what kind of man he was, what he believed, and so on? "

Describing his actions in the context of the narrative is different from guessing 'what would have been if...', even in the realms of cinematography.

"That first sentence actually makes a good point -- even though now you're speculating about things you can never know. "

Have you seen the movie? Egypt was in shambles as narrated by some self-explanatory scenes, enemies were really at the door. This is 100% in line with what Mika Waltari wrote (he was even more granular in his descriptions of events) and with what really happened back then. This alone is possibly the single element in the story that is 100% accurate.

"Obviously, we can't tell what would have happened if Akhnaten had lived. Maybe there would have been civil war."

There was already.

"Maybe if Sinuhe had become Pharaoh the same thing would have happened. Maybe either man's attempt to establish a more just rule would have ended in failure. "

A more just rule compared to WHAT? your moral standards? today's moral standards? In the book (and slightly touched in the movie) Akhnaten persecuted Ammon's followers and the believers in the older gods as it was very typical back then. In the book (details spared in the movie for the sake of brevity, but mentioned by Horembeb) Syrians at the borders and Hittites started slaughtering Egyptians by thousands while Egyptian army was powerless because the good Akhnaten didn't want to order to murder. If this is for you a more 'just rule' I truly hope you are not allowed to vote anywhere. Did you hear the part where the king of Hittites says 'after the first battle our iron swords won't be a secret anymore, after the second Egypt won't be Egypt anymore', what do you get from that? that the Hittites are just and fair? that it is better to succumb under the Hittites than having Horembeb as king? I guess people always enjoy their own rulers and not external entities especially when they are killer in the process.

"The issue is that Sinuhe kills Akhnaten, then throws away his chance to carry on the Pharaoh's work, and instead chooses his self-important but meaningless stand that accomplishes precisely nothing. All Sinuhe accomplishes is a chance to make a lofty speech while millions are beaten down. "

Beaten down compared to which situation? Being slaughtered by the syrians or the hittites? What you call lofty speech is instead a well written prose by the american script writers (no such a thing in the book) that sought a meaningful ending with a christian moral (nothing wrong with that, unless you are Christianophobic). Faith has been spread after all by word mostly, except from one cult in particular, and it managed to reach millions. It hasn't touched the hearts of millions because even individuals like yourself should know that the human nature is flawed and moreover, even the most fervent believer would tell you that you have the CHOICE to believe (or not). Therefore Sinuhe's speech was symbolic, not meaningful for Pharaoh Horembeb, but for the audience that finally heard the famous 'moral of the story'.

Also you cannot legislate 'goodness' from a throne as you foolishly suggest, unless you favour dictatorships and fascism. Real 'goodness' is transmitted by examples and words, not laws.

"This also allows the movie to end by pretentiously stating that all this took place 2000 years before Christ. "

It is 1300 years and not 2000 and the reference was not about Sinuhe but about the birth of monotheism, which is truly connected with Akhnaten as historical figure. See relevant documentation.

"The film -- and book -- would have been much better "

Again according to who? You? the movie received 6.5 out of 1600 votes, hardly a failure. All in all, the majority disagrees with you, unless you want to impose your taste as you do with your morality and your judgement in screen play writing.

You talk about the book while it is clear you did not read it, as I said the book is very different, all the characters are somewhat more raw (Merit is completely different, Nefer doesn't end up that way) and the story itself has got some different twists and turns (Sinuhe falling in love with a cretan woman) with an underlying description of human nature, AS IT IS, not as you WISH IT WOULD. Demand apologies to Waltari's descendants for not following your mighty advice. He is only the most appreciated Finnish writer with this book being a known best seller. How many books have you penned so far?

"What I did say in this regard is covered in the paragraph above. If anyone is guilty of a "kumbayah" mindset, it's Sinuhe. But you do have some real emotional issues, I see. "

said the person who insulted everybody who dared to question his mighty authority, adding pathetic references to grammar and syntax. English is not my first language but I am aware that when the grammar police is called, it is usually from some arrogant idiot full of himself who is only after internet fights.

"First, it's interesting seeing you drag your irrelevant and nonsensical political biases about modern politics into this discussion. "

Modern politics are exactly the same as ancient politics, hence the common say Historia magistra vitae which is above your paygrade and very relevant to this movie and to today's life, because human nature has not changed at all.

"Second, what you write about how other countries regarded Akhnaten is probably true. "

Not only it is true in the movie, in the book, and in history, it is also true in modern everyday's life. Those script writers were obviously magicians to be able to grasp such an obscure and hidden human trait.

"Again, this has nothing to do with my point. But it does seem, from this and a number of other things you write, that you're all in favor of Horemheb taking power because he was ruthless and could defeat Egypt's enemies. "

Frankly I have a life and what Horembeb does is not keeping me awake at night as it does with you. It just amazes me how some people spend hours spewing hate against writers, script writers and message board members and then talk about the honor in being 'fair and just'. I bet you cannot see the irony in what you write.

"Nice to see you're in favor of dictatorships because of their supposed toughness. "

Akhnaten was killing Ammon's priests and followers of the false god, nice to see you are in favour of religious persecution because of their supposed 'just rule' or because it fits your kind of justice, how do you call that? technically it is called theocracy. Is it better to be in favour of dictatorships or theocracies? I guess whatever floats your boat and lets you insult more posters in this board.

You talk of dictatorship as Egypt had been a democracy before that. It wasn't, and democracy even in Greece, where it was first introduced was not the same 'democracy' as intended nowadays.

You think Egypt by that time was the greatest kingdom in the known world by accident? you think it gained territories by sending flowers? of course it conquered lands with armies. And the same was true of other people and lands before them and after them. Did you ever listened during history classes?

"Still, and third, you continue to miss the point: whether Egypt would have been attacked or become involved in civil war had Sinuhe taken power "

civil war was already there (still talking about the movie, where 2 fights scenes were staged when Sinuhe returns from Syria and when Kaptha and Tot leaves on a boat), what do you think those scenes represents if not the 'civil war' mentioned by Horembeb already in place? Horembeb says to Akhnaten that he had to send troops to the pier to stop civil unrest, for the sake of the narrative of the movie, did your brain detect that he was talking about riots among the population (Ammon followers against Aton followers)? As for being attacked, it did happen in reality and in the book, we did not see it in the movie.

But you say that this has no importance, so if we do not discuss about the movie narrative, what is there to discuss? your own personal version of the movie? why don't you shoot one yourself and be done with telling us how much you think the other is crap?

"The issue is that if Sinuhe believed in his so-called principles he would have fought for them and tried to do what he so loudly claimed was best for his people. "

simply, at that time he probably wasn't that sure of his principles. After all, unlike yourself who obviously think yourself as perfect, he was pretty aware of his shortcomings and his failures and he was probably doubtful his whole life. Very consistent with the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" . You know, in movies and arts a conflicted, multifaceted character is always more interesting than a righteous know it all dick.

Since your whole premise is to speculate on what-ifs, being married to Baketamon would have been very difficult for him, as strong willed as she was, ready to slay and persecute the followers of the false god (Aton, as she stated in the movie) and rule Egypt as it had been ruled in the past (she was the daughter of the great Amenophy III and proudly stated so in the movie). Or you might even speculate that having noticed monotheistic tendencies in Sinuhe she would have had him killed too. That would have been totally in character for her.

"Excuse me, where did I say any such thing? I don't believe I even mentioned "science", but if so it was in an offhand, incidental way. I certainly never wrote that Sinuhe would have "continued" anyone's pursuit of science."

from your post at Sat Jun 15 2013 22:22:18

///
Since In any case, by simply quitting the field, going off in a high-minded, self-regardant sulk, trumpeting his own alleged moral superiority, all the while allowing Horemheb to reverse Ankhnaton's progress and put people back into ignorance and bondage, Sinuhe accomplishes precisely nothing of any good and condemns millions to misery. ///

I fail to see what was Akhnaton's progress (unless progress is defined by introducing a monotheistic cult per se) and I fail to see what you mean by 'ignorance and bondage' again unless ignorance is ignorance of a monotheistic god and bondage is bondage to false gods. Also the 'millions into misery' is laughable since even under Akhnaton there were poors and people starving and I do not see how you can say that under Horembeb's reign, millions were in misery... especially compared to what other reign? or what standard?

A change of weather affecting the harvest could result in famine for millions, but this is irrespective of who is in power. Or you have seen 'evidence' from the movie that Akhnaton possessed superior knowledge and found a way to solve famine? Did he manage to outlaw famine with the pen? We have probably seen a different movie.

"I said no such thing in any form, and I defy you to point out where I did. I didn't "misinterpret" anything because I never made any such statement. Once more you're either lying or too stupid to read what was actually written. "

see the above quote, if you say that Sinuhe condemned 'millions' to misery by letting Horembeb taking the throne, you imply that other kings managed to fare better than him and leave those 'millions' alive. It is called implied comparison.

Instead of freely insulting you should re read your arrogant and hate filled rants. If you claim situation B is worse, by logic, situation A is perceived as better, since 'worse' implies a comparison. It is called basic logic, you should try it sometimes. The reverse is also true, if you say 'better' it is logically considered 'better than' something else.

If you say Horembeb condemned millions to a life of misery and ignorance and bondage (as above) it normally means that the previous ruler was allowing them a whole life of enlightment and freedom. Again, civil unrest plagued Egypt, as well as enemies at the door and by the book it turns out there were also famine and poor harvest (not necessarily the king's fault but superstitious people connected the dots and blamed the new god)

"Okay, first, I never said anything whatsoever about Egypt getting "poorer" (or richer, for that matter) under Horemheb. Again, you're either deliberately making things up or are just not paying attention to what's been said. I never addressed this subject in any form. "

Millions to misery, as written above.

"Germany had plenty of "poverty problems", only they were masked beneath a totalitarian veneer."

so they never took hold of the jews possessions? that is itself a form of enrichment because you basically seize properties for free. It has been done by several totalitarian regimes in every century and it did work plenty of times otherwise why would this be still in fashion?

"Besides, what Germany did get was not "money" -- they got relatively little -- but mostly raw materials and slave laborers. "

lol, which does not translate in money in any shape or form, free slave work from millions of jews was a financial burden

"In any case, comparisons between the Egypt of 20 centuries B.C. and 20th-century Nazi Germany, especially on economic questions, are pretty superficial if not downright meaningless. "

I guess everything you don't like are pretty superficial and meaningless. Since you have already rewritten history, why don't you rewrite the book and the movie? so that everything will fit your worldview and you wouldn't have to bear idiots on a message board that dare to question your remarks, exactly as Horembeb did with Sinuhe. Banished for things he said.

But you are the one knowing it all about fairness and justice as it shines from every line your write.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Funny you accusing me of writing a "hate filled rant", of being "arrogant" and all the rest. Obviously you're not troubled by introspection. Comments, your entries in blue:

You aren't discussing the movie when you are predicting in detailed steps what would have been of Egypt under Sinuhe's reign, because that was NOT in the movie. Also your farnetications about justice and fairness were NOT in the movie, NOR in the book (which I have read), NOR in real ancient Egypt. They all reside in your wishful thinking. So why you are insisting you are discussing the movie? You are discussing an ever more fictionalized version of humanity that the one displayed in any movie.

Where am I "predicting" in detailed steps what would have happened under Sinuhe's reign? I wrote of certain things he MIGHT have been able to accomplish -- or at least tried to accomplish -- had he become Pharaoh. "Farnetications" about justice were in the movie -- in Sinuhe's closing speech, the thread topic. Just more false claims amid much dense nonsense.

He wasn't a broken man once, he has been a broken man pretty much all his life, particularly after his misfortunes (as he himself said in the movie, I am not making up stuff, I am following the narrative of the movie, unlike you). This bears much importance to what you said since you are making a (poor) psychological analysis of a fictional character completely ignoring the clues given by the screenplay authors. There were clear reasons for his actions, whether you like them or not. Okay, he was a broken man most of his life. A distinction without a difference. Unfortunately for your invalid assumptions and willful misreadings, I am well aware of the "clear reasons for his actions, whether you like them or not". That's my point: I don't like them. I don't like the direction of the plot and how Sinuhe's life and actions are resolved. You do. That's fine, but people are permitted to disagree with the plot of a movie.

I did not speculate anything since I did not write any forecast or any "what if" scenarios. I took some lines from the movie verbatim and described some events. Far from speculation....I did not speculate anything since I did not write any forecast or any "what if" scenarios. I took some lines from the movie verbatim and described some events. Far from speculation. You speculated about the certainty of a civil war, or worsening of the war, invasion, etc. You may well be right, but you're extrapolating from the film, not stating what was shown. And again, I did not "speculate" on what kind of Pharaoh Sinhue would have made, or Akhnaten had he lived. I posed some possibilities measured against the nature and outcome of Sinuhe's actions. Nowhere were these posited as "predictions", a point you're not only overly exercised about, but which is pretty unimportant.

A more just rule compared to WHAT? your moral standards? today's moral standards? No, a more just rule according to Sinuhe's (or Akhnaten's) moral standards, as the movie relates these and indicates would have resulted from either man's rule. The film clearly and plainly imparts to the audience that Akhnaten was a wise and basically just man for someone of his times (no one claims he was a 20th century democrat), and that Sinuhe shared his basic impulses. We are shown that Horemheb taking over brought about a return of the more oppressive type of rule Akhnaten had been allegedly moving away from, and that Sinuhe denounced in his final speech. You keep dragging in actual history to refute certain aspects of the film or my comments while asking me if I've even seen the film. You can't have it both ways. The topic is a Hollywood movie, not history. What the real Akhnaten was like has little relevance. The concern here is solely with what the film depicts, whatever its historic accuracies or inaccuracies.

Beaten down compared to which situation? Being slaughtered by the syrians or the hittites? What you call lofty speech is instead a well written prose by the american script writers (no such a thing in the book) that sought a meaningful ending with a christian moral (nothing wrong with that, unless you are Christianophobic). Faith has been spread after all by word mostly, except from one cult in particular, and it managed to reach millions. It hasn't touched the hearts of millions because even individuals like yourself should know that the human nature is flawed and moreover, even the most fervent believer would tell you that you have the CHOICE to believe (or not). Therefore Sinuhe's speech was symbolic, not meaningful for Pharaoh Horembeb, but for the audience that finally heard the famous 'moral of the story'. No, beaten down by Horemheb, obviously. Yes, unfortunately that's been all too common in history -- another reason why, in this film, Sinuhe should have allowed Horemheb to die and become Pharaoh himself. If he so strongly believed in a more just world of some sort, he should have done something about it besides make a ringing speech that solved nothing. You correctly state the obvious about the meaningfulness to the audience of Sinuhe's final speech, and so manage to simultaneously both address and miss my original point: obviously the speech is for modern audiences. IT'S A MOVIE, FOR GOD'S SAKE.. But fine words are no substitute for action. Sinuhe should have done something to try to put his beliefs into reality. He didn't. Which is the entire point of this thread topic. Oh, thanks for your rudimentary lecture on faith. However, I would be interested in knowing which "cult" you're referring to.

Also you cannot legislate 'goodness' from a throne as you foolishly suggest, unless you favour dictatorships and fascism. Real 'goodness' is transmitted by examples and words, not laws. Again, I never suggested any such thing, "foolishly" or otherwise. More falsehoods and distortions. As for me favoring dictatorships, you're the one who favored the stronger Horemheb taking over to combat foreign adversaries. I'm amused by your absolutely inane statement about dictatorships and fascism legislating "goodness". That's a new one. (You also contradict yourself: if dictatorships and fascism could legislate goodness, then it would be possible to transmit such a thing by law.) And by the way, history has proven you wrong: you can, sometimes, legislate goodness. The various civil rights laws passed in the United States in the 1960s, for example, broke through the force of ingrained prejudice and discrimination and compelled people to treat others more fairly. Obviously many people have continued to carry racist or other hateful beliefs, but much of the blatant "badness" of prejudice that previous generations routinely exercised has vanished or at least been mitigated.

It is 1300 years and not 2000 and the reference was not about Sinuhe but about the birth of monotheism, which is truly connected with Akhnaten as historical figure. In the movie I believe it's 2000 years, but whatever the number, it's irrelevant. Of course the reference is not to Sinuhe -- it's to Christ -- as the end of the movie states. Who said otherwise? It does not say "monotheism" anywhere -- the word is never mentioned in the film, though the intent is clear. This is one of your weirder statements, not only making factual misstatements but arguing a point that was never in dispute.

Again according to who? You? the movie received 6.5 out of 1600 votes, hardly a failure. All in all, the majority disagrees with you, unless you want to impose your taste as you do with your morality and your judgement in screen play writing. First, I said nothing about the movie being a "failure", so I don't know what you're talking about. (Although it was in fact a box-office disappointment.) "The majority disagrees with" me. So what? An opinion at variance with some alleged majority is wrong simply because more people disagree with it? That's a pretty stupid statement. Besides, relying on a 6.5 rating from 1600 people as proof of something is ridiculous. 1600 people out of eight billion in the world isn't exactly a large number. As for imposing my taste, morality and judgment, you're simply dishonest. How am I "imposing" anything on anybody? I'm offering my opinions, period. On the contrary, by citing some supposed "majority" opinion, it's you who are attempting to squelch any dissenting views and impose the so-called "majority" viewpoint.

You talk about the book while it is clear you did not read it, as I said the book is very different...with an underlying description of human nature, AS IT IS, not as you WISH IT WOULD. Demand apologies to Waltari's descendants for not following your mighty advice. He is only the most appreciated Finnish writer with this book being a known best seller. How many books have you penned so far? First, I never said I read the book, therefore never commented about its contents. My sole reference to it was actually based on some things you said. Second, I'm not concerned with the book, only the film. Third, once again you're off on this tangent about my supposedly wanting to have the film describe human nature or events as I "wish" they were. I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH STATEMENTS OR REFERENCES. You are a liar when you make such claims, and again, I defy you to point out where I said such things. This thread concerns Sinuhe and his final speech, in lieu of his actually taking some productive actions; nothing more. The rest of your insinuations are out of your own mind. As to Waltari, I've never mentioned anything about him, good or bad. So what's your problem? Just another false issue you've invented. And no, I've never penned a book. I write for newspapers and lecture on film. How many books have you penned? How many movies have you made? And what does any of this mean or prove? That only people who like a book or movie can comment on it? Criticism is not permitted?

Modern politics are exactly the same as ancient politics, hence the common say Historia magistra vitae which is above your paygrade and very relevant to this movie and to today's life, because human nature has not changed at all. "Exactly the same"? Oh, really? "Human nature hasn't changed"? No, in some ways it has. Many human attitudes have, certainly. "Above my paygrade." Coming from someone whose musings are mostly inventions, falsehoods and character attacks and betray an inability to read and grasp what has been written, that is pathetic and smarmy.

Frankly I have a life and what Horembeb does is not keeping me awake at night as it does with you. Which is why you've written TWO page-long screeds criticizing me (about whom you know nothing) personally and what you claim I wrote. You are pathetic, and laughable.

It just amazes me how some people spend hours spewing hate against writers, script writers and message board members and then talk about the honor in being 'fair and just'. I bet you cannot see the irony in what you write. If I'm missing any irony, you have an impenetrable mental block about it. I never "spewed hate" against writers (cite one place where I did), and here again, you're lying to make a false point. As to doing same to "message board writers", it is you who started the name-calling in your first entry here. And I need point to nothing more than your erudite statement:

After all, unlike yourself who obviously think yourself as perfect, he was pretty aware of his shortcomings and his failures and he was probably doubtful his whole life...You know, in movies and arts a conflicted, multifaceted character is always more interesting than a righteous know it all dick. It just amazes me how anyone could take a criticism of a plot point and transform it into a claim to being perfect, let alone "a righteous know it all dick." Anyone reading your posts would much more likely ascribe those attibutes to you...especially since this is all above my paygrade. Spoken as only a perfect, know-it-all-something could.

"Excuse me, where did I say any such thing? I don't believe I even mentioned "science", but if so it was in an offhand, incidental way. I certainly never wrote that Sinuhe would have "continued" anyone's pursuit of science."...from your post at Sat Jun 15 2013 22:22:18 (Your citation of a portion of my quote, and your response in full.) Stop lying, and try quoting my entire response to you made on June 21, which covers this matter: Excuse me, where did I say any such thing? I never said Akhnaten had promoted science -- never, nowhere. My lone mention of science was in an offhand, incidental way, listing it with "learning" as things Sinuhe would have been free to pursue had he become Pharaoh. I never even said Sinuhe would do so -- only that he would have been "free" to, as one of many possible improvements to life he could have promoted. And the reason I mentioned science in that context was because Sinuhe, in fact, did have an early interest in science, of a sort, thanks to his surgeon father and his other studies. However, I never wrote that Sinuhe would have "continued" anyone's pursuit of science, or even promoted it on his own. Nor did I ever claim that Akhnaten or anyone else was "pro-science", as you inartfully write. Too difficult for you to understand, or does it simply expose yet another of your distortions?

About condemns millions to misery. Of course there was misery, under Akhnaten and throughout human history. The question is indeed a relative one -- would things have been better under Sinuhe than Horemheb? Again, I never stated a conclusion, for we can never know what would have happened in an alternative scenario. What we can say is that if Sinuhe's intentions were "better" -- more humane -- than Horemheb's -- as the film clearly shows -- then by allowing Horemheb to attain the throne Sinuhe is indeed condemning people to misery -- a greater misery, if you wish. So, apart from having omitted a suitable adjective, I am indeed saying that situation A (Sinuhe) is better than siuation B (Horemheb) -- or, more accurately, that A offers the opportunity to be better than B. We can never know, but we can postulate the chance of a "better" outcome under a different philosophy of leadership. It may well have failed, but the chance was there, which it wasn't under Horemheb. And "misery" does not solely mean "poorer" -- it's not only an economic state. It also entails physical oppressions (torture, enslavement, beatings, and so on). The point is not that Sinuhe would have ended all such things, only that he had the potential to alleviate some degree or extent of suffering and oppression. Your comment about eliminating famine with the stroke of a pen is a ridiculous piece of silliness.

On Nazi Germany: so they never took hold of the jews possessions? that is itself a form of enrichment because you basically seize properties for free. It has been done by several totalitarian regimes in every century and it did work plenty of times otherwise why would this be still in fashion? Yes, but that doesn't mean Germany didn't have what you called "poverty problems". In any case, confiscating the property of Jews and others enriched the state only slightly -- in the scheme of things, it was a tiny percentage of the national wealth. And since this wealth was not created, only transferred from one group to another within the same country, it did not add anything to the national wealth. The average German never benefitted from such confiscations, which were not sold for cash or goods, but merely distributed to the Nazi hierarchy. Poverty always existed in Nazi Germany.

[The quote of mine you cited]"Besides, what Germany did get was not "money" -- they got relatively little -- but mostly raw materials and slave laborers. " [And your response:] lol, which does not translate in money in any shape or form, free slave work from millions of jews was a financial burden

Thank you for agreeing with my point! Or did you bother to go back and see what you originally wrote? A verbatim citation of your original quote: Hiltlerian Germany was pretty rich, the germans didn't have any poverty problems. Plenty of money flew to Germany from the conquered territories, so how you can say that Egypt was 'poorer' under Horembeb has got no basis.

So, first, "Plenty of money flew into germany [sic] from the conquered territories". Oh, wait, now this "does not translate in money in any shape or form, free slave work from millions of jews [sic] was a financial burden." You've just completely contradicted yourself, and effectively agreed with me that most of what Germany got was slave labor and raw materials -- not money. Economically the war was a disaster for Germany even before it began losing. You really should keep your statements straight. (Plus I never said Egypt was poorer under Horemheb. I never broached the subject. You made this up.)

I guess everything you don't like are pretty superficial and meaningless. Since you have already rewritten history, why don't you rewrite the book and the movie? so that everything will fit your worldview and you wouldn't have to bear idiots on a message board that dare to question your remarks, exactly as Horembeb did with Sinuhe. Banished for things he said. But you are the one knowing it all about fairness and justice as it shines from every line your write.

I really do not know what your problem is, suxxxann. For someone who "has a life" you certainly get carried away about The Egyptian, with your nastiness, lies and distortions. Most of what you've written about my alleged statements is inaccurate, dishonest, contradictory or invented. You haven't a clue about me, but started right off the bat calling me names and making vicious and purposeless personal attacks. You have made things up, dragged in irrelevant aspects, been gratuitously insulting, and in the end only wound up being exactly what you claim I am: "the knowing it all", attacking others who disagree with your remarks, disparaging others' intelligence and knowledge. You, not I, started the hate speech and name-calling. Everything you attack exists in yourself. The few good or interesting points you raised are drowned in a sea of bile. And all this over what? The ending of a movie! Your responses have been so over-the-top, dishonest and splenetic that I wonder what your real interest in all this is? Why are you so defensive about this movie? Why all these ravings? You even accuse me of attacking Waltari, about whom I said nothing. You loftily say you have a life and are too busy to worry about this film as you claim I do. I trust you had a straight face when you wrote that. Apparently, from your lengthy diatribes and frantic, bilious outbursts, The Egyptian IS your life.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

hob,

Three points I think are material to this whole veeeery lengthy discussion, and I'll try to be brief:

1) You use phrases like, "allowing Horem-heb to die". . . Man, we're talking about murdering him in cold-blood with poison, not allowing him to die, in order to become pharaoh and take the power! Sinuhe stopped at committing a double murder. A noble act, inspired by the words, not the power, of the man he'd murdered moments before. How could Sinuhe assume Akhenaten's regal position by violating the non-violent code of his mentor in such a base and hypocritical fashion? Had the roles been reversed in the film, Akhenaten would have done, I think, precisely what his recalcitrant pupil did -- all the way into exile. . . As in my post of 6/21, I'm still a little stunned at your insistence that murder was what Sinuhe should have done, believing as he did, to bring about a more benevolent, it shall have been hoped, monarchy of his own (patterned after Akhenaten's religious precepts). That's a kind of "Triumph of the Will" formulation, imo.

2) Again, you insist that having eschewed murder, Sinuhe did nothing. But, he did enough to get himself arrested and put on trial for his life, or, as it turned out, "exile for life" -- a great deal. This in addition to having given up a golden yet nefarious opportunity to become a God-king for life. (Again, see my post of 6/21.)

3) Laws do not change attitudes (except minimally in some). They change behavior. Your examples of civil rights laws in the U.S. simply don't work. This is a republic. The laws come after the attitudes. Had the peoples' representatives acted against their constituents' wishes they would have been tossed out and the laws invalidated, somehow, by their replacements. Laws simply codify changes in attitudes to affect behavior -- even in dictatorships (why dictatorships rely so heavily on propaganda as a precursor to their dictates).

Oh, yes . . . what the hell is a "Farnetication"?

Sorry to "but in" here, but . . .

Best

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Hey cwent,

Yeah, I'm kinda weirded out by the intensity and ridiculousness of the turn much of this thread has taken. Anyway, to your points:

1) Yeah, I was being circumspect when I said "allowing him to die". Which is, in a sense, what happened -- after all, no one forced Horemheb to take the drink, or tried to. But this is hair-splitting. However, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that I think Sinuhe should have murdered Horemheb. Basically, he's already killed once, and worse, the good man. Then he suddenly gets religion -- literally -- and lets the bad man not only live, but rule with malice and oppression. (But he gets to make that self-satisfied speech!) I'm not advocating murder or even regicide, but since Sinuhe had no qualms about killing one man, what difference would it make, morally or ethically, to make it two -- especially given the inescapable pragmatic aspects that at least some good might come out of his acts. As it is, only evil took hold, his guilt as to murder remains, and others suffer for his sudden attack of ethics.

All this, however, wouldn't bother me much but for that final, smug, ringing speech about the nobler world he sees a-comin'. Had he just taken his medicine and not made this pious, holier-than-thou pronouncement, it would have been unobjectionable. It's his declamation of moral superiority (oh, yeah, aside from that little murder), all to no purpose, while allowing evil to triumph at least in the short (i.e., 2000 years-plus) run, that I find hypocritical and annoying.

2) Sinuhe did "do nothing". "Allowing" himself to get arrested for murder [and is that what he was arrested for? I thought it was for trying to kill Horemheb, not knocking off Akhenaten; anyway...] is hardly "doing something". That's like saying Al Capone allowed himself to be arrested for income tax invasion. But so what? That's just more of his self-righteousness coming out: look how noble I am, I didn't run because I am such a good man of God now that I'll take my punishment and make this great speech. It's still all ego masquerading as selfless nobility. "Doing something" means acting on his beliefs for the good of the greatest number. All men are sinners, but many atone for their sins by helping others (Saint Augustine, among millions of others), not simply declaring what great guys they are for taking their punishment while others undergo suffering they might have alleviated. That's the problem.

3) Laws can -- I never said "do" -- change attitudes as well as behavior, and if you re-read what I wrote I believe I said that attitudinal changes on race did indeed follow civil rights legislation, albeit gradually, over time. Your analysis of the passing of the civil rights laws in the mid-60s is inaccurate. True, there had been some shift in public attitudes on race relations that made passage possible. But much of the public, mainly in the South, remained obstinately opposed to such legislation, and continued to oppose it for years. Congress barely broke the filibuster of the bill, whose passage may only have come about in reaction to JFK's assassination and LBJ's legislative mastery. Racial attitudes remained unchanged in millions, and as for laws affecting behavior, the number of lynchings, police beatings and the like continued for several more years -- hardly changes in behavior. There's no neat, cut-and-dried pattern for such things, but changes in behavior and attitudes often follow passage of a law encouraging or mandating certain acts or actions. Yet even today racism holds sway in some areas of the public discourse, if that's an apt word for the vile bigotry emanating from some quarters.

4) I have no idea what the hell "farnetication" is either. I wasn't even going to bother asking, particularly someone who has so much trouble with "hystory".

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on any of these matters. Just one or two final comments:

"Then he suddenly gets religion -- literally -- and lets the bad man not only live but rule with malice and oppression."

I think the idea was that Akhenaten's dying speech (forgiving Sinuhe in a Christ-like fashion) pushed him over the top in his building conversion. Whether or not this worked dramatically is a subjective judgement. You, obviously, would argue it didn't -- no way. I believe the writers were constructing a dynamic paralleling that of Judah's conversion in "Ben-Hur". The seminal moment for Judah was at the crucifixion, after Jesus had said "Father forgive them ...". Judah was, then and there, though after some softening, a new man. Same Sinuhe.

Yes, he let the bad man live -- in the same spirit of Atenism/Christianity he'd just heard articulated by the man he did kill.

I'm not so sure Sinuhe knew that Horem-heb was intending to rule with "oppression" and "malice" -- just that he would strongly resist invasion and restore the old Gods. Remember, he also believed Horem-heb was the pharaoh Egypt wanted, for the same reasons. Besides, at this point, what in hell could Sinuhe do about Horem-heb's impending rule and/or his specific intentions (his having rejected, at the moment of his epiphany, murder as a means to that end), but to put on the sackcloth (like an apostle) and speak against his former friend? Sinuhe had no friends, relatives, or connections whatsoever at the end -- all dead or in hiding by then. As he says in his exile -- "I am ending life as I began it -- alone."

"All men are sinners, but many atone for their sins by helping others ..."

Quite true, but some (Sinuhe in this case) repent of their sins by "sinning no more", as Sinuhe began his atonement by not killing a second time. A good thing and, as I said, a "noble" act considering what he, personally, traded for that sackcloth. May we not also consider that Sinuhe was "helping others" by bringing Akhenaten's words and philosophy to them, like the apostle Paul, for example?

There seems to me no evidence that Sinuhe "let himself" be arrested, unless one makes the argument that his new-found Aten-esque non-violence would indicate a kind of passive resistence in lieu of a fight. I seriously doubt Sinuhe would have let himself be arrested for treason and get killed by Horem-heb when found guilty, merely in order to boast about his "self-righteousness" in a speech he had no idea they would let him make in the first place. Seems to me, Sinuhe was not arrested for considering the murder of Horem-heb before he became pharaoh, but for Sinuhe's preaching treason. The prosecutor/priest never even mentioned the episode.

Can't agree with you that the civil rights laws led to a national transformation in social consciousness (again, except for a relative few). The reverse is true. Sometimes laws aggravate animosities every bit as much as they may mitigate them. Thomas Sowell in several of his books documents the history of the civil rights movement from WWII onward. Can't remember the specifics to reference, and this isn't the place to debate an entirely different and huge topic, anyway. Btw, when I said laws are to "affect behavior", I didn't mean to imply they are always successful in doing so -- especially if social attitudes aren't generally complicitous before-hand.

Hope you and the Mrs. had a great Independence Day!

Best, as always

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

No, I see your points, and understand them and what the film is doing. But yes, my point is expressly that I don't agree with that resolution -- that is, taken in the imaginary context that these were real people.

Dramatically, I think the film resolves itself the only way it could. From that purely cinematic aspect, it more or less has to take that course.

But looking at it from the perspective of the lives of these fictional, and fictionalized, characters, while I quite see the intended point of Sinuhe's self-sacrifice, I still argue he accomplishes nothing -- not even "bringing the word" to others by his subsequent writings. No one ever takes notice of these from what we can see or infer. He does indeed die as he has lived, alone. And, whatever message the audience may get, within the film (taking it as real life for this discussion) his actions and musings have no meaning for or effect upon his contemporaries.

I still say, that whatever his moral conflicts or sudden epiphanies, he should have acted in the way that held out the best hope for some advancement of the human condition. Or, at least, not act so self-satisfied about not doing so, in his final public peroration.

Two small things: I thought you said he "allowed" himself to be charged with whatever crime he's charged with -- if not using that word, words to that effect: that he voluntarily, or at least willingly, sacrificed himself by letting Horemheb put him on trial, and that this constituted some sort of affirmative action (no contemporary pun intended).

Also, I disagree that he didn't know what kind of Pharaoh Horemheb would be. He knew him intimately and understood precisely what kind of narrow, cruel, arrogant ruler he'd be. Yet and still, he let him come to reign. Remember, it was only after Horemheb takes over and reintroduces a more oppressive rule that Sinuhe states that he's the Pharaoh Egypt wants. Clearly Sinuhe knew what would result when he stopped Horemheb from drinking the poison, and understood what his dumb countrymen preferred. Had he perceived them otherwise, he might have acted differently by not warning Horemheb.

Any of this sound like the past week in Cairo?

Yes -- no more contemporary politics. Here, anyway. Civil rights for Hitterites!

(Closest thing to a Pharaoh I could find.)

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

Everything that goes on in Egypt nowadays confuses me even more than the workings of poor ol' Sinuhe's conflicted inner-self!

Hey . . . how did you find that little pharaoh guy?!

(First time I've ever used two exclamation points in a two sentence post!) (Ah, that is three exclamation points in a three . . .!) (Ah, no, well . . . you get the idea)

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Since my last visit here, they've changed the make-up of the message boards (mostly for the worse, in my opinion -- confusing, harder to read and write, and badly laid-out, albeit with a handful of minor improvements). So I had to learn anew how to get that little Pharaoh-type guy. Click on "Emoticons" above. Now, instead of beng able to see them all at once, you have to scroll down through individual images. This particular one comes early -- it's called "cloak". He kind of looks like something in Vegas. A fair pharaoic approximation.

Congratulations on the triple !s above, cwente!!!!

[–] molarmaven59 11 years ago

Dear hobnob53:

True.

That is why to this day, after having read the book and seen the film so many times, I do not understand Sinuhe.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Dear molarmaven59,

Thank you. I apologize for the unfortunate tone some of this thread has veered into, and for my part in, perhaps, aggravating it. At least, whether you agreed with what I said or not, I could expect a reasoned, respectful, honest discussion with you.

I have never seen or read the book. Is it worth reading?

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 11 years ago

I am not molarmaven, but I have read it and it goes beyond the film as Sinuhe goes on many adventures in other parts of the ancient world. If U enjoy ancient travel logues U may like it. I have a "hard" for ancient Kemet so I enjoyed it, but I collect all things Egyptiana. I am not a molarmaven, but U may call me "the Great Aholeran". Thank U and good sailing.

Kakistocratic crack-pottery rules.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

In the prospective words of Sinuhe: "Oh, Jesus!"

[–] Phagocyte 10 years ago

I've just wasted the best part of a morning reading this entire thread. An intelligent and thought-provoking discussion that sadly degenerated into petty bickering and animosity (please, do we need to be so fastidious about spelling - especially when it's obviously the person's second language?)

One thing I kept wondering, was Sinuhe genuinely converted to Atenism? It seemed to me that the Pharaoh's dying words merely crystallised his former cynicism and fatalism (about wordly affairs such as politics and human nature and relationships) and at best made him sympathise with the dying Akhenaten's inchoate sentiment of 'deus caritas est'. Though he previously said "I believe in nothing", he is now - agnostic? deist? He rejects the notion of the will to power - but that is hardly an epiphany. His conspicuous wearing of the cross-symbol seemed more an anti-establishment gesture, and his final speech, while echoing some of the utopian sentiments of his dying friend, was not (to me) quite what hobnob described as "finding his principles", "enlightenment" or "change he could believe in" (how's that for an anachronism?!)

What I find incredibly implausible, however, is not Sinuhe's actions at the end (in refusing to carry his plan through), but his initial decision to go ahead with it. Apparently, he wants to kill Akhenaten as revenge for the death of Merit. How illogical is that? He even says to Horemheb after he enters the temple, "It's not your fault", or words to that effect... This really annoyed me. Any of you illustrious gentlemen or ladies have any comment on this point?

Incidentally, I agree wholeheartedly with cwente2 on most points, including the so-called 'Christian bandage' at the end. I saw it as an attempt to impress upon the audience a historical perspective, to inspire a sense of wonder of the magnitude of antiquity of this glorious culture.

And as a very minor point, when Sinuhe says "let them go" (outside the tomb) I assumed he was referring to the horses driving the chariot, wanting them to make haste so he could save Merit from the impending massacre.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Phagocyte: As the person who started this thread, I'm sorry you feel you "wasted" your morning reading it. It's true that many of us allowed it to stray off-topic and into some unfortunate passages, about which I've expressed my personal regrets. That said, such is the usual way of IMDb posts, for better or worse. If you believed your time was wasted I'm surprised you bothered reading through it.

In any case, you wrote a very able and interesting post. I agree with you that Sinuhe's initial decision to participate in -- and, as it develops, carry out -- the murder of Akhenaten seems, not so much implausible as counter-principled, or devoid of principle; almost a final act of nihilism before recovering some sense of purpose or meaning in life; implausible in that sense. But however one interprets it, it is an act that serves no purpose in the greater scheme of things. It's a condemnation of humanity and of the noblest impulses of man. Yet it is indeed an important aspect to consider, especially in light of Sinuhe's subsequent actions, and in understanding his tortured character.

All of which brings us back to the origins of this post: the emptiness of Sinuhe's actions beginning with his refusal to finish the job by killing the greater threat, Horemheb. I like your discourse on what Sinuhe's final oration reflects -- what kind of philosophy or belief system, whether his wearing of the ankh is an anti-establishment gesture, and so on. But while I think this is an interesting venue to explore, it essentially makes too complex a fairly straightforward evolution in his thinking. (Or perhaps the realization that his thinking has come full circle, a return to its moral and ethical foundations.)

Whatever the form or specific content of Sinuhe's re- or newly-discovered philosophy, its meaning -- as far as the audience is concerned -- is nothing more than a hokey, Hollywoodized effort to project Sinuhe as a far-sighted man of faith bringing the word of Christ to the world two thousand years before the birth of Jesus...an intention given blatant expression by the film's heavy-handed and utterly gratuitous statement to that precise effect. I believe that efforts to read more into his statements and actions at the end can make for fascinating discussion but have in the end no meaning as far as the film is concerned. This movie is a superficial exercise: there is no there there. Again, it's fun to delve into it in the manner you have, but there's no indication there is anything deeper to it all than what's presented on the two-dimensional screen. In short, you're crediting it with more thought and complexity than it intends or, certainly, merits.

Finally, about your thought on...

the so-called 'Christian bandage' at the end. I saw it as an attempt to impress upon the audience a historical perspective, to inspire a sense of wonder of the magnitude of antiquity of this glorious culture

I can agree with that, but once again only in the context of the film's very superficiality. The notion that this film imparts any true, or should I say, honest, sense of awe and wonder of any depth or significance is amusing, to say the least. Its iconography may be proto-Christian, but it's in service to a self-important, overtly portentous coda designed to bowl over the easily impressed. It's a phony wind-up, nothing more. And to return to my original topic, in terms of the characters in the film, that is, in terms of the actual historic effect it would have on those who shared the Earth with Sinuhe in his lifetime and after, his final epiphany, change of heart, whatever you care to call it, had no impact on or meaning to any living soul, then or for those ensuing twenty centuries.

Sinuhe's actions were gestures indeed: or, perhaps not. They did insure the advent of a great despotism and the burial of the gentler philosophy Sinuhe belatedly claimed to espouse, things which are not the results of mere gestures. But they were less than even gestures as far as implementing the teachings of the philosophy that lay behind them. True Christianity, when it came, was put into action as well as words by its early converts. Sinuhe talked a great game, but it was too late and devoid of positive efforts to bring it into the service of mankind. He was (self-) satisfied, and the audience is conned into believing that something of lasting and mysterious significance had come about, but in fact this was all much ado about nothing. For all the benefits to the human condition Sinuhe effected, he might just as well have never lived.

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

hob,

"For all the benefits to the human condition Sinuhe effected, he might just as well have never lived."

Sounds more cynical than the cynicism that dominated most of Sinuhe's life.

Considering Sinuhe is a fictional character, it seems to me he is designed to represent the "what if's" of his creator's imagination -- like many fictional characters thrown into real historical events, eg., Judah Ben-Hur, Tom Jones, Atticus Finch, etc. As such, he "lives" even today -- in a book, a movie, and even in these posts. Ie., certainly, there may have been an historical Sinuhe. I presume the thought crossed Waltari's mind when he fashioned the man and his fictional contemporaries representing ideas, which we're hearing discussed yet today on this thread. . . And, so, Mr. Sinuhe may very well have "effected the human condition" -- more than we know.

And, I'm still having trouble with your idea that Sinuhe simply murdered the wrong man -- for humanity's sake. That's an idea that's been popular for millenia with fanatics of many stripes, and, in this particular fiction, would have left us with a morally ambiguous denouement more dangerous than were, even, Baketamon's seductions in their capacity to tempt.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

cwente,

Where did you get the idea that I think "Sinuhe simply murdered the wrong man"? I must have expressed myself poorly.

First, there is nothing "simple" about murder, of anybody. But I never endorsed Sinuhe murdering anyone. My only point is that, having determined to commit not one but two murders, Sinuhe made a botch of the entire business by making sure to kill the good man, then stopping short and sparing the bad one.

It would have been better had he killed no one...certainly more moral and ethical. The fact that he even contemplated regicide speaks ill of him, and robs him of any remaining moral authority in my opinion -- thereby rendering his smugly noble final peroration before Horemheb all the more cynical and hollow.

But having taken the plunge, he should have completed the job and made sure that Horemheb also died. At that point it isn't a question of morality, which has ceased to have much meaning in this context, at least as far as Sinuhe personally is concerned. (Morally, killing two isn't much different from killing one.)

Rather, it's salvaging the best alternative then possible, not for Sinuhe's sake (he's already morally bankrupt and not worth saving, in my view), but for the sake of the hundreds of thousands, the millions, who would suffer under Hormheb (and did not suffer under Ankenaten), but who would remain protected under Sinuhe's rule. What is wrong about that? Such a decision does indeed have its ethical components, or effects. It may at base seem merely a pragmatic choice, but in the absence of any remaining, meaningful consideration regarding Sinuhe himself, this is a reasonable -- even, in its effects, moral -- one. People are being spared a savage ruler, and a more ethical way of life might emerge from its ignoble beginnings...as has often happened in human affairs.

And why not kill an evil man for humanity's sake? It's the classic old moral question: if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you? Sinuhe should not have killed anyone, or allowed anyone to be killed; but having crossed that threshold, do what's necessary to have as positive an outcome for the greatest number of people possible. Thanks to Sinuhe's self-satisfied wrestling with his good old conscience, everyone (save Horemheb) suffers.

My final statement above may seem cynical, and while it was not intended to be, so what? I hold Sinuhe in little esteem. His actions were throughout motivated by self-regard and self-interest. Even in his final acts -- the killing of a good man and the saving of a wicked one, and his last-gasp stab at a false nobility of purpose -- are entirely the products of a self-absorbed personality: Look at me, I'm so great. He cares for no one but himself and at each step of his life makes the wrong decision, costing lives and setting back the cause of human enlightenment by millennia. And this film (and book) have the audacity to present him as some kind of moral lighthouse in the dim march of mankind?! More than ridiculous, it's insulting.

The proposition that Sinuhe represents the "what ifs" of Waltari's imagination may or may not be true, but really makes little difference. Sinuhe's final set of ideas may sound fine; but they're ideas put forward in a manner designed solely to exalt their utterer, elevate him to a false moral plane for no purpose other than to make himself appear superior to his judges -- not because these principles will ever be known by or have any effect on bettering mankind.

It's a cheap appeal to the film's modern audiences, gulling them into imbuing this nonsense with some significance where none exists, especially in the film's final, pretentious and offensively smug "All this happened two hundred centuries before Christ" signature...certainly the most cynical denouement of all.

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

"Where did you get the idea that I think, 'Sinuhe simply murdered the wrong man'?"

In statements like: "But having taken the plunge, he should have completed the job and made sure that Horemheb also died."

First, let me make clear that I don't think you condone murder. That goes without saying, I hope, and, so, enough said on that matter.

Second, we take very different views of the intent of this picture (and, derivatively, of the novel):

For example, I don't believe your prerogative that Horemheb is "evil", nor that "hundreds of thousands" or "millions would suffer under Horemheb" is apparent anywhere in the narrative. All I can gather from the film is that Horemheb is a military man, ambitious, determined to fight an invading army, and that he will return the country to public worship of "the old gods". His purge was, well, common practice back in the day. In short, he'd be "the pharaoh Egypt wanted." And, indeed, they did want that according to Sinuhe, the priests, Baketamon, rioting thousands, etc. (and in history) -- a pretty decent endorsement for a leader. And, thus, no different, really, than many pharaohs before, or after, him. . . Even if you are right, how could Sinuhe have known, at the time he murdered Akhenaten, that this imagined malevolence would become a reality? And, would Sinuhe's mental calculations have been right enough to murder an old friend -- a priori? Looking at your Hitler analogy, would anyone have been justified in killing, on suspicion, a raging German paper-hanger in the 1920's?

In addition, I believe The Egyptian is a story of a search for life's meaning, an admittedly "wasted life" assembled during that search, and, ultimately, redemption with the sudden acceptance of a long sought-after conviction (Atenism). Had Sinuhe stayed consistent in his confused behavior -- his views un-altered by Akhenaten's final speech -- by killing Horemheb too, he would have remained a moral model identical to that of Horemheb (no epiphany) -- both men committing murder for passionate reasons entirely their own; ie., each man would become pharaoh, each would govern Egypt by codes, and with privileges, dear to himself. We can't tell what Horemheb would do as pharaoh, and neither can we tell what Sinuhe would do. We can only speculate. What's the expression -- power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Waltari and the film's producers are trying to tell us, IMO, that Sinuhe stopped his course and became committed to an ideal, which included abandoning the moral inconsistency of committing murder for reasons of either personal or the greater good.

If Sinuhe had done what you suggest (your quote above), he would have ended a carbon copy, fundamentally, of Horemheb -- no better and no worse. The Egyptian is much like Ben-Hur thematically, and had Sinuhe taken the course you recommend, he, too, would have earned Esther's admonition to Judah (in Ben-Hur)-- "It's as if you had become Messala." For Messala, read Horemheb.

You don't like Sinuhe. Well, I don't believe it was the intent of the creators of this fiction that you should; rather, that you believe redemption and the sacrifices necessary to obtain it (loss of the power of a god, wealth, and the lovely arms of a princess in exchange for the sackcloth of an itinerant preacher wanted for treason) can give meaning to one's life however late in life it may come. Essentially, a Christian message as the film's post-script reminds us.

I noted what I think to have been some of the dramatic mis-steps in the narrative in my post to another recent poster here.

Thanks,
and Best as always

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Hi cwente, just to take some of your points....

"Where did you get the idea that I think, 'Sinuhe simply murdered the wrong man'?"

In statements like: "But having taken the plunge, he should have completed the job and made sure that Horemheb also died."

But that isn't saying that he murdered "the wrong man". (Although he did.) It's saying that he stopped one murder short of doing what was best all around -- once he had committed the first murder. As I said later, better not to have killed anyone. But once he did kill, then complete the job he had, after all, set out to do -- kill Horemheb and achieve the throne for himself. That offered the best chance to see Akhenaten's beliefs carried on.

Even if you are right, how could Sinuhe have known, at the time he murdered Akhenaten, that this imagined malevolence would become a reality? And, would Sinuhe's mental calculations have been right enough to murder an old friend -- a priori? Looking at your Hitler analogy, would anyone have been justified in killing, on suspicion, a raging German paper-hanger in the 1920's?

Sinuhe knew exactly what kind of man Horemheb was -- knew his greed, arrogance, lust for power. It didn't require any imagination to know the kind of Pharaoh he'd make; it required only information, and Sinuhe had plenty about his pal. Your point about whether he'd have had the mental calculations to murder an old friend make no sense -- because he obviously did, before he had his epiphany at the last moment. He went in planning on killing both Akhenaten and Horemheb. He suddenly -- too late for the Pharaoh -- realized what he was doing was wrong. Well and good for him...but for who else? In any case, until that moment he was all set to see Horemheb die, a priori. My Hitler analogy may have been slightly off as to its nature (I posited killing him knowing what we know now, not precisely Sinuhe's situation), but it was fairly close -- because, as I said, Sinuhe certainly did know the kind of wicked Pharaoh Horemheb would be.

Earlier in that paragraph you mentioned Sinuhe's telling Horemheb that he was the Pharaoh Egypt wanted. How do we know that's correct? There is no indication of what "Egypt" wanted in the film. That those closest to Akhenaten wanted him dead for their own purposes is clear, but while Egypt was not a democracy and the people's voices counted for nothing, still, "Egypt" is more than just the ruling clique. In my view, this is simply more rhetoric on Sinuhe's part, a recognition of his powerlessness, and a cynical attack on Horemheb -- an attempt to belittle his importance by telling him in effect that he's not exceptional, he's just what everybody wants. Horemheb may have been too dense to get the dig, but it's there.

Had Sinuhe stayed consistent in his confused behavior -- his views un-altered by Akhenaten's final speech -- by killing Horemheb too, he would have remained a moral model identical to that of Horemheb (no epiphany) -- both men committing murder for passionate reasons entirely their own;

I agree with your statement that the film is about a man's search for redemption, which is after all obvious. But why do you term Sinuhe's pre-epiphany actions or beliefs as "confused"? That presupposes a "correct" moral plane against which all actions are judged. But it's just as likely that Sinuhe's more selfish moves were perfectly clear and thought-out -- merely based on a different set of ethical values. His floundering through life and beliefs may be "confused", but the moral standards and behavior he exhibits during this period seem logical and consistent with the manner of life he was pursuing. There is nothing to suggest that any of his decisions was the product of confusion.

You're also technically correct that we cannot know what kind of Pharaoh either Horemheb or Sinuhe might be, we can only speculate. But in this case, your accuracy is only technical. As I discussed, it's crystal clear beforehand that Horemheb will be a despotic ruler, and while Sinuhe's moral compass may be in a constant state of flux, it's fairly easy to know that even with occasional lapses he would be a far more moral or ethical Pharaoh.

Waltari and the film's producers are trying to tell us, IMO, that Sinuhe stopped his course and became committed to an ideal, which included abandoning the moral inconsistency of committing murder for reasons of either personal or the greater good.

Of course...which is more or less the point of this thread. By his actions, his sudden change of heart, epiphany, call it what you will, Sinuhe abruptly assumes the role of moral compass -- a role he decreed by himself, for himself. To restate a previous thought, good for him. How does his change help mankind? Who has been positively affected by it?

Had this merely been the tale of a simple man who had not risen to the edge of absolute power, and eventually come to appreciate and take up a "nobler" set of ethical principles, the story would have had a clearer moral lesson, if been less entertaining. But to have as its central character a man who, whatever his beliefs, has it within his grasp to seize power that he can wield for the good of man and put into effect the noble principles he ultimately discovers, only to throw it and humanity's chances away in the throes of a self-regardant assertion of a new morality, is bankrupt as far as imparting any moral lesson goes. At worst, had he not murdered the Pharaoh his actions would have been admirable. But he committed a crime and suddenly sought to atone for it by choosing a course that may be more ethical in one sense, but which conveys consequences for humanity that are decidedly for the worse. And all to no purpose other than extolling Sinuhe's conscience. Jesus left behind followers who at great risk (often death) and with many trials and setbacks spread his word. Sinuhe left no disciples and just died...as I wrote, for all the good he'd done, he might as well not have lived.

And you again imply that his pre-epiphany behavior is not an "ideal". Why isn't it? It may be, by most standards, a corrupt or hypocritical ideal, but it's an ideal nonetheless. What Sinuhe has actually done is not to discover a moral compass, but to switch to a different one. The fact that we might call it the "true" one or the "best" one is a matter of opinion, not objective fact.

If Sinuhe had done what you suggest (your quote above), he would have ended a carbon copy, fundamentally, of Horemheb -- no better and no worse.

I disagree completely. Having murdered Akhenaten, Sinuhe was already a morally compromised man beyond true redemption -- he might be forgiven by some higher power (though punished in some fashion), but that does not erase or negate the crimes and transgressions he committed. In isolation, his act might put him on the same plane as Horemheb. But Sinuhe was not Horemheb, and their actions and beings cannot be judged in isolation. At some point his "better" character, as we have understand throughout is an innate part of him, would have come to the fore and allowed him to be a just ruler. In any case, it was worth the risk. Horemheb was an entirely foreseeable despot. Sinuhe was not.

You don't like Sinuhe. Well, I don't believe it was the intent of the creators of this fiction that you should; rather, that you believe redemption and the sacrifices necessary to obtain it (loss of the power of a god, wealth, and the lovely arms of a princess in exchange for the sackcloth of an itinerant preacher wanted for treason) can give meaning to one's life however late in life it may come. Essentially, a Christian message as the film's post-script reminds us.

Actually, I'm not sure the filmmakers intended that the audience not like Sinuhe. Quite the opposite: they may find him foolish and want to take him by the neck and shake him at times, but fundamentally he was supposed to be a sympathetic character. But of course, it's blatantly obvious (nothing subtle about this picture) that Sinuhe is to be seen -- by what is, after all, a modern audience -- as a proto-Christian. The parable is anything but subtle, and the film, as I've said ad nauseum, drives home the point with that sledge-hammer postscript. That the message is a Christian one makes the entire film (and book) all the more artificial, in that it's pitched to an audience already possessed of the knowledge of what was to come, made more unbearable by its heavy-handed treatment. But unlike the early Christians, who fought and died and ultimately triumphed in sustaining and spreading their faith and bettering mankind (overall: with many exceptions), Sinuhe speaks only to his own life, affects only his own life, and dies with his conscience assuaged but mankind unaware of, uncaring about, and unaffected by, him. It's the ultimate in narcissistic, cynical self-absorption. Nothing "Christian" about it at all, the philosophical similarities notwithstanding.

I did read your other post below but have no particular comment on it. Frankly, this topic is beginning to oppress me! But I will make one, non-philosophical, comment about what you wrote down there (or maybe it'll be up there once this is posted). I don't at all agree that it's the invented Christian-like aspects of the film, or their alleged inability to appeal to audiences in 1954, that sank this film at the box office. That's placing far too much importance on its un-complex message and allegories. Rather, it failed for a very basic reason: it's a long, dragging, boring, artificial, confused and uninvolving film with little to commend it. In short, it's not very good. Simple.

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about this one.

Btw, what I meant about the reason the film wasn't popular rests with the lead's weak character not the Christian connection. Guess I didn't make that clear. We can, however, agree that it's not a very good film, is a bit boring and confused (like Sinuhe), talky, and a downer overall (so's the book). I enjoy watching it from time to time, nevertheless. . . Maybe Gene Tierney's and Jean Simmons' presence has something to do with that?! (Couldn't get into Darvi much, as Zanuck, apparently, could. Ah, I mean that figuratively, of course.)

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Yeah, Mrs. Zanuck wasn't particularly thrilled with Bella after a bit either. I just can't figure out what took her so long.

Actually, based on what you just wrote, we probably do agree about a great deal about this movie. To try to boil our differences down, I think it's that you're looking at the film, Sinuhe and his actions from a moral/ethical/religious/philosophical standpoint and the message or lessons to be taken from these, while I'm approaching it from an essentially pragmatic view of what he accomplishes in the end. I don't know, maybe that makes you a more moral, or morally grounded, person than me. I'd rather see good results for the most people out of bad situations than a personal redemption that does no one else, now or in the future, any good.

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

Perhaps. And it's been a question mankind has been wrestling with since we fell out of the trees.

As Always

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

D'oh!

[–] cwente2 10 years ago

Phagocyte,

Nice post. . . You ask:

"What I find incredibly implausibile, however, is not .... Apparently, he wants to kill Akhenaten as revenge for the death of Merit. How illogical is that? He even says to Horemheb after he enters the temple, "It's not your fault" .... This really annoyed me. Any of you illustrious gentlemen or ladies have any comment on this point?"

A good question/comment. It's all a bit fast, isn't it? Seems to me a dramatic weakness in the narrative. The writers (and they're good ones) relying too much on their words in speeches (too many speeches and too many words in those speeches, IMO) to provide us with the critical turn of events and the denouemment of Sinuhe's long search for meaning. I think they thought Akhenaten's dying speech would do the trick. (It's their metaphor for the crucifixion, IMO.) But, a long speech ain't the same as a man's dying spiked to a wooden cross and in a short sentence asking us to forgive those wielding the hammers. Didn't really work for me, either. Curtiz should have sent the script back and said, "Too many words in the speech, we need a few more scenes, streams of consciousness, dissolves, etc. -- something to make the point more convincingly. . . Ya got 'til midnight tonight to get it back to me!"

The same with "his initial decision", as you put it, to go ahead with the murder. Not too "illogical", however, if it had been "set-up". As it is, I scratched my head (along with you, apparently) about why he wasn't, at least, equally angry at Horemheb whose command it was that sent the deadly arrow in Merit's direction. . . In the space of 1/3 of the film, Sinuhe #1) hates the priests for wanting to kill Akhenaten; #2 hates Horemheb for going along; #3 plans to kill, at Baketamon's temptation, both men & become pharaoh; #4 decides to kill only Akhenaten and not become pharaoh; #5 becomes an Aten convert and traitor to the man he spared earlier (again, explained to us through a pontificating speech delivered in sackcloth). Whew! Too much . . . too fast!

One man's take, anyway.

Btw, somehow, I really enjoy this movie. Love the time period in which it's set, and I do admire the producers for trying to faithfully depict Waltari's world view; a kind of -- the individual can't win against city hall, so to speak. Christianity's the only answer. Thus, a seemingly weak, frustrated and confused "hero" defeated every step of the way -- until he's redeemed. Probably why the picture didn't do well at the box office, at the time. Then, we liked our heroes strong, determined and with a clear moral perspective (Eg., DeMille's leads in the very successful The Ten Commandments, two years later. I admit, the parting of the Red Sea helped.)

[–] shantaar-2 11 years ago

holy crap, just watched this and felt the same sinuhe was such a schmuck!!!!!!!! could've had all of egypt and his hot half-sister but no...

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

shantaar-2 says > holy crap, just watched this and felt the same sinuhe was such a schmuck!!!!!!!! could've had all of egypt and his hot half-sister but no...

You may have watched the movie but, based on what you've said here, I have to assume you didn't really get it.

Sinuhe agreed to murder the Pharaoh and Horemheb and take over power because he believed the Pharaoh was ineffectual and Horemheb would rule with an iron fist. However, when he heard the Pharaoh's dying words he understood what he never could understand before.

All his life Sinuhe had been asking 'why' but he could never get answer. Now he had his answer. We are not always ready for the answers or solutions they seek. Clearly, the Egyptians were not yet ready to embrace a Pharaoh like Akhnaton and, having heard what he said, Sinuhe realized he would not have made the cut either. As he tells Horemheb, the reason he spared his life is because he was the one the Egyptians needed at that time. They weren't ready for anything else.

Beliefs cannot be imposed by force. It has been tried over the years but how hypocritical would it be to use violence to impose beliefs of non-violence, acceptance, and tolerance? That just wouldn't work.

Akhnaton told Sinuhe that the idea of God, one God, does not reside in a temple or any other tangible thing so it cannot be destroyed. The time will come; the people will be ready when the conditions are right. The final shot shows how long it would take for that time to come. It was thirteen centuries before Christ.

By the way, who would want to marry their sister? I know that kind of thing was probably done routinely back then but I don't think that would be a motivating factor for Sinuhe. He'd been burned before by that type of woman. He would have stood for it before but after he really heard what the Pharaoh had to say he didn't want any of what came with it; even though it was his birthright.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] Exar-Sama 7 years ago

This film was a massive waste of time, and I'm in agreement with your points on Sinuhe, a real hopeless case. I'd say the majority of the scenes involving the main characters and the love interests I either zoned off during or willingly walked away to do other things. I wasn't missing much.

However - the actor portraying Akhenaten deserved his own film. The music during his scenes always seemed better than the rest throughout - something about those chorals. Somewhere, buried beneath the cliches plaguing this film is a short and definitely watchable glimpse at one of the most enigmatic rulers of Ancient Egypt.

In a perfect world, maybe we'd have that and not a mess of a story with the contrived ciphers I could care less about.

[–] hobnob53 7 years ago

Glad to find someone who agrees with me. I also mostly agree with your comments about the film overall. But you hit on a really good idea -- that a film about Akhenaten, a real person, would have been far more interesting than this fictionalized, pretentious soap opera centered on a foolish and indecisive man.