MovieChat Forums > Of Kings and Prophets (2016) Discussion > Common criticisms I don't buy into...

Common criticisms I don't buy into...

posted 8 years ago by ehaas-3
2 replies | jump to latest

This show isn't the greatest thing ever, but I liked it. I was reading a random selection of reviews by critics the other day, though, and thought some of their objections were dumb.

Particularly the idea that Saul wasn't portrayed well; that he wasn't "kingly" enough. That he was like some East End gangster. But Saul WAS originally a very common man. I've been meaning to read the original story (or the one that survived, anyway), but Samuel picked him as king based on a command from God or a skeptic might argue a random impulse.

Saul wasn't at the time a very impressive man. He was, in fact, one of the least important members of a weak tribe. Fortunately, he had great strength and courage in battle, but he wouldn't have automatically become some kind of gentleman.

I imagine him a lot like in the show. He's a tough guy with power, surrounds himself with the finer things, marries a classy woman, etc., but it doesn't really rub off on him. He wouldn't have time to improve himself culturally due to the constant state of war.

A related criticism is that Saul is presented as sometimes being foolish. But in the Bible, he is kind of absurd at times and very admirable and brave at others.

The first time he appears in the Bible he is just some guy who is not only very low status but has lost his donkeys and is walking all over the place trying to find them without much luck.

As king, he angers Samuel, usually without meaning to, and loses his (and God's) favor. His daughter marries David against his will. He engages in a weird love/hate relationship with David in which half the time he's his best friend and at other times is trying to kill him.

At least once, he tries to kill his own son for suggesting that trying to kill David isn't very nice.

He's the ultimate flawed hero, which is great.

[–] starwolf 8 years ago

This is a very interesting note and I like a lot of what you say.

I don't agree with your statement that Saul wasn't an impressive man. The reason Samuel (and God) picked him was because he looked like the people's idea of a king. The Bible said he was very handsome and a "head taller than anyone else" (quote is from the NIV, 1 Samuel 9:2).

And his father was wealthy. But as you say he was from the weakest, smallest tribe and was a member of one of the smaller, weaker clans within the tribe.

[–] ehaas-3 8 years ago

Thanks.

I probably didn't phrase it right. I didn't mean that he wasn't impressive as a person (usually), but that reviews I read which said the actor seemed too common to be a king ignored his origins. Also, my interpretation is that he was capable of being a great leader but was sometimes inconsistent and foolish.