G.o.E.K.

While this film is advertised as “the life story of Moses”, it actually only gives attention to Moses’ time in Egypt and his dealings with the Egyptians. Surprisingly, for its mentions of God and declarations of his power, this is less a film about Moses and God’s relationship or God’s commandments than the story of a divinely-chosen man rising to the occasion of being a deliverer himself.

That’s not a negative thing, either- movies are allowed creative license, even when dealing with religious retellings. However but the original account of Moses in the Old Testament doesn’t reveal a hero, much less an impressive, charismatic, Charlton-Heston-type: it shows a shy, awkward man who argued with God *against* going back to Egypt and against being the main speaker to Pharaoh. In fact, it makes a point of calling Moses the “meekest man on the face of the earth”. However, I get it: while an anti-hero prince falling from glory is the type of story for which modern audiences go gaga, loosely-inspired Biblical epics with passionate romance were preferred in the ’50s. (This also leads me to wonder if Heston was partly the reason Moses’ being forbidden from entering the Promised Land- a significant and surprising was relegated to one line in the final scene.) At the same time, though, if Moses’ story was meant to be told differently, and if we are to analyze it based upon what it was meant to be, there had better be something that the creative team *did mean* it to be. In other words, what was the story they wanted to tell? Well, that’s where, I feel, this film breaks down.

Descriptions of the film will more than likely label it an epic: at over three hours and spanning several huge locations, all densely populated and decorated (as an aside, the art direction in this film is truly awesome; the sheer number of elaborate sets, extras, and detailed costumes is often unbelievable), this film has less interest in a character drama than in great happenings and wide views of heroes and villains and good and evil. That’s not to say it can’t be personal, either: it often pulls back its extensive design long enough to focus on Moses’ outer and inner turmoil, but these scenes yet feel epic and distanced in their design: closeups are few and far between, and a narrator often tells us what a character is feeling, rather than allow the audience to draw near to an actor’s performance of that emotion.

Epic storytelling in movies will always be difficult, because the medium itself works against serialized, episodic intervals spanning years, connected by a thin line of themes and/or returning characters. Take the King Arthur legendarium: most adaptions choose specific eras of the Pendragon’s life, such as his ascension to power, and don’t attempt to recount his entire life story, including all his dealings with Tristran and Morgana. This is because movies tell specific stories about specific people and places and, compared to other mediums such as books, poetry, and even records, movies are relatively short and therefore must generally be extremely and narrowly focused.

It is perhaps for this reason that “The Ten Commandments” seems unsure of its status as an epic. It is not narrowly focused on Moses, although we observe him over the course of at least 80 years, but neither is it focused on the large history of the Children of Israel in Egypt or even on God saving them. Like I said, it often seems like Moses’ story, but it has too wide a view of his life events (both in its cinematography and its connection to and understanding of Moses) to be a convincing biographical film.

Some might cite the source material as reason for this: Moses’ account in the Old Testament isn’t especially personal, though we mostly follow him in Exodus. But I think that explanation falls short when we consider that in the source, Moses’ story is neither about him nor a standalone story. It takes place in a book which begins literally at the start of the universe and takes place after and partly because of the story of Joseph, and holds a distinct spot as a history which directly corresponds to and influences the remainder of the Bible, including King David and Jesus.

I considered whether this was meant, then, as an excerpt of a Biblical adaption. This would explain the addition of the narrator, perhaps; many of his monologues are lifted from the Bible, and it certainly make the whole ordeal feel like literature brought directly to the screen, untampered. But several decisions hinder that explanation: first, the addition of Nefretiri and choice to focus so much time on Moses’ chance and temptation to be Pharaoh; second, the general disregard for many of Moses’ mistakes and significant choices; thirdly, and, in my opinion, most importantly: even with its name and its inclusion of God, this is not a story about God delivering the Israelites. Its plot hinges on Moses, not the Lord, its hero is Moses, not the Lord. The 10 commandments of God appear late in the film, and the originals’ destruction as well as God replacing them are mostly glossed over. Even with Rameses’ final declaration of “He is God”, this feels like a background subplot in comparison to the film’s focus on Moses’ romance with Nefretiri.

So I don’t know. Regardless of intention, I do believe that the film effectively communicates some aspects of the Exodus story, and it provides excellent talking points for families who want to discuss this history with their children. If it, also, maybe brings others to wonder about the Exodus story and encourages research and thought about the Old Testament, I love that! Watch it, think about it, appreciate the design. I just don’t know what it wants to be.