The Tribune

By NICOLE BURROWS

If you haven’t yet watched the film Exodus: Gods and Kings, don’t read any further; come back and read this when you’re done watching the movie. If you have already watched it, or once you’re done watching, don’t hesitate to compare and share your thoughts about it.

With it being a Ridley Scott film, I went in expecting the best of everything from Exodus: Gods and Kings. Gladiator left a phenomenal and lasting impression, 14 and a half years ago, and, prior to Exodus, Scott was the undisputed king of historic, epic drama. But, regrettably, I am somewhat disappointed with his latest film; I was really expecting something more … believable.

First, the opening scene is weak and a little bit silly. It really should not set the stage for the film, because it doesn’t allow viewers to take the film as seriously as they should, especially considering the heavy themes embedded in it. By the time Act one, Scene one is over, the viewer has not had a chance to establish an immediate connection with any character, and this tempo continues for the next few scenes.

Also, from the first scene, it is difficult for Christian Bale to convince me that his story, as Moses, is real. His first few lines seem too trivial, flippant even. This scene could have easily been cut from the movie (not crucial to the plot, as other scenes conveyed the same message) or filmed in a different way so as to be of greater effect.

There’s been some backlash about the filmmakers using non-ethnic men to play ethnic male characters. While I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing – as long as the actors can get fully into character and makeup and wardrobe can transform – I don’t think the two leading men, for all their physical appeal and talent (who would have thought men could look so good in plain robes, skirts and dresses), are, together, able to make the audience believe in their story.

I support and subscribe 100 per cent to the technique of deliberately causing movie-goers to struggle with the line between imagination and reality; that’s half the effect of cinema. A film, no matter its genre, should convince the viewer that it is accurate about whatever it’s about.

The actors’ appearances, mannerisms, accents, have a lot to do with the degree of believability of a film as experienced by its audience; call me crazy but I don’t think if you want me to believe I am or could be in the middle of ancient Egypt that I should be hearing British and Australian accents sneaking through the dialogue, as is the case with Exodus.

There are weird bits of comedy in the beginning and throughout the film: the cynical high priestess and the flamboyantly gay viceroy, for example. And in and of themselves they are not bad characterisations, they are just not appropriate to what is conceivably the purpose of telling the Exodus story.

Thrown in the mix are some overpowering pieces of (modern) sappy, irrational man-woman relationship dialogue, depicting modernist expectations that women and men would not have had in ancient Egypt. Moreover, these are the same expectations women and men have in modern times, a fact about “Hollywood” that greatly annoys, because most big studio films continue to depict and create generations of people with false notions of what real relationships are or should be like. “Who’s the only one for you?” is a tiresome theme in 2014, and it is really out of place in a film based on ancient history.

In keeping with the irrational dialogue, while making the character of Zipporah appear as a strong woman because of her work ethic, commitment to her loved ones and her faith, the filmmakers, oddly and simultaneously, make her very weak by her dramatic outbursts about the husband Moses leaving his family and not wanting to stay with her forever and ever and ever. It makes you want to reach into the screen and slap her into consciousness: “Lady, this man has things to do and a whole tribe of people to help set free! Pull yourself together!”

To further diminish the believability of the film, the dialogue, as delivered by a number of the characters, is not always clear and firm. Actors are mumbling their words and their names which many viewers, I’m sure, are hearing for the first time.

And now we come to the casting of the boy child conduit Malak to depict the great ‘I Am’ - a little strange. I do see the need to provide a vehicle for Moses to receive his messages and to battle with his conscience, rather than just talking to a flaming bush, which would probably make the film seem like more of a science fiction flick than an epic drama. But I don’t think the child conscience character was the way to go.

Isaac Andrews (Malak) is quite eloquent, but at least half the time he is unnaturally extreme in delivering his lines. I assume the director called for that kind of intense expression, but, under the circumstances, I’m not so sure it is befitting a child in the role of a godlike figure. The boy is certainly not a bad actor, but he leaves a lot to be desired in demonstrating such a complex role and relationship with the lead character Moses. Again, believability.

Thank goodness for Ben Kingsley and John Turturro, whose acting strengths make Exodus somewhat more believable, if only for short periods. These amazing actors often end up in supporting roles, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but in a film like this one, where they have to carry the other actors, it is frustrating to watch. And what of the actual story … the plot, the theme(s), the moral? Are the writers aiming to make the audience decide about the reality or veracity of the story of Moses and the mass exodus from Egypt?

The film does a fair job of establishing some interesting scientific explanations for the plagues; the parting of the sea is a tsunami triggered by a meteor falling into the ocean (meant to be a sign from the heavens to Moses); the Nile river is wholly contaminated because of the reptilian feast on the village people (slightly less believable), in turn causing all the frogs to escape the river and die on land because they are poisoned and starved and cannot live without clean water, their carcasses creating maggots and swarms of flies, etc, transferring diseases to livestock and leading to outbreaks manifesting as boils and sores.

But what about the ninth and tenth plagues, the “spirit of death“/darkness, creeping in and killing the firstborn children in only one ethnic group? What can we say caused that? The darkness is depicted as an eclipse of sorts, but what would cause an eclipse to lead to the deaths of hundreds of firstborn children in just the one ethnic group? Where’s that part of the story? Or is that the part that the writers hope we, the viewers, would mentally insert and decide about … the part that would make for the difference between believing and not believing? Some scholars and scientists have their theories about the ninth and tenth plagues, too, but the Exodus writers did not expound them.

This film has four screenwriters and maybe that’s one reason why the script, storyline, and dialogue appear weak and disjointed. For an epic drama, based on so much history and religious theory, the writing is loose and unconvincing. For as much money as was invested in the visual depiction of this film (the visual credits are pages long), animation, 3D effects and the like, there doesn’t appear to be half as much invested in the strength and cohesiveness of the dialogue, and that makes the film falter like you wouldn’t expect it should.

Visual appeal is where Exodus gets its highest score from me; this was more in line with what I would expect of a Ridley Scott film: cinematically and aesthetically pleasing. My vote for best shot in the whole film: Rameses (Joel Edgerton) from above, riding in his chariot on the edge of the mountain. (The voice of Rameses, by the way, was perfectly remarkable).

The editing and synergy of picture and sound is spectacular, but dialogue complicates that fusion. In certain parts, the editing is not seamless, because “so-so” dialogue and average acting make it jagged and hiccuppy.

All in all, if the story is attempting to sway the viewer about the historic or biblical events of an exodus of Hebrews from Egypt into Canaan, either making believers out of nonbelievers or nonbelievers out of believers, it does not do a good job of it in either direction.

If you already believe in the story of Moses, from a religious faith or historical perspective, before you watch this film, you could easily be annoyed by it. And if you don’t believe in Moses, the Exodus, or the work of faith in the story, it doesn’t give you much reason to in the end.

Of note, there are interesting underlying themes in the film which are uniquely applicable to our modern day living, culture, citizenship, and immigration issues – so many, in fact, that I wish I could have written them down and quoted them here. (See if you can pick them out).

In the final analysis, the vividly stunning imagery and mood-setting original score/soundtrack saved this picture. I was bored long before the big exodus, but I stayed for the pretty pictures and beautiful music, and because no matter the opportunity cost the film has to be incredibly awful for me to walk out on it altogether (American Pie comes to mind – the only film where I ever asked for a refund).

Knowing that the purpose of film/cinema is to make the audience feel something deeply, my feeling at the end of Exodus: Gods and Kings was that of having been sufficiently entertained, but not so spectacularly or convincingly, by an oft told story that mesmerises just enough to make me wish I could have been there in ancient times to know for myself what really happened.

• Send comments via Tribune242.com or nicole@politiCole.com.