The Bible, the Ten Commandments, and Moses

Bible, The Ten Commandments, And Moses

Before discussing the central aspects of this section it is interesting to refer to the views of Huston on religion; which may throw light on his interpretation of the Biblical text. This will also show that there is certain thematic unity that flows throughout the film with regard to the director's particular interpretation of the Bible. The following is part of an interview response by Huston to the question, "Do you believe in God?" In the beginning, the Lord God was in love with mankind and accordingly jealous. He was forever asking mankind to prove our affection for Him: for example, seeing if Abraham would cut his son's throat. But then, as eons passed, His ardor cooled and He assumed a new role -- that of a beneficient deity. All a sinner had to do was confess and say he was sorry and God forgave him. The fact of the matter was that He had lost interest. That was the second step. Now it would appear that He'd forgotten about us entirely. He's taken up, maybe, with life elsewhere in the universe on another planet. it's as though we ceased to exist

Huston on making the Bible)

The above extract is quoted at length as it provides insight into the interpretative problems of the following three sections. The quotation is also instructive in that it sheds light on the way that Huston sees the God of the Old Testament. He views this God as essentially a God of jealousy and dominance, which is a theme that is repeatedly referred to in the film. Huston also mentions the view that, " He was forever asking mankind to prove our affection for Him." This is a facet that is repeated in all the different sections of the film and especially in God's instruction to Abraham to sacrifice his own son. A third related factor is that Huston describes God in human terms as being "in love" with mankind. This humanized view of God is also a central aspect that impacts on the way that Huston views and interprets the Biblical text.

Adam and Eve as the archetypal human beings are portrayed in a way that fosters questions and ambiguity in the Bible. In the first instance they seemingly do not have any desires other than to live in the garden and to obey God. They initially have no need to know about themselves. In its beginning the film portrays Adam and Eve as blank slates on which God writes his will. The appearance of the first man and women are stereotypical and their action seem both robotic and without any natural volition.

This depiction raises number of issues that form an integral part of this often problematic film. The first is that God creates creatures that seem to have no inner life or curiosity about the world around them. Curiosity is in fact the very thing that is prohibited on pain of spiritual death. This in turn raises the question of why God created human beings in the first place. While this question refers to the incomprehensible mystery of creation there is also the suggestion that the director is making a subtle but defining point in the depiction of these two chanters. Is Huston trying to suggest that God as the omnipotent and all - knowing creator must have known about the flaws in his creation? Why would God create something that is potentially flawed in the first place? This leads to the intimation that is some sense Adam and Eve were intended to fail so that they could prove their love and devotion love for God in the world of pain and death. These are issues that relate to a vast area of theological discourse and are raised in a close reading of the film, but not answered.

In the light of these complex issues it is the characterization and the subtle clues that Huston provides that is most interesting in the first section of the film. Unlike Adam, as the comments in lecture notes suggest, Eve is interested in more than sex. She is curious about herself and is tempted by the serpent who promises knowledge. This is a crucial point of the film in that the facial expression and the way that Eve is enticed, shows the first glimmers of humanity and life in the characters. What is also enlightening is that Adam only makes a token resistance to eating the apple. An insightful comment from the lecture notes adds to the discussion at this point.."Huston appears to be saying that the human experience is cast in the image of the first woman, not the first man. It was Huston's woman who demonstrated a willingness to die for us, since, in the Garden, there was no death and no children." (Lecture Notes) However, the important aspect of this scene is that it is the start of the complex conflict and relationship between the God of the Old Testament and mankind, which the film attempts to explore.

This presentation of Adam and Eve of course is an interpretation of the biblical text and emphasizes certain aspects and attributes that the director wished to represent in terms of his view of what the text intends to say. In this sense any film version of the Biblical text will of necessity have inner biases and predilections.

However, as was noted at the beginning go this section, Huston's interpretation of the biblical text is to a great extent influenced by his own ideology and perception. The refers to the idea of a jealous and very humanized God who makes mistakes and errors.

The complexity and the underlying biases in Huston's view can also be seen in his depiction of the serpent in the tree. It is, I would suggest, significant that he humanizes the serpent to a certain extent by giving it a human face. The snake is therefore both human and something else and this suggests that it is both good and evil. The snake figure also intimates that the origins of evil are at least partly human. This creates some confusion as to the actual origins of evil.

While Eve's approach to the snake in tree is extremely cautious and fearful, yet the director also emphasizes the desire that she shows to find out more. At the same time even though she in mortal danger her eyes are radiant with intention and curiosity. The director focuses on this tension between desire and fear in one frame that is held for some time; where we see Eve's face and the golden apple at the same moment. The apple looms over the expectant face of Eve and seems to dominate her. The snake appears to have no other intention except to corrupt the innocent Eve. Its voice is clear and intriguing and it argument impelling and dramatic. The consequences and Eve's actions and Adam's compliance are inevitable and they are abruptly and without any mercy dismissed to the world of pain and death.

Their sons Cain and Abel are born in the barren wilderness that is well portrayed in the harsh wilderness in the film. Cain is the tiller of the soil, while Abel tends the flock of sheep. Cain is portrayed as the more taciturn and dissatisfied of the two brothers. The theme of jealousy emerges strongly in this section of the film and Cain kills his brother in a fit of rage when his offering is not accepted by God. The lecture comments on this incident reflect the possibility that Cain had cause to be angry and jealous in that his work would have been more arduous than that of Abel. This will be explored more fully in the next section.

The central aspect that should be emphasized in this section is that the Biblical text is interpreted by Huston to express a certain underlying view of the God of the Old Testament. One of the aspects discussed in the lecture commentary is the way the director turns to the Bible as a test of his artistic maturity, in much the same way that other great artists have expressed their deepest views through Biblical themes.

What can be said with certainty is that in the film the Bible, Huston is confronting problematic and complex theological and philosophical issues; for example, the question of why God gives the first humans choices and at the same time makes the fruit so attractive to them, while stipulating that they may not eat of it.

Does this question refers to the view that Huston expressed about the jealous God - the God that tests and continually place the human being in position of choice so that he or she can show their devotion and obedience to the One God. I would suggest that it is this view and perception that informs Huston's interpretation of the Bible and is the underlying trajectory of the way that he directs and develops the story and characters in the film.

This is the Jealous God that Huston carries throughout his film as a representation of Godly power. This view also raises many associated questions; such as the fact that God must also have been the originator of the snake. In this section and in the others that follow it seems that the central impetus in the film is in reality a critique and an indictment of the God of the Old Testament, as the lecture notes suggest.

Section 2

In the film the Bible it is the humanism and the sensationalism of the biblical text or rather the reduction of the Biblical text to the human level in terms of motivation that characterizes Huston's Interpretation of the characters. The central theme of jealousy is continued in the story of Cain and Abel. The murder of Abel by Cain is also a question of jealousy in that the one brother is accepted by God, while the other is not.

This emphasis on jealousy is one that will occur again and again the film. While this interpretation of the Biblical text given by Huston does conform to one reading of the bible, it also ignores more esoteric and less humanistically influenced views of the biblical text.

One reason for the interpretation and view of Biblical events that Huston took is that he had to be mindful of the requirements of his audience. Possibly he felt that a more complex vision of the Bible would be too radical and upset most of his audience at the time. As the lecture notes state: "... Huston...is himself at the mercy of the audience..." (lecture notes) the lecture notes also make certain assertions about the film which I feel go to the very heart of the portrayal of the character and the general ethos of the work as a whole.

Huston's biblical God appears to like to watch pain and suffering; there is evil in the world because the biblical God is evil.... Huston's portrayal is unequivocal: God is bad. In my own understanding, when, in the opening chapters, things are called "good," it means that they are in their proper place, that they fulfill their intended purpose." lecture Notes)

The above view relates to the way that Huston portrays character and edits the text of the Bible accordingly. The way that God deals with Cain in general follows the Biblical text but the director ensures that harsh justice and cruelty of God is portrayed in a clear and explicit way. There is no attempt to soften or excuse the actions of God and the acting does not add any ameliorating nuances to the pain and hurt that the character feels.

For the murder of his brother Cain is banished to the wilderness and furthermore is marked with the image of the tree of good and evil on his forehead. "On Cain's forehead, drawn, as it were by the finger of God, is the leafless, serpent-less Tree of Knowledge." (Lecture Notes)

There is certain unfairness or moral incongruity in the way that the predicament of Cain is portrayed in the film.

While he was hard working and industrious he was refused by God when offering his sacrifice only because he withheld some grain. This is a small fault but the fact that God rejects his offering results in the murder of his brother and severe consequences. This once again emphasizes the central theme of the jealous God who will not tolerate any sign of disloyalty to disobedience, no matter how small. This view emphasizes the central point suggested in the previous section; namely that in his humanization and popularization of God for his audience, the director places increasing emphasis on a God who is jealous and rather petty.

There is a tendency in the Huston interpretation of the God of the Old Testament to make Him "Lamech-like' (lecture notes)

As the lecture commentary explains this: "Lamech threatens to crush anyone who threatens to mess with him. Lamech's teaching is that "might is right." Huston's version of the biblical God makes "Him" Lamech-like; Huston's biblical God operates according to the principle that might is right." (Lecture Notes)

There are many areas of the film that can be shown to be different to the Bible and which embellishes on the original Biblical text. The portrayal and interpretation of Noah is certainly out of synchronization with the Biblical text and an area where the director has used artistic license in order to color and dramatize his script. However, this portrayal of Noah once again emphasizes the importance of the unwavering and unquestioning obedience to the God of the Old Testament.

Noah is depicted in an almost comedic light as a rather eccentric character. In the film we see him humorously half - hiding in a doorway from God and sliding down a galleyway in the Ark onto his sleeping or inebriated son. This slightly comic view of Noah is intended firstly to create a humorous audience reaction and is also necessary in an artistic sense to act as an emotional counterfoil to the harshness and darkness of the previous scenes. While it can be argued that this interpretation is artistically acceptable, it also tends to reduce the father of civilization to a clown- like figure.

Beside the liberties taken with Noah's character there are many other aspects that are omitted for the film - such as the reference to the "Nephilim" or human - divine creatures that are mentioned at the start of the Biblical story. Therefore the film avoids the larger and more mysterious or esoteric context of the story of Moses.

There are also aspect that could have added depth to our understanding of Noah and his family in the Biblical context that are, I think, intentionally ignored; for example, the biblical fact of Noah's drunkenness an exposure to this sons.

The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent.

Genesis 9:18-29)

These omissions are purposeful in that the director wants to present a clear and unambiguous picture of Noah, so as not to confuse his public

What Huston does present clearly in his interpretation of the character of Noah is Noah as the obedient and never - questioning servant of God. His strengths are his calm acceptance, compliance and his unbending loyalty to whatever God says that he must do. He is the prefect servant of the One God and carries out every order to the last letter. His weaknesses are those that have been referred to, such as his drunkenness. These are not mentioned in the film with the envious implication that the director saw them as elements that would detract from the image of utter and perfect selfless devotion to God that he was attempting to present. As in the Garden of Eden, Huston interprets the God of the Old Testament as only being pleased when humans exhibit a robotic acceptance of God's instructions. While I think that there is a truth to be explored in this view, yet it is also obvious that Huston view of a jealous and demanding God is a bias that affects the entire interpretation of the film.

A cardinal aspect to the entire story of Noah and the flood, as it is portrayed in the film, is the harshness and apparent cruelty of the God who would destroy every living thing, including children. The reaction of Noah's wife to the flood and the screams of those who are dying outside the ark are illustrative of the themes that have been mentioned above. His wife can't bear the idea of so much suffering and asks what the noise is. She is obviously perturbed and moved by the sounds of those who are dying outside. Moses on the other hand is calmly unperturbed by the events and accepts Gods actions with an almost callous acceptance of things in the film.

This is a reference to his strength in that he is a complete servant of the Old Testament God and accepts the judgment of God on world without any question. Therefore through the portrayal of Noah, Huston again provides an insight into his underlying view of the God of the Old Testament. Through the character of Noah it is implied that there must be total and an unquestioning acceptance of the word of God.

Section three

In this section of the film there is a decided emphasis on certain aspects and areas of the Biblical text. The 'editing' or the selection of what to include from the Biblical text and they way that these aspects are portrayed and interpreted, is again determined by the underlying and predilections and view that Huston has of the Old Testament God. There are some controversial sections and in the director focus on the main characters there is, in my reading, too much emphasis on the more dramatic aspects, such as the conflict between Hagar and Sarah or Sarai.

However it should also be taken into account that this section of the Biblical text would probably be a problematic area for any film maker. The director has to deal with large amounts of information and select those areas that support his themes and intentions. For example, there is no mention in the film of the importance of Abraham's father and brothers.

Another very obvious omission for the film is that there is no reference made to the incestuous relations between Lot and his daughters. "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19: 36)

There is also extensive use made of the character of Lot which goes beyond the Biblical text.

The rationale for not including these parts of the Biblical text is related to what has already been said about the underlying intentions that Huston has show.

Firstly the inclusion of the incestuous liaisons between Lot and his daughters may have offended certain sections of the public - which is a factor that always has to be taken into consideration. Secondly, and possibility more importantly, the inclusion of these parts of the text would not have served the biases and opinions of the filmmaker; which is essentially to present an uncompromising and unambiguous view of the Biblical events as they relate to the theme of the relationship between the jealous God and humanity.

The above example of the rationale that lies behind Huston's interpretative decisions with regard to the Bible can also be applied to the other parts of the sections dealing with Abraham. Huston leaves out references, for example, to the fact that it was not Abraham who leaves his ancestral home in search of what God has promised, but rather his father, Terah.

As mentioned in the lecture notes, the central theme of obedience to God and the neglect of others is a particularly strong element in the story of Abraham. In the Biblical text this theme is emphasized by the fact that Abraham leaves his father and chooses to follow the directions of God. This of course relate to the central part of the film where Abraham is tested by God and asked to sacrifice his son. (Genesis 22)

The characterization of Hagar and Sarah and the relationship between them is also an aspect that Huston uses to increase dramatization and advance the plot line. Hagar is presented as docile maid servant who provides Abraham with an heir when his wife could not. Of course Huston simplifies the Biblical text here and make no mention of Abraham's other wives and concubines.

The relationship between Abraham and Sarah is particularly embroidered on in the film versions and does not follow the Biblical text strictly. The scene in the film which shows their intimate and sexual relationship is intended not only to suggest their love for one another but also acts as an dramatic prologue to the latter conflict between the two women and the reaction of Abraham.

Once again Huston returns to the theme of jealousy and envy in the relationship between Hagar and Sarah in the way that Hagar flaunts her son to the barren Sarah. This conflict heightens the dramatic context and significance of the birth of Isaac and the miraculous event of Sarah's giving birth in old age. This is an important event in that it reinstate the wonder and power of God to do anything that He wills; while at the same time indicating the helpless and powerlessness of the human beings.

As the lecture notes indicate, there are many details left out in the film that would complicate this rather straightforward dramatic presentation of the relationship between Hagar, Sarah and Abraham. Among the reasons mentioned in the lecture notes are the following:

It is almost as if Huston softens the biblical story, thereby making it more acceptable to his "god," the audience. Showing Abraham and Sarah in sexual foreplay is one thing, but what Abraham does in Egypt is another thing altogether. In passing, it should be noted that it turns out that Sarah is, in fact, the half sister of Abraham.

A lecture Notes)

However the film culminates in a thematic and a dramatic sense in the scene where Abraham sacrifices his son to God. This is the ultimate test of Abraham's willingness to obey God. The scene is brings to a head the various questions and underlying ambiguities which have been an undercurrent in the film since the very first scene in the Garden of Eden. While Huston followed the conventional storyline and upholds the popular Biblical view as would have been expected by his audience, he also adds changes and nuance to Genesis 22, which reveal his central themes.

There is little doubt that God's demand that Abraham sacrifices his only son is extreme - a son for whom Abraham has waited his entire life and through whom God has already promised that his work and life will be carried on into the generations. The awesomeness of this request is fought against at first by Abraham and this aspect is strongly and vehemently expressed in the film by George C. Scott. It is as if the director, while following the conventional view of events, is also strongly suggesting the awful cruelty of the demand by God.

In the film Abraham are Isaac pass through the ruined city of Sodom and this again focuses attention on the might power of God but also on the wanton cruelty and destruction of the city, the latter point is blatantly emphasized by Isaac in the film who asks his father, " we're the children also wicked?" He refers to he skulls of small children that lie in the ruins of Sodom. The answer to this question is of course self-evident. How could very young children be wicked? However the answer that the director puts into the mouth of Abraham is explosive. He state that; "The lord, Our God, must be obeyed." The tone and the resonance of this repose from Abraham is not in keeping with the sense of obedience and servility that we saw with the Noah character. Here there is an expression of barely restrained resentment from Abraham and a tone that suggests that there is no other option but to obey God or he will destroy them in the same way that he dealt with Sodom. It is this subtle tone and nuance in the character of Abraham that questions the actions of the God of the Old Testament, and which in fact dominates the scene that Huston paints of the Biblical events.

Once again the director plunges us back into the central thematic trajectory and problematics of the film. The film describes not a God of tolerance and understanding but one who is domineering and intensely jealous of any love that humans may have. As Huston depicts this God, He demands that all love and attention to be focused on Himself. The fact that God spares Isaac in the final scene is not presented as an act of kindness. Abraham responds to this in relief and as an escape from the ineluctable demands of a tyrant.

The Ten Commandments

Section 4:

In order to analyze and addresses the way in which DeMIlle interprets the characters and events of the Old testament it is firstly important or provide a brief assessment of the biases or the ideological stance that DeMille took towards the Bible and in particular to the time of Moses. This is an essential aspect as it influences all the questions relating to the Ten Commandments.

I will attempt to show that a reading of the film and the way that it compares to the Biblical text is premised and underpinned by the ideological views and intentions of Cecil B. DeMille.

The Book of Exodus has 25 verses that deal with Moses from his birth to the Burning Bush sequence. It is instructive and a telling point that in the film DeMille expands on these verses and turns them into 171 pages of script. (Forshley 141) as commentators have noted DeMille also makes reductions as well as increments to the Biblical text.

On the other hand, from the time of Moses' first interview with Rameses to the time of the Exodus, the Bible spends 202 verses, whereas DeMille devotes only 52 pages to this period nearly a third of them develop the triangular scheme between Rameses, Neferitiri, and Moses, which does not appear in the Bible. "(Forshley 141)

In other words, what the study by Forshlely and others point out is that DeMille makes changes and adds many aspects that were not in the Biblical text. The following section will attempt not to document all these changes but rather to answer the question why he makes the changes that he does. Furthermore, how do these changes show the ideological slant and views that DeMille had in terms of his interpretation of the Bible.

In the light of these questions it is instructive that DeMille considered the relationship between Rameses, Neferitiri, and Moses to be important in terms of the overall meaning of the film. It should be borne in mind that the wives of Pharaohs are not mentioned in the Bible. (Forshley)

However the film places a great of importance on Nefretiri, who is a figure based on one of the most the many wives of Rameses II.

This character plays a significant role in the promotion of the plot and dramatic development of the dimensions of the film that the audience would relate to. Neferitiri also plays a vital role in the "hardening of the heart' of the Pharaoh after the last plague.

As with the previous film that was discussed, the audience and the audience reaction to the film and the script is of paramount importance to the director. This rather mundane fact relating to popular and financial success of the film must also be taken into account in analyzing the reason why the director chooses certain interpretation and actions over others. This can be seen in the way that DeMille expertly uses the character of Neferitiri to provide plot cohesion and intrigue in the film that has very little do with the actual biblical text.

But while the sense of audience response and a plot line that would be attractive to the public is a continua factor in the director's artistic decisions, there is a larger and more important issue at stake. DeMille was in reality on a mission to promulgate a vision of religious reality that was appropriate, as he saw it, to the time in which he lived. He wished to promote the ideal of freedom from tyranny and oppression through faith in the face of what he considered to be the ideologies of evil and social control that were epitomized by the rise of communism. In effect that he saw the medium of film as a means of promoting the fight for freedom and individual liberty in the battle against counter social and ideological forces. In essence it would not be too much to say that he used the Bible as an ideological tool to a certain extent to promote his vision of reality.

The following quotation from Forshley (19920 is quoted at length as it concisely summaries this viewpoint.

DeMille believed that his the Ten Commandments gave the world a message of freedom built on faith. The nation always stood with those who were fighting for their freedom. The film suggests that a technological, rationalistic, naturalistic world view was valid only when it issued forth from a faith that was common to all Americans -- a faith that glossed over the difficulties between Christians and Jews, a secularized, generalized religion... It was rooted in the popular religion that abandoned particularities,...DeMille's popular religion was very much a civil religion.

Forshley 141)

The film stresses two central elements that act as the fulcrum around which the director interpreted and manipulated the Biblical text. These are the importance of personal freedom and the essential fact that freedom is derived and dependent on faith. Faith is also seen as superior to rationality of reason. The Pharaoh of Egypt is seen as the rationalist. Rameses is the technocrat who sees people and nations as slaves and only important in the furtherance of his personal ideals. It is this form of " evil" that DeMille wishes to react against and expose through the faith - based religious belief of the miraculous in this version of the life of Moses.

One of the central themes of the film is therefore the triumph of faith in God over hard reason and materialism. The fact that DeMille interpreted the Biblical text tin a modern context is emphasized by Forshley. " DeMille liked to say that the Ten Commandments was his most modern picture, because the struggle between freedom and slavery was still being waged on the contemporary landscape. " (Forshely 128)

Furthermore, DeMille asks certain fundamental questions that go to the heart of the ideological framework that influenced his view of the Bible.

Are men the property of the state? Are men to be ruled by law or by the whims of an individual? The answers to these timely questions were given some three thousand years ago on Mt. Sinai.... [the film's] purpose is to portray the state of civilization at the time when God saw that mankind was ready for the first proclamation of freedom under law -- and to tell the story of the man whom God prepared to receive the Law. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27422008"

Forshely 128)

This struggle between good and evil which is epitomized for DeMille in the Old Testaments is translated in the film as a story about the opposition between fundamental human values. The is seen when Moses as a Prince of Egypt reacts to the dilemma of an old women about to be crushed by a stone used to build Pharaohs treasure city. It is clear from this scene that the Egyptians view is that all life is dispensable in the service of the Pharaoh and the Egyptian overseer in the film simply states that an old woman's life is of no value in the larger social context.

DeMille makes Moses react against this vision of life and social control and he saves the old women. The old women turns out to be Yochabel, who we know is in reality Moses' mother.

This scene is useful in the analysis of the film for a number of reasons. It not only shows the underlying conflict that lies hidden within the film, but also reveals the way that the characters are created, so that they contrast with each other and reflect this larger and more important conflict in world views.

The above discussion can also be applied to the way that DeMille deals with the birth of Moses. As mentioned, there are numerous Biblical discrepancies here. However, the important point is that that from the very beginning the birth of Moses is seen as an event that take place in opposition to the forces of state-controlled inhumanity and evil. In the time of the killing the first-born Israelites, the baby Moses finds his way into the hands of the Pharaohs daughter. DeMille then proceeds to embroider on the early life of Moses which has little reference to the Biblical text. However the intention is to develop a coherent picture of a character that is in fundamental opposition to the values of the Pharaoh and the state.

The fact that DeMille radically expands on the Biblical version of the birth and early years of Moses has been commented on in many studies. This also refers to the way that DeMille alters and extends the text with regard to Yochabel's Biblical heritage. She is shown in the film as a slave working in the construction of the Treasure City. However the Biblical fact is that the descendants of Levi were not slaves. Therefore in Biblical reality Moses, when he leaves the royal palace, would not have been part of the workforce.

However these points are not as important as the overall interpretation and the trajectory of DeMilles view of the Biblical events.

In the film the mother of Moses is importantly seen as an extremely ardent and faithful believer in God. She is also depicted as a caring and honest woman. This portrayal is contrasted with his Egyptian mother who uses deceit and lies in covering up his identity for the very beginning. This is Bithiah, the daughter of the Pharaoh, who finds the baby drifting in the basket. It is also noteworthy how DeMille expands on this character as she is only fleetingly referred to in the Biblical texts. The mother of Moses, Yochabed, is therefore cast as an important figure in the fight for freedom, righteousness and a life lived in unbending faith in the one God.

There are essential differences between the two mothers which the director emphasizes to further his thematic trajectory. In the scene where Moses meets his real mother, the main focus is not on their separation and reunion but rather on their relationship to God. This is contrasted to the more human and less spiritual reaction from Bithiah.

In this scene Moses asks a question, which in my reading is central to the trajectory of the film and mote important fro DeMille than the Bible story itself. This is the question: " Why a Hebrew... Or nay man, must be a slave."

Moses' Egyptian mother tries to argue against the proposed path that Moses wishes to take and uses the reasoning that in a position of power he could better serve his people. While this makes rational sense it is a reasoning that runs counter to the thematic thread of the story and it is the freedom from all power that is dictated by the King or state that is the central them that resonates throughout the film

The character of Nefretiri is developed extremely well in film and this character acts as a central point of dramatic contact between the evil Rameses and the good Moses. However, her character, while dramatically appealing, also highlights the moral and religious emptiness of the Egyptians. For example, she is quite prepared to murder for her love for Moses. Sexuality and materialism are central aspects that DeMille brings out in this character. At the same time there is also a likable and very human quality about her portrayal as well. Note the way that Nefretiri uses sexual ploys and appeals to Moses' sensual mature.

The Burning Bush sequence with film deviates in many respects from the Biblical version. Central to this scene is the dramatic impact of the Bush and the voice of God. In the Biblical text the visual aspects are not emphasized in this dramatic way. The obvious intention of the director here is to stress the miraculous event as the point of transformation of Moses into something else - a prophet of God who is no longer human in the ordinary sense of the word.

Among the many alterations to the text is the fact that DeMille makes Moses speak directly to God and ask questions. However in my reading of the text the most important difference is that the deeply mystical name of God is reduced from the depth and philosophical complexity of "I am that I am" to a phrase which means that Gods is with you. This avoids the critical importance of the naming of goes as a mystical entity that is everywhere and the ultimate constituent of existence.

Section 5:

In this section there are a number of differences between the film and the Biblical text that should be mentioned. From a personal point-of-view one of the most important aspects is that no reference is made to Moses' speech impediment. In the film the Moses who confronts the Pharaoh and demands the release of his people shows no sign of faltering or hesitation. It is possible DeMille felt that to include this aspect of the character would be to reduce the impact of the central view that Moses was the infallible messenger of God. In my reading this omission reduces the importance of the depth of conflict that Moses as a human being, was experiencing. Part of the problem of the films vision of Moses, as mentioned in the lecture comments, is that the director makes Moses into a sort of inhuman and unfeeling figure. In many scenes he seemingly has lost interest in human life and is only interested in administering the word and law of God.

This is an important issue as it reveals much of the underlying thematic strands that DeMille attempts to project through the film. When Moses returns to Egypt to free the Israelites and when Neferitiri tries to sexually entice him back to her, he states..." there is a beauty beyond the senses." Moses has been transformed in order to undertake his tasks of freedom and he is impervious as the administrator of Gods justice to human feeling as he implements of the plagues on the Egyptians. The words that he utters make him the hero of the non-materialistic and faith - based view of life as opposed to the technological and materialistic world view of the Egyptians. This is proven in the way that the plagues eventually result in the freedom of the Israelites from bondage.

It is also important to note the way that the film contrives to show the essential differences between the two central world views through the main characters.

When the plagues occur the Pharaoh, Rameses, rationalizes these events by in a scientific way. He explains the turning of water into blood as a natural volcanic occurrence and the subsequent plague of flies by the fact that the dead fish and frogs that would naturally attract them. Contrary to this scientific and rational approach, Moses offers the view of the miraculous and the power of God which dwarfs reason and human explanations.

It is only in the last plague that the pharaoh accepts the power of the miraculous. It should also be noted that DeMille only uses as much of the Biblical text as suits his needs and leaves out the descriptions of most of the plague events. The six plagues of frogs, flies, lice, death of cattle, boils, and locusts are not shown.

The role of the miraculous and the power of God is strongly emphasized in this part of the film. DeMille seeks to establish the authenticity and power of the One God by contrasting the actions of Moses in both a practical and moral sense against the increasing feebleness of the Egyptians. This section of the film is in fact the victory of one vision of reality over another.

The film concentrates on the parting of the sea as the absolute dramatic and visual evidence of the awesome power of God. This relates to the theme of the miraculous as opposed to the earthy and mundane view of reality.

In the struggle between the Pharaoh and Moses the greater values and conflict are between the ideal of freedom vs. slavery and social control vs. The individual and his faith in God. The essence of the battle better Moses and the Pharaoh is translated in the film to the level of a battle between the Gods or forces of light and darkness or good and evil. This is clearly seen in the way that, as the God of Moses is successful in the killing of the first born of Egypt, so we see Rameses turning to the black statue of his dark God in an attempt to bring his dead son back to life. The director uses these contrasting images and the rather dark and ominous statue that the Pharaoh prays to in order to dramatically illustrate the central and religious conflict that is actually taking place in this scene.

There are obviously many other facets and nuances in the film that are not strictly Biblical in origin. However the central point is that DeMIlle is continually emphasizing is the larger struggle between good and evil. As was stated in the previous section, it is essential to take into account the way that DeMille saw the Biblical relevance and reference to what he considered to be the factors of historical importance in the modern age. It was this correspondence that to a large extent determines the interpretation of the Bible that is depicted in the film.

After the final night of terror in Egypt, the Isrealites gather in their thousands to leave their lives of subjugation. DeMiIle make the most of this scene of freedom from bondage to announce his thematic vision. Over the gathering of those about to leave Egypt, the narrator in the film announces that; "Freedom was born into the world." This grandiose statement therefore extends the significance of these historical events and implies that their meaning has relevance for the modern age and all time. Therefore, at the same time, what DeMille does is link the miraculous and faith in the one true God to freedom for the individual and for society.

The creative and symbolic high-point in the film is of course the wonderful cinematic evocation of the parting of the sea.

This is achieved with aplomb and drama and is, in terms of the aims of the film, the final proof of the might of God and His power.

An interesting and telling aspect is that one of the most obvious deviations from the Biblical text is that the Pharaoh makes an excuse and does not accompany his army as they enter the seabed in pursuit of the Israelites. The text of Exodus 15: 19 is unclear as to whether the Pharaoh drowns on not during this event; but DeMille make the most to this uncertainty to create a situation which reinforces his central thematic trends. This leaves the Pharaoh alive to comment eventuality that the God of Moses is the one true God.

Note how Neferitiri acts at the end of the film. She goads the pharaoh and is filled with a desire for revenge. Her motivation linked to the dramatic and romantic intrigue that DeMille has woven into the fabric of the film from the very beginning. She wishes Moses dead mainly due to the fact that he has spurned her. His transformation has changed him for the warm human man that she knew to the colds and unfeeling servant of God. She become the hard and materialistic hear of the Egyptian empire and world view. DeMille also uses her to reinforce the dichotomy between the two views of life. The sympathy that we had for the very human princess who was in love with Moses is lost as we see her transformed into the merciless Queen of Egypt.

Section 6

The final section of the film focuses on the relationship between humanity and God through the laws or Commandments that are given to Moses. These Commandments will ensure the freedom of humanity from the tyranny of others for all time. Thorough the Commandments and the adherence to the laws, individual freedom is ensured through faith and adherence to the word of God and not to any human Pharaoh or society. Therefore, in terms of the underlying themes and intentions that guide DeMille's version of the Biblical events, the Ten Commandments are the laws and rules that provide the foundation for a faith -based and God - founded society that cannot be enslaved by human tyrants or by forms of human social control. As noted in the introduction to this section, this view can be extended to imply that a society based on faith in the one true God and democratic freedom will be victories over one which is based solely on human and social reason.