7/10
Early epic-morality play still feels modern enough
5 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
DeMille's first attempt at the story of Moses has more in common with such other silent films contrasting the ancient past to stories of today, than it does to his later epic retelling of the story. Griffith's "Intolerance" 7 years earlier had intercut several stories of sin and violence to show that the more man changes, the more he stays the same; Fritz Lang's "Destiny" and Carl Dreyer's "Leaves from Satan's Book" (both 1921) also worked out biblical themes in both ancient and modern contexts. All four directors were at one point or another quite serious Christians, though DeMille seems to have been the most obsessive in his faith, and certainly his many films on Biblical themes are often more obvious and blunt in their attempts at pedagogy.

Which is not to say that "The Ten Commandments" is just a lesson in "thou shalt nots"; but it is throughout informed of a very deep, and perhaps naive faith that the stories of the past are alive and exactly transferable to the lives we have today. In this case, we see a man break essentially every commandment in his quest for personal greatness, destroying in the process his own life and those of many around him, including his own mother. DeMille doesn't intercut multiple story lines like his predecessors, but rather uses the Biblical story as a 50-minute "prologue" to one feature-length story taking place in modern-day Los Angeles.

It's fascinating to watch the film if you've just watched the later version, as I did; the prologue is almost exactly the same as the last 50 minutes of the '56 version, picking up in the middle of the plagues that Moses has set upon Egypt. Like the later film, only the killing of the first-born is given significant play, and the majority of this section is given over to the flight from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea (jello!) and destruction of the pursuing Egyptians, and the creation of the Ten Commandments and Moses' fury at the idolators. It's all very well done, in many respects more thrilling and powerful than in the later film, with many scenes that DeMille obviously liked enough to re-do almost shot-for-shot - the flight of the Israelites from the Egyptian city, and in particular the shot of Moses standing in front of them exhorting them to flee are good examples. Theodore Roberts was 62 when the film was made and looks a bit crazy and obsessive - he certainly feels more like the older Moses to me than Charlton Heston, though Charles de Rochefort doesn't leave a huge impression as Rameses. All in all, it's quite a spectacle and segues nicely into...

The modern-day story, of two carpenter/architect brothers, one ambitious and unscrupulous and the other honest and devoted to their saintly, Bible-reading mother, and how they vie for the love of a vagrant girl who comes to their doorstep, is obviously freighted with the weight of the prologue: the two brothers quarrel over God, there is honoring and not honoring of the parent, coveting of the neighbor's (or brother's) wife, stealing, etc. The central theme couldn't be more obviously stated as they build a cathedral, which ultimately collapses due to the bad brother's cheap materials, killing someone dear. Every commandment gets tested and broken at one point or another, but what's fascinating is how seamlessly they're all woven into a relatively simple story and how DeMille refuses to cast the "bad" brother as completely evil, or the "good" brother as entirely strong and virtuous. Only the mother comes across as something of a caricature. Nicely lit and shot throughout - the rain sequence where the girl first comes to the home of the family is very real and moving, and only the scenes involving the unscrupulous brother's mistress seem at all overwrought. This is overall a more graceful and disciplined film than the later version, or any of DeMille's work that I've seen so far.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed