Movie Doubles - 'Exodus: Gods & Kings' & 'Noah'

The Biblical Imagery With CGI

These things come in a cycle whereby special effects become so much bitterroot the point that it makes the older attempts to bring biblical stories to life, look crap. Naturally there's cache for doing biblical stories because if you live in the Judeo-Christian half of the world, the audience is always going to have some kind of handle on it. And let's face it, the imagery conjured by the stories in Genesis and Exodus are pretty extraordinary. It stands to reason that they stand as an inviting challenge for film maker to put to screen, whether it be Cecil B. deMille or Melvyn LeRoy. 'The Ten Commandments' is still pretty out there, while 'Quo Vadis' is looking pretty tired the blue screen front. The fringing is pretty bad in 'Quo Vadis'.

Plus, in the 1950s, the surest way of putting salacious sex and violence and semi-nudity into movies was the biblical story where censors couldn't tell you it was inappropriate. The ancient world is full of decadent looking wardrobe for women in which to prance around.

What's weird is that we're suddenly seeing a couple of the more recent entries; and they're being directed by directors with tremendous amounts of causal capital and track record. Neither of them are anywhere near the emotional confrontation of 'Last Temptation of Christ', but the special effects department sure packs a punch.

God, The Character As A Mental Health Case

'Exodus' has one interesting thing going for it, anti is the characterisation of God as a petulant, demanding boy. Unlike Noah where we are reminded the Creator God is there to communicate with Noah in some strange semaphore and signs, Moses' God in 'Exodus' is pretty upfront about what he wants done, but a little short on 'why'. He doesn't exactly say why he waited 400years for his chosen people to remain in slavery, though hints that he needed Moses to come along - but that fact eats into the claims of the Judeo-Christian God being omnipotent.

In 'Noah', the God of creation is hell bent on wiping out all humanity except for Noah's family. It's not exactly made explicit but the ramification of this unforgiving God is that he changes his mind, and once again is dependent on Noah being Noah for his will to be done. So it strikes out omniscient from the list of God's alleged resume. when you combine both this and the God in 'Quo Vadis' you develop the picture of procrastinating figure who radically changes their mind now and then, and is often not actually paying attention to their Creation until it is necessary for him to intervene. It's a pretty nutty track record when you put it all together.

Both films got plenty of complaints from Christians and non-Christians alike, but it really comes down to the problem that God - in his own book no less - is pretty inconsistent and perhaps a tad psychotic.

Are We Happier When We See Disasters?

It's one of the paradoxes of the Judeo-Christian religion that it wants to impress upon us the original sin. In the case of 'Noah', it really wants us to focus also upon Cain killing Abel, thus implicitly critiquing the violent people and the problems caused by violence as well. And yet both films essentially hinge on a kind of retributive and just violence propel the plot. It also discounts just how violent God is. God's pretty violent in both films.

Not to mention the problem of rooting for figures to succeed against the people with the burden of the original sin - which technically would mean all of us if the Jesus sacrifice routine is to be believed for half a moment just to make sense - and we're all sitting there relating to the main character who wants to save his family from the people with original sin. 'Noah' goes into the problem a long way but comes out with a sort of demented answer that our volition coming from love and empathy voids the issue of original sin. It kind of makes you wonder if this God is just hooked on wiping out swathes humanity or inflicting great harm to his un-chosen.

More to the point, why is God so interested in the spectacle of these things? These kinds of odd theological questions spring to mind when both films are combined. The criticism I've seen from Christian quarters is that these films are not close enough representation of the Biblical text, but surely the bible itself is trying to impress us with the spectacle just as surely as Ridley Scott and Darren Aronofsky are trying.

It really does beg the question, why else would we be watching these movies if we weren't interested in seeing the disaster movie aspect of these films. God's a BIG bastard and that's what we enjoy watching. Think of the perversity in that interaction. Just think about that.

An Unpleasant Patriarchy

Christian Bale as Moses and Russell Crowe as Noah essentially gives two actors known for their intensity and perhaps personal unpleasantness, front and centre playing Old Testament patriarchs. Christian Bale's Moses is surly and tart while Russell Crowe's Noah is just generally mean and specifically murderous. If these are the guys God is choosing, it sure doesn't say much about God and - I'm sorry I keep harping on this point but - his ability to pick people to do his dirty work.

If God wasn't a bastard enough, he picks these surly guttural bastards to do his bidding. Yes, they complain a bit here and there and sometimes don't do as he says, but in most part, they're compliant with the violent bits- an that's good enough of the Bastard-in-Chief-Upstairs. Russell Crowe's Noah in particular wants to kill Emma Watson's character's babies. It's just mean and horrible and we're supposed to decipher the greater glory of God somewhere in the unforgiving, brutal, murderous mentation.

Christian Bale's Moses is a bit more caring, but when it really gets down to it, he too is unforgiving, brutal, and murderous. The affirmation of patriarchy that follows in both films, sticks in craw as you watch. You sort of wonder why women want to uphold the Judeo-Christian religious traditions when they really disempower women so much.

The Bad Guys Are More Charismatic

These biblical epics need good bad guys and that means it needs a good actor to really play up the heathen/infidel/goyim villain. The classic of this genre would be Yul Brynner as the pharaoh in Cecil . deMille's 'The Ten Commandments' but also Peter Ustinov's fantastic Emperor Nero in 'Quo Vadis' (the best thing by far in QV is Ustinov's inadequate, ranting narcissistic poet-king Nero).

Joel Edgerton as Ramses is intriguing and has enough charisma to suck you right in. There's something of an accidental everyman in Egerton's pharaoh which is at once both vulnerable and appealing as well as intriguing, even when he's being angry and vicious. Tubal-cain played by Ray Winstone in 'Noah' is equally fascinating precisely because he is at once so aware of the utter absence of God's love upon him, as well as being a utilitarian philosopher about man's place in the universe. believe me, it's a lot more credible than Russell's Noah going on about visions.

With all these films, it's a lot easier to root for the bad guy. At least they're honest. The good guys are scary surly bastards on a dastardly mission from a bastard God.