Is there an incorrect way portray a Biblical figure?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gift_from_God

Guest
The two best Biblical movies I have ever seen are Prince of Egypt and 10 Commandments. Just in case you don’t know what they’re about, they’re both about Moses (the former being an animated musical and the latter being the Charlton Heston movie) and the portrayals of the characters seem to have a certain contrast. Here’s some;
  1. Moses in 10 Commandments is a natural leader and has great charisma. Moses in Prince of Egypt is more fun-loving but has doubt about himself
  2. Moses and Rameses in 10 Commandments don’t even remotely act like they could be brothers. In Prince of Egypt, they have brotherly love and you kind of feel sorry for both of them when they have to turn from loving brothers to enemies, SPOILER ALERT especially at the end when Rameses is kneeling on a rock shouting, “MOSES!” and it fades to Moses who sadly says, “goodbye brother”
  3. God in 10 Commandments is more intimidating with a cool voice. In Prince of Egypt, he has the voice of Moses and is more of a gentle, kind, caring, and compassionate God but is also firm when he needs to be.
So I’m wondering; is there an actual right or wrong way to portray these figures without it being considered downright heretical?
 
Hmm, good question. I don’t know for sure, but here’s what I think. Depictions of bibilical figures should be as accurate as they can be. That means what is in the Bible should be portrayed as accurately as possible. But since the Bible doesn’t really flush out their full characteristics all the time, there is really a lot of room for interpretation.

For example, depicting Moses as kind of shy makes sense, because in the Bible he says he’s not a good speaker. Showing brotherly love between pharoh and Moses is valid, because the Bible doesn’t say one way or another…so its an ok interpretation I think. However, if they portrayed Moses as a leper, or a parapalegic…that would be inaccurate. (the bible doesn’t say for sure he wasn’t a leper, but one would think it would have been mentioned if he was). Depending on how many inaccuracies are included, it might be considered disrespectful or even heretical.

I don’t think there’s any hard and fast rules! Common sense would have to apply…but there is indeed a lot of wiggle room for most biblical figures when it comes to their individual mannerisms, thoughts, likes, dislikes, and motivations for certain actions.
 
That’s like asking if it is incorrect to portray Jesus as a white skinned man with long hair of European backround who only speaks English.
 
Interesting choice of comparison. The Nostalgia Critic did a comparison of these two films. I personally prefer “The Prince of Egypt” myself–Charlton Heston is a bit too pompous for me. XP

In regards to your question, there is obviously a wrong way to portray a Biblical figure. The problem is that the Bible is not a novel, so the exact character–and in some cases appearance–of characters is left to the reader’s imagination. Both the movies have taken some stylistic liberties with the story (ie. Aaron being a slave in Egypt, when he was not), but the ultimately the important message of the Bible stories AND the movies was the same: the message of the comfort of faith and hope. (Remember, both movies have disclaimers at the beginning reiterating that the stories are not dogmatic).

If it’s OK to portray Jesus as a white male with long straight brown hair, as opposed to the more likely brown skin and curly black hair, then there’s probably a significant leeway.

Now if you tried to pass off, say, a female version of Moses as legitimately scriptural, then you might have a problem XD
 
Ninja_Autobot said:
Interesting choice of comparison. The Nostalgia Critic did a comparison of these two films. I personally prefer “The Prince of Egypt” myself–Charlton Heston is a bit too pompous for me. XP
Click to expand...
I saw that episode. That’s why I got thinking
 
Gift_from_God said:
The two best Biblical movies I have ever seen are Prince of Egypt and 10 Commandments. Just in case you don’t know what they’re about, they’re both about Moses (the former being an animated musical and the latter being the Charlton Heston movie) and the portrayals of the characters seem to have a certain contrast. Here’s some;
  1. Moses in 10 Commandments is a natural leader and has great charisma. Moses in Prince of Egypt is more fun-loving but has doubt about himself
  2. Moses and Rameses in 10 Commandments don’t even remotely act like they could be brothers. In Prince of Egypt, they have brotherly love and you kind of feel sorry for both of them when they have to turn from loving brothers to enemies, SPOILER ALERT especially at the end when Rameses is kneeling on a rock shouting, “MOSES!” and it fades to Moses who sadly says, “goodbye brother”
  3. God in 10 Commandments is more intimidating with a cool voice. In Prince of Egypt, he has the voice of Moses and is more of a gentle, kind, caring, and compassionate God but is also firm when he needs to be.
So I’m wondering; is there an actual right or wrong way to portray these figures without it being considered downright heretical?
Click to expand...
It reminds me: besides these two films, I’ve also seen at least three other Moses films (the original 1923 silent version of The Ten Commandments also by Cecil B. DeMille, Moses starring Ben Kingsley and the 2006 The Ten Commandments with Dougray Scott). Personally, I think these latter two depictions were more closer to the personality of the Biblical Moses, who still argues about his calling three chapters after his first call by God (Exodus 6) and moans to God whenever the people moan to him, even asking to die at one point (Numbers 11:10-15).

As for number 1:

The first film does not beautify its protagonist, perhaps on purpose (to subvert DeMille’s portrayal). We have a Moses who seems awkward and out of place in Pharaoh’s palace, and a Moses who actually stutters and asks God to send someone else! Plus, as it covers much more ground than the 1956 Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt, so we get to see here other spectrums of Moses’ emotion, culminating in his disobedience of God’s command by striking the rock twice (prompted here by his annoyance at the Israelites who still complain even at his sister Miriam’s death), which leads to his never entering the Promised Land.

The latter film meanwhile also does not try to smoothen the hard and unpalatable parts of the Biblical narrative; in fact, many of the hard-to-swallow issues (say, why would God punish the other Egyptians as a whole and kill their firstborn, as well as order the deaths of adulterers and idol worshippers) are given attention here. Rather than avoid treating them at all, this film is not afraid to force us to deal with them and make us think. Moses here is also a rather complicated man who at times is deliberately played unsympathetically (one of his issues in this film is his short temper), struggling to follow the often-difficult demands of the God who called him.

BTW, I’ll admit that I feel Charlton Heston’s Moses is a bit too pompous and too faultless (not a surprise, considering it’s DeMille we’re talking about). The Prince of Egypt IMHO is in some place better, but I feel it a shame they’ve stopped at the point where Moses gets the Tablets of the Law. 😉
 
This is going to be a rather spoiler-filled post, so people who do not wish to spoil themselves should skip this one entirely.

As for number 2:

One of the difficult issues for filmmakers is how to depict the relationship between Moses and the Pharaoh, which the Bible is silent about. It does not even mention who the two Pharaohs were, which led to the whole speculation as to who could have been the Pharaohs of the Exodus, which is related to the whole question as to exactly when the Exodus took place.

DeMille depicts three Pharaohs: one (Rameses I) who orders the deaths of the Hebrew boys, and another, much kinder one (Seti) who, in turn, is the father of Rameses (II).* Moses and Rameses are depicted very much as rivals for the throne: the adopted Hebrew was a much better and accomplished man than Rameses, who did not like Moses the better for it.
  • BTW, there is a discussion about how the depictions of the named Pharaohs on the film is in conflict with history. In the scene in which Moses refers to the monumental stele commemorating “Seti’s victory over the Hittites at Kadesh”, the obvious error is that it was Rameses, and not his father Seti, who fought the Hittites at Kadesh (BTW, we don’t really know the outcome of the battle), which would make Yul Brynner’s character, who is billed as ‘Rameses’, to be Rameses’ thirteenth son and successor Merneptah, with Sir Cedric Hardwicke’s ‘Seti’ being in fact Rameses II.
The Prince of Egypt follows the same formula (even naming the Pharaohs ‘Seti’ and ‘Rameses’), but there are two notable differences from DeMille:
  • Seti is the one who ordered the massacre of Hebrew boys
  • Moses and Rameses here have a more brotherly relationship and get along very well, as Gift from God mentioned, which makes it more painful for both to see the man they considered as ‘brother’ turn against them.
The 1996 Moses reverses the situation: even as a boy, the Pharaoh’s son (here Merneptah) has the upper hand and is in the favor of his father Rameses; while Moses, the adopted son of the Pharaoh’s daughter, is the unaccepted outsider. The scenes at the beginning of the film demonstrate this; one particularly has Moses and Merneptah presenting their gifts to Rameses: Moses presents a board game while Merneptah shows a model of the statue he is building in honor of his father. Rameses rejects Moses’ gift in favor of Merneptah’s (who also says a riddle: “When is an Egyptian not an Egyptian?”). Perhaps because of this, the relationship between the two in this film is rather shallow, much more than DeMille and TPoE.

The 2006 The Ten Commandments breaks the mold by casting Moses not as a royal child, but one who was merely raised in a noble home: ‘a’ prince of Egypt, but not THE Prince. Moses here is shown to have a good brotherly relationship with his step-brother Menerith, who eventually becomes head of the palace guards. Their relationship however becomes strained as God visits the land with plagues to convince the Pharaoh (Rameses) to free the slaves, culminating in the final one which takes the lives of all the Egyptian firstborn - including Menerith’s. Which leads to this dialogue:

Menerith: (holding his dead son) Moses! Moses, my brother!
Moses: Menerith!
Menerith: My son was taken, too.
Moses: I grieve with you.
Menerith: You… grieve? Wasn’t this your doing?
Moses: It was God’s.
Menerith: You willed it. Rameses will give you your freedom now. Your God won…I think your God is a cruel one.
Aaron: Years ago, Pharaoh sent his soldiers to kill our children.
Menerith: I wasn’t among them! My son wasn’t there! Why should we be punished?
Moses: I do what God tells me.
Menerith: If he told you to kill me, would you do it? Would you?

This eventually leads up into Menerith leading the army that pursues the Israelites and then perishes in the Red Sea (or to be more literal to the Hebrew, ‘Reed Sea’). The joy of the Israelites at the defeat of the Egyptians is here downplayed; instead, the film focuses on Moses grieving on the shores by the corpse of his step-brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top