Review of Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) by Dave C — 09 Sep 2015

Following the recent release of Noah, Exodus: Gods and Kings came out last year with the promise of reigniting some of the style and scope of the older Biblical epics. While Exodus keeps from falling completely flat, most of it simply reinforces what made Noah a much more intriguing film.

Scott, himself a self identified skeptic and non-believer (for whatever that means and whatever that is worth), has seemingly taken on this source material and popular Biblical story for a reason. If anything, as a viewer it would have been helpful to walk away from this film with a grasp on why he chose to make this film. On the surface we can see some curious choices by Scott, namely in the movement of the film itself as an effort to explain away notions of the supernatural and miraculous (which, I think is fair to admit, results in some great spectacle and opportunity not just to turn the river to blood, but to have it invaded by an army of preying crocodiles who relegate everything to an extreme level of carnage... which then leads to the mass migration of frogs from an unliveable habitat and to the harsh result of mass decomposition).

This movement to explain the supernatural away in earthly terms is not necessarily a foreign concept, nor entirely out of place with the art of proper Biblical exposition (The Nativity, a much better film, gave time to exploring the nature of the stars alignment over the birth of Christ from a scientific and astrological perspective, without losing sight of the supernatural significance of the incarnation which provided the heart of the story). However, where Scott removes the supernatural elements he also fails to determine what will continue to drive the heart of the story itself. Whereas most of the plagues are linked together, he has no way to explain the death of the firstborn son, and thus is forced to return the character of God in to the picture. Yet, Scott has already relegated God to little more than the question of a hallucination (embodied in a defiant little kid). It is here where the complexity of the God/human relationship becomes a bit misplaced and awkward and even confusing.

The beauty of the Exodus story is found in its extremely revealing human relationships. The Prince of Egypt (again, a MUCH better film) looked bravely on some of the tougher questions, such as the relationship between Moses and his brother, the journey for Moses in coming to terms with his Hebrew heritage, and the struggle with the reality of the carnage in respect to the relationship between God and his people, God and Moses and God and the world. For Moses, this is about wrestling with who God is and why the world is the way it is. Scott can only tread so far in his own interpretation without being forced to return to some of these more compelling character questions, and when he finds himself back in this place he doesn't quite know how to handle it nor how to make it fit in a relevant way (nor does the group of four credited writers give us something compelling to consider in its place).

The big, epic sequences are nice to watch. Here Scott gives us something to watch. It is unfortunate that the biggest flaws end up in the handling of a supportive cast. We can at least gain a glimpse of who Bale is trying to be with his turn as Moses, even if he is somewhat crippled by a lack of serious vision. Edgerton has equal potential, but unfortunately the attempt to balance him as a picture of a tyrant with a compassionate/human side is far from realized. The characters of Joshua and Aaron are sorely underutilized as characters and actors, remaining so far out of sight that one almost needs to revisit the film to be reminded they were indeed there. Even Scott's attempts to bring a multi-cultural dimension to the period piece (avoiding the common place of white washing) ends up much more buried in the film than it needed to be. He had an opportunity to reign in the star attraction of Bale with a strong multi-cultured supporting cast surrounding him. The pieces all seem to be here (in all of these respects), but they just never really turn in to much of anything important.

And then we come to the character of God, who comes in the face of an indignant and defiant child. Even here (with the interesting take on the burning bush segment), there was potential to bring something as big as God to the screen in a way that could circumvent the cheese factor. I liked the idea. But the problem of a divided vision remains in play here, detracting from what could have been a great idea. The concept is to attempt to have Moses wrestling with his faith (and the idea of faith) rather than God Himself. Thus we have a God who is barely allowed to take a glimpse outside of the hallucination narrative. The problem of course is that God is never allowed to become a character in the story itself, leaving some of the big questions of the story left without a foundation for discussing who God is. This goes far beyond the age old "angry and violent God of the OT" mantra that often entraps and cripples attempts to deal with these ancient stories in our modern setting. It almost becomes a bit disingenuous. If Scott chose this story in order to provide a critique/satire on religious belief that would be one thing. And yet the film appears to want to engage with the worldview that inspired the text to begin with. In the end Scott's own reasoning for making the film feel a bit lost in translation.