Holy Moses, Batman! [God depicted as a petulant child in Exodus: Gods and Kings]

English director Ridley Scott is evidently fond of what Hollywood calls “period pieces.” He has had little trouble getting funding for such unlike other directors, no doubt because of his track record with Alien (1979), the cult classic Blade Runner (1982), and Thelma and Louise (1991). The suits felt sufficiently rewarded after they let Scott get into the time machine to make Gladiator (2000), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), and Robin Hood (2010) to let him try again. However, for Exodus: Gods and Kings, now playing at your neighborhood multiplex, Scott had to travel quite a bit farther back.

If you’re used to the DeMille version, The Ten Commandments (1956) with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner as Moses and Ramses, respectively, what Scott has done will seem better only because of the special effects at the end, which are impressive but not eye-popping. To me it seemed much worse, for reasons I will note shortly. Scott’s take on the Book of Exodus is unlikely to have the sort of run that DeMille’s has enjoyed, which has been shown on TV every year during Easter and Passover since 1973.

To play Ramses, Scott picked a virtual unknown: the Australian Joel Edgerton who had to shave his head for the role and does a creditable job. Not having seen the previews, I only had a vague notion that Christian Bale had been picked to play Moses. My reaction was puzzlement. I instantly remembered that this guy was Batman in The Dark Knight Rises a couple of years ago, which pretty much ruined the show for me. I watched Exodus at first trying to recall what other actor was in what other movie playing what other part.

I do find it amusing that conservatives are having a hard time with Hollywood’s depiction of the God of the Old Testament.

Many, many years ago I used to watch a program on PBS that often discussed history, religion, and gods. At the time I was too young and too naïve about the world to realize what I was really hearing. Obviously I didn’t learn from them enough to change my world view, but here I am years later observing how THEIR world view of God has actually informed this particular film.

On that show one often heard them discuss the angry God, the angry, young, jealous God....they viewed this God as one trying to learn to interact with His own creation. And when He did not get His way...the petulant side would arise.

You see, we’re viewing this film from the ‘loving God side,’ not from the liberal side of the early God of the Bible.

God portrayed as a petulant child, no it is not shocking if you know the culture that informed that view.

According to a review from Breitbart:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/12/exodus-gods-and-kings-review-nolte

“Where Charlton Heston’s Moses demanded that Ramses “Let my people go!”, Christian Bale’s Moses — and this is no joke — demands that Ramses pay his slaves a living wage and make them — again, no joke — citizens. DeMille’s Moses was a liberator. Ridley Scott’s Moses is a community organizer agitating for executive action on the minimum wage and amnesty.”

O'Reilly had Ridley Scott on last night, with two of Scott's cohorts. They defended the "petulant attitude." Scott can do anything he wants.
It's my read that Scott's "EXODUS" movie will probably be INFINITELY better than "NOAH." WHAT a stinker that was.

Hollyweird doesn't do ANY Christian movie very well because the entire milieu around Hollyweird is, basically, ANTI-Christian. The Catholic Church and Evangelicals have been targets of Hollyweird derision and mocking for quite a while.

That movie got several people killed when some muzzies took over a building in protest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God

In a film review, The New York Times reported that “when the film was scheduled to premier in the United States another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington, D.C. chapter of the B’nai B’rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film’s opening was cancelled.

The standoff was resolved” after the deaths of a journalist and policeman, but “the film’s American box office prospects never recovered from the unfortunate controversy.”[1]

I saw exodus the other day, and the "petulant child" image of God can ONLY have been intended as insulting.

One big problem with the movie was the casting - awful! They haven't learned anything since the 1950's, and are still portraying ancient Egyptians with British accents and pale skins. They did a little better with the Jews, but - despite all the expensive sets and high-tech special effects - the film lacked ethnic authenticity: you did not feel like you were in an alien, ancient culture.

It seems that the more movies that Ridley Scott does, the worse they get. His best work was decades ago.

Ridley Scott was probably hoping that the audiences would act like the tsunami portrayed in his movie - that we would descend upon the theaters with our tickets and overwhelm him like everyone did for "The Passion of the Christ." And, make him lots of moola.

Well, fat chance. Word of mouth has made me unwilling to part with my money.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.