Ridley's Scott's Exodus

The interesting argument in Toby Wilkinson's "Genesis of the Pharaohs" holds that rock art of the Eastern Desert is our best evidence for the origin of the culture that became ancient Egypt; they were nomadic herders moving back and forth between the Nile and the Red Sea. The area of the Eastern Desert he focuses on in the book is well south of Memphis, near where Luxor is today. Here's an article summarizing the book on its release, for anyone interested: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/05/arts.science
I'm not qualified to evaluate the argument, but it seems plausible, and there isn't a lot of other evidence out there, to my knowledge, on this fascinating question of origins.

 

Following this, it's highly unlikely that a Hebrew child would be mistaken for an African child. The whole story would seem to fall apart, then, unless the Pharaoh and his family are a little more light-skinned. Of course, it's also unlikely anyone will mistake Christian Bale for Hebrew....

 

Ah good old Toby Wilkinson. I used to love him till he went all mainstream and left the Early Dynastic stuff behind for the fame and glory of the Old Kingdom! His book Early Dynastic Egypt is well worth a read too and though things are sketchy, there's a surprising amount of evidence regarding the state formation period. It all kinda depends on how you want to interpret it though...There are some that hold there were dynasties of "Egyptian" kings before Egypt was formally unified/created. Whatever the case it seems obvious that it's development had a long genesis and as I say, what became Egypt was borne out of a melting pot of ideas and cultures even if it was the Upper Egyptians who were at the forefront.

 

The whole story doesn't necessarily hold together for me for a number of reasons, but it is a GOOD story that has served its tellers well for centuries. Good point about this and how it impacts movie casting.

 

I think this movie did have a point of view and was saying something. For instance, there are "natural" explanations possible for seemingly all of the events. Moses is hit on the head with a really big rock from a landslide, and then starts to see and hear things. There's a cascading ecological collapse of the Nile that brings the plagues. A meteor or some such thing might have caused a huge tidal wave, etc. From a religious point of view, there's a divine cause for such things, but for doubters there's room to see it a different way.

The gov't of Egypt is portrayed as a rather fascist regime. The fight for freedom, however, involves something like terrorism by people and by God. For most of the movie you are sympathetic with Moses and his people, but by the end, surprisingly, Edgerton's Ramses, in a powerful performance, somehow regains some of your feelings as he's clearly devastated by the loss of his son.

This is a more intimate and emotional telling of this story than DeMille's, I think. There's a more gritty look in many places, but equally spectacular sets, costumes, production design, etc.

Not a believer myself, but I really like DeMille's Ten Commandments as well as The Prince of Egypt by Dreamworks. But this strong film can stand proudly and equally with those two imho.

All that having been said, however, I can't wait for the director's cut of this film on blu-ray. It needs that hour that was cut out put back in....

 

Good to hear about "Early Dynastic Egypt"; I actually had ordered that the other day and will check it out over the holidays, I hope. What else do you recommend? Is this your primary area of academic interest, or do you come at it from another perspective?

 

Had not heard of Doherty, but thanks for the rec. How about Naguib Mahfouz? What non-fiction works would you recommend?

 

I've only read one Mahfouz that dealt with antiquity, Akhenaton, Dweller in Truth. It's okay.

For history, I always recommend starting with Breasted, and then Redford. Good traditional history . . . after a grounding in these I moved on to more specific books about temples, or dynasties etc.

 

Early Dynastic Egypt is a really good book. It takes something that could be quite dry and breaks it all down into loads of little chunks that's very readable. The one area it falls down is occasionally it gets confused as to whether it's written for experts or whether it's purely an introduction to the subject. To be honest it's both and its not an easy job to cater for both but he does it well. One of my desert island books but then I am a nerd!

Yeah I did a egyptology at uni and focused on the Early Dynastic Period, largely thanks to that book. I even got published on the subject! Heh. Anyway what else to recommend? If you mean just the early stuff, the best stuff is found in journals tbh. At least for me - I guess when you study something you tend to look at academic journals more than books. Plus I'd say the Germans lead this field, but a good book on the predynastic stuff is http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0631217878/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1419333897&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SY200_QL40 which covers pretty much all evidence for human activity in Egypt stretching thousands of years before the pharaohs. Though the really early stuff is just tool assemblages which are maybe a tad boring depending on your point of view! Wilkinson' book is the best English language book on the subject though it's kinda depressing to think it's almost 20 years old now.

The best thing I found for early Egypt outside of journals was a website by an Italian, I think, that was mostly in English and very, very detailed. I can try and remember it if you're interested - it's on my old bookmarks somewhere. Probably getting off the topic of Exodus now though...

 

I like the fact that the movie portrays the supernatural events in the story in a somewhat more "logical" context, just like "Noah" when trying to explain how such a huge ark could be built, how the animals were kept there, etc.
By the way, is the Director's Cut of Exodus really going to be a full hour longer?

 

Ridley Scott said in an interview that an early cut of the movie was about four hours long—but that it really worked emotionally. Can't imagine they'll release that version, but I'm hoping for 3.5?

 

I have worked on many, many early cuts of movies that were an hour too long, and usually the hour that the director cut out was done for very good reasons. But... there are always exceptions. Put 10 studio executives or 10 studio executives in a room, and you'll get 10 different versions, each with different running times.

 

Kingdom of Heaven is one movie where the longer Director's Cut really improved the film. That may or may not be the case in this instance, but I'd probably want to see it.

 

I was going to see this because it was another Ridley historical epic, but as usual they seemed to have cut out massive portions and I really don't want to see another of his films cut to ribbons before seeing the full version. Waiting for the inevitable Director's Cut.

 

I went to see it. I decided I was not going to pick nits about the representation of ancient Egypt. There was a lot wrong, but the display was dazzling. However, there was no emotion in the movie. I saw St. Vincent a few weeks ago and was moved throughout the movie. I was not really moved at all . . . almost when Moses was reunited with his Moabite family, but still no cigar. I'll see it again especially if there is a Director's cut, but. . . a matinee movie without much staying power for me, and that's too bad. Some things were just "off" for me. Moses needed a staff, not a sword, etc.

 

This gets at the core of my feeling about the movie. The hour that was cut out would probably make it a more cohesive film, but I doubt it will make me care any more about the characters. Gone With The Wind and Lawrence of Arabia are hypnotic 4-hour movies that I have seen multiple times because of the compelling characterization and deft hand directing the story. I would have a hard time watching Exodus again at any length, as handsomely mounted as it is.

 

I can't imagine a longer cut improving the film all that much. It's not that it's choppy; it's just flat, most of the time. That said, it looks good, so I suppose there's something to be said for seeing more of it.

 

I find it hard to believe that after all these decades in the business, Ridley Scott still does not have final cut on his pictures. He owns the production company!

No-one forced his hand on Kingdom of Heaven; Gladiator (his biggest hit) was still a recent memory, it was his choice and he made it, even if he perceived commercial pressure to do so.

 

Usually films get cut under pressure from the studio who is worried about how many showings per-day they can squeeze into a multiplex. 3 hour movies means less showings per day which equals lowered profit potential.

 

He likely could produce a film that's 3.5 - 4 hours in length and put his foot down. But the distributers would likely balk. And then the investors get angry. If $100+ million dollars of other people's money goes down the toilet b/c a director wants the world to see his epic religious-themed vision, heads will roll. So you make your cuts and hope for the best, then separately release your director's cut on DVD and various distributions (TV, cable, etc.) later. In the end it's more money that way.

 

I know, I'm just saying that, in Ridley Scott's case, the call is his. He has final cut. I believe he has negotiated final cut ever since the Blade Runner debacle. And now he owns his own very profitable production company, Scott Free, which makes several feature films a year plus piles of commercials. If somebody's making a business decision to put commerce before art in terms of theatrical cuts, it's Sir Ridley himself!

 

I greatly enjoy Ridley's work, it's always a visual treat, and occasionally he lassos a coherent story together. Exodus, great visual exercise, but I thought it was a mess.

It was really hard to watch this film without constantly being reminded of The Ten Commandments. I found that very distracting; it inclines me to agree with the folks who wondered why he felt the need to do this expensive 'update' in the first place?

The casting was mostly wretched. The only way Christian Bale makes sense as Moses is as some post-ironic nod to Charlton Heston. What a bizarre mishmash of accent throughouts! How did Moses' son wind up speaking with a posh British accent?

The Red Sea crossing started out very well, but, where to start. All those waterspouts,but just lurking in the background. Overkill. The speed of the wave overtaking Moses and Ramses seemed very erratic. Really interesting who did and did not survive what. And was I tripping or did the landscape totally change after Moses crawled out of the sea?

I felt just like I did after I walked out of Prometheus, visually overwhelmed, but baffled how such a master craftsman can leave so many loose ends and uneven seams.



Btw, the Thelma and Louise Bluray. If you haven't seen it, do.

 

That was Ridley trying to tell his story in a 'scientific' manner- Linking tornadoes and tsunami to it as part of the explanation for parting of the Red sea.
As with all his other films (and like 99% of other film makers), Ridley makes his own rules about what is believable and what is acceptable. If we all stop and think for a moment, none of this makes too much sense- Moses and Ramesses coming out alive under the waves? Nothing wrong with that I guess if we accept that as part of the movie magic.
Believe it or not, the wave does move forward in a fairly constant speed. Any sudden changes are results of optical illusion caused by lens and environment. ;-)

 

Spoiler

Ah - so that's what the giant shooting star was right before the tidal wave - Ridley went all Deep Impact on us to explain that.

 

"Exodus" is quite an improvement over "The Counselor" a horrible, horrible film badly written and performed.

It's clear that "Exodus" like "Kingdom of Heaven" was meant to be a much longer film although I'm not sure about the middle of the film which I felt could be cut without any harm to most of the film. Hopefully we will see a bit more character development with a Director's Cut. I didn't think that "Exodus" was a great film but I thought it was a good one and I appreciated the more secular nature of the film and how Scott presented by natural and supernatural explanations for what occurred.