"Exodus: Gods and Kings" Director Ridley Scott put himself in an awkward spot from the beginning. As a self-described atheist, Scott had no reason to make a film to support religion. On the other hand, one would think he would have something to say about religion, else he wouldn't have been interested in making the film. However, he had to be a little careful on what he did say so not to offend (at least not too much) conservative evangelicals, or Christians wouldn’t go see his movie. And he needs Christians to see the movie in order to recoup his $140 million budget. So what did he do?Not surprisingly, Scott, for the most part, took the diplomatic route and tried to please both camps. And not unlike the creators of “Noah” earlier this year, Scott and the Exodus 2014 creators took some liberty from what appears in the printed Bible. In this case, the book of Exodus. (Quick note: when someone makes a movie based on an an existing public source, be it a Stephen King story, J.K. Rowling novel, Ernest Hemingway book, or the authors of the Bible, they open the door for their interpretation to be compared and critiqued. And that's all I'm doing!)
A good example is Scott's omission of any miraculous signs. Sure, the burning bush, release of the plagues and parting of the Red Sea are all there, but Scott seems to leave open the possibility of a natural scientific explanation or coincidence for the cause of each. At least initially. But after a sufficient amount of these “coincidences”, Scott does “succumb” and gives God the credit, but not after his attempt to place a little doubt in the minds of his audience first, and only after making God appear as a brutal, uncaring force. Need to read more than just the book of Exodus to understand that isn't true! Unfortunately, there are many people who haven’t read the Bible who see this portrayal and don’t know better. That’s a bit disconcerning.
So yes, gone is the magical staff that Moses prominently carries and uses through God to cause various miraculous signs, including the plagues and parting of the Red Sea. In the film, these events seem to happen without Moses even being involved. In place of a staff, Moses instead carries a sword. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that Moses is portrayed by Christian Bales, who in recent years played Batman in a trilogy of “Dark Knight” movies. Many “Caped Crusader”-esque moves can be seen during the various battle sequences Moses fights in.
Another interesting aspect that Exodus 2014 and its creators decided to implement was to keep Moses a skeptic of God until the very end of the movie, just prior to the parting of the Red Sea. This is contrary to the Bible, which leads us to believe that Moses is on board and a believer after his burning bush encounter with God (as portrayed in the Cecil B. DeMille’s original 1956 “Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston). Because of this “skepticism”, Moses makes some interesting decisions throughout the rest of the movie that the Biblical Moses probably would have never dreamed of making. More on that shortly.
Getting back to the burning bush, where God for the first time summons Moses and explains His desire for Moses to return to Egypt and “set his people free”. However, the Exodus 2014 creators decided to add a couple of caveats to this seemly simple encounter. First, it is almost implied that Moses only saw the burning bush as a result of a concussion after being hit on the head by a rock just prior to the bush appearing. Even his wife Zipporah, after he returned from the mountain, suggested that he did not see God, because God is not a child. What’s that….a child you say?
And that brings us to perhaps the most compelling choice Scott made in the entire movie: using an eleven-year-old boy to portray God. Or at least Moses perception of God. Remember, Moses is still a skeptic of God at that point. During his post-burning bush conversation with Zipporah, Moses asks her to “explain to someone like him (a skeptic) what God looks like”. That's actually a good question. So perhaps an ignorant Moses envisioned God as a child figure? The Bible also provides examples of God manifesting Himself to and communicating with people differently (He appeared as a donkey to one person!). Moses had a son about the same age, so maybe God thought appearing as a child would be the best way to get Moses’ attention? I’d like to think that’s the case, and not the creators of Exodus 2014 implying that the Old Testament God is like an impatient little child who gets irrationally angry (which happens in the film, as the “child” God occasionally throws a fit).
Now let's get back to Moses’ skepticism of God. This approach brings a whole new dimension to Moses’ thinking and subsequent actions that the Bible doesn't seem to support. Specifically, Moses acts on his own initiative rather than by following God. This is evident when Moses returns to Egypt to help the Israelites leave. Rather than confronting Ramses (Pharaoh) and relaying God’s ultimatum (as in the Bible), Moses quietly assembles an army of Israelites and begins Pearl Harbor-type attacks on Egyptian forces, with the intent of causing an uprising among the Egyptian citizens against Pharaoh. After sinking a few ships and taking out some Egyptian forces, not to mention killing numerous innocent men, women and children along the way, Moses realizes that his plan is going to take too long. An “angry” God-child re-appears and chastises Moses for what he is doing, and then tells him to “watch me”. At that point, the distribution of the plagues begins. From the bloody Nile River to the locusts, frogs, hail and darkness, we get them all in this version. One thing we don’t get is Moses (and his brother Aaron) confronting Pharaoh after each one, reiterating God’s command that he release the Israelites. Moses only re-visits Pharaoh once, and that’s after the third or fourth plague.
The distribution of the plagues goes back to what I said earlier about scientific explanations and coincidences and the omission of miracles. The first (Nile turning to blood) doesn't happen after Moses touches the river with his staff as in the Bible. Scott devised a more natural, barbaric way this could have happened (I won’t tell). He then, at least initially, infers that the subsequent plaques could be the result of its predecessor, i.e. a domino effect. Only after ten plaques does Scott relent that coincidence is not possible, and admits that it had to be from God. Curiously, during the distribution of the plagues, and particularly before the last one, Moses voices his displeasure to God that innocent people are dying, and that what He’s doing is nothing short of revenge, when in fact the plaques would have ended after the first one if Pharaoh had relented. And evidently Moses forgot that he was doing the same thing earlier! Similarly, after the last plague where each first born Egyptian male dies, Pharaoh asks Moses how he can follow a God that is a “killer of children”? Ouch! Again, this could have been avoided. I guess Pharaoh didn't have an issue with his father killing all first born Israelite males several decades earlier, of which Moses was nearly one. I was waiting for Moses to remind Pharaoh of that, but he never did. The writers decided to leave that out I guess.
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" does have a few things going for it though. Although not Biblically-backed, Moses’s gradual conversion from skeptic to devout prophet was nice to watch. He starts the film believing only in himself and ends up humbled before God. This happens towards the end of the movie when the thousands of Israelites he is leading are pinned between the Red Sea and Pharaoh’s approaching army. Broken and desperate, Moses heaves his sword into the sea, finally accepting the fact that’s it up God, not him, to lead his people to freedom. The Red Sea soon begins to part, revealing Moses' sword, which he retrieves. It’s not unusual for God to give you back something that you gave up for Him, so I thought that was a nice touch, whether or not it was intentional by the writers.The visuals in the movie are exceptional, and the acting for the most part very good. I really liked Joel Edgerton as Ramses, the younger Pharaoh in particular. Christian Bale was adequate, but perhaps too strong a presence for the humble, reserved Moses. Ben Kingsley was good as Nun, father of Joshua. Sigourney Weaver was oddly cast as Ramses mother. She looked out of place as Egyptian royalty. Speaking of Joshua, his role was relatively small, compared to what’s in the book of Exodus. And Moses' brother Aaron was almost non-existent, although he played a large role in the release of the Israelites in the Bible. As a result, I would highly suggest reading Exodus chapters 1-14 and 20 to see how what was written differs with what Ridley Scott put on screen.
I am light years from being an authority on the Bible, but I have read it more than once, so when I see a movie like this, the first thing I ask myself is how a non-Biblical person would interpret the movie if he or she didn't know anything about the Bible. That answer is what really determines whether or not I feel the need to write about it. And this time, like after “Noah”, I really felt like I did!
