"
The Ten Commandments"
**** (out of ****)
I had mentioned in my post celebrating the 15th anniversary of my blog how I would spend the year periodically looking back on films released in the year I was born - 1983 - and celebrate their 40th anniversary. I thought another interesting idea would be to look back on films celebrating their 100th anniversary, as the subject of film history is one that fascinates me.
Which films could I possibly look back on to celebrate? According to the Library of Congress, they estimate 70% of American silent films made between 1912 - 1930 are gone. Of course this figure doesn't give an accurate assessment of how dour the situation is. As indicated this figure only accounts for American films and has a starting point of 1912. Cinema, according to most historians, was invented in 1895. Many of those works have not been preserved. And, for the purposes of this blog, how many films do you think exist that were made specifically in 1923? Sometimes however there is good news and "lost" films are being discovered like the 1923 film, "The First Degree".
For my purposes however, the first film that came into my mind was Cecil B. DeMille's silent biblical epic, "The Ten Commandments" (1923). Over the last 15 years I haven't spent much time discussing DeMille's work. I have only reviewed three other films directed by him - the best picture Oscar winner, "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952), one of his other religious epics, "King of Kings" (1927) and his moralist drama, "The Cheat" (1915). While that is not a lot of films it is probably the most DeMille films referenced in a single paragraph in all of 2023!
DeMille was a controversial figure but an important one in Hollywood's early history. In Peter Bogdanovich's wonderful book, Who The Devil Made It - a series of interviews with some of Hollywood's most distinguished filmmakers - Howard Hawks says of DeMille, "He was by far the most popular director that ever lived - he pleased more people. I think a lot of us would have liked to have made stuff that made that kind of money. He was quite the a character." DeMille's critics would say he was a hypocritical showman. A so-called religious man who filled his movies with sex and violence. He wasn't a great filmmaker, just a spectacle maker. In modern terms, think Steven Spielberg. DeMille, they say, was a pop culture phenomenon but not an artist. In fact, for a "religious man", his movies were a significant reason why a Motion Picture Production Code - a list of moral guidelines films had to adhere to - came to be strictly enforced, beginning in 1934. Some religious groups were upset with what they viewed as immoral behavior in Hollywood - funny how some things never change.
The idea of looking back on a film made 100 years ago wasn't such an audacious move for me. I enjoy silent cinema and take great pleasure in watching the great clowns of the era like Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Some of their comedies are more than 100 years old. But to take a moment and actually ponder the idea that some movies are 100 years old did make me wonder what does this mean for film culture? It wasn't a question of would the movies hold up but rather would there be an audience for these movies ever again? Getting a young, modern thinking person to watch any silent movie can be a monumental task and in a world of streaming would there be room for silent films? Many silent films have not even been put on DVD or Blu-ray - King Vidor's "The Crowd" (1928) and Erich Von Stroheim's "Greed" (1924) are prime examples. These are two of the greatest films ever made! I can only imagine legal matters have prevented this from happening. Would young people care if they didn't have access to these movies? Most likely they haven't heard of them to begin with so their absence wouldn't even be known.
I don't know if younger viewers watching "The Ten Commandments" would do much to turn any of this around but the film is truly a spectacle. Clearly indebted to D.W. Griffith - who DeMille once referred to as "the teacher of us all" - and his epic "Intolerance" (1916), DeMille too gives us a film divided between a biblical story and a modern times parallel. Unlike Griffith however, DeMille is only working with two stories and not four. Many consider "The Ten Commandments" to be the only silent film closest to matching the ambition of "Intolerance". For me, as a viewing experience, it surpasses it.
If you've never seen a DeMille film before, "The Ten Commandments" is quintessential of what you will find in his work. The film begins with a preachy intertitles opening essentially stating society has turned away from religion and now-a-days views the ten commandments as old-fashion. However, after the devastation of World War I perhaps now society will be able to understand the ten commandments are not laws we must obey as if it is a favor to God. But rather the ten commandments are the law! The first image we see is suppose to be Egypt with impressive statues of the pharaohs while the Israelites are gruesomely mistreated.
DeMille takes this mistreatment to extreme measures as the Egyptians brutally and constantly whip the already beaten and bruised Israelites pulling the Pharaoh Rameses' sedan (as seen in the photo above). One of the men can hardly stand and when he falls, the Pharaoh (Charles de Rochefort) orders the other men to continue onward as a giant stone wheel crushes the poor fallen man! Talk about excessive melodrama.
Then there is Miriam (Estelle Taylor), the sister of Moses - who has the most glum facial expression this side of Lillian Gish in Griffith's
"Broken Blossoms" (1919) - that's the movie where her character has lead such a miserable life, she doesn't know how to smile. After witnessing this horrific event Miriam asks God when will he hear their (Israelites) cry. Little does she know that it will be her brother, Moses (Theodore Roberts) that will lead them out of Egypt.
If I had to guess I would suspect the most famous image from the entire movie and DeMille's talking remake "The Ten Commandments" (1956) - his final film - would be of Moses parting the Red Sea. It may not fill audiences with wonderment anymore and the remake may have had better special effects but this is still sight to behold especially considering the time period. It is one of the many sequences that makes this film stand out and establishes it as a true cinematic spectacle.
After leading the Israelites away from the Pharaoh, Moses waits on Mount Sinai for 40 days until God reveals the ten commandments to him. While this is going on however the Israelites both afraid Moses will not return and impatient create a Golden Calf to worship. Here DeMille can get in a fair amount of sex appeal into the movie. The two sequences are cross-cut with each other in a visual display of the battle between good vs evil.
DeMille ends the biblical portion of the film at this point and begins his modern day story of a mother (Edythe Chapman) and her two sons. One a believer (Richard Dix) and the other a non-believer (Rod La Rocque). Dan, the non-believer, says he will break every one of the ten commandments and will still achieve great success because there is no God to punish him. And at first things seem to go his way. He marries a beautiful woman Mary (Leatrice Joy) and becomes one of the most wealthy contractors in the city. Meanwhile his brother, John hasn't moved up in the world and has remained a carpenter who is secretly in love with Mary.
When initially released most critics praised the visuals in the biblical portion of the film and criticized the modern day story as old-fashion. While I admit this portion of the movie is terribly predictable, I actually enjoyed it. I found the connection between the biblical story and the modern story intertwine much better than say Michael Curtiz's
"Noah's Ark" (1928) - a heavy-handed story that tries to draw a comparison between the story of Noah's Ark and World War I. The characters were also enjoyable to watch and turned in fine performances.
To the extent any of the actors are well known today, Richard Dix might be the most recognized cast member. I personally will forever associate him with the Oscar winning western "Cimarron" (1931) - the fourth best picture Oscar winner and my least favorite of all the best picture winners - here he is suppose to play a kind of "every man" in his approach to religion. If his mother is too strict - she asks Dan to leave her home due to his blasphemy - John is a believer but a kind of loose interpreter of the bible. It doesn't bother him for example when Dan and Mary are listening to music dancing even though it is the Sabbath. The mother on the other hand is outraged they are not keeping the Sabbath day holy.
Rod La Rocque on the other hand gives a very broad, smarmy performance that is delightful to watch and creates a perfect contrast to Dix's performance that is, for the era, more grounded and naturalistic. Leatrice Joy is at first presented to us as an essentially good person who when desperate is capable of bad things. When we first see her she is hungry and steals food. She is placed in the middle of these two men and kind of represents a good and bad within us. Her path in life will be determined by which man she chooses.
I would imagine for modern audiences the one character DeMille and writer Jeanie Macpherson - who adapted the Laurel & Hardy comedy
"The Devil's Brother" (1933) - create that they would find offensive is a half-French, half-Asian woman named Sally Lung (Nita Naldi). She may be the woman to lead Dan astray and make him break another commandment. She fits into an old stereotype of the dangerous exotic foreigner. We saw a similar character in DeMille's "The Cheat".
The story reaches a climax when Dan is preparing to build a church. In order to save (and pocket) money Dan decides to cut back on the amount of cement used in the concrete. Dan brings in his brother to be head carpenter on the project. John discovers what Dan is up to and demands work cease on the project. Unfortunately tragedy strikes. I wonder if this massive building is meant to make us think of the fall of the tower of Babel.
In perhaps a misstep DeMille keeps his story going on a bit too long after this sequence and tries to end everything perfectly with a bow on top. It leaves us with a message about the importance of love - in our interpretation of religion and between one another.
Some consider this the first of a religious trilogy DeMille would make with "King of Kings" and "Sign of the Cross" (1932) completing it. I'm unaware if this was actually DeMille's intention or not. I will say however "The Ten Commandments" feels like the film DeMille got everything right. He had made other moralistic dramas commenting on the downfall of society - "Manslaughter" (1922) - which claimed like the Roman Emperor America would fall unless the youth turned away from the evils of jazz and alcohol (!). But here he finds the proper story to express his ideas and the visuals to match it.
For a film 100 years old I would argue "The Ten Commandments" holds up very well. Modern audiences would probably laugh at the acting style in the biblical portion of the story but some may find the film entertaining. It is a true testament to DeMille's vision that his work can live on all these years later and still get a rise out of audiences with its spectacular images. This is epic filmmaking that deserves to be cherished.
Posts
