Retro Review: The Ten Commandments

Personally, I am an old movie buff. Even though old movies acting and effects are nowhere near what we can put on the screen today, they still tell excellent stories and gives a glimpse into the world as it was way back then. This is part of the reason I tend to appreciate them so much as compared to some modern films which don't do the era they are set in justice I think.

Recently, I was able to watch the 1956 classic The Ten Commandments on Netflix.

That film is epic, which tells not only its own innovative story of the Exodus, but is epic in scope and scale of story telling regarding the life of Moses, Pharaoh, and the Israelites. It also draws influence from novels like Dorothy Clark Wilson's Prince of Egypt, Joseph Ingraham's Pillar of Fire, and On Eagle's Wings by Arthur Eustace Southton. Not only that, it draws on historical sources like Philo's Life of Moses and the works of Josephus. This provides a rich background to draw characters and inspiration from in order to craft a grand narrative to tell a new story of Moses. Largely filling in the 'forgotten years' between Moses exile and return to Egypt.

The casting though, is spot on.

A younger Charlton Heston (with pectoral muscles which could put eyes out) captures a young, outgoing, and brash image of Moses who has been raised by Egyptians. His performance as the film rolls on and he undergoes a transformation from honorable, but driven and intriguing prince, to a devout holy man with a mission to free his people. His penchant for chewing the scenery is fantastic in my opinion and he can be perfectly over the top as necessary.

The second character I noticed was Vincent Price as Baka, an Egyptian overseer who goes from faithful assistant to Moses, to card carrying villain. The man whose voice I remember from The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo as a kid, plays an excellent and sinister character on screen. Though admittedly this is a tiny role, it fills me with great amusement.

Bigger roles of course are those of Rameses (Yul Brynner), Nefritiri (Anne Baxter), Joshua (John Derek), Aaron (John Carradine), Lilia (Debra Paget), Yochabel (Martha Scott) and Bithia (Nina Foch). Each of these actors is well cast to their parts, and the female leads are all amazing in their performances.

I think that for a 1950s film, the agency and drama it grants to women is admirable. The roles of Nina Foch as Bithia and Martha Scott as Yochabel both are allowed to shape and drive Moses while holding some agency of their own. Though this is primarily in the form of protecting and nurturing their biological and adoptive son, it is a good role regardless. Nefritiri, whose scheming and agency drives much of the plot is a fantastic character, for both her tragic backstory and her desire for vengeance. Unfortunately, the character Lila falls into the "damsel in distress" category as Joshua's love interest.

While the film would soundly and swiftly fail a modern Betchel Test, it is fair for its day in the 1950s in giving its female characters more voice.

The Biblical epic though, unfolds roughly similar to the original story in the Book of Exodus. Pharaoh, fearing that the people of Judah will become too populous, orders the massacre of every firstborn males of the Hebrews. Yochabel, seeking to protect her son, sets him adrift in the river. He is saved and adopted by Bithia, daughter of Pharaoh.

Years pass, the Hebrews suffer, but Moses (named so by Bithia) is raised in luxury. Prince Moses quickly becomes the favorite of Pharaoh Sethi, to the jealously of his son Prince Rameses. This kicks off the plot as Rameses is charged to build a great city to honor Sethi, but his cruelty slows production. Meanwhile, Moses has won a great victory over Ethiopia, earning acclaim. However, he covets Pharaoh's daughter Nefritiri, who Rameses also covets. When Moses is sent to build Sethi's great city, Rameses schemes against him. Moses however, sees the plight of the Hebrews, and tries to aid them. In the process, he learns of his Hebrew parentage and has a crisis of conscience. In doing so he decides to forgo his Egyptian heritage and live among the slaves.

Here is where part of the film felt contrived for me. In the Book of Exodus, (and the great adaptation, The Prince of Egypt) Moses kills an Egyptian overseer, so he must flee. Here, the same thing happens but in a far more contrived way. Despite being told repeatedly that only Pharaoh may free slaves, and with his path to becoming Pharaoh secure, Moses decides to forgo power and live amongst the Hebrews to know his heritage. Instead of using the path laid out for him to free his people and become an enlightened ruler, he decides to take the hard and stupid way. Moses from this movie doesn't seem too bright in this moment.

It gets worse when because of this bad decision he is captured and accused of being "the Deliverer" whom the Hebrews speak of taking them out of bondage. Rameses has him exiled, showing a great deal of bad judgement himself, and Moses wanders the desert until he comes to the tribe of Jethro, and meets his daughter Sephora.

From here the narrative leaves the contrivance train and we get to the big symbols of the burning bush, Moses receiving his staff and getting all woolly haired and wild eyed, and his return to Egypt.

In is at this point that the movie begins playing to its strengths. While the acting and story telling in the first half of the movie is superb (save for Moses being something of an idiot) the narrative shines forth to tell the story of the exodus from Egypt quite well.

The plagues are carried out as well as can be expected with 50s special effects, which is to say remarkably well at points. They manage to show the turning of the Nile to blood, the flaming hail, and a truly creepy rendition of the Angel of Death coming into Egypt. That last scene is tense, disturbing, and truly enjoyable.

The special effects too, are stunning for the time. Showing off the great accomplishments in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, the tempest of God as a pillar of fire, and the burning bush. There was a reason this was, at the time, the most expensive movie ever made.

When one considers that by and large this was accomplished through practical effects and with large groups of extras, the coordination is even more impressive. In the penultimate scene where Rameses chases the Jews to the Red Sea, the armies of Pharaoh are actually being played by the Egyptian Army! Which is pretty great in my humble opinion.

At the time this was one of the most expensive movies ever produced. When one considers the budgets many movies get now and the results that delivers, it should be obvious that directors could learn a thing or two from old movies.

The film is of course something of a morality tale. Nefritiri is something of a "Vamp" who uses her feminine wiles to confuse and misguide the men in her life, and is influenced by first her lust, then hatred for Moses. That the story is from the Book of Exodus is fitting since it is the triumph of the Christian God over the gods of Egypt. Moses more questionable decisions come from a clear intent of following an honor code.

Definitely old fashioned in its message, The Ten Commandments is a spectacle that shouldn't be missed, however. The films scenes of Biblical epics and amazing effects for the 50s stand true today. The acting is grand, the story holds up as timeless, and the film itself is a deserved epic. If the long view time puts you off, it comes with a natural intermission to pause at for a little while if you're not up for seeing the whole thing in one sitting.

Well worth seeing as an excellent Retro Film. Personally, I'm looking forward to recommending many more for you!

Brought to you by Satan

Now before I post this article I suppose I should clear this up that I personally am a Christian who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins and along with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost will lead me to eternal salvation.

In light of my beliefs I am usually surprised by both the virtrol and the stupidity of people when it comes to understanding my faith (or any other peoples belief for that matter) in regards to both theology, practices, and what constitutes the sacred. In my time I've dealt with those who are of  the militant atheist stripe in both real life and on the internet (I'm thankful to say that I remain friends with the atheists in my life despite some lively debates on the subject). I usually come across the regular anti-religious pomp and bigotry on the internet and I'm never really surprised by it. The ignorant who like to flout their 'knowledge' of the subject of Christianity really astound me, especially those who claim to have been Christians before turning to atheism. In my many conversations with them I rarely found them to have an even basic grasp of the Gospel or even the words of Jesus Himself! So I always have to question their so called 'knowledge'.

But recently on Facebook I found this little goody that made me laugh.

I'll give readers a moment to browse the flow chart. For those of you who have pondered the question before absorb it. For those of you who have seen this question multiple times and always had faith laugh with me now as I go on to explain the folly found within.

The flowchart (posted by a user with the name satan, hence our title) proclaims itself 'the quick and easy guide to God' and is anything but! Instead it asks some relatively simple questions after the statement of fact evil exists. I'll say to readers right now, yes evil does exist. Whether the corrupt politician lining his pockets with ill begotten money, the pimp abusing women as sex slaves, or the terrorist preparing to detonate himself to blow up a bus full of school children evil in the human heart surrounds us as a part of the human condition.

The chart then proceeds with a number of questions such as 'Can God prevent evil?" or 'Does God know about all the evil?" and with each 'no' answer one is directed to the conclusion that God is either not all powerful, knowing, or loving. Mind you of course that each time no is answered that is in direct contradiction to the Scripture, and since one must use the Scripture to get to know God and His divine nature it is fairly obvious that the no answers are really baits early on until we get to the final assertion 'Could God have created the universe without these?' in which case the logic goes that if he could we have two answers as to why He didn't create the universe without evil because a) free will or b) He wished to test us.

Now the chart responds that if a) Could God have created the universe with free will but without evil? Now here I have to step in because when we go from here the reasoning gets rather cloudy. Let me ask this, if all that is good and just stems from the Lord and he gave us the free will to chose otherwise what is logically all that is the opposite of what He loves? That would be what you call evil correct? Of course it would for "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (James 1:17). That which is just is pleasing to the Lord. Everything else such as perversion, theft, and debauchery is a sin. So if God created the universe without evil then he would created it full of everything pure and holy and mankind would either not be in it, or unthinking robots who had no choice but to praise God and would rob Him of the very beings He created to inhabit his Garden. Now is seems even the chart recognizes this problem so it comes at us with choice b for what I suppose the creator figures is his coup-de-grace.

Choice b) is that God wished to test us and have faith in times of need to see who is worthy of salvation. Now the answer always to the idea of being tested is 'if God is all knowing He would know what we would do if we were tested and therefore would have no need to test us' this has two problems. One it commits the infinitely hilarious fallacy of saying that 'God must' or 'God would' as though the writing of the author and his opinions have any real reflection on how the creator of the universe is going to behave. The second problem is that it tries to undermine that God is all knowing by saying He would know how we would react when we are tested and therefore have no need to test us. Now those of you who understand why we have faith in Christianity should already be shaking your heads and saying how foolish this is, those who are scratching their heads and saying 'this makes perfect sense' allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

God is all knowing and 'the very hairs on your head are numbered'  as God knows all about all of us and all about each of our actions. When we sin it is plain to God what we have done, yet he forgives us in his infinite glory and wisdom. However, despite the fact that God is all knowing and all powerful He gives us the choice in how we are to react before Him or accept his forgiveness and He knows what to send against us and whether we can muster to the challenge or not. This we must do on faith. Take for example Job, whom God allowed to be tested beyond the reasonable limits of any man in order to prove that he was a good and faithful man. Satan took away his sons and daughters, his lands, his health and his dignity, but Job stood by his God knowing that even though he would suffer he would be rewarded in the next life. Again the choice lies in human hands as to whether they will accept His forgiveness just as the choice as to whether we would sin in the beggining lay in Adam and Eve's hands, despite knowing we had the option of choosing evil God allowed us to go ahead and do as we willed. Like Job he tests us to show us that no matter what is sent against us He will be there in the end and that we should accept Him regardless of what comes. As to knowing how we would react, this assigns a sort of human logic to God that by knowing the outcome he wouldn't do it again putting this silly notion that God must function according to the authors will rather than His own mysterious ways.

Now as a note in regard to the great tempter himself we have Satan whome all evil and rebellion stems from. Satan is a fallen angel who was regarded high in God's court and deciding that he was the most beautiful and powerful that he deserved to be God's equal. He was cast out with all his followers. Now he goes around tempting people and attempting to turn them away from God in an act of petty spite, while he knows his days are numbered and that in the end he will lose to the Most High. The chart says that 'An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, God could and would destroy Satan, sigh, that silly notion again. As the Bible says, Satan will be destroyed and sent forth into the lake of eternal fire. There is simply a time for that and it is coming. In the meantime Satan will continue a campaign of petty spite to try and overthrow God by destroying we who are precious to Him. In the end Satan will fall and the world will be saved.

Now I know full well that those of you who do not wish to believe will certainly not after I have trashed this sore chart and its assumptions. Then again those who do believe will be reafirmed in your faith and sing his praises with me. Then of course there are those of you who have had a seed planted in you and are on the road to accepting Him. Maybe I have put you one step closer to having faith in Him, perhaps I haven't. He alone knows these things. We on the other hand must have faith in Him, as after all if these things were certain and we knew the infinite nature of God what we do would not be called faith now would it?

The Pagans!

Now aside from the slightly inflamatory title this is not a hate piece, but rather a short opinion piece regarding my views on the subject. You see in a recent browsing of the internet I came upon a few pagan sites, as well as discussions in which Christians quite ruthlessly bashed pagans for being 'devil worshipers' and 'idolitors' which I found extremely disapointing. So here I intend to set the record straight on 1) my own view of paganism 2) why the 'Christians' here were acting unacceptable and 3) what Christians should do in these kind of situations.

Now to begin Neopaganism (or contemporary paganism) is in essence a recreation of old pre-Christian religious traditions by modern groups. This is really an umbrella term as it can describe anything from Wiccanism, Adonism, or Radical Faeries. These are diverse movements that can encompass almost any form of pre-Christian belief, generally trying to capture the old timey feel of the pagan religion from before the time of Christianity in pre-modern Europe. So pinning down the movement for any one defining feature is difficult at best, and like trying to give a cat a bath at worst. Though they do share some elements such as polytheism, animism, and pantheism. So one could end up in a group which believed that Zues was the king of the gods and his brother Thor wished to stoke our warrior spirits to gain energy for the gods or something like that. Mind you most groups do have a definate theology and a series of complex and traditional rituals. This means that unlike some would like to think these groups are very well organized and have a fully functioning system and a solid set of beliefs. The set ideas will inevitably vary wildly from group to group though so one should not be surprised if they go to one Wiccan group that has one set of ideas about morality then to another which has entirely different ones.

With that I begin to offer my own view on the subject. Being originally a country boy from a very small conservative community I admittedly have had little to do with any large pagan groups nor have I seen much in the way of practicing paganism. Though growing up I did meet many teenagers who were *ahem* 'practicing pagans' which meant anything from belief in animal spirits to asking Thor for guidance, as well as one kid who believed he was a vampire. Now this was interesting (though in some cases hilarious since it was evident these kids had no idea what they were talking about), but really had nothing to offer on the subject. Now I have met some true practicing pagans and they really are quite nice people and very agreeable to be around. Can't really say anything bad about them, nor did they seem to bear me any ill will for being a Christian, nor did I really bear them any ill will for being pagans. On my own I am generally disinterested in the subject and mostly regard it as interesting and beyond looking into it out of curiosity have never felt that there is much interesting in the movement outside of sociological study and historical trends.

The 'ressurected' forms of long dead polytheistic religions dreamed up by the spiritualists of the early 20th century does have a fascinating significance as a social movement though. The spiritualists themselves were men disenchanted with the normal religious values of the time and  thought that a greater 'spirit world' was out there. The movement was extremely large in the aftermath of WW1 and gained great following well into the 30's and 40's of the last century. Though it largely ceased to fascinate the public thanks to many members of the movement being exposed as petty con artists (those of the crystal ball variety, remember that) many actually went on to write about interactions with Hectate, Odin, and what have you. This did gain some popularity and as evident by this article has survived as a fringe movement to today. It is one of the very interesting, if overlooked, effects of the Great War in that Western Culture was so shocked by its barbarity and furiosity that so many different religious and political movements evolved from those crazy times. I think that it was one of the more interesting (and far less bloody) items to pop up.

Now I think anyone who has read anything by Micheal Z Williamson or S.M. Stirling will no doubt have had some fictional Wiccans  shoved in front of them, I think that as literary characters they are perfectly wonderful and offer some variety. Though some of their 'values' (considering that each of the above authors likes to focus on the sexually loose idea of Wiccans for some reason) are jarring to me personally, they are quite fun.

But I digress and continue to the reason for this post. I stumbled across an online discussion where members of certain evangelical Christian sects were quite happily insulting the beliefs of some Neopagans for a contrived reason (having to do with military religious rites) and saying such lovely things as 'suffer not a witch to live' or 'devil worshipers burn in hell' and other such intellectually vacant remarks. While the 'suffer not a witch to live' is a direct Biblical quote it misses the point that 'witch' in that context is basically one of thise crystal ball hoaxers who tricks people out of money or attempts to curse someone with magic. Hence why a 'curse' earned a death sentence in the Old Testament. Applying this to modern pagan groups is, well, erroneous at best, and completely ignorant at worst.

Now the Christians here were saying that military service members who were worshiping pagans should not be allowed to use the military chapel as they weren't really religious apparently. Now I personally am indifferent to what a pagan group does or where they worship (unless it's in my basement) and feel that the argument is absurd here. A military chapel is available to all service members regardless of belief. Though the majority may be Christian this does not mean they get a monopoly on the use of a government installation, which is what a military chapel is. The name calling and insulting were completely uncalled for and patently ridiculous. There was no reason for those actions. As Christians they were 100% in the wrong. Christ never suggested we go out and harrass those of other beliefs. He suggested that we love our neighbors regardless of creed or belief and instead focus on spreading the Word. In this case words were exchanged and they were absolutely the wrong ones. I don't care if these people are Wiccans, atheists or practicing Satanists, they deserve the use of that chapel as it was not a private facility and was set up so members of all faiths could have time to worship. This is not exclusively the right of Christians in the military.

Mind you, this issue was going on in the US so as  Canadian I am a 100% outside observer. I have respect for military veterans and servicemen and seeing members of the military insulted and looked down on for simply not having the right religious ideas is something which makes my blood boil. They are serving their nation and being insulted and belittled just because they are not among the majority is ridiculous! We as Christians are supposed to be tolerant of one another and accept each other despite our faults and disagreements! Not go on some petty vendetta because you feel that they are 'devil worshipers'. The actions of these so called 'Christians' here left me disgusted and appaled.

Here is what a Christian should do in this sort of situation. Firstly realise that a) this is a government run facility and that the country is not a theocracy where one religion has a monopoly so you can't say that the 'devil worshipers' are not allowed to use the chapel, b) BE TOLERANT, Christ did no go around belittling those who did not believe or held different ideas to him. In fact those He did belittle were the religious authorities of the time and those who had seen miracles yet still did not believe c) we as Christians have to love our neighbors regardless of who they may be. Yes I said have to, in fact it is what the Lord commands us to do. Sermon on the Mount anyone? If we don't act tolerant, loving and caring towards those who believe differently how are we to emulate Christ or show people the way? Christ didn't make converts by attacking people, He made them by caring for them. d) when interacting with pagans or those of other faiths be polite, repectfully disagree with their views, discuss your own, and of course wish them well! It is what you should hope for after all.

I encourage Christians out there to remember this! If you wish to spread the Word remember why you are spreading it! John 3:16 people, that's why.