Review: The Ten Commandments (1956) · 7:14pm Oct 24th, 2015
Fun Fact: In all likelihood, it is entirely possible I have seen this film a good fifty times.
And each time it's awesome.
Cecil B. DeMille's tremendously epic three hour, 25 minute retelling of the equally epic Book of Exodus still stands as one of the all time great adaptations of the Biblical text. From it's immense sense of scale, to it's ability to still focus on the smaller, more humane aspects of the narrative, and DeMille does it flawlessly. At the same time, he also infuses the film with a supreme sense of melodrama, which, while providing maybe a few moments that might seem a bit over the top to the present day viewer, for me just helps enhance the charm and splendor of the film. Sure it's over the top, but then again, that's what makes it feel so epic and awesome. On top of that, I don't think any film I've seen has really had the sense of scale that this film has. The cumulative example of this epic scope is the Exodus from Egypt, and, of course, the Parting of the Red Sea. There, DeMille directs literal oceans of extras, moving them across the screen with true scope and vision. It's so mind blowing to just take in the sheer scope and massive scale of EVERYTHING in these sequences, and at the same time, be brought down to a more human level and see the individual reactions.
The screenplay is quite good, playing a nice, subtle parallel to the fight for human rights and equality, an issue that is as relevant now as it was in 1956. It also has reams of quotable dialogues, and the back and forth dialogue between Rameses, Moses and Nefretiri are incredible, no doubt helped by the impeccable performances all around. It's also respectful to the original text without feeling like a stale, robotic quoting of the text. There are several diversions and embellishments to the Biblical narrative, but DeMille wisely avoids revisionism, instead aiming for simply fleshing out and exploring stuff that is only briefly eluded to in the original text. It's all done with respect, but still with a sense of daring and spark that really makes it work.
The acting is awesome throughout. Charlton Heston delivers an iconic and memorable performance as Moses, and he's at his best when he's in full on deliverer mode. Heston remains one of my favorite actors, as few could embody the sense of dignity and strength that Moses no doubt had, while still allowing elements of vulnerability to slip on through as well. The real show stealers of course, are the incomparable Yul Brynner and Anne Baxter, who have some of the most virile and volcanic sexual dueling of wits that I've ever seen in a film. Every single one of their scenes together is filled with a burning sexual tension and fire, as if they're simultaneously trying to seduce and destroy the other person, and it's glorious. Brynner acts with his entire body, winding himself tightly and always seeming like he's this rumbling thunderstorm of power and ambition, while Baxter fills her every scene with a smoldering sexuality and seduction that, really, it seems only she could do. She feels like a sly predator, stalking men like prey to hold power over. In fact, many of their scenes play out with an almost Macbethian level of venom to their interactions, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Filling out the cast is an ocean of Hollywood character actors, from the noble power of Cedric Hardwick, the scheming Vincent Price and Edward G. Robinson, to the human chameleon John Carradine, to the noble John Derek, to the quiet strength and diginity of Yvonne De Carlo, the matronly grace of Nina Foch and the angelic beauty of Debra Paget. They all turn in great, human performances, and it's something that I find harder to find nowadays. This type of unique, do-anything acting, where the same actor could play hundreds of parts with equal skill, is something that did sort of die with the studio system, and while the death of the studio system did lead to the creative explosion of the New Wave movements, there's something about the idea of having this much raw talent together under the same roof that is very nostalgic for me.
The other departments, such as Art Direction, Visual Effects and Costume Design, are all equally awesome and epic, with every set feeling splendid and rich in it's design and every costume a marvel for the eyes, and visual effects that still look incredible more then 60 years later. Also, Elmer Bernstein's score is a masterpiece, filled with an almost Wagerian sense of drama and scope that few scores have matched, and it surges beneath the film like the ocean, filling it with even more epicness.
So, as you can probably tell by now, I really, REALLY love this movie, and it's probably my favorite version of the story of Exodus (although Prince of Egypt is a near tie). This is not only a high watermark for the Biblical epic, it's also a high watermark for film in general, and is really worth watching, even if you aren't a religious person. Go seek it out, and I really think you'll enjoy it.
5 out of 5 stars.
My man, Mr. DeMille was a master of his craft, and the epic (literally!) film, and still to this day, her remains one of my favorite directors/producers. No one could make a movie like he did, and that's still true to this day.
Hollywood lost a great treasure, and an equally great man, when he passed from the scene.
Fun fact here: My late mom remembered going to see this wondrous movie when it was first released in the theaters. She was around 16-17 in 1956, and she told my sibs and me that she remembers that it was 4 hours long, and that there was an intermission after the first 2 hours of it.
She also told us she paid like 75 cents to get in to see it.
Truly, Hollyweird does not make movies like this anymore.
And that's a shame.
It really is.
This is one of my favorite movies. Basically all the reasons you listed except mine aren't as well thought-out.
3494490 OFMG HE LIVES!!!!! (sorry haven't seen you in awhile)
3494268 Exactly.
I mean, it's not like New Hollywood hasn't made good films such as Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey), Martin Scrosese (Taxi Driver), Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather), Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List) and others, or the 90s guys, like The Coen Brothers (Fargo), Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction), David Fincher (Fight Club), Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights) and even the new guys who came to prominence in the 2000s, such as Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums), Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive), Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity), Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman), a bunch of others, who continue to make awesome movies.
It's just that Old Hollywood, if anything, made it so that the absolute best got to have consistent jobs, which meant they had MASSIVE outputs either as writers or actors or directors, which meant they had YEARS to hone their craft.
Of course, at the same time, the studios were very oppressive (just read up on the Olivia de Havilland saga), and constricting, and eventually that lead to their downfall.
3494647 Haha, well, I have been lurking mostly. I'm flattered you remember me so enthusiastically!