Ridley Scott isn't the strongest on story - when he's got ready made material he knocks it out of the park eg Thelma and Louise - but if he's got something that's inherently tricky he often stuffs it up eg Prometheus, this.
I thought he was on safer ground because the story of Moses is so great, and has been filmed several times before so it's easy to see what works. But he stuffs it up. (Maybe other people were to blame but really Ridley Scott if a "giant ape" director, to use the William Goldman term - he does what he wants and the buck stops with him).
First of all they don't show the baby Moses story - one of the all time awesome origin stories, which sets up the world. the ruthlessness of the Egyptians, humanises the Jews, has great characters in Moses' mother, sister and adoptive mother. But this is thrown away so when we meet his mum and "sister" later on we don't care - they're these random people we get to spend two scenes with.
Instead we start with a battle against the Hittites - nicely enough done, but I think is Scott throwing back to Gladiator. (We never see Hittites again - all this does is set up rivalry between Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, which could have been done some other way.)
The movie also wastes opportunities wholesale with its supporting characters: Sigourney Weaver is set up as this interesting person, Edgerton's mother who hates Bale and tries to have him killed... then does nothing with her; we get all these scenes with Bale's super bland wife, who has nil character apart from "why are you never home"'; Ben Kinglsey is set up as going to be important, he delivers some exposition about Moses' birth... then nothing, he doesn't even have a point of view to the action; Aaron Paul's wide eyes indicate that maybe his characterisation of Joshua will be worth watching but he hardly does anything (I don't even think he has an argument with Moses); Moses' brother Aaron is introduced, and he's bitter about Moses and you think "oh here's some drama" - but nope, nothing their; the actress who plays Edgerton's wife looks similar to the one who plays Bale's and she has a nothing character either (make her a religious fanatic, or super stupid, or sexy.... but use her please); we never seen Moses' adoptive mother again, or his sister.
The Cecil B de Mille 1956 film, for all it's flaws, was infinitely superior in terms of crafting story and interesting characters. For instance, the pharaoh's wife was in love with Moses.... so, bang, right there, you've got conflict. Edward G. Robinson played an Uncle Tom Hebrew - conflict again. It put Moses at the forefront of the action - here, Christian Bale disappears for most of the plague sequences. Why not touch on the Hebrews disappointing God in their behaviour after deliverance? (It's implied but not shown.) Newcomers to the story will be confused as to whether Moses ever reached the Promised Land, and what happened to the commandments. I couldn't help thinking that at times the film was too clever by half ("well we don't want to be obvious and spell all that out") and as a result disappeared up it's own backside.
Let's take a walk on the sunny side. I felt the concept of God as a small boy worked, and visually it was (as per all Scott's films) superb: the plagues, the partying of the Red Sea, the battles, the costumes. Ben Mendelsohn is marvellous as a villain, Joel Edgerton was pretty decent as the insecure pharaoh, Dar Salim impressed as Bale's old Egyptian army 2IC. It's a genuine spectacle. I just wish they'd done the story justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment