In this piece, there will be SPOILERS, so fair warning. Any Bible reading will give it away, but I mean in terms of the specifics of Ridley Scott’s film.
The title of Ridley Scott’s latest film epic actually contains a huge misnomer. Yes, in one sense, this is the Exodus story from start to finish, but not the Exodus story you know. Rather, it primarily takes place from the perspective of Moses, a general in Egypt’s armies, and Rameses, the future Pharaoh. Both are raised as brother, even though they came from different mothers, and both were raised with a similar eye towards expanding, sustaining, and enhancing the power of the Egyptian empire. Of course, things don’t quite end the way that either man expects, and soon insinuations of Hebrew heritage begin to cause a tear in their relationship. It is here that Moses ends up exiled.
Clearly, the story details begin different, and it’s just as clear that the individual story flow changes events and ideas around in order to fit Exodus into a two and a half hour run-time, but much of that background saves time for Scott’s real focus: Moses. Who was this guy? Christian Bale, our resident Moshe, considers him schizophrenic and one of the most barbaric men he’s ever read in a book, but I beg to differ with what I saw on screen. Here, I see a man who did not believe in Egyptian gods, and who seems to believe in…well, nothing. We could call this a modern anachronistic pull, in the same way that Scott replaces Pharaoh’s magicians with scientists; there’s a clear emphasis on the implications and concequences of religious faith, even to its utmost extremes.
Moses’ “conversion”, if you would call it that, takes place during a rainstorm chasing sheep (the Midianite stories remain), where a rock hits him pretty hard on the head. We then see the Burning Bush, along with a little boy who plays God. I imagine the child image, though seemingly strange, exists specifically to evoke God’s sinlessness and innocence. We might also say that it reflects, in some respect, a petulant God who does what he wills even if it harms His own people. Honestly, I’m not quite sure, and the film itself likes to play up this ambiguity. Is Moses just crazy and messed up in the head, or did the God of Israel really tell him to lead an army?
I almost gasped for a second when Moses returns to Egypt to try guerilla warfare; no staffs turning into snakes here! Thankfully, God thinks this method quite funny, and Scott does not transform our narrative into an arbitrary war film. Rather, we really see Moses struggling to understand what God wants him to do, alternating between faithful obedience and complete disobedience. Moses serves God on his terms, and this puts him into a precarious spot. As Moses states clearly in an earlier scene, Israel means “he who wrestles with God”, and Moses wrestles with God throughout this movie!
In fact, I would say Scott definitely wanted to emphasize faith, specifically irrational faith, and even more specifically in humbling one’s self before an unknown power greater than yourself. Moses never wishes to submit to others; he is, as they say, his own man. Over time, through marriage, a family, learning that he is Hebrew, and finally becoming God’s general and messenger, he learns that he’s not the center of the universe. The world will not cater to his personal whims; he must serve a higher power, but that service comes at a price towards which most men would balk. Yet, even through doubt and trials, he perseveres and does not give up, even when other people think him mad.
Rameses, our Pharaoh, exists as a lead as much as Moses. He just happens to represent the other side of the coin, the side that will never humble itself before a greater power. One man will submit, even if it takes some time to arrive at that destination; the other will never do it, unless extraneous circumstances force him into the most horrific of tragedies. Even a god cannot raise his son from the dead, and whether you want to attribute Rameses’ shortcomings to upbringing or otherwise, his lack of awareness and inability to realize what he’s up against prove a bitter blow. It’s almost more depressing that he is left alive without victory, an army, a son, or a former brother.
To be clear, Moses clearly isn’t crazy; while Scott re-imagines the first five or so plagues with naturalistic explanations, he plays the Passover completely straight as a sign of God’s power (and, if you think that way, capriciousness). The same goes for the Red Sea, which reminds me a bit of The Ten Commandments, although the ending does go for an entirely different direction. I also found it odd that they threw Joshua into the movie, considering I always thought him a second generation rather than a person who came directly from the Exodus. As for the actual acting, it’s almost shameful how little Ben Kingsley and Sigourney Weaver appear in the movie at all. They were merely a draw, and their small contribution may as well not even exist. Aaron Paul also makes it hard to take Joshua seriously (Breaking Bad fans should know what I mean).
All in all, though, I found Exodus: Gods and Kings rather tight and focused onto its main themes, even with a long runtime. Moreso than Noah, it captures the spirit of the original story while also adding new twists that don’t involve Rock Monsters or Watchers, which I call a positive in my book. I imagine many Christians will find some of the choices here jarring, but if you can get past the strange design decisions and plot details. I believe you can really enjoy this one and think about it long after.
