The Agony and the Ecstasy

Produced to be one of the great “prestige” pictures of 1965, The Agony and the Ecstasy must have seemed like a sure bet.  The film was partially based on a best-selling novel by Irving Stone, epics were still doing good box office (and winning lots of awards) and the director was Sir Carol Reed, who had directed the classic post-war thriller The Third Man.  The cast included one of the biggest stars of the period, Charlton Heston, and Rex Harrison, fresh off his big Oscar win for the blockbuster musical My Fair Lady.  

But The Agony and the Ecstasy was only a mild box office success, and while it did pick up a few Oscar nominations, it really failed to make much of an impression and remains largely forgotten today.  Which is a shame, because while flawed, The Agony and the Ecstasy has a lot to offer and deserves to be remembered.  

The Agony and the Ecstasy tells a story of the painting of the Sistine Chapel, or rather how Michelangelo (Heston) was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel by Pope Julius II (Harrison).  But the film is about much more than that.  This is a battle of wills between two stubborn men; it’s also a depiction of the violent politics of the Renaissance Era Papacy, which in many ways was more like an independent kingdom than a religious institution.  

I think one problem with The Agony and the Ecstasy is that it might be a bit too wrapped up in its own importance.  Or putting it another way, knowing the story lacks any major battles or exciting set pieces, the movie doubles down on its own “importance.”  This becomes obvious almost immediately because the film actually begins with a 10-minute documentary explaining why Michelangelo is so influential to art history and why we should all pay attention once the movie starts.  That’s, uh, not a good sign of things to come.  And sure enough, the movie is dense with “important” moments.  Audiences don’t like to be lectured to.  That’s not why we go to the movies.  That’s what school is for.  

And yet, I also admire the movie for trying to tackle complicated subject matter without dumbing it down for the audience.  It is fascinating to me that there was an actual warrior Pope who led armies into battle in the 1520s.  And the acting from Heston and Harrison is truly superb.  Michelangelo is not a painter, and he doesn’t want to do this painfully difficult project, but he still digs his heels in to create a masterpiece, one incredibly slow step at a time.  Julius II wants a monument to the glory of God and also to his own rule as Pope, but would like for it to be finished cheaply and quickly, and certainly before he dies.  He chafes under Michelangelo's arrogance and slow progress.  And when the two start arguing, the film elevates into a thing of beauty.  There are few actors who can dominate the screen with such righteous fury as Charlton Heston. Whether you like him or not, it’s hard to deny that he commands the screen. It takes a special kind of actor to take Heston’s punch and punch back just as hard (see Yul Brynner in The Ten Commandments), but Rex Harrison rises to the occasion.  But there is one big difference between the confrontations in the The Ten Commandments and The Agony and the Ecstasy, and this is where I applaud Heston as an actor - Michelangelo can’t win.  He can be stubborn, scream and try to intimidate, but in the end, he has to lose, and Heston understands that.  The Pope always has to win, and it needs to be believable.  And in the middle of their endless bickering, Heston knows the exact moment when to wilt before Harrison’s authority.  Sometimes he even slouches over and pouts like a toddler, which is a hilariously perfect acting choice for the character.

I know I am talking a lot about these arguments between Michelangelo and Julius, but there is a reason.  These scenes are where the heart of the movie lies, it is when the film truly soars, and everything else just pales in comparison.  Unfortunately, when Harrison and Heston are not on screen screaming at each other, the movie largely falls apart.  Michaelangelo has an odd love story with a DeMedici countess (Diane Cilento, Hombre) who clearly loves the conflicted artist who could never love her back (because of his obsession with his work, the movie states, clearly skipping over the fact that Michelangelo was most likely gay). And Pope Julius finds himself arguing about Italian politics that are never fully explained and would require a PhD to fully decipher.  The movie tediously plods along, waiting to be shocked back to life by another Heston-Harrison fight.  

Since the movie is wrapped up in its own importance, it also tries too hard to inspire – with sometimes laughable results.  In what is supposed to be a high point of the film, Michelangelo climbs through the Italian Dolomites, looking to escape from his commission to paint the ceiling.  And then he looks into the sky as the sun is rising and in the shape of the clouds he sees God touching Adam's finger - the image that is to become the centerpiece of the Sistine Chapel.  And he is divinely inspired in a moment that is supposed to be transcendent and beautiful, and just ends up being laughably bad. I understand that this was the 1960s and special effects have come a long way since then, but those clouds look silly in any decade. It's an over-the-top moment that is made even more over-the-top by overwrought music and then just to top it all off, Michelangelo starts narrating passages from the book of Genesis for the audience. It's all supposed to be grand and important, but it is trying so hard. The movie so wants this moment to bring tears to audience's eyes...it wants it SO BAD!  And it is completely ineffective.  

The movie doesn't need to try that hard. It needs to take advantage of its assets - in this case, Heston and Harrison. There is a moment of transcendent beauty in The Agony and the Ecstasy, but it is a smaller moment, a moment of quiet tranquility when Michelangelo and the Pope quietly look at the depiction of God on the great ceiling by candlelight.  The Pope's simple question, "Is that what he looks like to you?" leads to reflection on the true nature of God and eventually to grudging acceptance and mutual understanding between the two men. It's a short scene, with beautifully restrained music and a remarkable portrayal of two men who act like giants but are now realizing their own insignificance before a greater power. It might be the best scene in the film, and it doesn't need to act "important" to move the audience.  

I am sure there would be more to say about  The Agony and the Ecstasy, but I feel it would get repetitive.  Whenever Heston and Harrison share the screen, which is admittedly a lot of the movie, this film could be considered a classic. But the rest of the movie just can't equal these scenes and knocks the whole thing down a peg. I would still absolutely recommend it because during the moments when the movie is flying, it truly does soar.  

MVP:

Spoiler Alert!  I am about the ruin the beginning of The Agony and the Ecstasy.  The film begins with a battle over a small Italian city.  Underneath a barrage of cannon fire, one army advances to the town, led by an imposing knight in black armor, who slashes his way through his enemies and down the narrow streets of the city.  The army converges on the central plaza of the town, and quickly realizes that all resistance has ended.  The battle is won.  The black knight surveys his victory and stands before his men. Attendants race up, take off his helmet and then place the papal robes over his shoulders.  His army bows, and the Pope blesses his men for the victory they have just won.  This is Pope Julius II.

  

Now, that is an entrance.

And the scene is a clear example of the complexity of Pope Julius II as a character and Rex Harrison’s performance.  It would have been easy to play Julius as a corrupt and violent man concerned only with his own legacy.  It would have been just as easy to play Julius as a just and holy warrior of God.  Julius is an interesting because he is both.  His character is full of contradictions. He has just led an army into battle, but he celebrates with a genuine blessing for his soldiers and granting forgiveness for the sins they have just committed to win.  But at the same time, the cause of this war has nothing to do with religion.  It was just a small piece of the political struggle for 16th Century Italy that included the Papal States, France, Venice and the Holy Roman Empire.  He is not fighting for the glory of God; he is fighting to maintain domination over central Italy and the tax and land resources that supply his power base. He understands that the Papacy of the time was in many respects a political entity just as much as a religious one, and he sees himself as just the man for these complicated times. It’s a difficult balance to strike, but I think Rex Harrison triumphs in the part. I don’t doubt for a second that his Julius II is a man who loves God. He is having the Sistine Chapel painted for the glory of God, after all. But he is also a man of the world who is not above selling church offices, bribery, bullying, lying, stealing and launching wars, and committing all sorts of corrupt acts in order to maintain power.  Rex Harrison plays all these complex shades to the hilt, displaying more range than I’ve seen from him before. I’ve always liked Rex Harrison, but feel his diverse talent has been a bit overshadowed by the iconic status of his most famous role, Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady.  But it is worth exploring his other work.  He was a terrific actor, and he is just brilliant in this role.  Forget about Higgins. Harrison's finest performance is in this movie. He's the clear MVP.  

BEST LINE: 

Michelangelo (showing Julius II his plans for the Sistine Chapel): You see, I couldn't give you something mediocre...even if it is what you asked for."

TRIVIA:

The mountain quarry where Michelangelo flees when he is seeking "inspiration" for the Sistine Chapel is the actual Carrara in Tuscany.  Carrara was close to Michelangelo's hometown and was the source of all the marble for his sculptures.  

Ben Hur (1959)

Ben Hur (1959)

So everyone knows epics are my favorite genre.  The heyday of the epic was in the 1950s and early 1960s, when Hollywood went all in with these monster pictures in order to beat back competition from TV.  Though there are notable exceptions, I feel the 1950s were more about the biblical epics (Quo Vadis, The Robe, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Ten Commandments) while the 1960s abruptly shifted focus to the historical epic (Spartacus, Cleopatra, Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid).  The religious epic reached its zenith at the end of the decade, with 1959's Ben Hur. 

A major box office smash and the winner of 11 Academy Awards (a record until Titanic came along), Ben Hur has gone down as one of the great all-time classics.  It is clearly one of the best of the genre, and is certainly the best religious themed epic.  I actually think it is the best religious themed film ever.  Forget all the others.  Ben Hur is the real deal.

During the days of the Roman Empire, Ben Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy Jewish merchant who also happens to be best friends with the newly appointed commander of the Roman garrison, Marsala (Stephen Boyd).  Marsala betrays Ben Hur, imprisoning his family and sentencing him to life as a galley slave.  Ben Hur swears vengeance, and slowly works his way back to Jerusalem for a final showdown with Marsala during an epic, epic, epic chariot race.  But along the way, Ben Hur's story interweaves with another story, that of a simple carpenter named Jesus who wanders the countryside, preaching peace and performing miracles.

Look, is Ben Hur perfect?  No.  It is dated in some places, and also tends to drag in a few areas, particularly in the beginning (that love scene does not age well at all), and following the chariot race.  I think 15 minutes of this movie could have been trimmed and it still would have been just as good.

But these are nitpicks, because Ben Hur really is superb on almost every level.  There are some people who poke fun at Heston's acting career, but when he was firing on all cylinders, he was really a very good actor.  And I don't think anyone quite pulled off the noble, larger-than-life roles as believably as Heston.  He certainly deserved his Oscar for Best Actor.  The rest of the acting is also great along the board, with a supporting cast including Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Hugh Griffith, Andre Morell, Sam Jaffe, and Stephen Boyd as Marsala.  Boyd is particularly good. He plays Marsala as a wounded man, someone who actually thinks he was betrayed by his old best friend, and not the other way around.  He was actually directed to act like a spurned lover, and watching his performance with that in mind opens up a whole new dimension to the character.  It's great work, and its a shame he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor (the award went to Hugh Griffith, who was nominated for Ben Hur for playing Sheik Ilderim - a fun role and good performance, certainly, but hardly Oscar-worthy).

The direction by William Wyler is superb, the cinematography is evocative, the art direction, sets, and costumes are awe-inspiring, and the music by Miklos Rozsa is easily one of the best scores ever written for a motion picture.  This is just a superb film from top to bottom.  Compare it the other massive hit of the religious genre, Ten Commandments.   Ten Commandments is just a bundle of sheer entertainment. No director was quite as adept as DeMille at mixing the cocktail of scope and silliness into something so unabashedly fun.  But Ben Hur blows it out of the water, with a filmmaking prowess and thematic depth that most historical films of the time period could not hope to match. William Wyler took the genre as far as it could go.  It is no surprise that religious epics went out of style in the 1960s.  Sodom and Gomorrah, King of Kings, and The Greatest Story Ever Told were pale attempts to continue the genre, but none thrived at the box office.  It's almost as if audiences just knew - the religious epic should have died with Ben Hur.  It was the best they were ever going to get.  So why bother trying anything else?

MVP: 
Some small spoilers here.  At first, this seemed like a tough call.  Wyler, Heston, Boyd and Rozsa could all make a strong case.  There are also a few scenes that are so good I have to consider them.  Probably my favorite scene involving Jesus in any movie is in Ben Hur, when the beaten Ben Hur is being dragged through the desert into slavery.  The line of exhausted slaves end up marching into Nazareth, which is where Ben Hur has his first encounter with Jesus.  It's a famous scene, justifiably so, and it had more of an emotional and religious impact on me than any of the heavy-handed biblical quoting that often plague films like this.  It's a beautiful sequence, with great work from Rozsa and great acting from Heston and the Roman guard who tries to stop Ben Hur from getting water.

But it's not my MVP.

No, once you start thinking about it, it is obvious what the MVP is...and as it should be, it is the one thing that the movie is most remembered for.  It is the image that is on all the posters, DVD covers, and featured in most movie montages.  It's that damn chariot race, that final confrontation between Ben Hur and Marsala.  How could it be anything else?  That race is a show stopper and has not aged a day.  It is just as intense now as it was then.  Maybe even more so, since audiences are used to CGI action scenes whereas this scene used stunt men who really get run over by horses.  That is pretty amazing to see - and please know that the rumor that a stunt man died while filming this movie is just that - a rumor.  But watching the chariot race, you have to wonder how that is possible, because there is some crazy dangerous stuff going on!

All in all, I actually think the chariot race is the best action scene in movie history.  Ever.  And I'll stand by that.  It's not just my MVP for this movie.  It's my MVP for the entire genre!

BEST LINE:
Judah Ben Hur: "Almost at the moment he died, I heard him say, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Esther: "Even then?"
Judah Ben Hur: "Even then."

It's not so much the first part of the exchange that I like, as I've heard it thousand times. It's the second part. "Even then." Those two words sum up the message of the film, the fruitlessness of revenge, the power of forgiveness.  There is a lot of power in those two words, and they've stuck with me ever since I first saw the film.

TRIVIA:
When Kirk Kerkorian liquidated MGM's assets in the 1970s, he sold one of the chariots for $4000 to a Sacramento restaurant owner.  A few years later, during the height of the 1970s energy crisis, this guy was arrested for driving the chariot on the highway.  I know there is probably better trivia out there about Ben Hur itself, but I thought this one was too strange not to post!

El Cid

El Cid

My friends and family all know that epics are easily my favorite film genre.  I count Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Ben Hur among my favorite films.  What is it about epics that I love so much?  I don't know.  I love the larger than life heroes, the vast scope of the stories, the brilliant sets, the casts of thousands, the grand music...I just love the bigness of it all.  But the very bigness that makes epics so unique is also what often leads to their downfall.  Often these movies will get lost in their own grandness, with their characters and storylines often being trampled by the march of what the filmmakers really care about: big heroes and big armies doing big things.  The best epics are able to strike the balance between the grand scale and the personal story of the characters.  It's not an easy balance, and only a few have truly succeeded. 

So how about El Cid, the 1962 film produced by super producer Samuel Bronston and starring Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren?  The film is considered one of the great epics, and is in fact one of Martin Scorsese's favorite films of the genre.  It was certainly one of the monster blockbuster hits of the decade.  Does El Cid live up to its reputation? 

El Cid is based on the legend of Rodrigo de Bivar, a Spanish knight in the 11th Century called "El Cid" because of his nobility and mighty exploits on the battlefield.  The storyline of the film is vast, including the wars between the Christian and Islamic kingdoms of medieval Spain, not to mention the looming threat of the Moors, led by extremist Ben Yusuf (Herbert Lom), who threaten to invade Spain and destroy everyone - both Christian and Muslim - who refuse to bend to their will.  The "B-Story" of the movie, i.e. the more personal side of the plot involves the evolving and tumultuous relationship between El Cid and the love of his life, Jimena.  Unfortunately, El Cid killed Jimena's father in a duel, but she still agrees to marry him so she can make his life a living hell, put herself in better position to someday kill him, but also because she still loves him.

So how is El Cid?  Unfortunately, the film does not deserve any sort of classic status.  And it is unfortunate because all the right pieces are in place.  Charlton Heston is terrific, and Loren is also quite good.  The costumes and sets are all stunning.  The original score by Miklos Rozsa is brilliant.  And unlike many epics, the story is actually very intriguing, full of interesting characters, stirring stands for truth and justice, and also a fair share of betrayals.  There are moments in the film that are downright brilliant, such as El Cid's duel with a rival king's champion, and when he forces Alfonso, the new King of Castile, to swear an unwanted oath when he ascends to the throne.

So it is a shame that the film never really works.  I think the primary offender is the leaden script which weighs down the otherwise interesting story with hammy dialogue.  For example, the love story has great potential.  Jimena loves El Cid, but is duty bound to try and destroy him.  That is good drama!  And Heston and Loren give it their all, and kind of pull it off.  But they can't quite get the tragic love story to ring as true as it should.  I also have to blame the director Anthony Mann.  Mann is generally a fine director, but I think his work is just kind of run-of-the-mill here.  Mann is actually studied in film school as a master of mise-en-scene.  His framing is the stuff that makes film students go crazy, but I actually think it is distracting (with a few stirring exceptions).  It's not that the directing is necessarily bad.  Yes, there are a few moments that are laugh out loud awful, but for the most part, there is nothing wrong with the film.  It's just that with a cast this big, battles this momentous, castles and sets this visually stunning, and with Heston and Loren leading the charge, shouldn't the movie be better than this?  It's really just a missed opportunity that needed a Wyler, Lean or Kubrick at the helm.

So is El Cid worth watching?  Yes, I think it is.  When it is bad, it is pretty bad.  But when it is good, it comes close to soaring.  So watch it with your expectations at a reasonable level, and I think you will like it.  El Cid does not hold a candle to the titans of the genre, but it is an interesting film, and worthy of being called a true epic.


MVP:
At first, I thought this was an easy choice.  Miklos Rozsa composed a masterful piece of music which is every bit as brilliant as his Oscar-winning score for Ben Hur.  The main title is fantastic and the love theme is perhaps the finest of Rozsa's career.  This score is easily in my top ten favorites.  But a conversation with a friend changed my mind.  He argued that Heston should be the MVP.  This is Heston's movie.  He carries it.  In fact, he elevates the material.  My friend put it this way: would this had been the same movie with a different actor in the role?  I thought about that for a second, and almost immediately I realized he was right.  Without Heston, El Cid would have been a very different movie.  In fact, it would have been another Fall of the Roman Empire.  That epic was produced by the same team, including super producer Samuel Bronston, director Anthony Mann, and writer Philip Yordan.  In many ways, Fall of the Roman Empire should have been an improvement.  The all-star cast was bigger and better, the sets were even grander, the scope spanned two continents of love, betrayal and warfare.  And ultimately the film is a colossus of epic boredom.  The only real difference between the two films?  No Heston.  I know there are some who can't appreciate Heston's grandiose style as an actor, and I do understand that.  But I don't think anyone argue that he wasn't tailor-made for the epic genre.  Whether it is Judah Ben Hur, Moses, Rodrigo de Bivar, or Michaelangelo, Charlton Heston takes on the larger than life persona and makes it his own.  And he makes El Cid better than it has any right being.  And that really is the very definition of a MVP, right?


BEST LINE:
El Cid: "Soldiers!  People of Valencia!  You must not be frightened by the sound of a few drums.  In a few hours, they will be silenced forever.  I promise you, tomorrow morning, I will ride with you!"


TRIVIA:
Heston also thought that El Cid was a bit of a missed opportunity.  He has been quoted as saying that it would have been better with William Wyler (director of Ben Hur) at the helm.  He even thinks he could have won another Oscar had Wyler directed it.  I have to admit, he might be right.  The dramatic potential was in the story.

Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments

What is the first movie you remember? For my generation, it was probably something like Star Wars, Willy Wonka, or one of the Disney cartoons. Is it weird that the first movie I remember is Ten Commandments? This probably explains my love of epics from a very early age, and also my tendency to be, err, over-dramatic from time to time. But seriously, my earliest cinematic memories are of this film and its epic grandeur. But I had not seen the film in at least 15 years, so when the Blu Ray arrived, I was a bit worried. Even in my memory, I could look back and see how cheesy the movie was in some places, how ridiculous, and over-the-top. I was a bit worried about confirming all that when I re-watched the movie, and potentially ruining a childhood memory.

Having now watched it again, I can confirm that The Ten Commandments is indeed cheesy, ridiculous, and over-the-top. And yet, in spite of that - or maybe because of it - The Ten Commandments works. It is actually deserving of both its reputations, as one of cinema's greatest epics, and also has one of the greatest cheesy films ever. It is rare that the film succeeds at both so brilliantly.

For those who don't know the story: In Ancient Egypt, omens alert the priests that a prophet is coming who would someday free the Hebrew slaves of Goshen. Taking no chances, Pharoah orders all the Jewish newborns killed. One mother rescues her own son by setting him in a basket on the Nile, hoping he will float to safety. Fate brings his basket to the palace, where he is picked up by Pharoah's daughter (Nina Foch, Spartacus), who is conveniently infertile and decides to raise the baby as her own, naming him Moses. Moses (played as an adult by Charlton Heston from Ben Hur) is brought up as an Egyptian prince and even becomes a rival to Pharoah's son, Rameses (Yul Brynner, The King and I). He is certainly favored by the current Pharoah (Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Suspicion) and his ward Nefertiri (Anne Baxter, All About Eve), who likes to over-dramatically swoon whenever Moses' name is mentioned.

Of course, Moses discovers his true heritage and this leads him on his path to becoming the spokesman of God, leading him to confront the Egyptians for his people's freedom and acting as the conduit for all sorts of miracles, including the awe-inspiring parting of the Red Sea.

Named as one of AFI's Top Ten Epics, The Ten Commandments certainly lives up to the word. Everything about this movie is Big, with a capital B. The sets are expansive, the costumes glorious, the music score by Elmer Bernstein is massive, and there are over 10,000 extras in the film. Yeah, you read that right. 10,000! Like all epics, the running time is a bit on the long side, as well, but I think it is a testament to DeMille's direction that the film never really feels slow. He keeps things moving at a lively pace, especially in the first half.

When talking about what makes The Ten Commandments entertaining, you also can't underestimate the cheese factor. The cheese is just as epic as the rest of the movie. The most hilarious example for me is in the physical acting. DeMille instructed his actors to not act naturally, but to be very theatrical. And I am assuming he ordered them all to pose constantly. It is incredible to watch almost every line reading in the film accompanied by arms being crossed, an arching of the back, or a foot dramatically lifting onto a step. This would make a wonderful drinking game!

Even the piety is The Ten Commandments is cheesy. Most religious epics bog down when religion enters the picture - those scenes always become overly talky and deadly serious - perhaps because filmmakers were worried about upsetting parents. A good example of this is The Robe, which moves along at a good pace until Richard Burton sneaks into the woods and watches a church gathering that seems to go for seventeen hours. Then St. Peter joins the group and proceeds to give a speech that I think is about as long as the Bible itself. In contrast, the piety of The Ten Commandments is more of the over-the-top variety - when Moses parts the Red Sea, an old man yells, "God opens the sea with a blast of his nostrils!"

In fairness, not all the religious stuff is silly. Some of it is indeed serious, but DeMille keeps these moments focused, character-driven, and not overly preachy - which I think is a big reason why The Ten Commandments is still watched by everyone, while films like The Robe and Quo Vadis are only seen by fans of the genre. There is also a more subtle religious thread in the film - I got the impression that both Moses and Rameses are atheists in the beginning. There seems to be a bit of cynicism when faith is mentioned and a lot of lines include something like, "if there is a God." Most intriguing and ironic to me is that later in the film, it is the strength of Moses' newfound faith that eventually pushes Rameses to start believing in his own gods. That's interesting material, and deeper than I would have expected.

Not to say The Ten Commandments doesn't have its problems. Despite the fact that all the memorable scenes are in the second half of the film, I feel this is when the movie begins to break down, narratively. The first half is terrific, focusing on Moses' years as an Egyptian prince. As I mentioned before, the pace is smooth and moves along briskly, leading all the way to when Moses finds the Burning Bush. 

Then we have intermission. And then I'm not sure what happens. I think DeMille loses interest in showing a story. Instead, he fills in narrative gaps with badly written narration, that he delivers himself in flowery and over-the-top language. DeMille may be a fine director, but he should not be narrating. The bouncing around certainly hurts the all important confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh - Brynner and Heston exchange their lines with powerful gusto, but the plot at this point leaves me with so many questions that I am distracted from their awesome fury. There are some basic common sense questions: Why do the Egyptians keep letting this guy just waltz into the palace? Aren't there guards? After continuously embarrassing Pharaoh in front of his court and his son, don't you think they would stop letting him in? The most egregious example of this is when Pharaoh enters part of his palace to perform a religious rite and Moses is already in there, waiting for him, posing melodramatically. How the heck did he get there?!

The problem is there is no narrative flow. We just bounce from iconic moment to iconic moment to iconic moment. While these scenes in of themselves work really well, it kills the storyline. And having DeMille bridging the gap by saying, "and then Moses went up the mountain and the people freaked out and decided to build a golden calf" doesn't work. That's not drama. That's a Sunday School lecture.

What salvages the second half is the Epicness. The costumes, the cast of thousands, and especially the committed performances by a great cast all see us through the spotty storytelling and carry us triumphantly to the end.

All in all, The Ten Commandments may not be perfect, but my childhood memories are not damaged in the least. I now notice all the flaws in the film, but I also recognize what makes it great. I would recommend you revisit it. You will laugh because of the cheese, but you'll also be impressed by the sheer Epicness of it all. It is definitely one of the classics.

BEST LINE:

At some point, said by almost everyone in the film: "So let it be written. So let it be done."

MVP:

I know it should be DeMille or Heston, but I can't help it - Yul Brynner is my MVP. Even as a kid, I was amazed by the performance. He is a superb villain - cocky, powerful, devious. Most importantly, he never gets blown off the screen by Heston's righteous fury, which can be overwhelming. Rameses vs. Moses needs to be a confrontation of titans, two stubborn and powerful men who will not yield. That is where the drama comes from, and if Rameses had been any weaker, the film would not have worked.

There are also other reasons why Brynner gets the win. He does the best job of handling the hammy lines, for one thing. Every actor has at least one line that they can't save despite their best efforts (the best example being Baxter's "Moses, Moses, you stubborn, splendid, adorable fool!"). Since he needs to be petty and conniving, Brynner is saddled with a dozen of these lines and each one comes out believable and awesome. It's only later that you notice that, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right!" Combine that with the fact that Brynner also gets many of the movie's best lines, plus an excellent character arc that Brynner nails, and some of the movie's best costumes, and you have a clear MVP.

I know everyone points to The King and I or The Magnificent Seven as Brynner's best work, but they should revisit his role here - he really is one of epic cinema's awesome bad guys.

OSCARS: Best Special Effects

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Sound Recording.

TRIVIA:

Oh, where to begin? This movie is full of interesting trivia. I think a cool one might be that Audrey Hepburn almost played Nefertiri, but some studio exec thought she was too skinny for the part. I think this actually worked out for the best. I love Hepburn, but I think she probably would have played the role straight and Nefertiri needs to have a little crazy hamminess to her - something Baxter had a lot of fun with. I suppose the other problem would be that if Moses had rejected a Nefertiri played by the luminous Hepburn, the audience would have never forgiven him - making Moses the bad guy in his own movie!!! That's my two cents...

Movie Review: Major Dundee

Major Dundee (The Extended Version)

If not quite the failed masterpiece critics now say it is, the restored version of Major Dundee is a fascinating mess. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, the film is about Major Dundee (Charlton Heston), a disgraced Union major in the waning days of the Civil War who is placed in charge of a Texan prison. Obsessed with finding some way, any way, back into combat, Dundee gathers together a motley crew of soldiers to chase down a renegade Apache warrior who has been attacking settlers. The unit includes Union troops (including an African American unit that is eager to show what they’re made of), local volunteers, drunks and reprobates pulled out of the cells, and Confederate prisoners led by Richard Harris. Together, they gallop down to Mexico, chasing after the Apaches while avoiding the French army (this was during that brief period in the 1860s when a French Emperor reigned in Mexico City). Clearly the small army does not get along, but it is only made worse by the single-minded and cruel Dundee, who lusts for this mission with the righteous fury of Captain Ahab.

Almost more interesting than the movie itself is the story behind the making of the film. Peckinpah, still relatively young in his feature directing career, started filming without a completed script, and it soon became clear he was in over his head. Tempers flew, scenes were delayed, Charlton Heston threatened to kill Peckinpah with his cavalry saber, the production went way over budget, and the studio decided to shut the film down. Ironically, it was Heston who tried to save the movie by offering his salary back to the studio. Reportedly, the studio took the money, but shut production down anyway. They edited the film with the footage they had, but key scenes had yet to be shot. To make matters worse, the studio then cut down the film EVEN MORE before releasing it in theaters. The result…did not fare too well with audiences.

Cut ahead four decades. Sony Pictures had the guts to put the financial resources into restoring the film to as close to its original version as possible. They even hired a new composer to write a more appropriate score. Critics hailed the film as a missing Peckinpah masterpiece. But even the restoration can’t hide problems inherent from the production fiasco – editing is choppy and scenes begin and end in strange ways – evidence that some shots must have been missing. The film is also weighted down by horrible narration that does its best to explain what’s happening, again probably because key scenes were missing. This narration is one of the most grating I’ve heard, the line readings so ridiculously flat they would have been at home in The Room. The movie bogs down with an out-of-place romance that never goes anywhere or resolves in any sort of satisfactory way. And at the end…well, the movie just ends.

But I still recommend Major Dundee, believe it or not! There are major problems (especially in the second half which was being written almost as quickly as it was being filmed), but what is good is GOLD. There are amazing moments, including an impressive cavalry battle near the end, terrific cinematography, and solid acting all around. It is the acting that amazed me the most. I wasn’t surprised that Richard Harris, as the Irish commander of the Confederates, and James Coburn, as the one armed army scout, are terrific. They are always reliable. But Charlton Heston – damn, with his last years so mixed up in politics and his reputation as an over-actor secure, it is easy to forget that the man could act when he wanted to. And Major Dundee is a career best – I have never seen him this good. His Dundee is a stubborn man - cruel, sometimes brilliant, and always antagonistic to everyone and anyone. He is a hard, hard man and the movie is worth watching for him alone. This film is not a study in heroics. It is a study of an ass, an obsessed fool who gets almost everyone around him killed, and it is fascinating to watch. If only Hollywood had had the guts to cast Heston as a real villain, we could have had one of the best! And for all these reasons, I would recommend the film.