Comments from Rabbi Ze’ev Smason of Nusach Hari B’nai Zion

1. How historically correct/accurate was the story? Did you think it took too many liberties (if so, please explain)? Were there some parts that were out and out wrong? 

The answer to the question ‘How historically accurate’ was the story reminds me of the old joke about the waiter in the Jewish restaurant who approaches two customers and says, “Was anything OK?”   Other than the names of the characters, I’m not sure much else was right (and even regarding names– Joshua was called ‘Hoshea’ (and not ‘Joshua’) until much later in the desert wanderings — see Numbers 13:16).  

The inaccuracies began, literally, from opening moment of the film: A caption scrolled across the screen saying “The Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt for 400 years.”  This was also mentioned at least once during the film.  We were in Egypt for only 210 years (http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/617888/jewish/How-many-years-did-the-Jews-spend-in-Egypt.htm) — and even only about 100 of those years were actual servitude.  

Just a few of the many other inaccuracies:

— According to the Torah, Moses knew from his youth that he was a Hebrew; he was informed by his mother who nursed him when even as a baby, he refused to be nursed from Egyptian women. His mother nursed him for many years, and he had ongoing contact with her.  The movie has Moses finding out he was a Hebrew only as an adult — being informed by the Hebrews.

— The Jewish people lived in Goshen (see Exodus 9:26), not Pithom.  

— Moses fled on his own after killing an Egyptian (Exodus 2:15), not escorted out at behest of Ramses, as the movie depicted

— A movie caption indicated that Moses returned 9 years after exile; he was, in fact, 40 years old when he left, and 80 years old upon his return.

— According to the Torah, Moses had a speech defect, and approached Pharoah with his brother Aaron acting as an intermediary ‘mouthpiece’.  In the movie, Aaron was almost no where to be seen. 

— Plagues (see question 4) 

— The movie depicts Pharoah issuing his edict of ‘make the same number of bricks, but collect your own straw) after most of the plagues had taken place.  The Torah describes this having taken place before the first plague (Ex. 5:18)

— The movie has Pharoah telling the Jewish people to leaving during the day — not at midnight, as the Torah says. 

— According to the Torah, the blood on the homes to protect the Hebrews from the Angel of Death was on the INSIDE of their homes — not on the outside, as depicted in the movie.

— Concerning the splitting of the Red Sea, I don’t know of one detail about this that the film got right.  In the movie it was the ‘Receding of the Sea’, not the ‘Splitting of the Red Sea’.   Jewish tradition teaches that the Red Sea split into 12 different paths (one for each tribe), the sea bed was completely dry, etc.  Nothing of the sort was shown in the movie.

— The Movie shows Moses fashioning the tablets of the 10 commandments.  In the Torah itself, they were made by the hand of G-d.

2. What did you think of critical components of the film such as acting, special effects, direction, pace of the story (was it overly long or just right?), action scenes, etc. You can elaborate as much or as little as you like, but give me something please.

Despite the inaccuracies, it was a fun movie.  Christian Bale is a great actor, and the special-effects were top notch.  I was pleasantly surprised to see the relationship of Moses and Zipporah (Moses’ wife) depicted tastefully and with sensitivity. 

3. What did you think of the device of having G-d portrayed by a little boy?

The positive aspect in having G-d portrayed by a little boy is that it was so preposterous, it wasn’t theologically offensive. It was a bit like Jimmy Stewart/ George Bailey’s guardian angel (Clarence) in “It’s a Wonderful Life’ being played by a rotund, inept, cheery fellow.  You just smile, and don’t take it seriously.   The kid’s garbled British accent was annoying, though.  I would have rather heard a clear, South African accent.  If G-d WERE to speak in English, it would be with a South African accent!

4. The plagues — your thoughts?

A plague on the house of the screen writer(s) who came up with the portrayal of the 10 plagues in this movie.  

– In the Torah, Moses announces the coming of 7 of the 10 plagues in Pharoah’s presence (exceptions:  #’s 3, 6,9).  In the movie, the plagues just ‘kind of happened’.  And even the 10th plague, of the firstborn, was only hinted at by Moses to Pharoah.

– In the Torah, the plagues lasted for the duration of a week, followed by a three-week respite, when the previous plague disappeared. In the movie, the plagues co-mingled.  The lice and vermin occurred when the frogs were still hopping around.  The frogs came up when the water was still turned to blood. Pharoah and family seemed to keep their boils and facial lesions throughout the end of the movie.  Too bad they didn’t use a good Hebrew dermatologist!

— Many of the plagues were depicted occurring in the wrong order – boils before death of the animals, noxious animals (attacking crocodiles) even before the water turned to blood). 

— There was no attempt to portray how the Bible/Torah states that the plagues began (i.e. Aaron using his staff to hit the river to bring about the blood and frogs, Moses casting soot into the air to bring about the boils)

— Every plague but # 9 (darkness) was giving some screen time.  What did the screenwriter have against darkness?

5. A congregant comes up to you and asks whether he/she should see this movie. What do you say?

It depends. If the congregant is VERY familiar with the Torah account of the Exodus story, and there’s no danger of misinformation or incorrect images residing in their mind, I’d say, “Go have fun and watch it.”  But for the uninitiated (young and old), they might believe some things in the movie actually happened.

6. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the best/highest, how many stars would you give this movie? You can give half stars.  

2 stars.  Somewhat fun.  Good entertainment.  Christian Bale is good in just about everything he does.  Cool special effects.  But if I wasn’t interested in seeing it to compare it to the Torah account of Exodus and to DeMille’s “10 Commandments”, I’d rather watch a good James Bond or Mission Impossible film. Who wants to see ‘Unbroken’ and ‘Taken 3’?!

7. Can you elaborate on the casting of Christian Bale as Moses? (He also played Batman and an American Psycho!). How did he compare to Charlton Heston?

Only in Hollywood would a guy named ‘Christian’ play Moses, the greatest Jew ever!  The director and Christian Bale must have gotten a good laugh about that.  Christian Bale has considerably more range, as an actor, than Charlton Heston did.  So Bale was able to pull off certain scenes (i.e. When Moses was having self-doubts, and in the scenes with Tzipporah), than Heston would have every been able to do. Heston vs. Bale is like Clint Eastwood vs. Tom Hanks.  Heston was a great ‘tough-guy’ Moses. 

8. Speaking of casting, the film has gotten blasted for having basically all Anglo people in the lead roles, as well as a guy named Christian playing Moses. Was the casting an issue for you? 

The unrealistic casting in this movie (‘Christian’ Moses, G-d as a 12 year-old, all whites except for a few black palace slaves) and wildly inaccurate script actually made the movie more enjoyable for me to watch.  There was no need to take the movie seriously as an attempted depiction of the Biblical Exodus — like DeMille’s ’10 Commandments’ tried to be. 

Anything else? 

Let My People Go…..away from the movie theater!   Makes Moses look like a basket case!  The book was better than the movie!

---

Comments from Rabbi Noah Arnow of Kol Rinah

1. How historically correct/accurate was the story? Did you think it took too many liberties (if so, please explain)? Were there some parts that were out and out wrong? 

The filmmakers took great liberties with the story, both with the details as well as with some of the major themes.  For example, rather than have Moses encounter the burning bush while on foot and have to remove his sandals, the movie completely reimagines that episode.  That’s a detail.  More broadly, the whole trajectory of Moses’ character is somewhat at odds as I read it in the Torah.  Aaron has virtually no speaking role, unlike the Torah.  

But the deviations from the precise details of the story are precisely the point of making a film like this, which is an act of interpretation, exactly like a midrash or legend or commentary on the story.  To me, this movie is an extended and very thought-provoking commentary and midrash on Exodus.  

2. What did you think of critical components of the film such as acting, special effects, direction, pace of the story (was it overly long or just right?), action scenes, etc. You can elaborate as much or as little as you like, but give me something please.

It feels like much more thought was given to ways the film interprets the Exodus story and to the visual elements than to the pacing, dialogue or acting.  The film makes a familiar, paradigmatic story feel new by humanizing and detailing and showing all sorts of details that the text excludes, and by capturing the enormous geographic and human sweep of the story.  But it also feels slightly wooden, reminding us that the base story is the Bible, after all, a famously terse text, and yet somehow that woodenness makes the film feel more authentically “biblical.”  

3. What did you think of the device of having G-d portrayed by a little boy?

I was fascinated that it was so apparent to Moses that that little boy represented God.  God could have appeared in any form to Moses.  But as a father of a seven-year-old boy myself, that manifestation of God probably would mean more to me, and means more to Moses–a father of a similarly-aged son, than many other forms in which God could have appeared.  God is portrayed as possessing human emotions, but chastises Moses for his lack of moral outrage, a reversal of the human-divine relationship in much of the Torah.  

4. The plagues — your thoughts?

I appreciated the way Pharaoh’s advisers find semi-rational, scientific explanations for the earlier plagues but eventually science runs out of answers and only one explanation remains reasonable.  I did feel like darkness got short shrift, especially since in Jewish tradition that was among the worst plagues.  I thought the movie illustrated well the devastating effect the plagues had on the Egyptian common folk.  Pharaoh always fared better than everyone else during the plagues, naturally.  I loved how the fourth plague, boils, disfigures Pharaoh and all the Egyptians, so that their inner, moral rottenness becomes externally visible.  The tenth plague’s suddenness was appropriately chilling and merciless.  

5. A congregant comes up to you and asks whether he/she should see this movie. What do you say? 

I would and will recommend this film to all my congregants.  It’s a great piece of extended modern biblical interpretation, and needs to be appreciated as such, and not as the “true” version of the story.  

6. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the best/highest, how many stars would you give this movie? You can give half stars.

 2.5 stars.  Not a great movie but for this rabbi, endlessly interesting!  

7. Can you elaborate on the casting of Christian Bale as Moses? (He also played Batman and an American Psycho!). How did he compare to Charlton Heston? 

Christian Bale in the later scenes, when he is bearded, reminded me quite a lot of Charlton Heston.  Speaking of which, did anyone notice the four words the filmmakers probably felt they could not use if they wanted to be original and not completely derivative?  “Let my people go.”  I thought Bale/Moses was a preposterous Egyptian, but he did sort of have that commanding yet bemused, almost raving quality of the biblical prophets, and his physical vanity and hair style deteriorate the more he speaks with God.  

8. Speaking of casting, the film has gotten blasted for having basically all Anglo people in the lead roles, as well as a guy named Christian playing Moses. Was the casting an issue for you?

 I have no problem with someone named Christian playing Moses.  Regarding the accusations of “whitewashing,” I may be being overly generous, but by having those in power be of lighter skin and those in subservient roles be of color, the film eschews anthropological accuracy for modern relevance.  We can relate to–and be disgusted by–such a world, and be reminded that we may not have moved as far as we think from this ancient Egyptian mindset.

Anything else?

I loved when Moses and Pharaoh debate the meaning of the word, “Israelite.”  Moses, of course, nails it.  Pharaoh cracking crab shells and gorging himself nicely illustrates his “traifness.”  The image of Jews hiding in a secret chamber under a floor from searching Egyptians of course conjures images of the Holocaust, reminding that the Holocaust was not the first time Jews had to hide.  

---

Rabbi Michael Alper from Temple Israel

1. How historically correct/accurate was the story? Did you think it took too many liberties (if so, please explain)? Were there some parts that were out and out wrong? 

There is a long-standing debate in biblical archaeology as to whether the Exodus itself ever really happened. Therefore the pursuit of a historical depiction of the Exodus has always been a slippery slope. The value of the Exodus story is that it is eternal. It happens in every generation and often enough we experience the exodus in our own personal lives every day.  While I certainly was not expecting a fundamentalist portrayal of Moses in which every word of Scripture would be realized on screen ; Ridley Scott was so far from the original story that many moments became laughable while others were downright offensive.

There were certainly some interesting moments in which the director made a number of attempts at depicting the historicity of the Exodus event with regard to the life that the pharaohs led along with their courtiers and servants. Unfortunately all of these attempts were undone by the director’s choice to incorporate Holocaust imagery in the scenes depicting the horrors of Pitohm. 

2. What did you think of critical components of the film such as acting, special effects, direction, pace of the story (was it overly long or just right?), action scenes, etc. 

What happens when you get a fabulous cast a fantastic director and you add four separate writers? A very confusing movie. While it was a pleasure to see Ridley Scott working with the number of veterans from his films such as “Aliens” and “Gladiators” the casting was a real mess. These folks did not belong in a biblical epic. They belong in an outer space epic. Ridley Scott could have reinterpreted the Exodus as an outer space epic using the very same cast and story. If he would’ve done this I believe it would’ve been far more enjoyable film to watch.

3. What did you think of the device of having G-d portrayed by a little boy?

An interesting statement about God’s eternal nature. As Moses ages the child remains infinitely wise and infinitely young. An interesting plot device but not as powerful as some possible alternatives. 

4. The plagues — your thoughts?

The plagues were the best part of the movie and unfortunately the shortest. This is where the director the writer and the cast along with the special-effects cordinator all hit the mark.

5. A congregant comes up to you and asks whether he/she should see this movie. What do you say?

Go see “Batman” and come to Torah study. When it comes to Exodus… the book is far better than the movie.

6. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the best/highest, how many stars would you give this movie? You can give half stars.

2 1/2

7. Can you elaborate on the casting of Christian Bale as Moses? (He also played Batman and an American Psycho!). How did he compare to Charlton Heston? 

Heston’s portrayal of Moses was powerful and enduring. Christian Bale’s subtle style is a thrill to watch in films such as “Batman” and “The Prestige” but could not match the grandeur of the events taking place in the film around him. The role required someone whose dynamism could fill the screen as much as the special-effects did.

I kept asking myself one question throughout the entire movie… You guys got Ben Kingsley and you made that that guy Moses! Sheesh

Anything else???

It’s not better in 3-D. You still need to read the book

---

Comments from Rabbi Deana Sussman of Central Reform Congregation

1. How historically correct/accurate was the story? Did you think it took too many liberties (if so, please explain)? Were there some parts that were out and out wrong? 

 There were many, many historical inaccuracies in the story. We begin the movie learning that Moses was raised like a brother to Ramses, and was a general in Pharaoh’s army. The movie depicts him as second-in-command, and a better choice to lead the army than Ramses. There is a scene where the older Pharaoh tells Moses that he wishes that he were “his blood” so that he could rule Egypt and lead the army. In addition, Moses the movie goes into detail about the elaborate subterfuge that keeps the royal family from knowing that Moses was a Hebrew by birth. In the Torah, Moses is nursed by his own mother and knew of his ancestry. Furthermore, in the movie, when the Hebrew elders reveal Moses’s true heritage to him, they mention a myth that foretells that Moses would be the leader that leads them out of slavery and back to Canaan. Another inaccuracy is Miriam’s role in the story. In the movie, Miriam is depicted as a maid in Pharaoh’s home who raised Moses and Ramses side by side without ever revealing her relationship to Moses. The movie shows a scene where this information is revealed, and she is subsequently exiled with Bitya. She therefore does not have a role in the rest of the Exodus narrative in the movie. In the Torah, however, she leads the Israelites in song after they successfully cross the sea and escape Pharoah’s army.

These are just a few of the historical inaccuracies of the movie. That being said, the Torah tells us very little about Moses’s life before he is called by God to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt. In order to create a cohesive story line that would give us context and background, the creators of the movie would have had to take some artistic license with the text. And so, while there are inaccuracies, I can understand where the creators were coming from in making these choices.

2. What did you think of critical components of the film such as acting, special effects, direction, pace of the story (was it overly long or just right?), action scenes, etc. 

 Aside from the historical inaccuracies, I enjoyed the movie. There was a great deal of action in the movie, and wonderful special effects. The acting in the movie was well done, and I enjoyed the dynamic between Moses and Ramses in the movie. The chemistry between Moses and Tzipporah was wonderful, and I appreciated that they spent some time with her and Moses’s son, enabling them to step out of the periphery ad become meaningful characters. 

3. What did you think of the device of having G-d portrayed by a little boy?

 I thought it was an interesting choice to have G-d portrayed by a little boy. I was shocked and confused at first, but eventually realized what the movie creators were trying to do. Depicting G-d in a way that would be non-offensive to everyone is impossible. Oftentimes in movies there is a strong male voice booming down from the sky. Obviously, this is only one way of portraying God. I appreciated that they took a different stance and tried something new, though I’m not sure that the little boy would have been the direction I would have chosen.

4. The plagues — your thoughts?

 The plagues were some of the more confusing story choices for me. They were not depicted in the right order, and were not at all depicted in the way they are spoken of in the Torah. In the Torah, Moses and Aaron go to the palace to warn Pharaoh of what is coming. And more than one time in the Torah, Moses asks Pharoah to let the Hebrews go as a result of the plagues, a piece of the story that is missing here. The plagues in the movie seem to come at random, and Moses has no idea what will happen at any given time. In addition, in the movie, the plagues seem to come about as a kind of “plan B” when G-d decides that Moses’s attempt at organizing and army and war of attrition are taking too long. 

5. A congregant comes up to you and asks whether he/she should see this movie. What do you say?

 I think that I would tell a congregant who is interested in seeing the movie that he/she should see it, but to be aware that it is a movie, and as such, the creators made artistic and creative decisions that aren’t always true to the story we find in the Torah. 

6. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the best/highest, how many stars would you give this movie? You can give half stars.

 I would give the movie 2.5 stars.

7. Can you elaborate on the casting of Christian Bale as Moses? (He also played Batman and an American Psycho!). How did he compare to Charlton Heston? 

I think that Christian Bale was a good choice for Moses. He depicted Moses as a strong character with a good moral compass. He was a very different choice than Charlton Heston, who seemed in many ways, older, and less nuanced in his depiction of Moses. Christian Bale was able to present a complex character that was oftentimes unsure of himself but sure of his mission. 

8. Speaking of casting, the film has gotten blasted for having basically all Anglo people in the lead roles, as well as a guy named Christian playing Moses. Was the casting an issue for you?

I found the casting interesting and at times confusing, but not offensive. Having a man named Christian play Moses was unexpected, but I feel like he was right for the part.

Anything else?

 In my opinion, this was an attempt to create an updated version of “The 10 Commandments” that was more action-packed, with more special effects.  The traditional biblical narrative was already taken by the previous film, so therefore the creators had to make decisions that would differentiate it enough to justify its creation.