The Ten Commandments (1923)

Truly Dreadful Film

A lot of fun.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

When I reviewed "The Ten Commandments" (1956), I received a lot of 'Not Helpful' ratings. I assume this is because, unlike the average review, I did NOT particularly like the film and said so. Once again, I buck the crowd as I definitely did NOT like this previous version as well. In the case of both films, I seriously wonder whether or not the movies actually were a boon to atheists because the films were so incredibly bad--even with the incredible Egyptian sets.Unlike the more famous 1956 version, only the first 56 minutes of the film are about the Jews and the creation of the Commandments. The biggest differences you'll notice is that Moses is a very superficial character--and has very little to do in most of the film. In addition, the Children of Israel actually leave Egypt about 20-25 minutes into the film--and it's a 136 minute film. The rest of the film is actually set in the present day (1923) and is a very, very heavy-handed morality tale with absolutely no hint of subtlety--none. It comes on so strong and heavy-handed that I am sure many will laugh at its histrionics and silly plot.So what is to like about this film. Well, first and foremost, the DVD copy is perhaps the most pristine I have ever seen in a silent film--it's very, very crisp and clean. And, the Egyptian sets (as I mentioned above) are very nice. Apart from that, the rest is just pretty silly. The famed parting of the red sea looked like melty jello. And, imagine my surprise when I later read on IMDb that's really all it was!!! And, as for the story it was bad in two serious ways. First, the creation of the Commandments section was just too superficial and dispassionate--like the folks are acting out some half-baked passion play--where they really aren't too concerned with quality--just getting the stupid thing done! Second, the modern portion is much worse with it's message that comes across with all the subtlety of a 2x4 upside your skull!! As a result, unless you are a die-hard silent film fan or an atheist who hates God, don't bother with this silly film. Why Cecil B. DeMille has somehow been considered a genius for his (anti-) religious epics, I have no idea! By the way a few final thoughts. First, despite both of DeMille's films saying to the contrary, archaeological evidence AND written accounts of the day indicate the Jews did NOT build the pyramids but professional builders. Second, why did the Godly mother die in the film?! Didn't this seem to reinforce the notion that God is not real?! Talk about an illogically constructed religious message!! Though, now that I think about it, illogic was DeMille's forte--with nudity and bestiality in his other 'religious' epic "Sign of the Cross"!! And, though it was NOT a DeMille film, think about the original "Ben Hur"--as in the end, Jesus STAYED DEAD!!! What a whacked out message! All very Pre-Code in their sensibilities and all CLAIMING to be family religious entertainment!

DeMille's first attempt at the story of Moses has more in common with such other silent films contrasting the ancient past to stories of today, than it does to his later epic retelling of the story. Griffith's "Intolerance" 7 years earlier had intercut several stories of sin and violence to show that the more man changes, the more he stays the same; Fritz Lang's "Destiny" and Carl Dreyer's "Leaves from Satan's Book" (both 1921) also worked out biblical themes in both ancient and modern contexts. All four directors were at one point or another quite serious Christians, though DeMille seems to have been the most obsessive in his faith, and certainly his many films on Biblical themes are often more obvious and blunt in their attempts at pedagogy.Which is not to say that "The Ten Commandments" is just a lesson in "thou shalt nots"; but it is throughout informed of a very deep, and perhaps naive faith that the stories of the past are alive and exactly transferable to the lives we have today. In this case, we see a man break essentially every commandment in his quest for personal greatness, destroying in the process his own life and those of many around him, including his own mother. DeMille doesn't intercut multiple story lines like his predecessors, but rather uses the Biblical story as a 50-minute "prologue" to one feature-length story taking place in modern-day Los Angeles.It's fascinating to watch the film if you've just watched the later version, as I did; the prologue is almost exactly the same as the last 50 minutes of the '56 version, picking up in the middle of the plagues that Moses has set upon Egypt. Like the later film, only the killing of the first-born is given significant play, and the majority of this section is given over to the flight from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea (jello!) and destruction of the pursuing Egyptians, and the creation of the Ten Commandments and Moses' fury at the idolators. It's all very well done, in many respects more thrilling and powerful than in the later film, with many scenes that DeMille obviously liked enough to re-do almost shot-for-shot - the flight of the Israelites from the Egyptian city, and in particular the shot of Moses standing in front of them exhorting them to flee are good examples. Theodore Roberts was 62 when the film was made and looks a bit crazy and obsessive - he certainly feels more like the older Moses to me than Charlton Heston, though Charles de Rochefort doesn't leave a huge impression as Rameses. All in all, it's quite a spectacle and segues nicely into...The modern-day story, of two carpenter/architect brothers, one ambitious and unscrupulous and the other honest and devoted to their saintly, Bible-reading mother, and how they vie for the love of a vagrant girl who comes to their doorstep, is obviously freighted with the weight of the prologue: the two brothers quarrel over God, there is honoring and not honoring of the parent, coveting of the neighbor's (or brother's) wife, stealing, etc. The central theme couldn't be more obviously stated as they build a cathedral, which ultimately collapses due to the bad brother's cheap materials, killing someone dear. Every commandment gets tested and broken at one point or another, but what's fascinating is how seamlessly they're all woven into a relatively simple story and how DeMille refuses to cast the "bad" brother as completely evil, or the "good" brother as entirely strong and virtuous. Only the mother comes across as something of a caricature. Nicely lit and shot throughout - the rain sequence where the girl first comes to the home of the family is very real and moving, and only the scenes involving the unscrupulous brother's mistress seem at all overwrought. This is overall a more graceful and disciplined film than the later version, or any of DeMille's work that I've seen so far.

This version with a "modern" story is wonderful. When DeMille revised it he left out the modern story and told more fully the story of Moses from the beginning. I'd like to see them revise just the modern portion. I would bring the story up to the 21st century with perhaps changing the characters to Afro-Americans. The mother can become a very religious church lady who meets her fatal end during an Easter service when the church collapses. You would involve hundreds of people and not just her as in the original. The feuding brothers show the current status of Afro-Americans today. The upper and lower class. Maybe someone seeing this just might. The modern story may relate more to people's lives today.

Director: Cecil B. Demille, Script: Jeaine Macpherson, Cast: Theodore Roberts (Moses), Charles de Rochfort (Rameses), Estelle Taylor (Miriam,sister of Moses), Julia Faye (wife of pharaoh), James Neill (Aaron), Edythe Chapman (Mrs. Martha Mc Tavish), Richard Dix (John,son), Rod La Rosque (Dan,son), Nita Naldi (Sally Lung,Eurasian)Most people today have probably never seen this film. It is now available on the 50th anniversary set with the 1956 version. The 1956 version was an amazing movie but in many ways I prefer this one, Cecil B Demille's 1923 original. Many people will be surprised upon first viewing of this film. Demille uses a different approach thin in his 1956 remake. This film has two parts. The first part is set during the time of the exodus in the old testament. The Hebrew nation is enslaved by the Egyptians under the ruthless rule of the pharaoh Rameses. Moses as the chosen leader of the Jews frees his people from the Egyptians. God gives him the power to inflict plagues upon the Egyptians. He then leads his people on the great exodus across the desert to the Red Sea. God gives him the power to part the sea so the Jewish people can cross. Phaorah orders his army to go after the Jews across the parted Red Sea but God had the sea 'return to normal' so the army drowns.Make no mistake, this film was a major production in its day and very high budget for its time. Demille uses very elaborate sets for this production. The exterior wall of the great Egyptian city is just like the one used in the 1956 version. Many extras were used in the making of this film. During the great exodus, there appears to be people for as far as the eye can see. You can see this great line of people spread out across the desert. Camels were seen during the exodus but as it turns out, camels were not in the middle east during that time period. The parting of the Red Sea in the 1956 version was considered an amazing special effect for its time. I was very curious as to how they would be able to pull this off in 1923! I was quite amazed!! The special effects used for the parting of the sea is just as good as the 56 perhaps better. One thing I really like about the special effects of this film is the wall of fire that Moses creates to keep the Egyptian army at bay. In the 56 version animation was used for the fire. In this version real fire was used using a double exposure technique that I thought was more impressive. Mr Demille was very loyal to his actors. He would use many of the same actors in a number of his films. The women who plays the part of pharaoh's wife and the boy that played his son are both involved in the 56 version as well as the film editor.The film switches gears totally for the second half. We are now in modern times. It starts with a mother reading passages from the book of Exodus to her two sons. All the drama from the first half was simply her reading being acted out. The rest of the film is a morality tale between two sons. The mother and one son are deeply religious while the other son is a nonbeliever. He makes fun of his brother's silly beliefs so the mother kicks him out of the house for being a heathen. The believing son lives a modest life while the unbelieving son becomes very wealthy. He even gets the women they both like! He becomes a wealthy contractor employing his brother as a worker. However, the unbelieving brother's life will be filed with misfortune eventually leading to his death. The twist in the second half of the film makes for a interesting viewing experience. I like the contrast between ancient and modern times. Katherine Orrison in her commentary states that the modern sequence will probably seem more dated to the average viewer. I tend to agree. It is interesting to see how people lived and dressed during those times. The modern sequence is filmed mostly on location in San Francisco. It is cool to see how San Fran looked back then. The generation gap between the mother and her sons is very evident. This was the roaring 20's! Katherine Orrison gives an insightful commentary on both films but see seems to have a special fondness for this one. I can understand why.