The Ten Commandments (1956)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mike Blakesley
    Film God
    • Jan 2020
    • 2021
    • Forsyth MT

    #1

    The Ten Commandments (1956)

    This movie and 1959's Ben-Hur are my two favorite "biblical epics" (although I've never seen most of the rest of them!). I watched Ben-Hur in the theater a few months ago, and ran across this one while browsing YouTube one night. I decided to click on it just to see if it had the spoken intro with Cecil B. DeMille, which it did, and before I knew it I was 2 hours in.

    I have to say this movie has not aged nearly as well as Ben-Hur, when it comes to the grand biblical epics. The best parts of it, these days, are the production details and the costumes. The scale of the production is jaw-dropping, especially when it comes to the crowd scenes during the Exodus sequence. And of course, the famous "parting of the Red Sea" sequence is amazing as well -- although none of it has the grandeur it deserves when watching it on a TV screen. Too bad that's the only way most people these days have seen it.

    Charton Heston is pretty much perfect as Moses; it's hard to imagine anyone else doing what he did in this movie. The part where says "Behold his mighty hand!" just before the Red Sea parts, combined with the look of the churning black clouds in the background, gives me a chill every time. And watching Yul Brynner and Anne Baxter's interactions never gets old. He is the perfect bad guy -- never giving up until he is absolutely crushed. You really wind up feeling for the guy. "Your shadow fell between me and my father....between me and my fame.... and between me and my queen. You have conquered, Moses. Go out from among us, you and your people. I set you free." And then he changes his mind, and masses the whole army to follow after the "freed" slaves and destroy them all, only to see his whole army drowned when the sea crashes in on them. You can really see why 1956 audiences must have just been awestruck by the special effects in this movie, especially when seeing it on a huge screen. It's still effective today, almost 70 years later.

    Among the rest of the cast, my other favorite character in the movie is Sethi, played by Cedrick Hardwicke. I wish he'd had more scenes. He gives some humor to his role. And many of the women in the movie are, you have to admit, quite easy on the eyes. I suppose more than a few young fellers in the late '50s got a good kick out of seeing Anne Baxter, especially, in the various tight-fitting outfits she gets to wear in this film.

    Where it has not aged well, for me, is in the acting. Sometimes it just seems like they are all running at half-speed. Maybe I've seen too many modern movies and now expect livelier dialogue. The Passover scene, especially, seems to drag. And the overall writing, while often very eloquent, is also quite often very campy, ("Oh Moses, Moses, you stubborn, splendid, adorable fool!" probably being the most famous example.)

    The other part of the movie that hasn't aged well is: Moses's hair. I don't get the point of, whenever he has an interaction with God, he gets a makeover and looks 20 years older. It's borderline distracting. Even his wife, Sephora, comments on it. You would think, after spending a month up in the mountain with the burning bush, he'd look a little disheveled. But no, he looks like he just came from the tonsorial parlor sporting a fresh dye, comb and wave. And at the very end, I get that he's supposed to be very, very old, but come on. The two-foot white beard and blown-dry rug up top just doesn't feel biblical to me.

    Most of the special effects have aged surprisingly well, with one exception: The fire scenes. The burning bush, especially, is unconvincing. I remember as a 10-year-old kid seeing this for the first time, and being disappointed in it even then. I was expecting movie magic, and got what looks like an old yellow light bulb instead. The pillar of fire, too, is so obviously animated.

    This is one movie I wouldn't mind seeing a modern day remake of, if they would stay true to the source material and not modernize it too much. Snap up the dialogue, really pour money into the effects, and find a great unknown actor to play Moses. Could be a big deal. Although I was excited about the Ben-Hur remake a few years ago and we all know what a turkey that turned out to be.

    These gripes aside, it's still an impressive movie. If you've never seen The Ten Commandments on a theater screen, keep an eye out for a '70th Anniversary' screening next year and give yourself a three hour thrill. Just try to ignore Moses's hair.
  • Mark Gulbrandsen
    Film God
    • Jan 2020
    • 3093
    • Nashville, TN

    #2
    I agree Mike! It is an extremely impressive movie on the big screen. I ran a film copy of it many years ago in a theater converted to Church not far from where I lived outside Chicago. Luckily, the screen was still in place and I only had to haul projectors and sound gear there in order to run it. About a year later that theater was sold and I worked on the reopening of it. So it was a sort of drawn out project. Ben-Hur is also spectacular as well. I know I saw that in 70mm at The Michael Todd Theater in Chicago, but I was only around 8 years old at the time. I didn't see another movie there till 1965's Sound Of Music, which was really impressive...

    Comment

    • Ed Gordon
      Pro Film Handler
      • Jan 2020
      • 365
      • Seattle, WA, USA

      #3
      I have to say this movie has not aged nearly as well as Ben-Hur, when it comes to the grand biblical epics.
      I agree Mike. Considering that Ben Hur was made only a few years after The Ten Commandments, it's interesting to see how dated DeMille's epic seems. For me, the acting in Ten Commandments it pretty cringe-worthy at times.

      Ben-Hur is also spectacular as well. I know I saw that in 70mm at The Michael Todd Theater in Chicago, but I was only around 8 years old at the time.
      When is was a kid in Seattle Ben Hur played at the Blue Mouse theater for years (at least in seemed that way; it ran there for 56 weeks). When it finally left the Blue Mouse it moved to another "movie palace", but only in 35mm as I recall. Back then the studios valued their properties and did not send them to television for years, and "exclusive" booking was common.

      Blue Mouse: It was never as impressive as the Cinerama, but this is where many of the blockbusters of the 1950s and '60s were shown at roadshow prices. If you didn't live in Seattle and you wanted to see "Ben-Hur" when it opened in early 1960, you made a pilgrimage because there was no other theater in the state showing it. "Around the World in 80 Days" and "Mary Poppins" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" had lengthy exclusive runs there, too, but when the theater's managers failed to make those kinds of bookings in the 1970s, audiences disappeared and it was destroyed. Now it's the site of the Elephant and Castle restaurant in the 1400 block of Fifth Avenue.
      Source: https://archive.seattletimes.com/arc...creen-theaters

      Comment

      • Leo Enticknap
        Film God
        • Jan 2020
        • 3572
        • Loma Linda, CA

        #4
        For me, the parting of the Red Sea looks more convincing in the 1923 version (shot on Huntington Beach!) than the '56 one:

        image.png​

        There are none of the fuzzy matte lines and general Technicolor registration issues that to me draw attention to the fact that the '56 movie was very much pre-CGI.

        The contemporary story that follows it (in the 1923 Ten Commandments), which is basically a mash-up of various bits of the Old Testament, is not bad and fast moving, too, though the acting is very stagey. It obviously owes a lot to Intolerance.

        Comment

        • Jim Cassedy
          Film God
          • Jan 2020
          • 1450
          • San Francisco

          #5
          Originally posted by Leo Enticknap
          <edited> For me, the parting of the Red Sea looks
          more convincing in 1923 version than the '56 one:.
          I can recall seeing the '56 version at a drive-in with my folks when I was maybe
          about 6 or 7 years old. It must have been a re-release, because I would have only
          been abt 3yrs old for the original release and I doubt, I'd remember it at that age.
          But what I do remember is that I fell asleep in the back seat of the car, and my
          dad woke me up to see the parting of the Red Sea sequence. I'm with Leo in
          that while the Red Sea scene impressed me at 6yrs old, as an adult I have a
          slight preference for that same scene in the silent version.
          The last tine I watched it on TV, they were down to only 8 commandments,
          because I think they took two out to make room for the commercials.


          There's 1927 movie called "Old San Francisco" that I've had the pleasure
          to run several times in 35mm, and the earthquake sequence near the end
          of that movie, while not the 'best' SF quake recreation I've seen, is still
          pretty impressive and outshines some of the later recreations done on film.
          Last edited by Jim Cassedy; 12-05-2025, 06:19 PM.

          Comment

          • Mark Gulbrandsen
            Film God
            • Jan 2020
            • 3093
            • Nashville, TN

            #6
            Originally posted by Leo Enticknap
            For me, the parting of the Red Sea looks more convincing in the 1923 version (shot on Huntington Beach!) than the '56 one:

            image.png​

            There are none of the fuzzy matte lines and general Technicolor registration issues that to me draw attention to the fact that the '56 movie was very much pre-CGI.

            The contemporary story that follows it (in the 1923 Ten Commandments), which is basically a mash-up of various bits of the Old Testament, is not bad and fast moving, too, though the acting is very stagey. It obviously owes a lot to Intolerance.
            Keep in mind that all the scenes in North By Northwest were matte shots when ever Carey Grant had to get down on the ground. The house up on the hill was also a glass shot. Not sure if it was the VistaVision or that MGM had some of the best SFX people in the Biz. But it's very hard to tell.

            Comment

            Working...