THE BIBLE

US, 1966, 174 minutes, Colour.
Michael Parks, Ulla Bergryd, Richard Harris, John Huston, Stephen Boyd, George C. Scott, Ava Gardner, Peter O’ Toole, Gabriele Ferzetti, Franco Nero.
Directed by John Huston.

The Bible … In The Beginning was meant to be the beginning of a series of films about the Old Testament. However, only this film, covering aspects of the first half of Genesis, was completed. During the 1990s, Italian and American co-productions ventured on a series of films about the Old Testament and made quite a number of the series ranging from Creation to the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samson, David, Solomon and other stories.

This film is out of all proportion in terms of the contents. There is a poetic Creation sequence, a focus on the creation of Adam and Eve and the first sin (taken rather literally with some tasteful nudity and a strange serpent), a melodramatic confrontation between Cain and Abel (Richard Harris and Franco Nero), followed by a long section which many people found enjoyable but which seems too ludicrous with John Huston and a literal interpretation of Noah taking all the animals on the ark. There is a section with Stephen Boyd, with strange make-up, as Nimrod and the establishing of the Tower of Babel. The longest part of the film concerns Abraham with George C. Scott as a dignified Abraham and Ava Gardner as Sarah, his wife. Peter O’ Toole appears as the three angels who came to Abraham’s house. The film moves on then to the story of Lot and his wife and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Sodom and Gomorrah had been the subject of Robert Aldrich’s 1962 film with Stewart Granger and Pier Angeli.)

The screenplay was co-written by Christopher Fry, prominent playwright and screenwriter for such films as Ben Hur.

The film is narrated by John Huston who also has the voice of God and the serpent as well as his performance as Noah. On the one hand there is an attempt at dignity to present the basic stories but, also, the more human touch with the story of Noah. The interpretation of the stories tends to be very literal, even fundamentalist.

For those not familiar with the Bible stories, this may be a useful introduction – on the other hand, it could be misleading because of the literal interpretation.

1. How enjoyable a film was this? In its visual presentation of the early chapters of Genesis? How naive was it? Was it too obvious in its story-telling? Detracting from the overall enjoyment of the film?

2. Was this a religious film? Were its themes religious? Was the treatment religious? Did it evoke a religious response in the audience? If so, what? If not, why not?

3. How satisfying was the proportion of the stories? The emphasis, for instance, on Noah and Abraham? How satisfying were the visual styles of the film? The Creation account, Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah? Were the styles of the different stories too disparate? (or are they in the Book of Genesis?) How serious and solemn was the film? How
ludicrous? The over-emphasis, perhaps, of John Huston? Doing the narration, saying God's words, playing Noah., and the total direction?

4. The film took a fundamentalist approach to Genesis. It presented the stories as if they happened just so. Is this a valid interpretation of the stories? Too much a twentieth century look at Hebrew law and story? Does this detract then from the value of such a film?

5. How well filmed was the story of Creation? How beautiful was it? The use of wide-screen, colour, music, visual poetry for this story? Huston’s narration?

6. Did it tie in well with the Creation of Man? Or did the tone of the film change? Adam being formed of the earth? The visualization of Adam - in the actor Michael Parks? Does this detract from the theme? Was the story meant to be realistic? The formation of Eve, the temptation of the Serpent, the nature of the Tree and its visualization? The presentation of the Serpent and his final slinking away? Or was it symbolic? How realistically was it filmed? How symbolic? Did the meaning of Man's happiness and sinfulness come across well? The drama
of the expulsion from Eden? The fig-leaves, the cherub and his sword?

7. The Cain story was brief. Did this matter? The contrast between Cain and Abel in biblical words. How well done? Was the jealousy of Cain credible? Richard Harris' acting or over-acting? The storm and the mark of Cain on his forehead? The touch of pathos with Adam and Eve burying Abel? What message came across here - the world and jealousy? The descendants of Cain?

8. Was the world of Noah credible - was the evil well-presented or ludicrously? Did it give a background for the need for a flood? Why a flood?

9. Much of the Noah story was played for laughs. Was this a valid approach? A whimsy and circus story? Noah's response to God? His being laughed at by the people. the drama of the building of the ark? response to so many animals literally taken into the ark, life on the ark, the feeding, the sentimentality with the animals. the comedy? Did this add to or detract from the biblical message? Was the story too long?

10. Babel was short. The visual presentation of the tower? The builders and Nimrod? His pride at shooting the arrow? (His make-up and appearance)? The confusion –credible, ludicrous, a telling message?

11. The visualization of the generations from Noah? How effective in its brevity?

12. Did the film change tone with the story of Abraham? How strong a character was Abraham? The force of George C. Scott’s performance? Was Ava Gardner credible as Sarah? The detailed story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Lot? How interesting was this as the visual presentation of Hebrew origins? Abraham and his love for Sarah - their using of the biblical Song of Songs? Sarah's use of 1~ for a son, then her jealousy, the taunting of Ishmael to Sarah, the expulsion of Hagar and her finding water in the desert? Was this credible? Its message?

13. The story of the three angels: credibility and style of Peter O’Toole?, as the three angels? The significance of Sarah's laughing, Abraham’s hospitality? Credible?

14. The drama of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did it really look evil? Contrived? Did it need destruction? The music? The colour? The lighting? The lurid atmosphere, the angels' walk, Lot's escape - the pillar of salt?

15. The sacrifice of Isaac? Credible? Why was it asked? As a dramatic ending for the film? Sarah and her love? Abraham’s faith? The relief at the end?