Feydeau to Marx to Spike to Python

Occupe toi d’Amelie (1948) a film adaptation of Feydeau’s work . The poster is a fine example of Cromiere’s artwork. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

Kevin Brianton

Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, La Trobe University

The streaming services are reviving interest in one of the excellent comedy writing teams of all time: Monty Python, a British team that dominated comedy on television and film from the late 1960s through to the 1980s. It is a pleasure to see the fish slapping scene and the brilliance of the dead parrot sketch. The pythons openly acknowledge their debt to Spike Milligan, and Milligan is clear that the Marx Brothers influenced him. This transatlantic comedic cross-fertilization has produced some astonishing results, and we are all the richer for it.

But possibly, there is a distant French relative to this family tree. Georges Feydeau was France’s leading writer of farces  – which he referred to as “vaudevilles” – since the early 1890s. He wrote about 40. Many critics have noted the similarities between the Marx Brothers and Feydeau.

The New York Times film critic Vincent Canby wrote: “Some people like to talk rather weightily about the similarity in the lunatic logic that dominates the best of the Marx Brothers movies and Georges Feydeau’s elaborate French farces. For Canby, the Marx Brothers movies were collections of brilliant individual routines, almost like a machine gun popping off with no routine running into the other. “While each Feydeau play is a single, breathless routine in itself, designed to be framed by a proscenium arch for a spectator who, sitting in a fixed position, can appreciate the comedy of simultaneous actions and reactions. Canby argued that turning a movie camera on a Feydeau play would destroy its structure.[1]

Canby is relatively dismissive of A Flea In Her Ear (1968), which is a play by Georges Feydeau written in 1907, at the height of the Belle Époque, adapted by John Mortimer and directed by Jacques Charon. Canby’s criticism is valid to a certain extent, but Occupe-toi d’Amelie or “Keep an Eye on Amelie,” directed by Claude Autant-Lara, may give him pause. As Leslie Halliwell noted in his book Halliwell’s Hundred, it begins outside the cinema and does not pause for breath for its entire length. It begins with a running man, and the pace does not slacken for a moment.[2]

In 1948, after the revival of the play Occupe-toi d’Amelie, Autant-Lara began adapting the famous play by Feydeau, in collaboration with Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost. The authors decided to develop the characters in a contemporary context, rather than the turn of the century. It was located at the Palais-Royal theater. In the film, Parisian cocotte (Danielle Darrieux) agrees to a mock marriage ceremony, and in turn, is deceived by an actual ceremony, but manages to outwit a fate worse than death – middle-class respectability. Claude Autant-Lara’s direction is very fast, a surprising change of pace from his other work, such as The Red and Black, which also starredDanielle Darrieux.

It is hard to know if the Marx Brothers were aware of the Feydeau farces. They all appeared in Vaudeville for many years and moved to the theatre. The door to Hollywood opened when sound was introduced. It is hard to imagine the Marx Brothers without sound. So it is entirely possible that they were aware of the plays. Feydeau’s The Girl from Maxim’s was in Broadway in 1899, when the Marx Brother were infants. But The Girl from Montmartre ran from August 1912 to April 1913, and Breakfast in Bed had appeared on Broadway in 1920. In 1924, the Marx Brothers appeared on Broadway, but Feydeau’s plays could have been an influence, as they had been in Vaudeville since 1905.[3]

What is certain is that they both draw from the same well of anarchic comedy. There is one scene where lines between the play and the audience are blurred and then erased. The same idea would appear in the Marx Brothers, Spike Milligan and eventually Monty Python. Maybe a long bow, but who knows.

People interested in Occupe Toi Amelie can easily find the DVD, but like many French films, it isn’t easy to source it with English subtitles.

[1] Vincent, Canby, “Screen: ‘Flea in Her Ear’: Charon Directs Movie of a Play by Feydeau,” New York Times, 28 November, 1968.

[2] Halliwell, Leslie. Halliwell’s Hundred : A Nostalgic Choice of Films from the Golden Age. London ; New York: Granada, 1982, 243- 246.

[3] Internet Broadway database, https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/georges-feydeau-5878, accessed on 4 September 2020.

Kobal, John. The Lost World of DeMille. USA: University of Mississippi Press, 2019.

Kevin Brianton

Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, La Trobe University

Cinematic reputations rise and fall. None more so than Cecil B. DeMille who is the only film director to dominate Hollywood from the 1910s, through the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and well into the 1950s. DeMille is simply without peer throughout the studio era. His only possible directorial rival was John Ford, who had been in Hollywood since 1913 as an actor, but even he did begin his directorial career until 1917. Ford did not have a major directorial success until 1924 with The Iron Horse, at which stage DeMille had been a key director for close to a decade, with his first film The Squaw Man co-directed by Oscar Apfel in 1914. Aside from being a director, he had helped found Paramount Studios. In one form or another, he would dominate Hollywood for close to 40 years, culminating in The Ten Commandments in 1956, one of the most successful films of the era.

Despite his success, DeMille’s reputation would be dragged through the mud for various cultural and political sins. From the early 1980s, DeMille would be depicted as a McCarthyite figure with an anti-Semitic edge, and his films were dismissed for their commercial crassness. Sumiko Higashi’s book Cecil B. DeMille: A Guide to References and Resources published in 1985 shows the coverage of the director had declined to the point of oblivion at the time of publication. One of the final items in the bibliography was an unpublished biography by John Kobal called DeMille and his Artists.

Kobal was five years into the research and writing of the book at this point. He had already written 30 books on film and photography, and this was to be his masterwork. Even though Kobal had chosen an unpopular subject, with his profile, publishing record, and contacts, he would have almost certainly had the book published. Yet people interested in DeMille could only speculate what the book contained, because, until now, that entry in the bibliography was as close as people got to it.

The chances of having his book published crashed when Kobal contracted HIV and died at the age of 51 in 1991. Anecdotally, he had completed the book a few weeks before his death. Despite a decade of work, an 1832-page manuscript of a then unpopular film director would have been a hard sell. Despite Kobal’s obvious writing talent, pulling together a major biography while seriously ill proved impossible. People who had seen the original manuscript doubted if anyone could make anything out of it, and for close to 30 years, that was certainly the case. The manuscript was left to languish until Kobal’s younger sister Monika negotiated its release and then approached the University of Mississippi Press.

After some strenuous structural edits by Graham Coster, which reduced it to a more modest 420 pages, the newly-released book retains Kobal’s focus on Hollywood’s classical era. He dedicated his life to celebrating the visual beauty of its cinema – particularly its photography, eventually establishing a major photo archive of the film industry. DeMille’s almost inexhaustible visual imagination, splendour and the spectacle clearly drew Kobal to his subject. DeMille was essentially a visual director, and many critics regard his silent films as superior to his cinema of the sound era – partly for this reason.

Even DeMille’s sound films were essentially cinematic. If anyone thinks of the director, it is usually in terms of images, and rarely because of the film’s dialogue. His signature scene is where the actor Charlton Heston plays Moses parting the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments (1956). This image has seared itself onto the popular imagination. Anyone interested in American cinema would immediately identify it –and it would be recognised by millions. Few directors of any stature can claim to have made such a visual impact. Kobal brings an intelligent enthusiast’s energy to his treatment of the director. Scenes in the films are described brilliantly by Kobal,  such as a battle in DeMille’s first historical drama Joan the Woman (1916). Not surprisingly, the book has excellent photographs from the Kobal collection that reinforce the astonishing visual quality of DeMille’s cinema.

Kobal’s critical discussion of DeMille’s cinema is interesting and thought provoking. His section on the Whispering Chorus (1918) is a fascinating one, highlighting the tension between artistic and commercial pressures. The film contains a great sequence when DeMille shows a man wrestling with his conscience in a prison cell. The whispering chorus of voices talking to the central character was an artistic and technical triumph. Kobal provides a sound argument why DeMille moved away from the artistic path. Clearly, Kobal is wrestling with the early criticism of Kevin Brownlow, – with whom Kobal co-wrote books – who believed that DeMille had lost his artistic credibility from this point. It would have strengthened his book if he identified to whom he was directing his comments. Kobal points out that the film was both an artistic and commercial success, undercutting Brownlow’s view that DeMille abandoned artistic cinema in favour of commerce.

Using his extensive contacts within the film industry, Kobal interviewed many people, to gain some great perspectives on the veteran director. The interview with his employee Gordon Mounts in which he talks about DeMille’s closest advisor Daniel Hayne’s sexuality and religion is a revelation. Hayne would complete DeMille’s auto-biography and the professional relationship between the two men is a fascinating one.  Kobal’s interview with his lawyer Neil McCarthy also open windows onto his little-known roles in setting up a commercial aviation company in the 1920s. Indeed, his interviews are the most important contribution of the book.

The interviews are also one of the book’s key weaknesses. Often Kobal is guilty of repeating Chinese whispers. DeMille set up a foundation to tackle union closed shops in 1945. Kobal argues that the violent strike breaker Tom Gerbich of Republic Steel led his DeMille Foundation for Political Freedom. (p. 372) This was a claim made by Joseph Mankiewicz in 1978 to his biographer Kenneth Geist – who called him Tom Gerdler. It is uncertain where the information originated. In fact, Tom Girdler was the actual name of the Republic Steel head. According to the foundation records, to which Kobal had access, Girdler donated $500 to DeMille’s foundation in 1945, and DeMille thanked him for his “generous help” in 1955. Girdler was an occasional correspondent over the years but appeared to have played no formal role.

In addition, Kobal talks about DeMille supplying information to Joseph McCarthy and HUAC. These allegations were again smears from DeMille’s political opponents, and there is no documented evidence for these claims. DeMille was an FBI informant, but had no role with HUAC. Kobal simply repeats the accusations as facts. Such errors show Kobal was often quickly collating material and often did not check his oral or written sources. Even so, Kobal’s coverage of the controversial 1950 Screen Directors Meeting is far better than many historians who followed him. Kobal made good use of the court transcript and provided a solid description of the meeting. Kobal does not excuse DeMille, for his attack on Joseph Mankiewicz, but he does put his actions in context.

Kobal has not written a critical biography, but it is not hagiography. It is a polite retelling of the life of a director, and the author is a clear fan who knows and enjoys DeMille’s films. The publication of The Lost World of DeMille feeds into a positive reassessment of DeMille that began with Kevin Brownlow’s documentary American Epic in 2004, and it has gathered pace from that point. In many ways, Kobal’s biography compares well to Scott Eyman’s authorised account of 2010, and it is far better than Simon Louvish’s work of 2008. It is a notable addition to the commentary of an important and still over-looked film director.

Originally published at Brianton, Kevin. Review of The Lost World of DeMille, by John Kobal. Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal 50, no. 1 (2020): 88-89. muse.jhu.edu/article/763291.

The reaction to the Ten Commandments

DeMille’s Ten Commandments raised issues about the cold war. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

In most cases, it is difficult to determine the precise reaction of the audience to a film.  However, The Ten Commandments made such a huge impact in the United States and DeMille was such a compulsive collector of every reaction to his films that it is possible by examining his archives to gauge its influence.  DeMille’s opening statement was quoted in many film reviews across the United States.[1]  Certainly his ideas about the struggle having modern resonances were well received.  For example, the Memphis Press Scimitar wrote:

In freeing the Israelites from Egyptian oppression and he establishment of government by law as embodied in the 10 commandments veteran Producer, Director Cecil B. DeMille has seen a parallel to the great 20th Century struggles between tyranny and freedom.[2]

The Houston Texas Press noted:

The timelessness of this picture in out world where men have scaled the lengths at the same time producing our modern Pharaohs and their slaves is a lesson in faith.  It shrinks the doctorial world planners down to actual size and renews our appreciation of liberty.[3]

The Boston Independent said:

As the Israeli – Egyptian impasse invites the wisdom of Solomon to resolve it and refugees flee Soviet policed Hungary, Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments which recalls the genesis of the conflict and man’s earliest struggle for freedom … It is doubtful if there could be a more apropos commentary on the world situation than the final lines spoken by Moses. ‘Go proclaim liberty, throughout all the lands, unto all the inhabitants thereof.’[4]

The film was also discussed in newspaper editorials, where the Los Angeles Express saw its cold war undertones:

As a story of the downfall of tyranny and of the triumph of religious faith, it also may be source of inspiration to an anxious world.

The newspaper’s reviewer saw it in a similar vein:

It is really the story of man’s search for freedom from tyranny – which could apply right now to the cause of the Hungarians vs. the Russians.[5]

The theme of freedom triumphing over tyranny was repeated in hundreds of reviews and articles across the United States.[6]

The Ten Commandments had a tremendous impact on religious leaders across the United States.  It was released at the time of the Suez crisis and many Jewish leaders saw it as a vindication of the Israeli position.  But even Jewish religious leaders saw its cold war message of salvation.  Rabbi Irving Lehrman gave a sermon on ‘Moses – Hollywood’s Newest Hero’.  He said the spirit of Moses was needed today.

That spirit – of freedom and peace – is needed in Poland and Hungary whenever people are enslaved so that the world can be led back to the Ten Commandments and break the shackles of tyranny.

While Moses is dead his spirit lives on.  That spirit is needed today in London, Paris and Washington, so that the people of Israel battling the modern Pharaoh will have more faith and will be led from Egypt to the promised land of freedom and peace.[7]

William Lindsay Young of the National Conference of Christians and Jews wrote to producer Henry Wilcoxon:

It may well be that Cecil B. DeMille, through the production of the Ten Commandments, will stand out as one of the great prophets of the 20th century.  From out of the Judeo-Christian revelation he has drawn a clear and compelling picture of the relevance of this heritage for our day.  One sees, as in the brightness of noon, that when the spirit of freedom burns in the souls of men, no material force, no tyrant, can keep them in bondage.  In this beautiful screen production Mr DeMille has given us a lethal spiritual weapon that will have telling effect in the current worldwide struggle for the preservation of freedom.[8]

Christian leaders also saw the film’s political message.  Director of the Communications Division of the American Baptist Convention, R. Dean Goodwin, wrote to Ann Del Valle of Paramount Studios about the film’s probable reception in the USSR.  He wrote:

We who have lived all our lives within the framework of the Christian tradition and who believe in freedom and the dignity of man, and who believe in a moral code that is sanctioned by a Diving Being find it to understand a society which rejects all of this.  The governing powers in the Soviet Union could not afford to have a film viewed by Russian people in which one person stands on his God-given rights before the king, and in the name of God demands his rights and leads his people to freedom.  I found enough people in the Soviet Union who want such freedom that I must admit it would be dangerous to the established authorities to show “The Ten Commandments” anywhere in the Soviet Union.[9]

Other religious leaders saw it in a similar fashion.  Herschel Hedgpath of the Methodist Church wrote to Paramount executive Frank Freeman saying;

I believe that Paramount studios and Mr DeMille have made a lasting contribution to the thinking of our time … We need to come to grips with an understanding of the true nature of the basic Communist ideology and I think the picture in its clear analysis of the basic nature of dictatorship and freedom as opposing ideas in the rule of man does this clarification vey nicely.[10]

The comment which pleased DeMille the most was from the statesman Bernard Baruch who wrote a not to DeMille saying: ‘In the materialism of today, the production I was privileged to see last night is a spiritual uplift to those who yearn for liberty against tyrants.’  DeMille sought and got permission to use the quote in newspaper advertisements across the country.[11]

While The Ten Commandments may have been the most direct of the biblical epics in its anti-communism, the themes can be traced directly back to Samson and Delilah.  And the public did get the message.  A fan, Mrs R. M. King of Florida, wrote to Cecil B. DeMille saying:

What we Americans need is more religious pictures.  Such faith as Samson and Delilah would cause God to backfire Russia’s bomb and to rust the ‘iron curtain’.[12]

The major thrust of all these films was that an immoral empire would crumble into dust when faced with true religious determination.

Despite his ultra-conservative leanings, the political message of DeMille’s biblical films was far more subtle than the overt anti-communist films of the time.  He did not use them as vehicles for straight out anti-communist propaganda and their message of religious salvation against tyranny was eagerly accepted by the American people.  The popularity of biblical epics cannot possibly be attributed entirely to their anti-communist message.  Yet they did provide reassurance that God would protect his people in times of adversity.  Perhaps at the deepest level possible, these films reassured a worried American public.  If there was no physical defence to the threat of nuclear war and the communist hordes, then there was a spiritual defence.

The biblical epics provided a cultural mythology that assured the destruction of the communist empires.  The American people needed to be reassured that this growing threat would inevitable crumble.  While the anti-communist films had merely heightened fear and tension and created the impression that the communists were an implacable enemy, the biblical epics of the 1950s provided another depiction which showed them vulnerable to resistance based on spiritual values.  Empires without a moral basis may flourish for a while but they would wither in time because of its absence.  The image that communism was doomed, or damned, was highly reassuring to audiences.  These films advocated views which were remarkably similar to those held by the State Department Secretary John Foster Dulles and many other conservative political leaders.  The unrivalled popularity of these films in the 1950s shows that Dulles’s ideas were deeply ingrained throughout the United States.

[1] Some examples include Galveston Texas News, 7 March 1957, New York Herald Tribune, 2 October 1956, New York Journal American, 30 September 1956, Buffalo Evening News, 10 January 1957, Arizona Republican, 24 February 1957, Press-Telegram, 1 August 1957, Livermore (Calif) News, 24 December 1957, The Sunday Denver Post, 27 January 1957, 7 February 1957, Daytona Beach Morning Journal 6 February 1957, Chicago American, 20 October 1956, Indianapolis Star, 30 January 1957, Baltimore Sun, 20 October 1956, Michigan Battle Creek Enquirer and News, 10 October 1957, Detroit Independent, 25 October 1957, Tell City Independent News, 18 January 1956, The Witness, (Dubuge, Iowa), 2 January 1956, New Beacon (Mass), 16 April 1958.  Scrapbooks 171 – 188 Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[2] Memphis Press Scimitar, 7 March 1957, Scrapbook 218, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[3] Houston Texas Press, 8 February 1957, ibid.

[4] Independent Boston, 21 November 1957, Scrapbook 216.

[5] Los Angeles Express, 15 November 1957, Scrapbook 214.

[6] Among other newspaper articles with similar themes were the Houston Chronicle, 7 February 1957, Houston Post, 3 February 1957, 10 February 1957, Texas Gazette, 16 July 1957, Omaha World Herald, 1 March 1957, Attica NY News, 20 December 1956, New York Herald Tribune, 4 November 1956, NY News, 11 November 1956, New York Morning Telegraph, 9 November 1956, NY Times, 11 November 1956, NY World Telegraph and Sun, 9 November 1956, Buffalo Evening News, 12 December 1956, Buffalo Courier Express, 23 October 1956, Buffalo Jewish Review, 21 December 1956, Jamestown (NY) News, 18 April 1957, Cincinnati Time-Star, 21 December 1956, Columbus Dispatch, 7 March 1957, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 26 November 1956, Newark Advocate, 14 July 1957, Bisbee Daily Review, 26 March 1958, Arizona Daily Star, 3 March 1957, Phoenix Gazette, 6 March 1957, Arkansas Gazette, 10 February 1957, LA Herald Express, 25 October 1957, LA Valley Times, 28 October 1956, Telegraph Tribune, 1 August 1957, Los Angeles Times, 5 January 1957, Los Angeles Herald Express, 15 November 1956, Datona Beach Morning Journal, 6 February 1956, Miami Herald, 16 December 1956, Florida Times-Union, 6 February 1957, Orlando Sentintal, 29 January 1957, St Petersburg Times, 26 January 1957, Pensacola Standard, 7 February 1957, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 20 January 1957, Chicago American, 21 November 1957, Evansville Courier, 26 June 1957, Indianapolis Star, 30 January 1957, Boston Sunday Herald, 12 August 1956, Christian Science Monitor, 13 November 1956, Detroit Times, 22 November 1956, Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, 25 October 1957,Kansas City Star, 14 February 1957, Monroe Morning World, 4 July 1952, Boston Daily Record, 4 May 1957, New Beacon (Mass), 16 April 1958, Malden Press, 2 May 1958, Birmingham News 7 October 1956, Phoenix Gazette, 9 October 1956, and St Petersburg Times, 26 January 1957.  Derived scrapbooks in the Cecil B. DeMille archives. 

[7] Miami Herald, 16 December 1956, Box 724, Folder 21, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[8] William Lindsay Young to Henry Wilcoxon, 27 September 1956, Box 720, Folder 3, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[9] R. Dean Goodwin to Ann Del Valle, 24 October 1958, Box 720, Folder 3, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[10] Herchel H. Hedgpath to Frank Freeman, 11 January 1957, Box 720, Folder 30, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[11] Bernard M. Baruch to Cecil B. DeMille, 6 October 1956, Box 214, Folder 1, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.  The advertisement appeared in the Los Angeles Times, 12 November 1956 and across the United States.

[12] R.M.King to Cecil B. DeMille, 10 March 1950, Box 632, Folder 4, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

The Ten Commandments (1956) – part two

DeMille directs Brynner in the 1956 version of The Ten Commandments. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

Kevin Brianton, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

The Ten Commandments focused on the spiritual strength of the Israelites which eventually overpowered the military might of the Egyptian empire.  The film opened with scenes of clouds and the narrator saying:

And God said let there be light and behold, there was light.  And from this light, God created life on earth.  And man was given dominion over all things.  And the power to chose between good and evil.  But each sought to do his own will, because he saw not the light of god’s law.  Man took dominion over man.  The conquered were made to serve and conqueror.  The weak were made to sere the strong and freedom was gone from the earth.[1]

The film then moved to a scene of endless lines of Hebrew slaves dragging massive blocks across the ground with Egyptian guards cracking whips.  The Egyptians were cruel and vicious toward their Jewish slaves.  No end existed to the plight of the Israelites.  In one scene the narrator said of the Jewish slaves:

Day after day, year after year, century after century, bondage without rest, toil without reward, these are the children of misery, the afflicted, the helpless and the oppressed.[2]

Joshua, played by John Derek, asked his girlfriend, ‘Is life in bondage better than death’ and Sayre pointed out that it echoed the phrase, ‘Better dead than red.’[3]  The phrase was repeated throughout the film.

The film detailed the rise of Moses who became the deliverer of the Jews.  To escape being killed by the Egyptians, who were hunting for the famed infant deliverer, his mother placed him in a basket on the Nile.  The basket floated down the Nile and was eventually picked up by the childless Pharaoh’s childless daughter who adopted him.  He was favourite and seemed certain to take the throne upon his death.[4]  He eventually learned of his Hebrew background, renounced his Egyptian past and was forced to become a slave building the pyramids.  Moses could not stand the poor treatment and fought with an Egyptian overseer after which he was banished to die in the desert.

In the desert, Moses attained great spiritual wisdom and power and then returned to Egypt.  He gave a demonstration of his new powers and demanded that the new Pharaoh ‘let my people go.’  DeMille wrote in his autobiography that when Moses stood before the Pharaoh and said the ‘divine demand’, it was a depiction of the same forces that ‘confront one another in the world today.’[5]  When Rameses refused, Moses prophesied that seven plagues would visit upon Egypt.  The Pharaoh scoffed at Moses and his prophesies and Egypt was then subjected to one plague after another.  After suffering the seven plagues, the Pharaoh still refused to let the Jews leave Egypt.  He announced to his soldiers that the first born of every Jewish family should die.  Before he could act, Moses prophesied that an Angel of Death would visit Egypt killing the first born of every family.  The Jewish people were saved by dabbing lamb’s blood over their doors.  Every first born child died including the son of the Pharaoh.  The distraught Pharaoh finally succumbed to this overwhelming pressure to let the Jewish slaves go free.  In the response Moses says:

Tomorrow we go forth a free nation, where every man shall reap what they shall sow, where no man may kneel except in prayer …[6]

With phrases like ‘free nation’, and ‘reap what they will sow’ the links are made between the Israelites and the Americans.  The Pharaoh, on the other hand, sounded like a Marxist when he snapped, ‘You prophets make the Gods, so that they may prey on the minds of men.’[7]

After the Israelites had begun their walk towards the promised land, the Egyptian Pharaoh decided that he wanted to destroy them.  He sent out his magnificent army in pursuit of the defenceless Jews.  The famous climax of the film had Moses dividing the Red Sea while the Egyptians were held back by a pillar of fire.  The fire subsided and the army chased the fleeing Israelites across the floor of the Red Sea.  When the lase Jew had crossed the Red Sea, the waters were sent crushing in on the Egyptian Army and all were destroyed.  Rameses returned back to his palace, shattered, bewildered and beaten.  He slumped into his throne and said ‘Their god is God.’  The slaves had defeated the masters.

The rest of the film was an anti-climax after the Red Sea scenes.  Moses ascended Mount Sinai to accept the ten commandments.  He found when he retuned that his people had begun following some pagan religious sect.  God’s punishment was swift and merciless, as Moses hurled the ten commandments at the idolaters and set off an earthquake which engulfed the pagan worshippers.  One of the strongest themes of these films was that those who did not follow God’s rules would be punished.  The Israelites were forced to wander for forty years before finding their promised land.

The film concluded by Moses dying with the promised land in sight.  Actor Charlton Heston noted that the last line ‘Go proclaim liberty throughout all the lands unto the inhabitants thereof,’ were the words inscribed on the Liberty Bell.[1]  The bell was a treasured relic of the American Revolution which was rung on 8 July 1776 to announce the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.  DeMille was trying to create a direct link between the struggles of the Israelites and the American War of Independence in the minds of the audience.  From the first scene to the last, DeMille was using the story of Exodus as a modern political statement.

The Ten Commandments was a remake of his highly successful 1923 film, yet there are significant differences between the films.  The original film told the story of Exodus as a prologue to the main feature which focused on the importance of the commandments in daily life.  The 1923 version also contained the Christian message of redemption for sinners which the 1956 version lacked.

[1] Transcribed interview with Charlton Heston, 16 August 1955, Box 12, Folder 18, Cecil B. DeMille Archives, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.  The phrase is from Leviticus 25:10.

[1] Ten Commandments (d) Cecil B. DeMille, (w) Aeanas Mackenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jnr., Jack Garris, Frederic M. Frank

[2] ibid.

[3] Nora  Sayre, Running Time, p. 204.

[4] DeMille was scrupulous in his research on The Ten Commandments and the idea of Moses being a Pharaoh has recently been raised by historian Ahmen Osman in Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt: The Mystery of Ankehenaten Resolved, Paladin, London, 1990.

[5] Hayne, Autobiography, p. 377.

[6] Ten Commandments op cit.

[7] ibid.

The Ten Commandments ( 1956) – part one

The idea of linking the struggles of the Israelites to the Americans was developed further in Cecil B. DeMille’s final film The Ten Commandments (1956). 

Kevin Brianton, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

In personally introducing the film, DeMille left no doubt of its political leanings.  He said the birth of Moses was the ‘birth of freedom’. 

The theme of this picture is whether men are to be ruled by God’s law – or they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Rameses.  Are they free men or are they to be property of the State or free souls under God?  This same battle continues throughout the world today.[1]

He later used his speech as a basis for an address to the university of Southern California on 6 December 1956.  He changed the speech to reinforce his political point and linked the Israelite’ struggles with Hungary’s.

Are men to be free souls under God or are they the property of the state?  Are men to be ruled by law, or by the whims of an individual?  God’s answer to these timely questions were given three thousand years ago on Mount Sinai.  Russia’s answers was given recently in Hungary.  The world must make its choice.[2]

In his introduction to the film, DeMille was linking the Egyptian tyrannies to Russian communism.  DeMille saw religion as a political force which could deliver freedom to people.  In his autobiography, he made it clear that the film was anti-totalitarian.  He wrote:

For more than twenty years and increasingly in the years since World War II, people had been writing to me from all over he world, urging that I make The Ten Commandments again.  The world needs a reminder they said, of the Law of God; and it was evident in at least some of the letters that the world’s awful experience of totalitarianism, both fascist and communist, had made many people realize anew that the Law of God is the essential bedrock of human freedom.[3]

But it was definitely communism, not fascism, which was the target.  Recalling a press conference in Egypt, he denied that the film was anti-moslem.  He said one of the strongest voices urging him to make The Ten Commandments was the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who saw in the story of Moses, a prophet honored equally by Moslems, Jews and Christians, a means of welding together adherents of the three faiths against atheistic communism.[4]

[1] Ten Commandments (d) Cecil B. DeMille, (w) Aeanas Mackenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jnr., Jack Garriss, Frederic M. Frank.

[2] Cecil B. DeMille, Moses and Today, Address delivered to the University of Southern California on 6 December 1956.  Box 9, Folder 24, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[3] Donald Hayne, (ed.) The Autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille, W.H.Allen, London, 1960, p. 376.

[4] Ibid., p. 385.  The letter was kept by DeMille.  Mohammed Ali Jinnah to Cecil B. DeMille, 20 December 1954, Folder 3, Box 724 Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

A Man Called Peter: politicising religion

A Man Called Peter (1955) blurred the lines between politics and religion. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

Dr Kevin Brianton, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

The links between the Israelites and the United States were discussed in A Man Called Peter (1955) which was a very popular film.[1]  It detailed the rise of Dr Peter Marshall, a Presbyterian minister from Scotland, who became chaplain for the United States Senate.  The film was a collection of Marshall’s sermons strung together with the story of his rise and near perfect marriage.  Near the conclusion of the film, he delivered a sermon on Elijah and the threat of the God Baal to the nation of Israel.

The leaders of ancient Israel, including the King, had come together to make a great decision.  It was a national emergency.  Elijah, the prophet, had summoned them to meet on Mount Carmel to settle no less a question than who they should worship.  William Penn has said that “Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants.”

Here then was a Hebrew prophet facing the very same issue and making his people face it with him.  They all knew the history of the nation.  How God had led their fathers out of bondage into a new land of pioneers.  How his holy law had been rewritten into the nations constitution.  How the ten commandments had become the bill of rights – and a declaration of “dependence”.  But something in the nation’s life had begun to fade.  Moral decay had set in.  They had begun to love things more than principles.  They had become materialists.  And materialism had a God called Baal.  Now, Elijah saw the danger.  He saw what would happen if the moral fibre of the nation was weakened.[2]

Marshall then went on to explain the defeat and the death of the prophets of Baal by Elijah at Mount Carmel.  He followed the sermon with a call for a modern day Elijah to come to the United States to stare down the false ‘demi-gods’ of today.  The teachings of Baal were not mentioned in the Old Testament and it was Marshall’s own interpretation that it was a materialistic faith.  Marshall said that the choice was between being ruled by God or tyrants, to either follow God or ‘follow Baal to hell’.[3]

Marshall argued that the United States had a choice between either the Lord or the materialistic faith of Baal.  Furthermore, following the God Baal would undermine the moral fibre of the nation.  Marshall linked the Israelites’ struggles with those of the United States.  The Jewish people were depicted as pioneers and the ten commandments as their bill of rights.  When he referred to the holy law being written into the nation’s constitution, it was difficult to tell if he was taking about the United States or Israel.  The sermon on Elijah and the Baal was a strong political statement with cold war overtones.  The United States must follow the laws of God or it would lurch into communism, it was either God or materialistic tyranny.  To the audience of 1955, that was a simple choice between communism and God.

The actual interpretation of Baal as a materialistic faith is at odds with most biblical scholarship which sees it as fertility cult which competed against Judaism.[4]  It is also clear that the sermon was deliberately chosen as a political message by the screenwriter.  It is not mentioned in either the biography by his wife or in the published collection of his sermons.[5]  The screenwriter must have hunted out this sermon quite deliberately and selectively.  Marshall’s published sermons rarely touch on political issues, although according to his wife Catherine, Marshall wanted God to influence the individual legislators in their decisions.[6]

The director Koster constantly cut to the faces of three Senators who were listening closely to the sermon.  To make sure that the audience was aware of the moral strength of Marshall’s political arguments, Koster linked Marshall with the figure of President Abraham Lincoln throughout the film.  He preached in Lincoln’s old church and in another scene, he drove reverently past the Lincoln memorial.  Marshall also called upon the figure of Lincoln to support him in debates against parishioners.  This was done to give his theological statements added political weight.  It appeared that his efforts were not lost.  The powerful film columnist Hedda Hopper in 1957 placed A Man Called Peter seventh in the top ten films of all time.[7]  This reverence indicated that the film made a great impression at the time of its release, even though it is now largely forgotten.

[1] Cobbett Steinberg, Reel Facts: The Movie Book of Records, Vintage, New York, 1982, p.

[2] A Man Called Peter, (d) Henry Koster, (w) Eleanore Griffin.  William Penn (1644-1718) was an English Quaker who helped establish the colony of Pennsylvania.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Karen Armstrong, Holy War: The Crusades And Their Impact on Today’s World, Anchor, New York, 1992, p. 11.

[5] The sermon is not mentioned in Catherine Marshall, A Man Called Peter: The Story of Peter Marshall, Fontana, Glasgow, 1978 on which the film was based or in Marshall’s published collection of sermons in Cathy Marshall (ed.). Mr Jones, Meet the Master, Fontana, London, 1964 (1949)

[6] Marshall, A Man Called Peter, p. 226.

[7] Los Angeles Times 3 January 1959 printed in Steinberg, p. 184.

The Robe’s successors: Demetrius and the Gladiators and the Egyptian

Dr Kevin Brianton, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

The Robe and its politics was used extensively by evangelist Billy Graham.  Before a tour of a new country such as New Zealand or Australia, he would send out tightly organised advance parties.  These highly efficient men would tell ministers and church groups to screen The Robe as it was a ‘tract for our times’.[1]  It appeared that The Robe was used as an inducement to see Billy Graham documentaries such as Battleground Europe, The Mighty Fortress and Eastward to Asia.  Graham often discussed communism in his sermons and he saw the world as divided into two camps: communist and the west.  He believed only a revival of faith would avert a nuclear holocaust which he saw as a biblical judgement for the United States’ sins.[2]

The film’s sequel Demetrius and the Gladiators (1954) continued the theme of doomed empire by documenting the downfall of Caligula.  The film focused on Demetrius who was torn between Roman decadence as represented by the seductive Messalina, wife to the Emperor’s nephew Claudius, and the austerity of the Christian faith.  Caligula was shaken by the way the Christians met their death in The Robe and demanded that Christ’s robe be found.  Soldiers searching for the robe started a fight with Demetrius who was captured and condemned to become a gladiator.  His Christian ethics prevented him from killing and Caligula ordered that tigers tear him apart.  Demetrius defeated the tigers and earned the respect of the Roman crowd.

The film’s sequel Demetrius and the Gladiators (1954) continued the theme of doomed empire by documenting the downfall of Caligula. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

After his victory, Demetrius turned away from Christianity after he prayed to God that a Christian girl be saved form being raped by his fellow gladiators.  When she was apparently killed, he rejected the Christian faith and embarked on a career of gladiator by killing several men in one session.  For his efforts, Demetrius was freed by Caligula provided that he rejected his Christian vows.  Caligula says ‘to join the Romans, he must revile and reject Jesus’.[3]  Demetrius replied:

There is no other God but Caesar.  There is no other power greater than his, in this world or any other.[4]

The lines were a reflection of Kennan’s belief that communism was religion.  Throughout these films, it was either Christianity or Caesar, there was no middle ground.  Just as in the cold war, there was only good and evil, right and wrong, the United States and the USSR.  And just as Kennan saw communism as religion for communists, the tyrant Caligula saw himself as a God.

But Demetrius retained some hidden strengths despite his fall from grace.  Claudius observed about him that:

He has something that Rome has lacked since the early days of the republic.  Something to believe in.  Faith … In my family, we Caesars have killed and buried it, strange if the memory of a dead Jew should continue it.[5]

Demetrius was brought back into line by St. Peter who returned him to the proper path with news that the Christian girl was still alive.  Demetrius prayed for her recovery and regained his faith.  The empire of Caligula then began to crumble against the spiritual armour of Demetrius.  Caligula was killed when he tried to have Demetrius executed and the saner rule of Claudius began.  The film reflected the view of the conservatives that Christianity would overcome tyranny.  The ‘memory of a dead Jew’ could defeat an empire.

The Egyptian (1954) had the same these of a doomed empire.  The film opened with contemporary shots of the ruins of the Egyptian empire on the Nile.  The narrator said: ‘Today, the glory of ancient Egypt is ruins and dust.’  The film was about the rise, fall and redemption of a physician who wanted to know the meaning of life and to treat the poor.  After studying as a doctor, he tried to save the life of a man praying in the desert to the ‘one god’.  The man was the Pharaoh and he was made his personal physician.  After seeing the cruelty of the powerful, he abandoned Egypt for many years.  He returned to warn Pharaoh about the dangers of the Hittites and their new iron sword.  The military want to strike against the Hittites before they grew too strong, while the Pharaoh refused to condone violence.  The physician was talked into poisoning the Pharaoh to save Egypt.  While dying, the Pharaoh talked about a man coming later who would tell the truth about God and bring right to the world.

The Egyptian (1954) had the same these of a doomed empire. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

The physician realised he had made a mistake in murdering the Pharaoh which allowed a military tyrant to take the throne.  The Hittites were quickly destroyed and the physician was put on trial where he told the Pharaoh:

You will go to war and win a battle.  You will conquer and not know it is defeat.  You will raise Egypt to glory and watch her die.  We live in the twilight of our world, … and you will be its sunset.  Nations rise only to fall.  Kings build mighty monuments to only have them crumble into dust.  Glory flees like a shadow, all these things have the seeds of death in them.  Only a thought can live.  Only a great truth can grow and flourish and a truth cannot be killed.

… A good man is better than a bad man.  Justice is better than injustice.  The man who uses mercy is superior to those who uses violence.  Though the later call himself Pharaoh and master of the earth.  We have but one master the God that made us all.  Only his truth is immortal.  And in his truth all men are equal and no man is alone.[6]

The film’s conclusion had virtually the same conclusion as Demetrius and the Gladiators with the religiously strong individual deriding the all-powerful tyrant before being sentenced.  The tyrant’s empire was condemned to destruction.  The true kingdom was based on a religion yet to be unveiled.  The final credit blazed across the screen ‘THESE THINGS HAPPENED THIRTEEN CENTURIES BEFORE THE BIRTH OF CHRIST’ ensuring that the audience got the message about who was the true figure of religious salvation.

[1] Remark by Professor John Salmond on 22 March 1991.  Professor Salmond was a journalist with a New Zealand newspaper and he covered the Billy Graham tour in 1959.  For more details on the detailed and extensive preparations for Billy Graham’s tours read S. Baggage, & Ian Siggins, Light Beneath the Cross: The Story of Billy Graham’s Crusade in Australia, The World’s Work, Kingswood & Melbourne, 1960.

[2] Mark Silk, Spiritual Politics, p. 65.  Grahams’ outlook was discussed in the section on When Worlds Collide.  After Graham’s highly successful Los Angeles revival in 1949, Cecil B. DeMille was rumoured to have offered Graham a screen test.  See Stephen, J. Whitfield, The Culture of the Cold War, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1991, p. 78. Graham returned the compliment by calling DeMille ‘A prophet in celluloid’, USA, Box 14, Folder 1, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

[3] Demetrius and the Gladiators, (d) Delmer Daves, (w) Phillip Dunne.

[4] Ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] The Egyptian (d) Michael Curtiz, (w) Philli Dunne.

David and Bathsheba and The Robe continue the anti-Communist theme

Dr Kevin Brianton, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Several films had the same theme of the doomed empire and the final triumph over tyranny.  For the Christians, Jesus would become an avenging political figure who would march forward to right the wrongs of the tyrannical Romans.

David and Bathsheba, the 1951 Henry King Biblical religious romantic adultery epic melodrama. Gregory Peck played the adult David who had abandoned his religious path and suffered the consequences.

Similar points had been made in David and Bathsheba (1951) after King David committed adultery and Israel was laid waste with famine.  When David begged for mercy, the drought was broken and order was restored.  Disregarding God’s laws was a recipe for disaster.  Even though the film focused on David’s later life, it managed to depict his fight with Goliath in one of the closing scenes.  Armed only with a slingshot.  David went out to face the massive giant single handed.  The invincible Goliath was dispatching Israelites at will.  It appeared that David had no chance of success and he mist die like all the other challengers.  But he was full of true spiritual strength and used a slingshot to hurl a rock into Goliath’s skull.  The monster fell to the ground dead and the Israelite army stormed over the enemy.  The physically weak, but spiritually strong, had overcome the mighty forces arrayed against them.

The Robe (1953) made an enormous impact when it was released, which was partly due to it being the first cinemascope picture.  This process meant that audiences could see a massive image spread across a wide screen, however, the novelty value alone was not going to attract an audience.  Cinemascope was an attempt by the studios to counter the growing threat of television to box office returns.  However, the studios were not going to invest their millions in a new process for little return.  It appears clear that The Robe was a deliberate choice for the new process by the studio heads because they knew it would be guaranteed a box office return if it followed the formula set by its predecessors.

The Robe (1953) made an enormous impact when it was released, which was partly due to it being the first cinemascope picture. 

The robe was that worn by Christ when he was crucified.  It was won by a young Roman tribune gambling with other soldiers in charge of the Crucifixion.  Beyond the retelling of the biblical story, the event had other resonances for the Hollywood community.  Before calling for an investigation into Hollywood, Mississippi congressman John Rankin spoke of the crucifixion as part of the communist struggle.  He claimed that communism was based on the hatred of Christianity.

Remember that communism and Christianity can never live in the same atmosphere.  Communism is older than Christianity.  It is the curse of the ages.  It hounded and persecuted the Saviour during his earthy ministry, inspired his crucifixion, derided him in his dying agony, and then gambled for his garments at the foot of the cross; and has spent more than 1900 years trying to destroy Christianity and everything based on Christian principles. [1]

Rankin’s remarks were made in 1945.  The comments would have been well known in Hollywood as the speech was one of the first calls to investigate communism in radio, television and the film industry.  No evidence exists that it directly influenced the Robe’s screenwriters.  However, given the strong links between religion and politics in the cold war, it is clear that even a straight retelling of the Gospel had political connotations.

After being guilt ridden over the Crucifixion, the tribune passed the robe to his slave Demetrius who had been converted to Christianity.  Demetrius told his Roman tribune master that their empire was cursed because of the Crucifixion of Christ.  The Roman empire was once again depicted as doomed.  Emperor Tiberius Caesar foresaw the decline of the Roman empire in these terms.

When it comes.  This his how it will start.  Some obscure martyr in some forgotten province.  The madness infecting the legions, rotting the empire.  It will be the finish of Rome … This is more dangerous than any spell … It is man’s desire to be free.  It is the greatest madness of them all.[2]

Man’s desire to be free would eventually overcome the strength of the Roman empire.  The desire was linked with Christian strength and courage.  The formula of Samson and Delilah, Quo Vadis, and David and Bathsheba was being followed again.

The Robe’s credited screenwriter Phillip Dunne was a strong opponent of the HUAC and the blacklist, and was a founding member of the Committee for the First Amendment.[3]  In his autobiography, he revealed that the writer of the uncredited first draft of The Robe was Albert Maltz, one of the Hollywood Ten.[4]  Either Dunne or Maltz managed to place a jab at HUAC within the film.  The tyrant Tiberius Caesar was constantly asking for the names of Christians.  ‘Names.  I want the names.’ he says.[5]  The writers were equating the tyranny of Rome with HUAC.[6]

If the empire desires peace and brotherhood among all men, my king will be on the side of Rome.  But if the empire and the emperor wish to pursue the course of aggression and slavery that has bought agony and terror and despair to the world.  If there’s nothing to hope for but chains and hunger, then my king will march forward to right those wrongs.  Not tomorrow sire, your majesty might not live to see the establishment of his own kingdom.[7]

The film had the same theme of the doomed empire and the final triumph over tyranny.  For the Christians, Jesus was an avenging political figure who would march forward to right the wrongs of the tyrannical Romans.

The Robe was used extensively by evangelist Billy Graham.  Before a tour of a new country such as New Zealand or Australia, he would send out tightly organised advance parties.  These highly efficient men would tell ministers and church groups to screen The Robe as it was a ‘tract for our times’.[8]  It appeared that The Robe was used as an inducement to see Billy Graham documentaries such as Battleground Europe, The Mighty Fortress and Eastward to Asia.  Graham often discussed communism in his sermons and he saw the world as divided into two camps: communist and the west.  He believed only a revival of faith would avert a nuclear holocaust which he saw as a biblical judgement for the United States’ sins.[9]

[1] Congressional Record, 91, part 6, 17 July 1945, p. 7337.

[2] The Robe, (d) Henry Koster, (w) Phillip Dunne.

[3] Remark by Ring Lardner Jr. at Australian Film Institute Public Seminar on 26 March 1991.  Mr Lardner, one of the Hollywood 10, said that when he was dismissed from Twentieth Century Fox, that Dunne and director George Seaton offered to walk off the lot with Lardner in protest.  Lardner replied that the protest would be futile unless it was 60 people involved.  (From notes taken by writer at seminar.)

[4] Dunne also talked about Maltz’s role in The Robe in McGilligan , Pat. (ed.). Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age, University of California Press, London, 1986, p. 164.

[5] The Robe (d) Henry Koster, (w) Phillip Dunne.

[6] The same idea re-emerged in a stronger fashion in Ben-Hur (1959).  The Roman General Massala, played by Stephen Boyd, demands that Jewish leader Judah Ben Hur, played by Charlton Heston, name the names of those who would resist Rome:

BEN-HUR…(I’ve) spoken against violence, against insolence.  Most of the men I’ve talked to agree with you.
MASSALA:Oh not all.
BEN-HURNo … not all.
MASSALA:Who does not agree?
BEN-HURThey’re resentful and impatient.
MASSALA:Who are they? … Yes, Judah who are they?
BEN-HURWould I retain your friendship if I became an informer.
MASSALA:To tell us the names of criminals is hardly informing.
BEN-HURThey are not criminals, they are patriots.

Ben Hur’s director William Wyler was one of the 25 directors who signed the petition for Joseph Mankiewicz, who had been publically outspoken against the HUAC hearings and was under conservative attack.  It is interesting to not that Ben-Hur was one of the few biblical films where the allegory appears to be directed against fascism rather than communism.  The Jews and Arabs are derided by Massala as a ‘conquered race’ and he sees Rome as a superior power.

[7] The Robe, (d) Henry Koster, (w) Phillip Dunne.

[8] Remark by Professor John Salmond on 22 March 1991.  Professor Salmond was a journalist with a New Zealand newspaper and he covered the Billy Graham tour in 1959.  For more details on the detailed and extensive preparations for Billy Graham’s tours read S. Baggage, & Ian Siggins, Light Beneath the Cross: The Story of Billy Graham’s Crusade in Australia, The World’s Work, Kingswood & Melbourne, 1960.

[9] Mark Silk, Spiritual Politics, p. 65.  Grahams’ outlook was discussed in the blog on When Worlds Collide.  After Graham’s highly successful Los Angeles revival in 1949, Cecil B. DeMille was rumoured to have offered Graham a screen test.  See Stephen, J. Whitfield, The Culture of the Cold War, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1991, p. 78. Graham returned the compliment by calling DeMille ‘A prophet in celluloid’, USA, Box 14, Folder 1, Cecil B. DeMille Archives.

Salome continues theme of opposing Communist regimes

Salome (1953) was a variation on a similar theme or religious opposition to communism concentrating on Princess Salome of the Judean King Herod’s court. image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

Dr Kevin Brianton, Honorary Associate

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Salome (1953) was a variation on a similar theme of religious opposition to communism concentrating on Princess Salome of the Judean King Herod’s court.  Herod was liked to Roman rulers in the opening titles and the screenwriter depicted him as one of their puppets.  The film opened with John the Baptist preaching to a small group of people that Herod’s kingdom was corrupt.

The had of the lord will fall upon the king and queen.  Be calm by friends, righteousness shall rise like a mighty river, truth shall be clear as crystal.  Repent.  Cease to do evil, learn to do good.  Relive the oppressed, seek righteousness for his love will be with you as a morning dew and you will blossom as a rose.[1]

One of Herod’s agents then sped away to warn the Queen that John the Baptist was preaching ‘sedition’.  The basic formula of the biblical epics had already been set.  The Romans were corrupt and powerful and were opposed by the righteous but apparently powerless Jews.  When John the Baptist was confronted by the Roman troops, he told his followers ‘to let your faith be your shield’ and then vented his rage at them.

The message of Salome was directed at those rulers who did not follow God’s laws and for the audience of the 1950s that could only mean the communist rulers.  Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

Tyrants of Rome.  Those who live in hatred and spite shall vanish from the earth when Roman spears will be ground into dust.  The consumers will be consumed.  You will be destroyed.[2]

Further on he denounced Rome and its puppets:

For verily, I say unto you, the kingdom of heaven can be found here on earth if we live like the children of God and not like beasts of prey as those who rule you now.  People of Galilee, Herod is an alien king.  He is descended form a desert tribe of heathens.  He was not born in the faith of our fathers.  He makes a mockery of the Ten Commandments.  Rulers who do not observe the law of God can only bring disaster to the people.[3]

The final sentence was the exact point that John Foster Dulles would make in his Watertown speech.  Not only was communism morally wrong, but eventually it would lead its people to disaster.

When John the Baptist confronted Herod in Salome at his show trial, he continued his verbal assault on the Roman Judean kingdom.

HEROD:Then you would have another king in my place.
BAPTIST:One that would rule with goodness, justice and mercy.
MINISTER:You admit allegiance to someone other than his majesty.
BAPTIST:The one I acknowledge is above the kingdom on earth.
MINISTER:Mightier even than Caesar?
BAPTIST:He is the king of kings.  He makes all the Caesars in the heavens tremble.  He will raise the yoke form the oppressed, right all wrongs, bring a day of judgement upon all the evil ministers of the world… He is the messiah.[4]

Jesus was depicted as a political figure and his appearance meant political as well as religious freedom, as it made the physical and moral decline of Rome certain.  The soldier Claudius made this observation when he argued with the Judean Governor Pontius Pilate.

CLAUDIUS:Rome cannot go on as it has, ruling with a sword and a whip.  If we are to survive, we must recognise that a new force has come into the world.
PILATE:A new force?
CLAUDIUS:The religion of this prophet.  It will bring hope to the conquered, it will bring peace to all men by teaching all how to live in peach with his neighbours.  This is a faith that will march across the world and win them as Rome could only conquer.
PILATE:Caesar is the only faith for a Roman.[5]

As this was prior to the crucifixion, Claudius must be considered to be one of the greatest predictors of historical events of all time.  Pilate’s statement that ‘Caesar is the only faith for a Roman’ reflected the Kennan belief that communism was a religion, rather than a political philosophy.  If the film is read as a political allegory of the communists, it implied that communism was doomed.  The message of the film was directed at those rulers who did not follow God’s laws and for the audience of the 1950s that could only mean the communist rulers.  To maintain some semblance of historical accuracy, Herod was left cursed with the thought the he would die in agony

[1] Salome, (d) William Dietrele, (w) Harry Kleiner, Jerry Lasky Jnr.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Salome, op cit.

[4] Salome, op cit.

[5] Salome, op cit.

Quo Vadis?: the slaves defeat the masters

Dr Kevin Brianton

Honorary Associate: La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Director Mervyn Le Roy (centre with pale trousers) jokes with Deborah Kerr on the set. Le Roy further developed the themes of the doomed empire.  Quo Vadis? focused on the burning of Rome by Emperor Nero and the martyrdom of early Christians. Image courtesy of eMoviePoster.

Samson and Delilah’s successor Quo Vadis? (1951), directed by Mervyn LeRoy, built on the ideas of its predecessor. Quo Vadis? focused on the burning of Rome by Emperor Nero and the martyrdom of early Christians.  The film opened with columns of victorious troops returning to Rome after crushing a rebellion in Britain with the following voice over:

Imperial Rome is the centre of the empire.  An undisputed master of the world, but with power inevitably comes corruption.  No man is sure of his life.  The individual is at the mercy of the State.  Murder replaces justice.  Rulers of conquered nations surrendered their helpless subjects to bondage.  High and low alike become Roman slaves, Roman hostages.  There is no escape form the whip and the sword.  That any force on earth can shake this foundation, this pyramid of power and corruptions, of human misery and slavery seems inconceivable.  But 30 years before this day, on a Roman cross in Judea a miracle occurred.  A man died to make man free.  To spread the gospel of love and redemption.  Soon that cross will replace the proud eagles of the Roman legions.[1]

The opening lines anticipate the cold war speeches of Secretary of States Dulles.  ‘The individual at the mercy of the State’ sounds remarkably like Dulles’ belief tat the Soviets treated ‘human beings as primarily important from the standpoint of how much they can produce for the glorification of the state.’  And because of this failure to respect human values, the Roman State was doomed.  The cross of Christianity would replace the eagle of the Romans.  The slaves would defeat the masters.

Quo Vadis? began with the return of the victorious General Marcus Vinicius, played by Robert Taylor, from his battles in Britain.  He was a proud and stern commander who would have a soldier flogged for any disobedience.  He desired a Christian woman Lydia, played by Deborah Kerr.  She refused his advances because he owned slaves.  One of the major criticisms the Christians make of the Roman empire in the film is that they have slaves.  Indeed Lydia refused to marry Vinicius unless he gave all his slaves freedom.  George MacDonald Fraser in his survey of Hollywood’s historical epics has pointed out that the film is incorrect in its attempt to depict the early Christians as being anti-slavery.  He argues that Hollywood was always eager to suggest that its heroes were champions of universal liberty.  This was not the case as there were slave owners and slave dealers among the Christians.[2]  The biblical epics were not interested in historical accuracy, they were interested in presenting religion as a vibrant and powerful force against tyrannies.  To do so, the filmmakers were prepared to stretch an historical point or two to get their message across.  As a consequence, the early Christians were depicted as being against slavery.

Vinicius arranged through Emperor Nero for Lydia to be bought to him.  While pursuing Lydia, Vinicius began to see the justness of the Christian cause after hearing St Peter speak.  In the interim, Nero burned Rome and then attempted to use the Christians as a scapegoat for the burning.  When the Romans condemned St Peter, Christianity was represented as a rebellion against a totalitarian state.  The Romans said that Peter had preached blasphemy against the emperor and was crucified as a warning to all Christians.[3]

The Christians bravely sang hymns as they were devoured by lions or crucified or burnt to death.  Eventually the Roman crowd, moved by the courage of the Christians, revolted against Nero.  Vinicius and his new wife Lydia left Rome while order was restored.  At the conclusion of the film, Vinicius watched the Roman army march into restore order and reflected on the decline of Roman and other powers.

VINICIUS:Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome.  What follows?
SOLDIER:A more permanent world I hope?  With a more permanent faith?
VINICIUS:One is not possible without the other.[4]

LeRoy and his writers were arguing that the true faith of Christianity was the real foundation for an empire.  Empires built on different faiths would crumble, just as the Roman empire had fallen.  This message, which foreshadowed Dulles’ Watertown address would have been deeply reassuring for the American public who had witnessed the growth of communism following the Second World War.  The cultural myth created by these films said that despite its power and success, communism would collapse when faced with the Christian spirit of America.

[1] Quo Vadis?, (d) Mervyn Le Roy, (w) John Lee Marhin, S.N. Behrman, Sonya Levien.

[2] George MacDonald Fraser, Hollywood History of the World, Michael Joseph, London, 1988, p. 22.

[3] Quo Vadia? Op cit.

[4] Quo Vadis? op cit.