The exciting feature of the 50th Anniversary Editon of DeMille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is to be able to see the original 1923 version in a pristine print along with Katherine Orrison's illuminating commentary track. Previously only available on VHS tape with the poorly surviving colorized footage of the Exodus and Parting of the Red Sea (provided as a separate Extra on the DVD)used, it was difficult to realize just how beautifully done the silent epic was. Paramount has cleaned up the print and used only the better surviving black & white elements for this release. The beauty of the photography comes through with great clarity. Orrison's commentary is full of interesting insights as well as being enjoyable due to her enthusiasm about so many details. And Gaylord Carter's Wurlitzer Pipe Organ score is very impressive (as well as being a marvelous record of an organ score done by one who actually performed during the silent era)on this digital stereo recording. The 1956 remake looks and sounds great, as are the all of the special features for it, but this is exactly the same as the previous second edition of this title. I bought the new edition in order to see what they had done with the 1923 version -- and I certainly am impressed. Also, I love the packaging for this edition. Well worth updating as it is available at a very decent price.
44 Reviews
Break The Ten Commandments And They'll Break You
bkoganbing16 July 2010
Going on 90 years since it was first released, the original The Ten Commandments can still overawe you with the spectacle of both the biblical prologue and the modern story. Modern in the sense that it was set during the Jazz Age Roaring Twenties, the 1923 when Paramount released what would become that studio's biggest moneymaker up to that time.
You'll recognize the biblical prologue if you've seen the 1956 remake, it is almost a 45 minute scene for scene remake of the time that Charlton Heston and John Carradine arrive at the Egyptian court until the destruction of the Golden calf. They weren't giving Oscars back in 1923, but the parting of the Red Sea was incredible for its time and would have given Cecil B. DeMille yet another Oscar for the same event.
You won't recognize a lot of the biblical prologue cast, but they were part and parcel of a DeMille stock company that he developed during silent era and continued to a lesser degree after the coming of sound. Best known probably was Estelle Taylor who was married to Jack Dempsey at the time as Miriam, the sister of Moses.
The bulk of the film is the modern story which has the theme break the Ten Commandments and they'll break you. The stars are Richard Dix and Rod LaRocque a pair of brothers, one good and one bad, sons of a most pious mother Edythe Chapman. Dix is a good, honest, and steady carpenter by trade and LaRocque through his ruthlessness and who winds up breaking all the Commandments becomes the richest contractor in the state.
LaRocque is pretty ruthless in his private affairs, he breaks the Commandments regarding those as well. He marries Leatrice Joy who Dix likes as well, but then gets a fetching Eurasian mistress in Nita Naldi. Nita is in the slinky and sexy tradition of all DeMille's bad girls.
It all ends really bad for LaRocque as his sins catch up with him.
During the modern story DeMille hand with spectacle is a good one in the scene of the church collapse and later on during the climatic escape LaRocque is attempting to make with a speedboat on a stormy night at sea.
The influence of DeMille's educator father Henry and his friend David Belasco are strong here as they are in all DeMille work. The modern story is the kind of morality play that Belasco would produce and write for the stage for years. It's from the Victorian era, but the Roaring Twenties audience wanted something that reflected traditional values occasionally as if nervously waiting for its excesses to catch up. It's partly the reason why they could find comfort in a Congregationalist president of the USA in Calvin Coolidge.
Though the story is unbelievably dated, DeMille's cinematic techniques are hardly that. The original Ten Commandments in many ways will tell you about its creator warts and all.
You'll recognize the biblical prologue if you've seen the 1956 remake, it is almost a 45 minute scene for scene remake of the time that Charlton Heston and John Carradine arrive at the Egyptian court until the destruction of the Golden calf. They weren't giving Oscars back in 1923, but the parting of the Red Sea was incredible for its time and would have given Cecil B. DeMille yet another Oscar for the same event.
You won't recognize a lot of the biblical prologue cast, but they were part and parcel of a DeMille stock company that he developed during silent era and continued to a lesser degree after the coming of sound. Best known probably was Estelle Taylor who was married to Jack Dempsey at the time as Miriam, the sister of Moses.
The bulk of the film is the modern story which has the theme break the Ten Commandments and they'll break you. The stars are Richard Dix and Rod LaRocque a pair of brothers, one good and one bad, sons of a most pious mother Edythe Chapman. Dix is a good, honest, and steady carpenter by trade and LaRocque through his ruthlessness and who winds up breaking all the Commandments becomes the richest contractor in the state.
LaRocque is pretty ruthless in his private affairs, he breaks the Commandments regarding those as well. He marries Leatrice Joy who Dix likes as well, but then gets a fetching Eurasian mistress in Nita Naldi. Nita is in the slinky and sexy tradition of all DeMille's bad girls.
It all ends really bad for LaRocque as his sins catch up with him.
During the modern story DeMille hand with spectacle is a good one in the scene of the church collapse and later on during the climatic escape LaRocque is attempting to make with a speedboat on a stormy night at sea.
The influence of DeMille's educator father Henry and his friend David Belasco are strong here as they are in all DeMille work. The modern story is the kind of morality play that Belasco would produce and write for the stage for years. It's from the Victorian era, but the Roaring Twenties audience wanted something that reflected traditional values occasionally as if nervously waiting for its excesses to catch up. It's partly the reason why they could find comfort in a Congregationalist president of the USA in Calvin Coolidge.
Though the story is unbelievably dated, DeMille's cinematic techniques are hardly that. The original Ten Commandments in many ways will tell you about its creator warts and all.
David Jeffers for SIFFblog.com
rdjeffers5 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sunday January 8, 4:00pm The Paramount Theater, Seattle
Countless slaves pull a gleaming white sphinx, inch-by-inch, across the desert sands. Brutalized by their cruel Egyptian masters, The Children of Israel toil before the monumental city gates of Pharaoh Rameses II. The opening scenes of Cecil B. DeMille's 1923 epic "The Ten Commandments" represent the historical spectacle of Hollywood's silent era at its grandest and most expressive. DeMille blended the intensely dramatic performance of his actors with the spectacular architecture of his sets in a way that seemed to bring the past to life for the movie going audience. His exhaustive research and striving for authenticity was limited only by his personal satisfaction. Of the roughly 2500 extras used one tenth were orthodox Jews from Los Angeles, many, recent immigrants who felt they were living the history of their ancestors. The flight from Egypt includes the added surprise of two-color Technicolor while the scenes of decadence as the Golden Calf is worshiped by an undulating mob are as vibrantly electric as any ever filmed. To be fair, it bears pointing out that the forty-five minute Ancient Egypt portion of "The Ten Commandments" is only a prologue to the modern story, which today seems dated and irrelevant. Two brothers, one good and one evil, alternately respect and defy the ancient laws of Moses and live with the consequences. The San Francisco setting may be of interest to anyone with ties to "the city by the bay", specifically the 1920's North Beach neighborhood, Saints Peter and Paul Church and Washington Square Park which are all prominently featured. Sexy Nita Naldi is also delightfully vampish as the heavy-lidded other woman draped in furs. The Jeanie Macpherson screenplay attempts to draw parallels between the story of Exodus and modern life, much more successfully accomplished in Michael Curtiz 1928 epic masterpiece "Noah's Ark", but the jazz age story can't hold a candle to the grandeur of the ancient world. DeMille's original does succeed if compared to the bloated, boringly over-detailed story and hammy acting of his 1956 remake. The 1923 prologue is concise, well paced and beautifully executed. The ancient Babylon of D. W. Griffith's 1916 spectacular "Intolerance" appears staged and remote when compared to a genuine sense of seeing and feeling the "hear and now" conjured up by DeMille's City of the Pharaoh. Hollywood produced progressively greater and more fantastic historical epics as the era drew to a close, including the MGM spectacle "Ben Hur" in 1925 and DeMille's "King of Kings" in 1927.
" the spirit of the spectacle, and the joy taken in its own magic, was unique to the silent film." - William K. Everson
Countless slaves pull a gleaming white sphinx, inch-by-inch, across the desert sands. Brutalized by their cruel Egyptian masters, The Children of Israel toil before the monumental city gates of Pharaoh Rameses II. The opening scenes of Cecil B. DeMille's 1923 epic "The Ten Commandments" represent the historical spectacle of Hollywood's silent era at its grandest and most expressive. DeMille blended the intensely dramatic performance of his actors with the spectacular architecture of his sets in a way that seemed to bring the past to life for the movie going audience. His exhaustive research and striving for authenticity was limited only by his personal satisfaction. Of the roughly 2500 extras used one tenth were orthodox Jews from Los Angeles, many, recent immigrants who felt they were living the history of their ancestors. The flight from Egypt includes the added surprise of two-color Technicolor while the scenes of decadence as the Golden Calf is worshiped by an undulating mob are as vibrantly electric as any ever filmed. To be fair, it bears pointing out that the forty-five minute Ancient Egypt portion of "The Ten Commandments" is only a prologue to the modern story, which today seems dated and irrelevant. Two brothers, one good and one evil, alternately respect and defy the ancient laws of Moses and live with the consequences. The San Francisco setting may be of interest to anyone with ties to "the city by the bay", specifically the 1920's North Beach neighborhood, Saints Peter and Paul Church and Washington Square Park which are all prominently featured. Sexy Nita Naldi is also delightfully vampish as the heavy-lidded other woman draped in furs. The Jeanie Macpherson screenplay attempts to draw parallels between the story of Exodus and modern life, much more successfully accomplished in Michael Curtiz 1928 epic masterpiece "Noah's Ark", but the jazz age story can't hold a candle to the grandeur of the ancient world. DeMille's original does succeed if compared to the bloated, boringly over-detailed story and hammy acting of his 1956 remake. The 1923 prologue is concise, well paced and beautifully executed. The ancient Babylon of D. W. Griffith's 1916 spectacular "Intolerance" appears staged and remote when compared to a genuine sense of seeing and feeling the "hear and now" conjured up by DeMille's City of the Pharaoh. Hollywood produced progressively greater and more fantastic historical epics as the era drew to a close, including the MGM spectacle "Ben Hur" in 1925 and DeMille's "King of Kings" in 1927.
" the spirit of the spectacle, and the joy taken in its own magic, was unique to the silent film." - William K. Everson
Interesting, & Occasionally Impressive
Snow Leopard21 September 2004
It's interesting just to watch DeMille's first, silent film version of "The Ten Commandments", and the picture itself is pretty interesting too. It is also occasionally impressive, sometimes with the kind of DeMille flourishes that one expects, sometimes with a satisfying dramatic turn. It's quite different in its conception from the more familiar 1950's version, and so direct comparisons are not always possible, yet it holds up well by itself anyway.
Rather than concentrating on the biblical story, as in the remake, here DeMille first tells an abbreviated version of the Moses/Exodus narrative, and then uses it as the thematic basis for a modern morality tale. There are many parallels between the two stories, and while the parallels are occasionally forced, they often work surprisingly well. The modern-day story is similar to many other films of the 1910's and 1920's, but it is interesting and it is told well.
Although DeMille is known for his lavish spectacles, he also knew how to create some more subtle effects when he wanted to. In the modern story, some of the developments are a bit contrived, but the characters generally ring true, and the story itself is worthwhile as well. While the lavish remake with color and sound is probably going to remain more well-known, this earlier version is well worth seeing, too.
Rather than concentrating on the biblical story, as in the remake, here DeMille first tells an abbreviated version of the Moses/Exodus narrative, and then uses it as the thematic basis for a modern morality tale. There are many parallels between the two stories, and while the parallels are occasionally forced, they often work surprisingly well. The modern-day story is similar to many other films of the 1910's and 1920's, but it is interesting and it is told well.
Although DeMille is known for his lavish spectacles, he also knew how to create some more subtle effects when he wanted to. In the modern story, some of the developments are a bit contrived, but the characters generally ring true, and the story itself is worthwhile as well. While the lavish remake with color and sound is probably going to remain more well-known, this earlier version is well worth seeing, too.
Biblical two-parter
Leofwine_draca7 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is one of Cecil B. DeMille's silent epics, although he would surpass its quality when he went on to remake it with Charlton Heston in the 1950s. This is still a very good film from its era and sufficiently epic to impress to this day - those sets! This lengthy production is divided into two very different halves, the first a straight Genesis re-telling with some great early special effects work used to depict the parting of the Red Sea. The second is a contemporary family drama in which the Old Testament plays a very important role in the modern day. Engaging stuff.
Early epic-morality play still feels modern enough
OldAle15 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
a great silent spectacle
dav07dan0212 May 2006
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.
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.
Double Feature
richardchatten14 April 2020
The biblical story in fact comprises only about a third of the total running time of this first 'version' of the old DeMille warhorse, which culminates in a motorboat chase rather than the parting of the Red Sea.
It plays more like a critique of exploitative American capitalism than the thinly veiled Cold War attack on Godless Communism DeMille hinted that his 'remake' was during the fifties; with God demonstrating to venal athiest Rod La Rocque the hard way "that if you break the Ten Commandments - they will break you"!
It plays more like a critique of exploitative American capitalism than the thinly veiled Cold War attack on Godless Communism DeMille hinted that his 'remake' was during the fifties; with God demonstrating to venal athiest Rod La Rocque the hard way "that if you break the Ten Commandments - they will break you"!
Church of the Poison Mind
wes-connors8 February 2009
Cecil B. DeMille's Paramount EPIC "The Ten Commandments" tells the Old Testament's "Moses" story during its first hour. The "special effects" highlights are: Theodore Roberts (as Moses) parting the Red Sea, and the Biblical patriarch's thunderous receiving of God's commandments. The production is first rate throughout. After about fifty minutes of spectacle, the film switches to a "Modern Story" - wherein Mr. DeMille seeks to tell a morality story involving "The Ten Commandments".
For the main story (the more memorable Moses segments were a mere "prologue"), DeMille introduces the McTavish brothers - saintly carpenter Richard Dix (as John), and partying atheist Rod La Rocque (as Dan). While Mr. Dix stays home to read The Bible, with dear mother Edythe Chapman (as Martha McTavish), Mr. La Rocque breaks Commandments, with lovely Leatrice Joy (as Mary Leigh). Of course, Dix falls in love with Ms. Joy, after she becomes his brother's wife
DeMille's morality tale is extremely heavy-handed, but nevertheless enticing, and expertly directed.
The "Biblical" and "Modern" story format recalls D.W. Griffith's superior "Intolerance" (1916). The all-star cast (it's 1923, remember) performs exceptionally, with La Rocque being seen in one of his finest performances. As any actor will tell you, La Rocque was halfway there, upon receiving the "bad brother" role, over Dix - and, La Rocque runs away with the film. His is a "Best Actor"-worthy performance. Nefarious Nita Naldi (as Sally Lung) leads a strong supporting cast.
All things considered, this one's a lot more fun than the 1956 re-make.
********* The Ten Commandments (11/23/23) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Rod La Rocque, Richard Dix, Leatrice Joy, Theodore Roberts
For the main story (the more memorable Moses segments were a mere "prologue"), DeMille introduces the McTavish brothers - saintly carpenter Richard Dix (as John), and partying atheist Rod La Rocque (as Dan). While Mr. Dix stays home to read The Bible, with dear mother Edythe Chapman (as Martha McTavish), Mr. La Rocque breaks Commandments, with lovely Leatrice Joy (as Mary Leigh). Of course, Dix falls in love with Ms. Joy, after she becomes his brother's wife
DeMille's morality tale is extremely heavy-handed, but nevertheless enticing, and expertly directed.
The "Biblical" and "Modern" story format recalls D.W. Griffith's superior "Intolerance" (1916). The all-star cast (it's 1923, remember) performs exceptionally, with La Rocque being seen in one of his finest performances. As any actor will tell you, La Rocque was halfway there, upon receiving the "bad brother" role, over Dix - and, La Rocque runs away with the film. His is a "Best Actor"-worthy performance. Nefarious Nita Naldi (as Sally Lung) leads a strong supporting cast.
All things considered, this one's a lot more fun than the 1956 re-make.
********* The Ten Commandments (11/23/23) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Rod La Rocque, Richard Dix, Leatrice Joy, Theodore Roberts
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (Cecil B. De Mille, 1923) ***
Bunuel197617 April 2009
This was another Biblical epic from the Silent era which I had long wanted to check out; even so, I had owned the DVD (accompanying the more popular 1956 version of the same events, from the same showman director no less, and which has received countless viewings from yours truly) for some time before I finally got to it. As with the later NOAH'S ARK (1928), virtually watched simultaneously, it seems that film-makers of the time were unsure of the appeal of such religious epics, so that they had to present them within the context of a modern story; still, De Mille's THE KING OF KINGS (a milestone in itself for being the first and, for a time, only picture to show Jesus' face) preceded that Michael Curtiz work by a year and it was set exclusively in the time of Christ. In this case, only the first 50 minutes or so are dedicated to the familiar tale involving Moses (needless to say, the dull Theodore Roberts is no match for the stoic Charlton Heston in the remake): the exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, the writing of the tablets and the Golden Calf; these are clearly heavily streamlined in comparison with the almost 4-hour long 1956 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and, in spite of their obvious care, gargantuan scale and excellent special effects, can feel unsatisfying in that respect...especially when the parallel story is so hokey, unnecessarily inflated and, at the end of the day, somewhat ordinary! The latter sees a Bible-thumping matriarch (which she proudly holds even when posing for a portrait), her two sons and the girl who comes between them: one of the boys (played by Richard Dix) is righteous – and, as his mother claims, engaged in a skill (carpentry) which has produced some notable exponents (alluding naturally to Christ himself) – while the other mocks religion and vows to become somebody by his own merits. Eventually, we find him as a top contractor and, perhaps to make amends, takes it upon himself to build a church; however, to cut costs, he reduces the amount of cement required to make the concrete, with the result that the walls are weak and liable to collapse at any time (coincidentally, the very previous day I watched a film in which a character had faced a similar dilemma – GIVE US THIS DAY aka Christ IN CONCRETE [1949]): this ruse is discovered by Dix, appointed "boss-carpenter" on the project, and he confronts his brother
but, before anything can be done about it, the whole edifice falls on top of the mother who picks just that moment to visit the premises! The morally-corrupt sibling even forsakes his wife (the destitute girl they had taken in and whom Dix relinquished on his account) for an Asian temptress, whom he eventually kills (the only commandment, according to his spouse, not yet broken by him); in the end, the boy gets his come-uppance and Dix can reclaim his lady. While the two sections may seem to jell better than those in NOAH'S ARK, the overall achievement is a lesser one – and not just to it, but THE KING OF KINGS (by the way, Christ makes a 'cameo' appearance here towards the end!) and, most importantly, the later version
if still quite worthwhile in itself.
Great prologue, slow main feature
pninson28 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Cecil B. DeMille's original silent version of the Ten Commandments is mostly a heavy-handed morality play set in 1923. The prologue, which runs just over 40 minutes, shows an abbreviated version of the Biblical story of the Exodus. Most of the dialogue is taken from the Bible. Despite the technical limitations of the era, it succeeds as a fast-paced spectacular. The parting of the Red Sea is just as awe-inspiring in its own way as in the remake, and it's always interesting to see how silent actors compensated for the lack of sound with facial expressions and exaggerated gestures. The musical score is fantastic and everything clips along at a nice pace. As with the remake, it's never subtle, but it's never boring, either.
I wish I could say the same about the main part of the feature. After Moses punishes the Hebrews for worshipping the golden calf, the film moves to the present day (1920s). A mother reads to her grown sons from the Bible. The two brothers are basically Goofus and Gallant. From here, everything is completely predictable.
It's well done so that one can overlook the lack of subtlety. DeMille has a very explicit religious message, and he's not above bludgeoning the viewer over the head with it. That was the style of the day, and the limitations of the silent film force a certain amount of overstatement.
However, unlike most films of this period, this one goes on far too long. It's about ninety minutes but seems far longer. The bad son goes out into the world, declaring that he's going to break all 10 Commandments! Naturally, he becomes a successful businessman... while his humble older brother (a carpenter, naturally) tries not to envy him or covet his wife. There's never any doubt about how it's all going to end: DeMille's message is that "the wages of sin is death", but he takes far too long to get there.
The complete film is about 135 minutes, which must have been an epic length for that era. I would have enjoyed it more if the modern story had been trimmed by about 15 minutes.
In his way, DeMille was the forerunner of Mel Gibson. Both are gifted filmmakers with devout religious beliefs --- short on subtlety, heavy on the bloodshed and headlong action. The 1956 remake of Ten Commandments is a spectacular example of epic film-making, and as this 1923 silent original is now included as an extra disc in the DVD, it's worth checking out. I can't imagine wanting to sit through the modern story again, though; I'll probably shut it off once Moses segues off screen.
I wish I could say the same about the main part of the feature. After Moses punishes the Hebrews for worshipping the golden calf, the film moves to the present day (1920s). A mother reads to her grown sons from the Bible. The two brothers are basically Goofus and Gallant. From here, everything is completely predictable.
It's well done so that one can overlook the lack of subtlety. DeMille has a very explicit religious message, and he's not above bludgeoning the viewer over the head with it. That was the style of the day, and the limitations of the silent film force a certain amount of overstatement.
However, unlike most films of this period, this one goes on far too long. It's about ninety minutes but seems far longer. The bad son goes out into the world, declaring that he's going to break all 10 Commandments! Naturally, he becomes a successful businessman... while his humble older brother (a carpenter, naturally) tries not to envy him or covet his wife. There's never any doubt about how it's all going to end: DeMille's message is that "the wages of sin is death", but he takes far too long to get there.
The complete film is about 135 minutes, which must have been an epic length for that era. I would have enjoyed it more if the modern story had been trimmed by about 15 minutes.
In his way, DeMille was the forerunner of Mel Gibson. Both are gifted filmmakers with devout religious beliefs --- short on subtlety, heavy on the bloodshed and headlong action. The 1956 remake of Ten Commandments is a spectacular example of epic film-making, and as this 1923 silent original is now included as an extra disc in the DVD, it's worth checking out. I can't imagine wanting to sit through the modern story again, though; I'll probably shut it off once Moses segues off screen.
Sermon on Tablets
lugonian15 April 2018
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (Paramount, 1923), a super special production directed by Cecil B. DeMille, is the director's attempt in religious spectacle. Although DeMille already directed a story on Joan of Arc in JOAN THE WOMAN (1917), this is his attempt on doing something a little bit different from his previous efforts. As with the earlier silent classic of D. W. Griffith's INTOLERANCE (1916), consisting of four separate stories in no particular order, this edition to THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, unlike DeMille's most famous super four-hour 1956 edition starring Charlton Heston, this earlier 136 minute production combines Old Testament story according to Exodus followed by another story set in modern times. The Biblical portion, clocked at 50 minutes, as opposed to the modern-day story taking up much of the proceedings at 85 minutes, could have been a separate movie at best. With two movies for the price of one, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS simply shows God's Law being as relevant today as it was centuries ago.
Opening Title: "Our modern world defined God as a "religious complex" and laughed at The Ten Commandments as OLD-FASHIONED. Then through the laughter came the shattering thunder of the World War. And now a blood drenched, bitter world - no longer laughing - cries for a way out. There is but one way out. It existed before it was engraved upon tablets of stone. It will exist when stone has crumbled. The Ten Commandments are not rules to obey as a personal favor to God. They are the fundamental principles without which mankind cannot live together. They are not laws they are the LAW."
Prologue: Egypt, centuries ago, where slaves are seen pulling the wheels carrying a gigantic statue, with those getting whipped as they tire of such strenuous work. Ramesus, the Magnificent (Charles DeRoche) rules with no compassion while his sister, Miriam (Estelle Taylor) offers water to the abused slaves. Moses, the Lawgiver (Theodore Roberts), through the guidance of God's voice, leads His Children of Israel from bondage to the Promised Land. As Moses goes to Mount Sinai to speak to God in prayer, God answers him by posting on two tablets through volts of lightning his law he labels The Ten Commandments. In the meantime, his people are forsaking their God in favor of worshipping the Golden Calf.
Modern Story: Widow Martha McTavish (Edythe Chapman) is an overly religious woman with two grown sons, John (Richard Dix), a carpenter, and Dan (Rod LaRocque), an atheist who fails to see his mother's logic in her beliefs. While eating at Dugan's Lunch Wagon, Dan encounters Mary Leigh (Leatrice Joy), a homeless young girl accompanied by her dog, out in the rain, stealing his food. Rather than having her arrested, Dan invites her to her home for dinner with the company of his suspicious mother and brother. Through the passage of time, John has fallen in love with Mary, but loses her to Dan. Dan doesn't prove himself a good husband as he practically breaks the Ten Commandments by having a mistress in Sally Lung (Nita Naldi) from Molokai Leper Island, and being the one responsible for one of his crooked deals by using bad concrete on a Cathedral he is constructing, and much more.
For anyone expecting a near scene-by-scene original edition to DeMille's 1956 remake would be totally disappointed. The Biblical portion of the story shows great promise with lavish scale and costumes which makes one wish the entire story remained that way for about or under two hours. Theodore Roberts plays the white-bearded Moses to perfection, possibly his most famous movie role of his entire career. Special effects including the parting of the Red Sea is top notch, as is the visual style of the Ten Commandments flashing across the screen in full force. Though THE TEN COMMANDMENTS did prove successful in its standard form, the sudden change to modern theme seems out of place. For The Ten Commandments, it's the same then as it is today, which is what DeMille proposes to his movie audience of 1923.
Those witnessing Edythe Chapman's performance as an overly religious and domineering mother could possibly relate to her character who has been raised in similar circumstance, with her forceful meaning turning away children from God rather than becoming closer. Rod LaRocque, who resembles that of actor Rudolph Valentino, convincingly plays the one who gets turned off by religion. Richard Dix, early in his career before his success in talkies and beyond, and he being the best known actor in the entire cast, should gather the most attention from movie buffs. And that's Agnes Ayres in a cameo playing an outcast for the modern story.
Formerly presented on cable television's American Movie Classics (1993-1998), and later Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: September 29, 2023); THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, also available on video cassette and DVD accompanied by excellent organ score by Gaylord Carter, with DVD featuring added bonus of a commentary spoken by author, Katherine Orrison, whose historical accounts regarding this movie is most informative for those unfamiliar with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS according to DeMille. (***)
Opening Title: "Our modern world defined God as a "religious complex" and laughed at The Ten Commandments as OLD-FASHIONED. Then through the laughter came the shattering thunder of the World War. And now a blood drenched, bitter world - no longer laughing - cries for a way out. There is but one way out. It existed before it was engraved upon tablets of stone. It will exist when stone has crumbled. The Ten Commandments are not rules to obey as a personal favor to God. They are the fundamental principles without which mankind cannot live together. They are not laws they are the LAW."
Prologue: Egypt, centuries ago, where slaves are seen pulling the wheels carrying a gigantic statue, with those getting whipped as they tire of such strenuous work. Ramesus, the Magnificent (Charles DeRoche) rules with no compassion while his sister, Miriam (Estelle Taylor) offers water to the abused slaves. Moses, the Lawgiver (Theodore Roberts), through the guidance of God's voice, leads His Children of Israel from bondage to the Promised Land. As Moses goes to Mount Sinai to speak to God in prayer, God answers him by posting on two tablets through volts of lightning his law he labels The Ten Commandments. In the meantime, his people are forsaking their God in favor of worshipping the Golden Calf.
Modern Story: Widow Martha McTavish (Edythe Chapman) is an overly religious woman with two grown sons, John (Richard Dix), a carpenter, and Dan (Rod LaRocque), an atheist who fails to see his mother's logic in her beliefs. While eating at Dugan's Lunch Wagon, Dan encounters Mary Leigh (Leatrice Joy), a homeless young girl accompanied by her dog, out in the rain, stealing his food. Rather than having her arrested, Dan invites her to her home for dinner with the company of his suspicious mother and brother. Through the passage of time, John has fallen in love with Mary, but loses her to Dan. Dan doesn't prove himself a good husband as he practically breaks the Ten Commandments by having a mistress in Sally Lung (Nita Naldi) from Molokai Leper Island, and being the one responsible for one of his crooked deals by using bad concrete on a Cathedral he is constructing, and much more.
For anyone expecting a near scene-by-scene original edition to DeMille's 1956 remake would be totally disappointed. The Biblical portion of the story shows great promise with lavish scale and costumes which makes one wish the entire story remained that way for about or under two hours. Theodore Roberts plays the white-bearded Moses to perfection, possibly his most famous movie role of his entire career. Special effects including the parting of the Red Sea is top notch, as is the visual style of the Ten Commandments flashing across the screen in full force. Though THE TEN COMMANDMENTS did prove successful in its standard form, the sudden change to modern theme seems out of place. For The Ten Commandments, it's the same then as it is today, which is what DeMille proposes to his movie audience of 1923.
Those witnessing Edythe Chapman's performance as an overly religious and domineering mother could possibly relate to her character who has been raised in similar circumstance, with her forceful meaning turning away children from God rather than becoming closer. Rod LaRocque, who resembles that of actor Rudolph Valentino, convincingly plays the one who gets turned off by religion. Richard Dix, early in his career before his success in talkies and beyond, and he being the best known actor in the entire cast, should gather the most attention from movie buffs. And that's Agnes Ayres in a cameo playing an outcast for the modern story.
Formerly presented on cable television's American Movie Classics (1993-1998), and later Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: September 29, 2023); THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, also available on video cassette and DVD accompanied by excellent organ score by Gaylord Carter, with DVD featuring added bonus of a commentary spoken by author, Katherine Orrison, whose historical accounts regarding this movie is most informative for those unfamiliar with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS according to DeMille. (***)
Not as good as the remake but a must-watch nonetheless
jaxelvester8 January 2019
'The Ten Commandments' was released in 1923 and was directed by Cecil B. DeMille and is the first of two Ten Commandments films directed by him.
This version differs in more ways than one to the remake. While the remake primarily centers on the story of Moses, the original version only features Moses in the prologue (which runs for approximately 40 minutes). The rest of the film centers on an atheist man in present day (the 1920s) who sets out to break the Ten Commandments in order to become successful.
Comparing to the remake, the special effects in the 'parting of the waves' scene definitely look more realistic here (especially considering this was released in 1923) and the entire prologue I masterfully created - however I do wish it was longer since there was little to no development in the characters because of it's short runtime.
I was initially skeptical about the present day segment of the film but I was thoroughly impressed and the story was definitely intriguing, especially towards the end.
Overall, I do prefer the 1956 remake however you shouldn't turn your back on this one. It is definitely a must-watch, even if it just be for the prologue with Moses.
7/10
This version differs in more ways than one to the remake. While the remake primarily centers on the story of Moses, the original version only features Moses in the prologue (which runs for approximately 40 minutes). The rest of the film centers on an atheist man in present day (the 1920s) who sets out to break the Ten Commandments in order to become successful.
Comparing to the remake, the special effects in the 'parting of the waves' scene definitely look more realistic here (especially considering this was released in 1923) and the entire prologue I masterfully created - however I do wish it was longer since there was little to no development in the characters because of it's short runtime.
I was initially skeptical about the present day segment of the film but I was thoroughly impressed and the story was definitely intriguing, especially towards the end.
Overall, I do prefer the 1956 remake however you shouldn't turn your back on this one. It is definitely a must-watch, even if it just be for the prologue with Moses.
7/10
More morality tale than Biblical epic
disinterested_spectator17 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Early in this movie we learn that Egypt has already been visited by nine plagues, none of which we get to see. "What's the deal?" we ask ourselves. This is especially perplexing considering that the movie is two hours and sixteen minutes long. Even the tenth plague, the one where all of Egypt's firstborn die, is disappointing, for the deaths are only implied: We see the Pharaoh's son alive; later we see him dead. That's the last straw, of course, and so the Pharaoh tells Moses to take his people and get out.
As we all know, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible they agree with and ignore the rest. One of the items people usually ignore is the one in Exodus 12:35-36, in which the Jews loot Egypt before they leave, taking the Egyptians' gold and silver jewelry and some nice clothes as well. Force apparently was not used. They simply told the Egyptians they only wanted to borrow the stuff, and the Egyptians fell for it because God put them in a lending mood. The intertitle in the movie says, "And they despoiled the Egyptians of jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment." It was stealing, of course, but that's all right, because they hadn't yet received the Ten Commandments from God, one of which says, "Thou shalt not steal." So, they didn't know any better.
It would have been nice if their "borrowing" the gold and silver had been depicted in the movie, but all we get is just one lousy intertitle. Immediately after, all you see is a bunch of people leaving Egypt. It makes you wonder why they even bothered to put it in the movie. It also makes you wonder if that was the real reason the Pharaoh changed his mind and chased after the Jews: "Hey! They borrowed our gold and silver jewelry, and I'll bet they don't intend to return it. Let's go get it back."
We finally get some spectacle when the Jews come to the Red Sea. Not bad, considering. Then Moses climbs the mountain to receive the title commandments. While he is away, the Jews begin to party. And now we realize why it was necessary to include the part about the gold and silver. How else would the Jews have been able to make a Golden Calf? But it would have been crude to show the Jews actually stealing the stuff, so we get just enough information in the intertitle so we don't wonder where a bunch of slaves got all the gold to make a great big idol. In other words, an explanation for how the Jews got enough gold to make a Golden Calf was needed, but the embarrassing manner in which they obtained that gold is downplayed.
Miriam, Moses's sister, displays much of her body and gets all sensual with the Golden Calf. Dathan, who is no good, starts to make love to her, but then he sees she has leprosy. Now, in the Bible, God does eventually inflict Miriam with leprosy because she objected to Moses marrying a black woman from Ethiopia, "Numbers 12," but in this movie, she gets inflicted with the disease during the Golden Calf party. Moses breaks the tablets in anger, Miriam begs him to heal her, and God lashes out with bolts of lightning, ending the party.
It is at this point that we find out why we were shortchanged on the first nine plagues of Egypt. After only fifty minutes of screen time, with almost an hour and a half to go, the movie jumps to the present, and we discover that we have been watching a visualization of the story in "The Book of Exodus" as it was being read by a woman to her two adult sons, Johnny and Dan.
At the beginning of the movie, there is a prologue that tells of how belief in God had come to be thought of as a "religious complex," and how people had come to think of the Ten Commandments as old fashioned. But then came the World War. "And now a blood-drenched bitter world—no longer laughing—cries for a way out." That way, of course, is the Ten Commandments, the Law without which men cannot live.
The World War must have already worn off on Dan, however, and it isn't long before his mother turns him out of the house for being a no good atheist. What follows is a crazy plot in which Dan marries Mary, the two of them promising to break all ten Commandments.
We don't see Dan and Mary making any graven images of God, but other than that, they do presumably break the other nine Commandments, and the juicy ones are actually depicted. Dan cheats on Mary, having an affair with a woman, Sally Lung, a woman half French and half Chinese. As for the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," Dan inadvertently does in his own mother when the cathedral he was building with shoddy cement collapses on her. And it turns out that the ship that brought in the cheap material for making that cement passed by an island that was a leper colony, from which place Sally Lung stowed away. Dan gets the disease, and he ends up giving it to Mary, just before he ends up dying in his effort to escape the law.
Mary tries to run away to, possibly planning to kill herself, now that she has leprosy, but Johnny stops her. He reads to her from "The New Testament," telling her about love, and in the morning she is cured of the disease. This squares with the dying words of the mother, who said she was wrong to make religion to be about fear instead of love. But it doesn't exactly square with the prologue, which said the Ten Commandments, not "The New Testament," were what people needed following the World War.
As we all know, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible they agree with and ignore the rest. One of the items people usually ignore is the one in Exodus 12:35-36, in which the Jews loot Egypt before they leave, taking the Egyptians' gold and silver jewelry and some nice clothes as well. Force apparently was not used. They simply told the Egyptians they only wanted to borrow the stuff, and the Egyptians fell for it because God put them in a lending mood. The intertitle in the movie says, "And they despoiled the Egyptians of jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment." It was stealing, of course, but that's all right, because they hadn't yet received the Ten Commandments from God, one of which says, "Thou shalt not steal." So, they didn't know any better.
It would have been nice if their "borrowing" the gold and silver had been depicted in the movie, but all we get is just one lousy intertitle. Immediately after, all you see is a bunch of people leaving Egypt. It makes you wonder why they even bothered to put it in the movie. It also makes you wonder if that was the real reason the Pharaoh changed his mind and chased after the Jews: "Hey! They borrowed our gold and silver jewelry, and I'll bet they don't intend to return it. Let's go get it back."
We finally get some spectacle when the Jews come to the Red Sea. Not bad, considering. Then Moses climbs the mountain to receive the title commandments. While he is away, the Jews begin to party. And now we realize why it was necessary to include the part about the gold and silver. How else would the Jews have been able to make a Golden Calf? But it would have been crude to show the Jews actually stealing the stuff, so we get just enough information in the intertitle so we don't wonder where a bunch of slaves got all the gold to make a great big idol. In other words, an explanation for how the Jews got enough gold to make a Golden Calf was needed, but the embarrassing manner in which they obtained that gold is downplayed.
Miriam, Moses's sister, displays much of her body and gets all sensual with the Golden Calf. Dathan, who is no good, starts to make love to her, but then he sees she has leprosy. Now, in the Bible, God does eventually inflict Miriam with leprosy because she objected to Moses marrying a black woman from Ethiopia, "Numbers 12," but in this movie, she gets inflicted with the disease during the Golden Calf party. Moses breaks the tablets in anger, Miriam begs him to heal her, and God lashes out with bolts of lightning, ending the party.
It is at this point that we find out why we were shortchanged on the first nine plagues of Egypt. After only fifty minutes of screen time, with almost an hour and a half to go, the movie jumps to the present, and we discover that we have been watching a visualization of the story in "The Book of Exodus" as it was being read by a woman to her two adult sons, Johnny and Dan.
At the beginning of the movie, there is a prologue that tells of how belief in God had come to be thought of as a "religious complex," and how people had come to think of the Ten Commandments as old fashioned. But then came the World War. "And now a blood-drenched bitter world—no longer laughing—cries for a way out." That way, of course, is the Ten Commandments, the Law without which men cannot live.
The World War must have already worn off on Dan, however, and it isn't long before his mother turns him out of the house for being a no good atheist. What follows is a crazy plot in which Dan marries Mary, the two of them promising to break all ten Commandments.
We don't see Dan and Mary making any graven images of God, but other than that, they do presumably break the other nine Commandments, and the juicy ones are actually depicted. Dan cheats on Mary, having an affair with a woman, Sally Lung, a woman half French and half Chinese. As for the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," Dan inadvertently does in his own mother when the cathedral he was building with shoddy cement collapses on her. And it turns out that the ship that brought in the cheap material for making that cement passed by an island that was a leper colony, from which place Sally Lung stowed away. Dan gets the disease, and he ends up giving it to Mary, just before he ends up dying in his effort to escape the law.
Mary tries to run away to, possibly planning to kill herself, now that she has leprosy, but Johnny stops her. He reads to her from "The New Testament," telling her about love, and in the morning she is cured of the disease. This squares with the dying words of the mother, who said she was wrong to make religion to be about fear instead of love. But it doesn't exactly square with the prologue, which said the Ten Commandments, not "The New Testament," were what people needed following the World War.
Excuse me, gotta go and worship a Golden Calf!
boris-266 September 2001
Whenever anybody says THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, we think of the fun, uplifting 1956 epic made by DeMille and starring Charleton Heston, Yul Brynner, etc. etc. Not too many people know that film is a remake of DeMille's own 1923 film of the same name. The 1923 version has so much zip to it, mainly because in it's 90 minute plus time, DeMille has to tell TWO stories. The first is the story of Moses. He has to lead the exodus from Egypt, part the Red Sea (an awesome scene done in early two-tone Technicolor) and slap some sense in his followers who wrongly decide to worship the Golden Calf. All that in 45 minutes. That means it spools out really, really fast. The rest of the film takes place in modern day San Francisco, where two brothers, one a hard working carpenter, the other, a wealthy but scheming architect battle. We know their grey haired mom is a good Christian, because she constantly carries around a Bible as big as a cinderblock!
Beautifully restored, witha great piano and organ score. This is an energetic silent well worth catching.
Beautifully restored, witha great piano and organ score. This is an energetic silent well worth catching.
Cecil B. DeMilles first Ten Commandments
frankde-jong10 April 2020
Up till now I only knew Cecil B. DeMille from his guest appearance in "Sunset Boulevard" (1950, Billy Wilder). He played there a director of epic dramas and after watching "The ten commandments" (1923) I knew how wel casted he was. DeMille made two films about the ten commandments, one in 1923 and one in 1956. This made me think of Yasujiro Ozu who also filmed the same story (the story of floating weeds) two times in his career (once in 1934 and a second time in 1959).
"The ten commandments" tells the story of the Old Testament (Mozes). It is noteworthy that both films that DeMille made about the Old Testament were followed within a few years by an adaptation of "Ben Hur", a story in which the character of Jesus Christ and thus the New Testament plays en important part. I am talking about the films of 1925 (Fred Niblo) and 1959 (William Wyler).
"The ten commandments" (1923) tells two story's: one situated in the time of Mozes and one situated in the present day (that is 1923). In this respect the film resembles "Intolerance" (1916, D.W. Griffith). In the present day story there are also two brothers. John is the righteous one (Mozes) and Dan the opportunstic one (Aaron). Doing business in a deceptive way is the modern variation of dancing around the golden calf.
In general the Biblical story is seen as more spectacular than the modern day story. I am of a different opinion. Through modern eyes the Biblical story is very bombastic. The set pieces of ancient Egypt may be impressive, but that is not true for the way the splitting of the Red Sea is captured. For this effect gelantine was used, and you can see it. On the other hand the scene on the contruction site in the modern story, and the way that the director makes use of the effect of height is very good. I don't want to say that it is on par with the way in which Alfred Hitchcock used height in "Vertigo", but it is remarkable still the same.
"The ten commandments" tells the story of the Old Testament (Mozes). It is noteworthy that both films that DeMille made about the Old Testament were followed within a few years by an adaptation of "Ben Hur", a story in which the character of Jesus Christ and thus the New Testament plays en important part. I am talking about the films of 1925 (Fred Niblo) and 1959 (William Wyler).
"The ten commandments" (1923) tells two story's: one situated in the time of Mozes and one situated in the present day (that is 1923). In this respect the film resembles "Intolerance" (1916, D.W. Griffith). In the present day story there are also two brothers. John is the righteous one (Mozes) and Dan the opportunstic one (Aaron). Doing business in a deceptive way is the modern variation of dancing around the golden calf.
In general the Biblical story is seen as more spectacular than the modern day story. I am of a different opinion. Through modern eyes the Biblical story is very bombastic. The set pieces of ancient Egypt may be impressive, but that is not true for the way the splitting of the Red Sea is captured. For this effect gelantine was used, and you can see it. On the other hand the scene on the contruction site in the modern story, and the way that the director makes use of the effect of height is very good. I don't want to say that it is on par with the way in which Alfred Hitchcock used height in "Vertigo", but it is remarkable still the same.
Desert Storm
Prince-P24 September 2023
In Hollywood a movie director is only as good as his latest film. And Cecil B. DeMille certainly had a whole string of great movies behind him. But now many in Tinseltown had begun to doubt his ability. The reason for this was of course the director's latest project. "Adam's Rib" was a comedy that did dismal business at the box office. So, DeMille realized that drastic measures had to be employed. And quickly!
The director decided to figure out what moviegoers really wanted to see. He promised a reward of $1,000 to whoever came up with the best concept for a new film. And soon the proposals poured in. Several people thought he should do "something about Moses and the Book of Exodus", which sounded like an exciting idea to DeMille. So, within weeks, the movie cameras were rolling at the Guadalupe sand dunes in northern Santa Barbara County. A place chosen for its similarity to Egypt in biblical times. "The Ten Commandments" were on its way.
But it wasn't an easy shoot. At Paramount Pictures' backyard, an army of 1,600 workers struggled to construct the massive sets needed for the movie. They built, among other things, four 35-foot-tall Pharaoh statues, 21 sphinxes and two gates reaching a height of 110 feet. Then the material had to be transported from down-town Los Angeles to the filming location. On the way, two of the statues were decapitated when the truck they were loaded onto drove under a low bridge. Once at the Guadalupe sand dunes, everything must be re-assembled and put in its right places by DeMille and his crew.
Appropriately, "The Ten Commandments" opened at Grauman's Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. That was in December 1923, and the film became a tremendous hit, both among the audience and with the critics of the day. Cecil B. DeMille followed up his success with two new biblical tales. "The King of Kings" in 1927 and "The Sign of the Cross" in 1932. But that, of course, is another story.
The director decided to figure out what moviegoers really wanted to see. He promised a reward of $1,000 to whoever came up with the best concept for a new film. And soon the proposals poured in. Several people thought he should do "something about Moses and the Book of Exodus", which sounded like an exciting idea to DeMille. So, within weeks, the movie cameras were rolling at the Guadalupe sand dunes in northern Santa Barbara County. A place chosen for its similarity to Egypt in biblical times. "The Ten Commandments" were on its way.
But it wasn't an easy shoot. At Paramount Pictures' backyard, an army of 1,600 workers struggled to construct the massive sets needed for the movie. They built, among other things, four 35-foot-tall Pharaoh statues, 21 sphinxes and two gates reaching a height of 110 feet. Then the material had to be transported from down-town Los Angeles to the filming location. On the way, two of the statues were decapitated when the truck they were loaded onto drove under a low bridge. Once at the Guadalupe sand dunes, everything must be re-assembled and put in its right places by DeMille and his crew.
Appropriately, "The Ten Commandments" opened at Grauman's Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. That was in December 1923, and the film became a tremendous hit, both among the audience and with the critics of the day. Cecil B. DeMille followed up his success with two new biblical tales. "The King of Kings" in 1927 and "The Sign of the Cross" in 1932. But that, of course, is another story.
The DeMille Legend Begins Here
springfieldrental24 December 2021
Today's casual movie fans know director Cecil B. DeMille for his sweeping epics, especially focused on Biblical stories. In his earlier marriage comedies he inserted brief sequences which were highly elaborate set pieces complimenting the plots. But it was in December 1923's "The Ten Commandments" DeMille began producing big-budgeted movies based on stories from the Bible.
DeMille was getting tired of directing bedroom farces of manners that were not attracting the number of viewers to the theaters as they had been in the past. He solicited ideas for his next film in early 1923 by holding a contest for his loyal fans to offer their opinions on what his next movie should be about. One suggestion from a Lansing, Michigan, respondent hit a cord straight to the director's heart: "You cannot break the 'Ten Commandments-they will break you." Voila, thought DeMille, that's it. He immediately teamed up with his favorite screenwriter, Jeanie MacPherson, to compose a treatment, divided into two parts.
'The Prologue' follows the Bible, specifically Exodus, where Moses engineers through God a way to liberate the Hebrew slaves from their Egyptian masters and lead them to the 'Promised Land.' The second part, 'The Story,' relates the Ten Commandments to two brothers in present-day life who differ in their beliefs, led by a pious mother. One brother, Dan McTavish (Rod La Rocque), is an atheist who breaks every commandment, with dire consequences. The other, John (Richard Dix), follows the Bible to a tee.
DeMille set out to film the Biblical episodes larger in scope than even D. W. Griffith's 1916 Babylonian sequences in his 'Intolerance.' Reconstructing a massive ancient Egyptian setting, complete with large buildings and sphinx-like statues in the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes north of Los Angeles, DeMille oversaw an army of 1,600 designers and construction workers. For three months the almost 2,500 member production crew, including extras, cooks and support staff, were spent in the desert-like surroundings filming the Prologue.
The expenses were escalating so fast that it's studio, Paramount Pictures and president Adolph Zukor cabled DeMille demanding he pull up stakes and return to Hollywood The director responded, "I cannot and will not make pictures with a yardstick. What do you want me to do? Stop now and release it as The Five Commandments?"
As the studio's financial backers began to get queasy and withdraw further finances, DeMille was able to get a personal loan from one of the founders of Bank of America to invest $500,000 to complete the movie. The investment proved to be a good one since the $1.4 million budgeted movie garnered over $4 million at the box office, an astronomical return, becoming Paramount's highest grossing film for the studio's next 25 years.
Once filming wrapped up in the dunes, DeMille, short on money and not wanting other directors to use his elaborate sets to compare their work with his, decided to blow up some of the larger structures while bulldozing the entire place under sand. Archeologists in 1983 found the site buried underneath the dunes. Because the western snowy plover nests in the area, it's virtually impossible to conduct an archeological dig for any length of time. Some items, including one of the sphinx statues, have been recovered, but the oldest film set still in existence remains under tons of sand.
DeMille was one of the earliest proponents of the two-strip Technicolor look and used the company's film for some of the scenes. Unfortunately, the preserved prints, including the one DeMille himself had personally kept, do not retain the color sequences. One stretch of color footage was of the parting of the Red Sea. DeMille's special effects technicians were able to realistically show how the waters were separated by lining up blocks of blue gelatin and heating them up until they melted. Slowly turning to liquid, the gelatin footage was reversed with ocean waves superimposed next to the blocks. The effect created the illusion of the sea parting while the dry ocean bed allowed the thousands of refugees to walk to the Red Sea's other side.
"The Ten Commandments" became the first of what film historians consider DeMille's Biblical trilogy, 1927 'King of Kings,' and 1932 'The Sign of the Cross.' DeMille would later remake "The Ten Commandments" in 1956, dropping the modern day story to concentrate solely on Moses. Several of the sequences in the updated version duplicate almost shot-for-shot the 1923 edition, showing how much DeMille admired his younger work.
DeMille was getting tired of directing bedroom farces of manners that were not attracting the number of viewers to the theaters as they had been in the past. He solicited ideas for his next film in early 1923 by holding a contest for his loyal fans to offer their opinions on what his next movie should be about. One suggestion from a Lansing, Michigan, respondent hit a cord straight to the director's heart: "You cannot break the 'Ten Commandments-they will break you." Voila, thought DeMille, that's it. He immediately teamed up with his favorite screenwriter, Jeanie MacPherson, to compose a treatment, divided into two parts.
'The Prologue' follows the Bible, specifically Exodus, where Moses engineers through God a way to liberate the Hebrew slaves from their Egyptian masters and lead them to the 'Promised Land.' The second part, 'The Story,' relates the Ten Commandments to two brothers in present-day life who differ in their beliefs, led by a pious mother. One brother, Dan McTavish (Rod La Rocque), is an atheist who breaks every commandment, with dire consequences. The other, John (Richard Dix), follows the Bible to a tee.
DeMille set out to film the Biblical episodes larger in scope than even D. W. Griffith's 1916 Babylonian sequences in his 'Intolerance.' Reconstructing a massive ancient Egyptian setting, complete with large buildings and sphinx-like statues in the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes north of Los Angeles, DeMille oversaw an army of 1,600 designers and construction workers. For three months the almost 2,500 member production crew, including extras, cooks and support staff, were spent in the desert-like surroundings filming the Prologue.
The expenses were escalating so fast that it's studio, Paramount Pictures and president Adolph Zukor cabled DeMille demanding he pull up stakes and return to Hollywood The director responded, "I cannot and will not make pictures with a yardstick. What do you want me to do? Stop now and release it as The Five Commandments?"
As the studio's financial backers began to get queasy and withdraw further finances, DeMille was able to get a personal loan from one of the founders of Bank of America to invest $500,000 to complete the movie. The investment proved to be a good one since the $1.4 million budgeted movie garnered over $4 million at the box office, an astronomical return, becoming Paramount's highest grossing film for the studio's next 25 years.
Once filming wrapped up in the dunes, DeMille, short on money and not wanting other directors to use his elaborate sets to compare their work with his, decided to blow up some of the larger structures while bulldozing the entire place under sand. Archeologists in 1983 found the site buried underneath the dunes. Because the western snowy plover nests in the area, it's virtually impossible to conduct an archeological dig for any length of time. Some items, including one of the sphinx statues, have been recovered, but the oldest film set still in existence remains under tons of sand.
DeMille was one of the earliest proponents of the two-strip Technicolor look and used the company's film for some of the scenes. Unfortunately, the preserved prints, including the one DeMille himself had personally kept, do not retain the color sequences. One stretch of color footage was of the parting of the Red Sea. DeMille's special effects technicians were able to realistically show how the waters were separated by lining up blocks of blue gelatin and heating them up until they melted. Slowly turning to liquid, the gelatin footage was reversed with ocean waves superimposed next to the blocks. The effect created the illusion of the sea parting while the dry ocean bed allowed the thousands of refugees to walk to the Red Sea's other side.
"The Ten Commandments" became the first of what film historians consider DeMille's Biblical trilogy, 1927 'King of Kings,' and 1932 'The Sign of the Cross.' DeMille would later remake "The Ten Commandments" in 1956, dropping the modern day story to concentrate solely on Moses. Several of the sequences in the updated version duplicate almost shot-for-shot the 1923 edition, showing how much DeMille admired his younger work.
Great Story
petra-420 November 1998
a little preachy, but good nevertheless
didi-512 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The first version of 'The Ten Commandments' is two films in one, really, and within its two hour running time you can see hints and ideas which were taken forward by other filmmakers in later years; not just DeMille referencing himself with the parting of the Red Sea in his 1950s remake, but in The Fountainhead (referencing the shot with the lift going up the side of the cathedral), Psycho (Nina Naldi pulling the curtain off the rail as she falls), and Sunset Boulevard (Naldi again, hands like claws as she extracts herself from the sack of jute in which she smuggled herself).
The story is fairly simple - most of the first hour is the standard Moses and let my people go tale from Exodus in the Old Testament, well developed and shot with some great special effects (the aforementioned parting of the sea). The rest of the film is modern moral - Edythe Chapman, a god-fearing old lady, has two sons - Danny (Rod La Rocque)and John (Richard Dix). Danny doesn't believe in the Ten Commandments and considers them outmoded and a barrier to success. When Mary (Leatrice Joy) comes into their lives, she causes problems between the brothers and unwittingly sets Danny on a path which leads him to slowly break one Commandments after another.
As this is a moral story, it does get a little preachy in places, but in the context of the time it was made that was probably expected. It is a spectacle and an epic of sorts, although not as much as its remake - it is actually a simple but effective film, which although a little creaky and not boasting the most subtle performances, still stands up to viewing today, and makes a fascinating comparison to Charlton Heston's Moses years later.
The story is fairly simple - most of the first hour is the standard Moses and let my people go tale from Exodus in the Old Testament, well developed and shot with some great special effects (the aforementioned parting of the sea). The rest of the film is modern moral - Edythe Chapman, a god-fearing old lady, has two sons - Danny (Rod La Rocque)and John (Richard Dix). Danny doesn't believe in the Ten Commandments and considers them outmoded and a barrier to success. When Mary (Leatrice Joy) comes into their lives, she causes problems between the brothers and unwittingly sets Danny on a path which leads him to slowly break one Commandments after another.
As this is a moral story, it does get a little preachy in places, but in the context of the time it was made that was probably expected. It is a spectacle and an epic of sorts, although not as much as its remake - it is actually a simple but effective film, which although a little creaky and not boasting the most subtle performances, still stands up to viewing today, and makes a fascinating comparison to Charlton Heston's Moses years later.
not bad for a silent movie made in 1923
disdressed123 December 2007
this is the first film version of The Ten Commandments.it is directed by Cecil B.Demille,who also directed the 1956 version.this version is very lean,going through the events of that time,very quickly.in 50 minutes,in fact.i'm guessing they just kept the essentials of the story,without anything extra.the special effects are quite something for that day.the film must have been a grand undertaking.the remaining 80 minutes or so is a morality play set in more modern times(around 1923,i'm guessing)concerning how the Ten Commandments relate to modern life,and what happens if we don't obey them.for me,this second half is just way too heavy handed and preachy.the message is a good one,but it feels like you're being hit over the head with sledgehammer.some of the acting may seem a bit exaggerated,but they had to act that way,since they didn't have sound.there is an orchestral accompaniment,that plays through out the film.the only problem is,i found the music too repetitive.it got annoying after awhile.still,considering that this movie was mad in 1923,it's not too bad.my vote for The Ten Commandments(1923)is a 6/10
Is this SUPPOSED to be encouraging atheism?!
planktonrules8 July 2010
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!
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!
"Thou provokedst thy god to wrath!"
Steffi_P4 September 2008
The Ten Commandments marks the beginning of the second wave of the Hollywood epic. Modelled on the contemporary/ancient parallel storytelling of Intolerance the crowning achievement of the first wave and its subject matter decided by a poll of cinema-goers, this is among the most significant and typically DeMillean of DeMille's pictures.
DeMille had first coupled a historical tale with a modern day framing story in 1916's Joan the Woman, and even during the years when the historical feature was out of fashion (approximately 1918 1921) he several times added a little metaphorical foray into the past to his contemporary dramas, such as Male and Female and Manslaughter. Here, it is still the modern day narrative which makes up the bulk of the picture's 130-odd minutes, and yet it is the spectacular biblical prologue that everyone remembers.
DeMille had always had a talent for directing crowd scenes, giving inspiring pep talks to the mass whilst giving specific directions to the individuals. Here he works with the biggest group of extras he had ever handled, and yet he has lost none of his touch. He gives character to the multitude by focusing on a number of individuals within it, and yet when he pulls back to show the whole crowd you can still see the attention to detail, with a hundred different things going on. The stupendous sets also make an impact in themselves, but DeMille is shrewd enough to reveal them gradually, and places them squarely in the context of being symbolic of evil. The pharaoh's palace may be impressive, but DeMille ensures that the works of God the pillar of fire, the parting of the red sea, the lightning on Sinai are more so. Oddly, he could be accused of doing the opposite in his 1956 remake, in which the Egyptian city is absolutely awe-inspiring, whereas the special effects representing acts of God are somewhat pathetic even for the day, and certainly less effective than those in 1923. But DeMille had changed a lot by that time.
In contrast to the prologue, the contemporary story is somewhat lacklustre. It has much in common with other DeMille dramas from around this period, although it is pretty mediocre by that standard. Particularly jarring is the overuse of intertitles. Five years earlier DeMille had been a master of purely visual narrative, and the titles were only there when absolutely necessary. As time went by however, as DeMille had become more pious and his screenwriter Jeanie Macpherson had become more pretentious, so had the photoplays become more wordy. All the better for preaching with, as far as self-appointed messenger-of-God DeMille was concerned, but his pictures began to lack the grace and smoothness they had once had.
With scenes fragmented into smaller pieces, and characters unable to open their mouths without a superfluous title spelling their words out to the audience, the acting also suffers. Richard Dix, Rod La Rocque, Leatrice Joy and Nita Naldi are all adequate performers, but none of them really gets time or space to emote as much as they ought to for the story. Nevertheless, DeMille was still a master of the powerful, iconic image, and there are enough memorable shots here to keep things interesting. Among the standouts are Nita Naldi's hands emerging from a tear in a sack, the straight-up shot in the lift as Leatrice Joy ascends and Naldi ripping the curtain off its hooks, nearly forty years before the almost identical shot in Hitchcock's Psycho. It is images like this which reign supreme in DeMille's cinema, and it is from around this point on that they become more important than the credibility of the story or the actors.
DeMille's Ten Commandments proved to be highly influential. Other studios got to work on their own superproductions, the western would become epic with The Iron Horse, and even Douglas Fairbanks next picture, The Thief of Bagdad, was steeped in DeMillean grandeur. Further afield, UFA studios in Germany and Abel Gance in France were also working on the principle that big is beautiful. Ten Commandments indicated the future for DeMille himself as well. Not only was it the first of the pictures that would secure his legacy as the ultimate biblical filmmaker, but the fact that the prologue is absolutely breathtaking and the contemporary drama lacks bite, hints towards his eventually becoming a director purely of epics. It's also rather telling that he loved the Old Testament God of plagues and smiting, because that is probably more or less how DeMille saw himself. He hammered home his messages with the spectacular and the incredible. A shock-and-awe filmmaker preaching the word of a shock-and-awe God.
DeMille had first coupled a historical tale with a modern day framing story in 1916's Joan the Woman, and even during the years when the historical feature was out of fashion (approximately 1918 1921) he several times added a little metaphorical foray into the past to his contemporary dramas, such as Male and Female and Manslaughter. Here, it is still the modern day narrative which makes up the bulk of the picture's 130-odd minutes, and yet it is the spectacular biblical prologue that everyone remembers.
DeMille had always had a talent for directing crowd scenes, giving inspiring pep talks to the mass whilst giving specific directions to the individuals. Here he works with the biggest group of extras he had ever handled, and yet he has lost none of his touch. He gives character to the multitude by focusing on a number of individuals within it, and yet when he pulls back to show the whole crowd you can still see the attention to detail, with a hundred different things going on. The stupendous sets also make an impact in themselves, but DeMille is shrewd enough to reveal them gradually, and places them squarely in the context of being symbolic of evil. The pharaoh's palace may be impressive, but DeMille ensures that the works of God the pillar of fire, the parting of the red sea, the lightning on Sinai are more so. Oddly, he could be accused of doing the opposite in his 1956 remake, in which the Egyptian city is absolutely awe-inspiring, whereas the special effects representing acts of God are somewhat pathetic even for the day, and certainly less effective than those in 1923. But DeMille had changed a lot by that time.
In contrast to the prologue, the contemporary story is somewhat lacklustre. It has much in common with other DeMille dramas from around this period, although it is pretty mediocre by that standard. Particularly jarring is the overuse of intertitles. Five years earlier DeMille had been a master of purely visual narrative, and the titles were only there when absolutely necessary. As time went by however, as DeMille had become more pious and his screenwriter Jeanie Macpherson had become more pretentious, so had the photoplays become more wordy. All the better for preaching with, as far as self-appointed messenger-of-God DeMille was concerned, but his pictures began to lack the grace and smoothness they had once had.
With scenes fragmented into smaller pieces, and characters unable to open their mouths without a superfluous title spelling their words out to the audience, the acting also suffers. Richard Dix, Rod La Rocque, Leatrice Joy and Nita Naldi are all adequate performers, but none of them really gets time or space to emote as much as they ought to for the story. Nevertheless, DeMille was still a master of the powerful, iconic image, and there are enough memorable shots here to keep things interesting. Among the standouts are Nita Naldi's hands emerging from a tear in a sack, the straight-up shot in the lift as Leatrice Joy ascends and Naldi ripping the curtain off its hooks, nearly forty years before the almost identical shot in Hitchcock's Psycho. It is images like this which reign supreme in DeMille's cinema, and it is from around this point on that they become more important than the credibility of the story or the actors.
DeMille's Ten Commandments proved to be highly influential. Other studios got to work on their own superproductions, the western would become epic with The Iron Horse, and even Douglas Fairbanks next picture, The Thief of Bagdad, was steeped in DeMillean grandeur. Further afield, UFA studios in Germany and Abel Gance in France were also working on the principle that big is beautiful. Ten Commandments indicated the future for DeMille himself as well. Not only was it the first of the pictures that would secure his legacy as the ultimate biblical filmmaker, but the fact that the prologue is absolutely breathtaking and the contemporary drama lacks bite, hints towards his eventually becoming a director purely of epics. It's also rather telling that he loved the Old Testament God of plagues and smiting, because that is probably more or less how DeMille saw himself. He hammered home his messages with the spectacular and the incredible. A shock-and-awe filmmaker preaching the word of a shock-and-awe God.
Merging the 10 Commandments into Real Life 20's Situations
iquine25 April 2023
The silent film focuses on how 'modern' people of the early 1920s started to lose touch with religion and the 10 Commandments while several scenes highlight the contrasting views in current times. Typically, each scene highlights one of the commandments to drive that point home. The core story is around a family of two brothers and single mother and one boy marries a woman who is not religious and how that plays out within the family. On top of that, the brother who mocks the commandments is also trying to extract maximum profit from his business through dishonesty. Watch how all this plays out and the obvious lesson director Cecil B. DeMille makes. Act 1 has some nice special effects and gargantuan sets for the '20s. It also focuses on the parts of the Bible where Moses parts the Red Sea and carves out the 10 Commandments in stone. Really amusing effects for showing how God tells him what the 10 are.
The Ten Commandments 1923 accuracy statistics and how much it covers
Hallows_Eve_Chocologic15 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Like the new miniseries and the 1956 masterpiece, the 1923, when it covers from the Bible, only takes text from one book out of four books on Moses' life, the book of Exodus. However, it only covers a tiny bit of Exodus as it goes to modern times halfway through the film, and it explains (silently) the meaning of God's laws. What it does cover from the Torah, though, is very accurate. Very accurate, until the actual giving of The Ten Commandments! Accurate with the other scenes on releasing the slaves and parting the sea, but when it gets to the scene that makes the title, it is horrible! Miriam performs ADULTERY on the Golden calf, not only idolatry, but ADULTERY, when I believe she didn't really get involved with the Golden calf anyway! Anyone who has read the book of Numbers knows how Miriam turns against Moses' wife and judges her for her nationality, well hows this, instead, the writers made her turn into a leper for worshiping the Golden calf! Wrong place, wrong story! They must be pathetic writers I tell you! Another thing, if you want to know how the Israelites were really punished from the idolatry at the Golden calf, think slaughter with swords like the Bible says, not getting swallowed by the Earth like the film makers made it! If you want to see them get swallowed by the Earth, look in Numbers, where they question Moses' leadership, and the Earth swallows them up, and it is called the swallowing of Korah! This happens in the 1956 one too! Wrong place Mr. DeMille! I give two stars for how much this film covers, and three stars for how accurate it is. Although inaccurate, still watch it, just don't take it seriously!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
