"One Night with the King"-- and other Things

In an email yesterday a NT colleague and friend Peter Richardson told me the sad news. The makers of the wonderful verbatim version of the Gospel of John which had a terrific cast, after intending to also film the Gospel of Mark are bankrupt. They had worked through three scripts and planned to film, but the Gospel of John did not do well enough either in the theaters or on DVD. This is very sad since it was a much better movie than the "Passion of the Christ" and far more Biblically accurate. Is it really so difficult for orthodox Christians to get behind the right movies which reach the general public and use them as conversation starters to witness for their faith? We need to do better. But these movies need to be well done and Biblically faithful. Which brings me to a new movie just in the theaters this month./

Picture if you will a Jewish version of "The King and I" movie (complete with ruler who looks great, has washboard abs, but isn't exactly a great actor--- remember Yul Brenner?). This particular take on the book of Esther, or better said the novel "Hadassah" which is loosely based on the book of Esther, runs just over two hours in length (rated PG). A great Biblical epic this is not, and one especially gets tired of the overly dramatic music droning on and on trying to infuse pathos into a mediocre script and an average cast, but it is certainly isn't all bad or a waste of a visit to the theater. As entertainment it is o.k., but don't look for any Oscar nominations.

Clearly enough this movie was not filmed in Susa in Persia-- try India and some of the sites and cities used are stunning. The visual aspect of the movie alone is worth watching, and the CG is pretty good in places as well. But what about the plot and the acting?

Well the movie ads tell us that Peter O' Toole and Omar Sharif are in this movie. They are indeed, the former playing the prophet Samuel (yes that Samuel) for all of exactly two minutes (mores the pity he could really have given us a powerful Samuel), and Omar plays a General who serves at the pleasure of Xerxes in the Persian court. He is effective in the role, but the best acting in the whole drama is done by John Rhys-Davies as Mordecai (remember him as Indiana Jones side kick, or as Silas in the Peter and Paul made for TV movie). Tiffany Dupont plays Hadassah/Esther and does a nice job-- looks good in royal attire as well. We also have nice exotic characters like a slimy and manical Haman (think Grimer Wormtongue slipping into the wrong epic) and the large African eunuch (think Mr. T with a speech impediment). One could have wished to see O'Toole in another role interacting with Sharif, but alas, it is not to be (if you want to see a stunning performance by O' Toole in a Biblically sized epic, rent "Masada" some time, the full length version).

And what of the plot? Well, this movie unfortunately has a bunch of short choppy scenes at the beginning where the director tries to tell too much of a story too fast (500 years or so, from Samuel and Saul to Xerxes and Esther complete with the huge orchestra soundtrack swelling in the background), and then settles into a King and his search for a queen by means of a contest, with interludes where war is on the horizon, dinner is on the table, and reading (yes reading) is most of the action between king and queen to be.

One wonders when the real story of Esther will show up. Meanwhile we have court intrigue, home scenes with Mordecai the king's scribe, and we are left with numerous questions like--- why exactly did Esther not catch the caravan back to Jerusalem when she had the chance, and how exactly did she get to be trapped into the beauty contest? Inquiring minds want to know.

In other words-- the story could have been told much better, the acting could have been better, and the tons of Indian extras were a dead give away that we were not anywhere near Persia! Never mind. Love conquers all, and Esther is brave and saves her people from genocide.

But here is the problem. The book of Esther is the only book of the Bible which does not mention God by name. This was one reason it almost got left out of the Jewish canon, never mind the Christian one. It is a serious story with a serious point-- namely the providence and compassion of God and the courage of Esther a loyal Jew. But in this movie we are always hearing about God, and we even have Esther telling the story of Jacob and Rachel to the king, and Mordecai reading Isaiah 40 for comfort. Nice, but not true to the Biblical story.

The story could have been told in a way that honored the religious weight and character of the original story without resorting to melodrama and smaltz. Genocide was not warded off in the Biblical story by a magic necklace that when light shown on it projected images of the Star of David (a symbol from another era to be sure)! In other words, the original story of Esther deserved better. Still I must not complain too much. I am thankful for any Biblical story reaching the big screen and a decent sized audience. Even if only 14% of the critics have rated this a good movie at least it is providing Jews and Christians with something reasonably wholesome and helpful to watch, helping them think about their faith and their God. But still, one can only hope for better on December 1 when "The Nativity" comes out. Hope springs eternal.....

'Hairspray'-- Another Hare Brained Musical?

The heyday of musicals has long since come and gone. In fact they peaked in the late 50s and early 60s (think 'Music Man', 'Oklahoma', or the real blockbuster that basically killed off the genre for a generation-- 'The Sound of Music'). Basically those sorts of musicals were exported from the Broadway stage in NY to the studios in L.A. and became major films. 'Hairspray' is in fact another good example of that sort of phenomenon. The difference of course is that in film, you can fake the singing, whereas on stage, either you got it or you don't when it comes to singing and dancing.

Of course there have been notable surprises in the past twenty years that showed that the musical on film could still be a hit-- 'Grease' of course was a good example (and the music in 'Hairspray' is mostly a recreation of that same do wop period), and more recently 'Chicago' was certainly first rate and won various awards. How then will 'Hairspray do?

First of all it seems clear that the producers realized that two things were required-- star power and great music and dancing. Fortunately for the producers the music was already widely acclaimed to be good from the reviews of the Broadway play, so it was more about the casting. So what did they do? Well they picked two people who had been absolute stars of the two biggest more recent examples of this genre--- John Travolta from 'Grease' fame, and Queen Latifah from 'Chicago' fame. But not satisfied with that, they went out and got Michelle Pfeiffer to play the mol who is the TV show producer, and Christopher Walken as Travolta's--- well husband (you see Travolta plays the stay at home big momma who takes in laundry in this movie). And as if that were not enough we have Allison Janey in a cameo role as a really up tight Catholic mom. At center stage however is first timer Nikki Blonsky from N.Y. who is only three years away from watching 'Hairspray' as a mere spectator. She is terrific, as is the cast in general. Interestingly the setting for the show is not NY or NJ, but rather Baltimore. Who knew Baltimore was the center of the do wop universe?

Movie musicals are usually about as mainstream and apple pie as one could possibly imagine, shying away from anything that looks like controversy, but not 'Hairspray'. No indeed. Not only does it plug the message 'it's o.k. to be big and beautiful' (with Travolta, Queen Latifah, and Blonsky all doing their part to show its o.k. for the large to be in charge and 'get down'), but in fact this show turns into an integration and inter-racial dating promo as well-- all set in 1962 Baltimore. Which part of trying to do too many things in one play/ film don't they get? Yet somehow it all comes together and works.

Now about the music, because without the music, well, let's just say the plot will not be winning any awards for creativity or best script. The music, with hommages to big band music, show tunes, do wop, and even some soul and gospel, is first rate, and original. Because it is a musical we expect a lot of music, but in 'Hairspray' as in 'Chicago' it is almost non stop upbeat music, some of which goes for the jugular as pull out all the stops huge dance numbers with big finishes. Undoubtedly the producer and director wanted this film to have the same energy and drive as the play, and they succeeded quite well. There is very little dialogue or plain talking in this movie. And this brings us to an important point.

Musicals like opera, requires a significant suspension of disbelief. As the old saying goes in opera when someone is stabbed instead of dying right away, they sing for a while. In musicals, almost anything serves as an excuse for singing and dancing-- even detention at high school is turned into a song and dance routine. If detention had been like that, I would have tried to sit in on that class. You have to love music and dancing, to suspend your disbelief as much as is required for a movie like 'Hairspray' to work. And yet it does work.

The movie clocks in at a breathless one hour and 47 minutes (you have to be in shape to sing and dance that long almost non-stop), and it ably re-creates the feel of 1962 when the Platters and the Drifters and the Coasters were kings. And this brings up another point. The Beatles had not yet hit America, changing it forever musically, nor frankly had major integration marches hit the streets before a little later in the 60s. This show then is stealing a message from later in the 60s while wanting to live musically earlier in the 60s. No matter-- this show is not trying to be a history lesson, just some fun with a little social conscience.

Inquiring minds may want to know-- does Travolta work as a large woman? Well, yes, and no. His voice is frankly too phony southern to suit a real southerner like myself. On the other hand Michelle Pfeiffer does a racist Cat woman impression pretty good, and Christopher Walken is just plain funny as the father/ husband and owner of the novelty shop The Hardy Har Hut. I could have done without the slam on over-protective Catholic mothers, as played out quite brilliantly by Allison Janey, but then there were folks like that, in that era. Unfortunately Christianity doesn't come off to well in this film.

Is this a film for families to see? Well, I guess it depends on the family. If they are teens and adults, I suppose it will be fine, but some of the racier dancing and innuendo in this film will be too much for some Christian families. The joy and fun of the music doesn't overcome all the drawbacks of the film. Is 'Hairspray' another hare-brained musical? Well no, it's not. Nor is it mere fluff either. But whether it will win the awards 'Chicago' won is doubtful. As summer fun however, many are already enjoying it.