Perhaps Noah has already set the tone for all the subsequent renditions of the Bible's stories by Hollywood- one that would be met with a dearth of receptivity. Put up as one of the mega productions of the year; and lauded as one of the major breakthroughs for modern Christianity, news of a series of blockbuster films lined up for screening for the year of 2014 gave many reasons to be excited about. However, that kind of optimism did not last. In March when Noah first went on screen, the film was met with much criticism, forcing the director to make the declaration that Noah was probably the most unbiblical film any secular team has produced. From then on, Christian films have been looked (frowned) upon with lens of skepticism. Bible story so they say, but is it really so?
When Exodus came out, I was excited. How does a Moses played by Christian Bale sound? I wasn't expecting a perfect rendition of the famous second book of the Holy Book, but I was keen to see what this film holds nevertheless. Much like Peter Jackson's rendition of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit which injected personal insights into the exciting adventures of the veteran with and breathed new life to an otherwise complete imagined dimension/world, I was excited to see a different Exodus.
Compared to Noah, Exodus went by a lot more quietly, and I thought that was a good sign, only for the undercurrent to surface much more gradually, eventually. Details that contradicted with the depictions in the Bible called into question the credibility of such a film- where did crocodiles feature, how to reconcile a child-God, where is the staff that turns into snake, how did Moses climb up Mount Sinai, how were Moses's encounters with God, when was Moses ever swept by the waves and so on...
Yet, Charisma Magazine said it well- the film is never meant to replace the Word; and if anything Exodus should spark off much interest to read the bible. Despite all the controversies, I actually quite like the film. In fact, I find it rather biblical. Exodus asked many difficult questions that the average Christians would otherwise have taken granted for.
Visceral does not speak; it implies. And how we imply varies from who is implying.
This is one of the early scenes in the film whereby Moses and his brother Ramesses, who would later become the Pharaoh of the Exodus, stood before the old pharaoh as he sought divine guidance on an upcoming war. He asked the priest what the visceral says, to which she answered the visceral does not speak, but it is available for interpretation, and the that varies according to who makes it.
Divinity apart, this reminds me of how we read the bible today. That which is acceptable and that which is tabooed; that which is Godly and that which is defiling, all but summed up nicely in the Gospel when Jesus healed on a Sabbath. To which Jesus asked a rhetorical question, "is the Sabbath made for man or man for Sabbath?"
While the bible speaks, the freedom to interpret it has stirred up much discussion about what it actually says, sometimes bringing about an out-of-proportion need to contextualize. "The visceral is unclear, but one thing is clear." Perhaps there are some revelations that has been deliberately revealed more clearly than the other- nothing else matters when we don't have love.
Would you rather believe in prophecies and divination and forsake logic?
This is the modern day's bane. Egypt at its peak created a false sense of superiority- men began to find answers to many things, and men began to put faith in themselves. Logic, or so they called it, became the pillar for explanation. Human defined what is possible, and what is not; and explain away the impossible by twisting the established possible. It's too philosophical to go around these- but if anything, Exodus provided an obvious answer to that question: a resounding yes.
Do you know what you sound like?
Delusional?
After Moses's (controversial) encounter with I AM, Moses awoke from a state of shock, hyperventilation, excitement, confusion or whatever state you perceive Christian Bale to be portraying. Zipporah sat by the bedside to pacify a shocked Moses and asked him that question. In an unexpected trait of clarity, Moses suggested, "delusional?"
At this point, the audience would have sided with Moses to say that he definitely was not, but translating to the real world context, we probably have had our fair share of Zipporah coming around. Christians who are too serious about their faith, radical Christians who do the unthinkable, people (both non-believing and believing, unfortunately) come about to cast doubts upon our convictions, and deep within we are well clear about what they think of us- delusional.
To which I say, fret not- remember and know that we are not, for God is real.
You did not meet God; God is not a child.
This is by far one of the most controversial parts in the film, and I applaud Ridley Scott's boldness in doing this. The conservatives caught this and cries of blasphemy rang through the theatre, much like how the Jews responded to Jesus's claim of being the Son of Man. By this, I'm not saying that portraying God as a child is correct. But by skillfully inserting this dialog between Moses and Zipporah into the plot, Ridley successfully created a point of discussion for its viewers, or at least for those who bothered to give a thought rather than seal its fate.
This is also by far the point I most strongly contend for.
Who amongst us have seen God's face except for those who have been extended the grace of God? Many of us, like Zipporah, have heard of and even read about God, and we claim to know God, but when God comes in the most unexpected of ways, we are quick to dismiss Him- "God is not a child." Well, in the film He is.
Today we have many of our own projections- prophecies, visions, and even the times when we claim to have heard from Him. And these are quickly accepted for one reason or the other, yet a child-God has to be quickly dismissed. If God spoke through a donkey, and if God spoke through formless flames, can a child-God not be? Once again, I'm not saying that God is a child. What I am saying is like the Visceral section above- God is a personal God. To Moses in the film, I AM is indeed a child.
Why did you take me from my family?
I did not. You chose to.
This is the painful part for many who choose to follow God. Today many people ask the question- where does God call me to go- but they forget that in Isaiah 6:8, it was Isaiah who took up the responsibility personally and responded "here I am, send me". We act as if we don't have a choice, and we act as if we could only live in obedience.
In moments of frustration, we have the tendency to push the blame to God, forgetting the initial convictions. I AM need a general, but the general may not be you; I AM asked if I care about my own people; I AM spoke. But I chose to respond because I became convicted of the purpose, I saw my role in the bigger plan, I resonated with the cause. I just needed to be reminded.
You mean You do not need me?
Perhaps I don't.
Another big area of today's Christian scene where zealous people take it upon themselves. Like Moses, we heard from God, derived our own plans and put them into execution, expecting immediate results. Presumptuous rashness says that we just need a reason or a vision (出师有名), and we will derive our own means. God, this is our plan, bless it.
This is especially so when we overhype spiritual gifting such as worship, leadership, stewardship etc. Moses had leadership, he was a skilled warrior, trained militant, proficient strategist, sharp schemer etc, and he knew it. So he stuck to his familiar ways and God came and told him, I AM waiting to see you fail. To which Moses asked the all famous question: You don't need me, do You?
Perhaps I don't.
Then what do I do now?
For now- just watch.
Then what do I do now?
For now- just watch.
What kind of God do you worship- one that murders children?
None of the Hebrews child died last night.
This is one of the hardest questions to debate. In the film, Moses himself struggled and commented, "initially I was impressed, but not anymore. If this goes on, both sides will suffer. Who are You punishing exactly?" This is one of the times Moses could not agree with God about, and I think beyond the superficiality of cruelty and inhumanity, there is great depth in all these. The blathering kid-God to portray the wrath of God was something new to me though.
I notice that You don't agree with me all the times.
Isn't that true for all of us. We always thought we know better, even for a person like Moses. Today churches like to laud great biblical heroes for their faith, but Exodus portrayed a more mortal Moses- a human being much like the rest of us. This isn't the great wise white-bearded spiritual leader of the Hebrews; this isn't even the hyper spiritual man who sought God all the way. On the other hand, this is a man who like many of us, doubted, faulted, even tried to play God, but throughout the whole journey was continually being humbled and molded by God. The leader candidate would fall, but the stone would stay forever. In the final few scenes, we saw the intimacy between Moses and the child-God. The friend of God in the Bible was depicted in a cave setting where Moses was carving what seems like the 10 commandments. Moses said, "I wouldn't have done it if I do not agree with You." To which the child-God responded, "I notice that You don't agree with me all the times."
Who does?
We get to choose- this way or that way.
This isn't a dialog per se. When Joshua, son of Nun, questioned Moses- where does God say we should go, Moses, convinced by his own military expertise, used God's name to direct the Israelites to the mountains.
How often the hyper-spiritual uses God to get the quickest and easiest way out? God says this, God says that. In the film, we also saw the grace of God when Moses finally submitted and conceded, "I am lost. I do not know where I am. I have left my family. I have let You down." Then, God made a way and rescued us. The humbling process was between him and God, and God did not let Moses lose credibility in front of His people.
From You do not wish to help me and You do not wish to help them, to do not be afraid for God is with us.
The cartoon Prince of Egypt has created a false impression that the parting of Red Sea has to be majestic, so when I first heard how gradual this entire process was, I was a little skeptical. That was until I watched this Exodus, and I thought it was very legit.
At that point in time, the child-God was already very absent, and Moses felt abandoned. From someone who did not believe in divinity and someone who rather leave things to chances and coincidences, at this point in time, meteorological changes and environmental changes have taken a turn and become signs of the omnipresent God. Contrast with the Pharaoh's trusted scientist who persistently, trying-too-hard-ly found scientific explanations to justify all the things of God, (a position Moses himself must have been all too familiar with in his early days), we see a transformation of character.
When Moses declared confidently, "do not be afraid, for God is with us." He's no longer the Moses of old.
Exodus was never meant to replace the bible. When so much concerns were raised amongst the Christian community, within myself surfaces a question: how does viewing this Exodus change our perception of who this God is- details aside?
