![]() In the film, Moses was leadership material from start to finish, even though he questions himself about it a few times. That would responsibility would be squarely placed on Moses' shoulders, with of course God's leading and guidance every step of the way.īut I digress. ![]() HOWEVER, the LORD would not let Aaron be the one to lead His people out of Egypt. He agreed with Moses that Aaron could be the mediator between God and Moses with regards to voicing the complaints/concerns of the Hebrews as they developed. God/I AM, clearly irritated with Moses' response, decides to meet him halfway. In fact, he has a stutter! Moses tries repeatedly to 'bow out of it' and suggests that his brother Aaron would be far better suited for the job. This is a big artistic blunder for two reasons that are intricately connected: The book of Exodus makes every concerted effort (keep in mind it's written by Moses himself!) to make it absolutely clear to the reader that Moses is not cut out to lead the Exodus at all. This is a grave mistake for Scott to make. In fact, what makes the Hebrew Exodus so incredibly miraculous is the FACT that Moses was the FURTHEST thing ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY would consider 'leadership material'. That being said, Ridley Scott goes too far with artistic liberties with, from the very beginning of the film, depicting Moses as an Egyptian general - and for all intents and purposes - a 'brother' to Ramses/(Pharaoh), who Moses confronts both in the book and film, but in very different ways, completely different from one medium to the other.įor example, in the book of Exodus, there is no mention whatsoever about Moses being a skilled leader, let alone A leader, that would remotely suggest that he'd be up to the task of leading the Hebrew Exodus in the slightest. HOWEVER, it is clever of Scott to use the imagery of a boy to depict how God can use any medium/person He so chooses to thwart the plans of men. It doesn't say anything about transferring to that of a boy (as is depicted in the film). On the other hand, some details in the book of Exodus are left to the imagination in that case, people like Scott are free to take artistic liberties to 'fill the gaps' left by Moses himself for the sake of a logical, creative and cinematography storyline.įor example, the book of Exodus says that God/I AM spoke to Moses through a burning bush. When directors like Ridley Scott (or any director) take such liberties, it obviously comes as no surprise to them that they will obviously face some heated backlash for doing so. That being said, it would, of course, be disappointing to those who know the actual account of the Exodus as it's recounted by Moses in the book of Exodus in the Bible. First of all, judging strictly by the fact this film was directed by Ridley Scott, it should come as no surprise to everyone and anyone who watched it that there were some Hollywood liberties taken for entertainment purposes that have NOTHING to do with the actual account of the Hebrew Exodus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |