The Problem with David: Masculinity and Morality in Biblical Cinema
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Religion & Film Volume 22 Article 33 Issue 1 April 2018 3-30-2018 The rP oblem with David: Masculinity and Morality in Biblical Cinema Kevin M. McGeough University of Lethbridge, [email protected] Recommended Citation McGeough, Kevin M. (2018) "The rP oblem with David: Masculinity and Morality in Biblical Cinema," Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 22 : Iss. 1 , Article 33. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol22/iss1/33 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Religion & Film by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The rP oblem with David: Masculinity and Morality in Biblical Cinema Abstract The King David of the Bible, and especially as portrayed in the books of Samuel, is one of the most complex characters in ancient literature. We are told his story from his youth as a shepherd until his death as king of Israel. He kills a mighty warrior with a slingshot, goes to war with his king and later his son, and has an affair that threatens to throw his kingdom into disarray. The ts ories surrounding David seem perfect for cinematic adaptation yet what makes this character so compelling has been problematic for filmmakers. Here, three types of Biblical filmmaking shall be considered: Hollywood epics (David and Bathsheba (1951), David and Goliath (1960), and King David (1985)); televised event series (The Story of David (1976) and The Bible: The Epic Miniseries (2013)); and independent Christian films (David and Goliath (2015) and David vs. Goliath: Battle of Faith (2016)). Issues that shall be considered include: tone and genre, casting, democracy and ideology, masculinity, and sexual morality. This investigation shall explore how these issues are treated in different types of Biblical filmmaking and how genre constraints impact the reception of David on film. Keywords King David, biblical cinema, Christian cinema, masculinity and the Bible, David and Bathsheba, David and Goliath, The tS ory of David, The iB ble: The pE ic Miniseries, David vs. Goliath: Battle of aithF Author Notes Kevin M. McGeough is a Professor in the Department of Geography (Archaeology) at the University of Lethbridge. His research interests include ancient Near Eastern religion, Old Testament, and Biblical reception. He is the author of a three volume work on ancient Near Eastern and Biblical reception, published by Sheffield Phoenix, titled The Ancient Near East in the Nineteenth Century. Acknowledgments: The uthora would like to thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions. This article is available in Journal of Religion & Film: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol22/iss1/33 McGeough: Problem with David Biblical King David is arguably one of the most compelling and dynamic figures in ancient literature. The books of Samuel tell us of David’s life from the time he was a young shepherd boy until his death as a celebrated king of Israel. These accounts show David in a positive and a negative light, as a figure of heroic achievements and personal failings. The Bible tells us of his rise from humble origins to become a king chosen by God. It tells us of his friendship with Jonathan and his conflicts with his own sons. David is a musician, a warrior, and a statesman. He is the most celebrated king of Israel and yet he is also a murderer and an adulterer. All of this seems like the makings of a riveting film or films and yet, ironically, these traits of the Davidic story have seemed to have caused more problems for filmmakers than opportunities. The root issue, perhaps, has not been the biblical source material, so much, but the expectations of biblical heroes and stories in cinema. For the biblical David does not line up well with the expectancies of masculine heroism that are defined by biblical filmmaking. For cinematic audiences, a biblical hero was not someone with an ambiguous sense of sexual morality nor could he be rewarded for behaving “unheroically”. He needed to be able to master violence without savouring it and he needed to be an ardent nationalist, not someone who could engage in open revolt against his own king. This article will explore some of the specific elements of the Davidic narratives that have proven challenging for filmmakers and explore how these problems reflect larger issues relating to the reception of Biblical figures in popular media. In particular, the paper shall examine tone in Biblical film, difficulties in casting David and portraying an aging character, tensions surrounding the character’s relationships with violence and the state, as well as the complications in Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2018 1 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 22 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 33 presenting him as a both masculine and moral character, especially in concert with his sexual activities. While there are many films that feature David, this paper shall consider three types of David films: Hollywood epics (David and Bathsheba (1951), David and Goliath (1960), and King David (1985)); televised event series (The Story of David (1976) and The Bible: The Epic Miniseries (2013)); and independent Christian films (David and Goliath (2015) and David vs. Goliath: Battle of Faith (2016)).1 David in the Books of Samuel While numerous source critical analyses of the Davidic narratives have been offered by scholars, most generally see the sources as bifurcated between pro and anti Davidic materials.2 Beyond this basic division, scholars have, since Julius Wellhausen, further divided the Davidic accounts into discrete chronological units revolving around important events in his story (rise to kingship, succession crisis, etc.). However the composition history of the story is understood, the saga of David in its final form offers a picture of a character whose emotional depth is arguably unparalleled in ancient Near Eastern literature. Baruch Halpern well captures the inconsistency of David’s character through the provocative title of his book, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King.3 David, in the final form of the books of Samuel, is a dynamic figure who acts heroically and selfishly, uprightly and immorally, violently and tenderly. He is a character who defies simple description. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol22/iss1/33 2 McGeough: Problem with David Tone in Epic Biblical Cinema I have previously argued in reference to the book of Esther that filmmakers have had a difficult time capturing the tone of that book. 4 The humour, the violence, and the carnivalesque mood were not easily transformed into the sombre, historical-realism of the typical Biblical epic. The Davidic saga in Samuel poses fewer problems in regards to tone since its narratives can be treated as historical (even if they are not strictly historical as numerous scholars contend). Babington and Evans have shown that the traditional Hollywood Biblical epic portrays major turning points in world history, moments of momentous political significance.5 In Hollywood epics (and the corollary international forms, especially Italian peplum films), individual heroic figures play formative roles in changing the course of major political events. Often their romantic lives are entangled with the larger processes of history, where the heroes are forced to make sacrifices for the greater good of their people. The films are shot in a panoramic style that allows audiences to see large troop movements across stunning landscapes but also emphasizes the relationship of individuals to larger historical processes that are greater than their own lives. Given that generic interest, the stories of David should well fit the expectations that audiences hold for the epic. Realism Debates about historicity further complicate scholarly understandings of David. At the time that most of these films were produced, these debates mostly related to attempts to determine which elements of the story of David were legendary and which actually Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2018 3 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 22 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 33 happened. It was not until the mid-1990s that the argument that there was never an historical David came to be widespread in academia.6 Generally then, despite more recent critical academic readings of David’s historicity, the filmmakers who have presented his story have taken him to be a real historical figure although have not necessarily understood all of the elements of his story to have an historical basis. Mainstream films, then, have used an archaeological-realistic aesthetic to portray him as an historical figure. This has not been the case with Christian independent films, which is in keeping with larger trends in that industry.7 An ethos of realism has long been a means of marketing historical films, as David Eldridge notes.8 The subject matter of David films allows for such an archaeological and historically authentic aesthetic. Miracles and supernatural events are not a major part of the account in Samuel and they can be omitted with minimal injury to the story. As shall be discussed below, the Goliath narrative could be problematic in this fashion but filmmakers have found ways around that. Philip Dunne, who wrote the screenplay for 1951’s David and Bathsheba wanted to create a Biblical film that was explicitly unlike the miracle-laden films of Cecil B. DeMille. 9 Dunne, who was an agnostic himself, purposefully added a foreword