The Egyptian

source: The Egyptian

Personally, I regard "The Egyptian" in an extremely favourable light. It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago. To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing … the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father … the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering … the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute … and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all time…but lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond. So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics … that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time … like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10!

MICHAEL CURTIZ used to be the man they turned to at Warner Bros. to give life to action-filled stories of romance and adventure. He's at the helm here of "The Egyptian" but if ever a film suffered from being lifeless and drained of all its vigor, this is the one. No one except PETER USTINOV, as a devious one-eyed scamp, has an ounce of life in them. EDMUND PURDOM is an earnest actor but his role, as written here by Philip Dunne and Casey Robinson, is simply that of a mixed up young doctor who wanders rather aimlessly through a plot that moves at a snail's pace before coming to terms with his idealism. None of the other characters are seen to advantage, and that includes GENE TIERNEY as the Pharoh's mean-spirited sister, VICTOR MATURE, MICHAEL RENNIE, JEAN SIMMONS and Zanuck's discovery BELLA DARVI who plays a femme fatale with hammy relish. No expense was spared to give the court scenes splendor with beautifully designed palace architecture and stunning costumes for the actors to wear. But all of them lack conviction in a story of ancient times that looks as though it's being performed by a cast doing a first run-through of their roles. This is a dud, given elaborate treatment, even to the extent of having a background score composed by Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann, but nothing helps. It was a resounding thud at the box-office, meeting with critical and audience indifference. Trivia note: MARLON BRANDO turned down the role eventually played by EDMUND PURDOM. No doubt he read the script...and, unfortunately, playing the title role did nothing for Purdom's brief career in Hollywood.

In comparison to other "sand and sandal" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney – a leading lady "staple" of the time – can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!

It came before "the ten commandments" "land of the Pharaohs" "Ben Hur" and it's overlooked today.How unfair!Based on Mika Waltari's mammoth novel ,it doesn't cheapen it!Waltari's novel was so huge only a miniseries could have done it justice (I hope it will be done some day).Waltari,whose message is essentially Christian remains intact(another of his books "the secret of the kingdom" (first part) takes place after Christ's death in the Holy Land). "The Egyptian" is the rising of a monotheism close to Christianism long before Christ:the Pharaoh(Wilding) is some kind of Messiah who sacrifices his life because he knows that the true kingdom is not in the material world:he asks to return good for evil!And he has disciples ,who will eventually turn into martyrs (the scene when Simmons and the other worshippers of the Sun God are slain is visually stunning,looking like some pagan ballet).For the priests ,on the other hand,this new religion would mean the end of their influence on the populace,and that's why they look for a strong man (Mature)who can lead the army against the Hittites as well as against their dangerous compatriots.Another religion,or non-religion should we say, is Sinouhé's (Purdom)who during two hours believes in nothing (the sequence of the grain of sands is absolutely sensational and rises the whole movie well above the average peplum !!) There's another fascinating side:the movie looks like a flamboyant melodrama.Not only for the screenplay (notably pharoah's sister's (Tierney)final revelation which predates "the ten commandments" by two years),but also the splendor of the cinematography:Viviani ,in his book about Curtiz,talks about a Baudelairian atmosphere ,blue and gold,notably in the scenes which involve the prostitute (Darvi)who contemplates her reflection in the water of her bath,supreme narcissism. Around the hero,all the characters appear,disappear,appear again,but when they reappear ,they have followed their way and all the subplots come together with consummate skill.Besides,as such is often the case in "modern " melodramas ,the story is a long flashback,framed by two short sequences showing Sinouhé an old man who's remembering. This is a wonderful sword and sandals,that had a strong influence,not only in America but also in Europa,notably in Poland where Jerzy Kawalerowicz directed a spellbinding "faraon" (1966) which owed a lot to Curtiz.

Having been interested in Akhenaton for many years I was surprised to learn about this film via E-bay and bought a copy on DVD for 99p. I enjoyed the film, the twists and turns in the plot and that the file was mainly about the main character Sinuhe makes it more of a "family saga" rather than an action film. The costumes and attention to detail was remarkable for its time (1955). The back projection during the chariot ride now looks clumsy. My main interest was in the character of Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion. In this film he was portrayed as being "Jesus" like in his refusal to go to war with the Hittites even through they were invading Egypt and in his closing speech about the futility of materiality and political power. Initially one makes a connection between Sinuhe, who was cast adrift in the river Nile in a reed basket, and the Old Testament Moses. But this connection is not carried no doubt this will be fully explored in a new film wherein a Moses like character carries Akhenaton's monotheistic religion out to the wider world, if such a film will ever be politically possible to make. It is universally accepted that were women are concerned we man are stupid creatures but the relationship or lack of one between Sinuhe and Merit, the character played by Jean Simmons is hard to accept. And that Sinuhe, an educated physician, would be so smitten by Nefer the Babylonian "femme fatal" to the extent of giving her his adopted parents house and Tomb is not really believable, neither that his parents would even have a tomb. In real life Nefer (Nefertitti) was the wife of Akhenaton. And although Horemheb did become Pharaoh it was after a few others including Tutankhamen , who was the son of Akhenaton. But of course this is just nit picking and the film is enjoyable to watch and that it is about Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion is a big bonus. Maybe following "The De Vinci Code" book and film this film be re-made with the central secret being the foundation of our current monotheism! I wait in great anticipation of such a film, there are already numerous books on the subject.

I am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked it.

Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal. The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact. An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish émigré who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Virginia took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971. Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story.

This movie tries to depict itself as a historical movie based on ancient Egyptian literature. The props are quite bad, they use Roman style dresses (late ones) but it was typical for 50ies. They also depict history in a completely wrong way, it is so bad on so many levels! Basically it is Biblical story based on pure fantasy very vaguely based on ancient Egypt. In fact it is hardcore rape of both ancient Egyptian history and the ancient Egyptian literature. First, story of Sinuhet is from The Old Kingdom. The movie takes place in The New Kingdom during the ruling of Achnaton, who was kinda crazy man who almost destroyed the country because of his forced approach to introduce new religion and abolishing of the old one. In the reality he did not care about the consequences and used terror to achieve his ends. In the movie, however, he is pictured almost as Moses, he is very wise, mild and kind. On the other hand, the general Haremheb who in reality managed to salvage the country from the ruins of the Achnaton's experiment is depicted as murderer and cruel dictator. The country was not invaded by Hittites at the time of Achnaton as the movie depicts. The decay was based solely on the new religion that is not only admired because it was the first monotheist religion, but at the very end of the movie the reality is even more twisted to the incredible conclusion that the Amon was actually the God of the Christians! This is actually very wrong even by Biblical standards, because Aton was the face of the Sun. The ankh is compared to the cross which is completely wrong, because ankh is very ancient symbol of life whereas the cross is the symbol of death / sacrifice. The fact the pharaoh decides to sacrifice himself for some reason is displayed almost like Christ-style. It is blatant and deliberate lie. It is twist of reality comparable to making movie where Hitler is depicted as nice animal loving extrovert who is forced to fight the world in attempt to defend the freedom of people of Europe. It is THAT huge bunch of lies, really! The pictures are nice. The message is sick. I really do not know what is worse there: The incredible preaching style lies or the fact the movie completely abused and destroyed interesting book of ancient literature. There is almost no similarity to the Story of Sinuhet including the ending that is absolutely wrong even in the style of the ending - the ending of original story is positive, Sinuhet is pardoned by pharaoh and he is even given a tomb which was very high honor. In this pseudo evangelic movie it ends "positively" also: Sinuhet is pushed into the exile, dies poor and alone yet almost screams the Christian preachings from his lips. There is zero respect to the Egyptian history. It is completely twisted just to create another pseudo Christian movie. This is so so wrong. So wrong!

"The Egyptian" has several pluses that make up for a rather slow pace. There is plenty to the story, which involves a lot of action as well as some interesting themes, and there is a lot of good scenery and cinematography. Most of the cast is pretty good, and there is an assortment of interesting characters. The setting in ancient Egypt works well and is used to good effect. It makes for many interesting sights, which are filmed nicely and used well in the story. The plot does a good job of weaving the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who tried to bring monotheism to Egypt, into the lives of the main characters. As the central character, Edmund Purdom is all right, but some of the other characters often command more attention. Victor Mature is particularly convincing as the no-nonsense Horemheb, and Peter Ustinov steals more than one scene as Purdom's assistant. The only real flaw is the length. While there is plenty to the story, there are times when it moves quite slowly, and it doesn't seem as if it would have been all that hard to shorten some of the scenes. In particular, some of the speeches that summarize the conflict of ideas among the characters would have been more effective if they had not been quite so wordy. But overall, this is a good movie, and it works pretty well both as a period piece and as a story.