Say the words “biblical epic,” and certain things come to mind. Charlton Heston, Cecil B. Demille, Yul Brynner. Heavy makeup, especially eyeliner. English accents, for sure. Grandiose sets, costumes, and plot points, at the expense of biblical accuracy. Long speeches set in archaic language, with lots of “lo, behold”s and “yea, though thou hast”s. Some sort of allusion to Jesus/salvation. And for the person with more than a passing knowledge of biblical texts, a frustrating time is generally a given.
Which is what makes “One Night With the King,” Gener8Xion Entertainment Inc.’s new film of the story of Esther–out in selected theaters this Friday–so refreshing. Instead of my internal voices saying “that’s not right,” or “jeez, what a misinterpretation of the text,” I was able to sit back and actually enjoy the story, with which I, bearing the name of the queen for more than three decades, am more than a little familiar.
The nutshell story of “One Night With the King”–adapted from the book by Tommy Tenney and Mark Andrew Olsen–is itself an adaptation of what’s known in Judaism as Megillat Esther (the biblical Book of Esther). Through a series of circumstances, a young Jewess, named Hadassah at the beginning of the story, changes her name to Esther (thereby concealing her Jewish identity) and ascends to the queenship of the Persian Empire. A the same time, a man named Haman, an enemy of the Jews, also gains power and gets the King of Persia to approve an order to destroy the Jews and confiscate their property.
Esther’s uncle (or in some accounts, her cousin) Mordecai reminds her that she is in a position to save her people. At great personal peril, she approaches the king without having been invited to do so, and begs him to save her people–advocating on behalf of the Jews and outing herself as a Jewess. The king grants her wish, Haman is punished, and the Jews are not destroyed, and everyone lives happily ever after, giving us the reason for the holiday of Purim.
In this version of the epic, recently endorsed by the American Bible Society, the political position of Persia at that point in world history–and the roles that queens and advisors play in and outside the palace–is stressed more so than the religious themes, with the love story between Esther and the King coming in second, in terms of prominence.
The acting is good, and not distractingly overdramatic–not everyone speaks in the same accent, and that’s okay. The scenery, resplendent with rich scarlets and lush golds, is reminiscent in scale and color scheme of Bollywood exports. (I later learned that the film was actually filmed in India.) Some cast members look like they just came over from the set of “Lord of the Rings” (there are two alumni of that epic in this film), and some overhead shots of Persia are so obviously CGI that one might wonder if James Cameron was involved. There were a few inconsistencies–one added character, Jesse, plays the role of “Hadassah’s friend from home who would have proposed had he not been forced into becoming a eunuch in the king’s palace.” He serves as a messenger, mostly, but his presence in a story that’s otherwise fairly faithful to the text is a bit jarring.
One standout among the actors is newcomer Tiffany Dupont, who plays Esther. In addition to being incredibly beautiful, she skillfully conveys the idealism and individuality of the young Hadassah and authentically charts the physical and emotional transition from peasant girl to queen and an agent for her nation’s redemption. And John Rhys-Davies, so memorable for his roles in both the Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings trilogies, manages to erase our memories of those films and disappear into the role of Mordecai, a role I never would have cast him in, but which he fills brilliantly.
The film’s press materials boast a “Lawrence of Arabia” reunion, since the film includes performances from legendary actors and LoA costars Peter O’Toole and Omar Sharif. But those expecting the two to share actual screen time will be disappointed–O’Toole appears as Samuel the Prophet in the “prologue” section of the movie, while Sharif’s character (Prince Memucan) is a featured player in the Persia segments of the movie… and ne’er the twain shall onscreen meet.
As part of its grassroots marketing strategy, Gener8Xion Entertainment has included a three-week pastor preview screening tour as part of the film’s debut. Making stops in 19 cities, the tour is especially intended for pastors, youth leaders, social service professionals, and other faith leaders. ABS’s Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship has endorsed the movie as true-to-Scripture and says that it advances the mission of ABS by making biblical stories and the Bible more accessible and appealing to people throughout the world.
I freely admit that I sat down to watch this film with a chip on my shoulder. I fully thought it was going to be atrocious. But instead, I found it to be one of the more satisfying–and less annoying–biblical epics I’ve seen. What will really be interesting is to see how effectively this film can mainstream the story of Esther into the popular awareness, and if it will seed the way for other biblical epics that are both dramatically effective and faithful to the text.
posted October 13, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Wow, my curiosity is definitely piqued.
posted October 13, 2006 at 6:34 pm
i LOVE the story of Esther. she is one of my all time favorite heroines! i’m really glad they made this movie (although there is an old one that i think is pretty cute) i hope it plays around here so i can go see it. -Gina
posted October 13, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Seen the tailor and I have heard a lot of wonderful things about this movie, “One Night with the King.” Watch out devil and move aside, christianity is evading Hollywood.
posted October 14, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Oh boy, another Jewish celebration of revenge against the Gentiles. And this one completely mythological as well, casting Jews in the roles of Babylonian gods and goddesses, i.e., “Esther” who represents Ishtar and Mordecai who represents Marduk. What spiritual comfort is there in celebrating myths of fictitious people?
posted October 14, 2006 at 7:54 pm
I am sorry but I expected a higher level of religious historical information to be shared here by the rabbis as these are critical times for Judaism and all the Abrahamic faiths.
posted October 16, 2006 at 6:52 am
I HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE AND IT IS ABSOULTLY AN CLASS A MOVIE,EVERYTHING,IN IT IS AWESOME…IT WILL MOVE ONE TO CRY AND LAUGH..THINK AND LOVE….TO STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN AND NEVER GIVE UP ON GOD BECAUSE HE IS AN MIGHTY GOD!
posted October 16, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Stepehen Lewis, In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!” More tripe!
posted October 16, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Stephen Lewis, Tzvi was right about you. Nothing but hate and lies flow from your fingertips to the keyboard.
posted October 16, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Hey, there’s no need to slander me because I don’t agree with your religion. I don’t agree with most of them like everyone else, I have my preferences. And Beliefnet is a place for us to discuss our beliefs, is it not? Then stop with the accusations. I don’t have to like your religion. You don’t have to like my opinions. But to say what you say about me goes beyond disagreement–it goes to bearing false witness by your religious standards. Criticism is not hatred–learn to tell the difference.
posted October 16, 2006 at 8:46 pm
If this portrayal is better than the Trimark version The Bible ESTHER with Thomas Kretschmann as King Ahasuerus and Louise Lombard as Esther I will be greatly surprised. That is one of my favorite movies and I am not Jewish, but Christian. It is a wonderful story of faith and love and how God works through His people.
posted October 16, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Actually, Stephen, false witness means making false statements about another or making lies against another, especially to that person’s detriment. It does not mean that I think your statements represent a deep-seated hatred for Judaism, as your posts go above and beyond the call of simple disagreement. another Jewish celebration of revenge” certainly justfies my view point. No slander here. Don’t play victim.
posted October 16, 2006 at 9:02 pm
And this one completely mythological as well, casting Jews in the roles of Babylonian gods and goddesses, i.e., “Esther” who represents Ishtar and Mordecai who represents Marduk. What spiritual comfort is there in celebrating myths of fictitious people? If anything represents slander, it is posts like these. Calling our history “myth and fiction” is pure anti-semitism and bigotry. But we are all coming to learn to expect that in your posts.
posted October 16, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I really feel sorry for people like Stephen Lewis. One who does not believe in God are really a sad lot. Where do they go when there is unhappiness and devastation in theirlives?
posted October 16, 2006 at 10:07 pm
You guys just can’t seem to stop it, can you? The slander I mean. Oh, it’s not slander when you do it, eh? Let’s begin with the “anti-Semite” slanderous label, ok? My heredity contains a significant amount of Ashkenazi ancestry. If I critizize the beliefs of my Ashkenzazi ancestors and relatives, how am I being “anti-Semitic” when Ashkenazi are not Semitic peoples? You know that I support Palestinians who are true Semitic peoples in opposition to Israelis of Ashkenazi descent who are like me, of European ancestry.When I criticize ancient Jewish beliefs you will notice on other boards that I am criticizing Pauline Christian and Muslim beliefs as well. Just as you yourselves do. So lay off me, stop denigrating me as a person. I don’t do this to you. I criticize with knowledge behind my criticisms, not emotional garbage, e.g., the criticisms of the story of Esther is quite legitimate and I’m certainly not the only one who has brought out the mythological connection between the main characters in the Esther story and the main gods of Babylon, Ishtar and Marduk. I didn’t invent “Mordicai” being Hebrew for Marduk yet you want to trash me for posting the Hebrew language!Let’s have intellectual honesty, ok? And no more slinging arrows against the Christian posting on your boards. Your religion should be quite able to offer defenses against one Gnostic critic.
posted October 17, 2006 at 3:15 am
Foxylady, You have to give him credit for perseverance, if not for honesty of any sort. Thank goodness most people here seem to see through the whining and distortions.
posted October 17, 2006 at 5:53 am
What is the point this arguement? If Stephen believes this to be myth that is his choice. If we believe it to be truth that is our choice and we are the happier for it.
posted October 17, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“You have to give him credit for perseverance, if not for honesty of any sort. Thank goodness most people here seem to see through the whining and distortions.” eastcoastlady, stop it. Please. Stop your slander. Grow up.
posted October 17, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Stephen Lewis, Clearly, you don’t know the meaning of “slander”. Nobody is buying it. And “grow up” has no place here; it’s totally not applicable. Penny Hudson, If SL was simply believing his myth, that would be wonderful. However, he is going out of his way to trash the beliefs of others while constantly claiming to be a victim himself. It would be nice if others let well enough alone and respected the beliefs of others, but that is not the case.
posted October 17, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I would prefer not to argue with someone who simply wants to understand how we can love and believe.It is something that he misses.Though you have not seen HIM and though you do not see HIM now, but believe,you have great joy. We are fortunate. He is empty.
posted October 17, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Penny, Thank you for your post.
posted October 17, 2006 at 9:33 pm
“eastcoastlady, stop it. Please. Stop your slander. Grow up.” stephen,
posted October 17, 2006 at 9:36 pm
sorry hit the post button by accident– stephen, it’s truely immature to keep saying that over and over. you are not an injured puppy. your comments are pointed and it is obvious you are trying to start something here. the fact is that if you want a debate religion. there are better places to do so than in a comments section about a MOVIE> and BTW while you may have half a point about what “Semite” really means, it’s pretty much accepted the world over that when you say anti-semite you mean anti-jew. but again, this isnt the place for that, go debate in another place. we want to talk about the movie.
posted October 17, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Oh Bless the Lord oh my soul and all that is within me Bless HIS HOLY NAME. I have not gone to see the picture as of yet but saw soooo many trailers on it and emailed many people to go and watch and some did. I will be viewing the movie this week. And as for Stephen we will pray for him… The Bible tells us to bless those that are despiteful. One day he (Stephen) will bow down to our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS, now won’t he….. smile smile…. Bless you Stephen.
posted October 18, 2006 at 12:12 am
Boy, some of you have let others so influence your opinions about me that you don’t even know I am Christian, believe deeply in the Spirit of Christ manifested in Yeishu/Jesus.If you are Christian and joining in with the Jewish posters here in condemning me, please read your New Testament Gospel of John before again criticizing my Christian views of Judaism.
posted October 18, 2006 at 12:15 am
That said, enjoy your movie. I will post my opinions elsewhere for your benefit.
posted October 18, 2006 at 12:28 am
i know you claim to be a christian. but your views dont represent my christianity. eastcoastlady is my friend. jewish or not, it does NOT matter to me. i dont always agree with her, but i do on this subject. you may say you are a christian, but most Christians i know still believe in the Holy Bible both new AND old testament which INCLUDES the story of Esther. but that is quite enough of that, as i said before, this is not the place for that kind of discussion, there are specific forums for that on beliefnet.
posted October 18, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Neon, You are so kind. Likewise, I consider you my b-net friend. And if it means anything, I don’t consider “Stephen” to be representative of most Christians, by any means. You fit that bill much better. Kind and thoughtful, even in disagreement.
posted October 19, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Hmm, I wrote this post, and I had no idea I was entering into such controversial territory. Just goes to show you, you never really know what you’re writing about until other people tell you what you’re writing about.
posted October 19, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Regarding the term “anti-Semitism”: The German political agitator Wilhelm Marr coined the term “Anitisemitism” in 1879, specifically to replace “Jew-hatred” (Ger. “Judenhass”). His purpose was to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. He also founded a political party called the “League of Anti-Semites” (“Antisemiten-Liga”), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country. The term “anti-Semitism” has always been used to mean the hatred of Jews as advocated by Marr. Whether or not the Jewish people can be “scientifically” classed as Semites in any racial or ethnic sense is completely irreleveant.In true Orwellian fashion, Arab propagandists and their fellow-travellers like Mr. Lewis are trying to reverse the accepted meaning of this term by claiming two things simultaneously: 1)that Arabs cannot be anti-Semites since they themselves are Semites, and 2) since the Jews are not “genuine” Semites, Jewish and Israeli opposition to Arab anti-Jewish terrorism and attempted genocide is the real anti-Semitism. Since people like Mr. Lewis can think only in racial, ethnic and genetic terms, they easily fall for this anti-Semitic (I mean this in the true sense of the word as created by Marr) Arab propaganda. Of course, I don’t expect anyone who refers to the Jewish religion as an “anti-Gentile revenge fantasy”, to pay much attention to the true meaning of words, but I thought I would just pass along the information.This has nothing to do with the movie. My favorite version of the story was seeing Joan Collins as Esther. It was a hoot.
posted October 20, 2006 at 12:23 am
Oh, right, one more thing:Painting the Jews themselves as the “real anti-Semites” has one more purpose: to turn the Jews into Nazis in the popular imagination. The term “anti-Semitism” immediately conjures up images of Hitler and everything that goes with it. By telling people that Jews are anti-Semites because of their opposition to Arab terrorism, the Arabs are trying to fool people into believing that it is the Israelis, and, by association, the Jewish people, who are the true heirs of the Nazis, rather than the Arabs themselves. Only in the fevered imagination of an anti-Semite could Jews, who were the Nazis main victims, themselves become Nazis. It is indicative of the stupidity of people in general and the utter debasement of political discourse that some people actually seem to believe it.
posted October 21, 2006 at 6:18 am
Back to the movie… I went to the movie and the whole time I was convicted and the Word of The Lord rang in my head “don’t add to and don’t take away” as in Rev.22:18-19. I did not tell my husband this. but halfway through the movie, he asked me if I wanted to leave. When I told him what The Lord had laid upon my heart, he said that he was thinking the same thing. I was dissapointed by the fact that so many people claimed it to be biblicly accurate and it was in fact very distorted. I love The Lord with all my heart and want to honor him in all I do. We need to spend more time in the Word than on supplements to the Word, then we would never have to worry about accuracy! In Jesus name!
posted October 23, 2006 at 1:27 am
I’m glad that somebody else who saw that movie saw all the distortion from the original story not just in content but also in tone. The final scene at the banquet Esther gave, which in reality was two on successive days, was totally wrong. In the Bible Haman was truly begging for his life and was not threatening Esther. After some of the comments I’ve seen and read I wonder if I have a totally different Bible. This was one of the most hacked up versions of a Bible story I’ve seen. If they wanted some back story material they should have used Midrash Esther although it is extra biblical it is more faithful to the original content then what these guys dreamed up.