Talk:The Ten Commandments (1956 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberties[edit]

"Critics have argued that considerable liberties were taken with the Biblical story, affecting the film's claim to authenticity," But this was a Cecil B. DeMille film! With a cast of thousands! Use of unattributed "critics" is often a prelude to a stumble. See also bathos.--Wetman 13:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then perhaps there should be a mistakes section, as there are numerous blatant manipulations of the original biblical story in contrast with the movie's presentation. The same has been done in The Passion of the Christ article, and it certainly should be done here. SF2K1
The commentary track on the DVD reveals that a lot of those "liberties" were actually details of Moses' life that appear in the Q'ran which was used as a source. --Bluejay Young 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't let the moderately sophisticated reader think we're killing a mouse with a sledgehammer here. --Wetman 05:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oop! here they go ! beginning a perfectly serious list of "Differences between the film and the biblical story"— in a film in which Anne Baxter plays an Egyptian princess! ...and no one dare laugh. This is Absolut Wikipedia! --Wetman 07:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But killing mice with sledgehammers is fun! Besides, can we really expect them to have done acting and casting better considering this is a movie from 1956? Seriously though, I enjoy the movie immensly each time I watch it, same goes for The Prince of Egypt (but that wasn't as popular). I just think this movie is important enough to warrent a "differences" treatment, and the comparison to the passion is apropriate (in original story modification as well as popularity). Any movie based on a book is bound to be different, biblical basis seems to cause more trouble though. SF2K1

It is a great irony that most people, not being Bible scholars, have the notion that the movie adheres closely and literally to the Biblical narrative. This is certainly not the case! Another amusing irony is that in the Bible story, Moses proceeds very cautiously, afraid of being caught, while Pharaoh very boldly leads his army. In the movie, it is the opposite. Also, the Torah contains 613 commandments given by God through Moses. The movie only has ten, leaving out 603. Erudil 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the 613 commandments include those given in Genesis, starting with "Be fruitful and multiply." I'm not a biblical scholar, of course, so I Could Be Wrong. JDZeff (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had stopped by to ask folks' opinions about whether or not it would be worthwhile to have a section detailing the sources of the non-biblical elements of the film - Qaran, Midrash, Josephus, etc. But I see here that this was addressed long ago... and some of the results are hilarious.PurpleChez (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G-d?[edit]

Is it really necessary to use dashes instead of o's here? Should we rename God to G-d? I've temporarily changed them; if there is disagreement, I'm happy to discuss. Jonathan Christensen 15:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. john k 15:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. I hadn't noticed that dash-ification of the diety ... wonder when it snuck in? - DavidWBrooks 16:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probbly was me. G-d is a Jewish way of writting God so you don't have to write God to not abuse the referance God when speaking about God or something like that. I go back and forth. Doesn't matter which it is for this article really. SF2K1 20:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my day, "G-d" was a "polite" way of referring to a curse, along the lines of "S.O.B." or "the F-word" or whatever. "God" is an English word that is used to mean either a deity in general or, when captialized, as the "name" of "the" Deity, but it is not God's "real" name, nohow. It's not much different from using "Adonai". I'm not saying you're wrong about the Jewish usage, just that it's not mainstream. Wahkeenah 12:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Orthodox Jews consider writing the word "God" as a violation of the third Commandment, "You may not take God's name in vain." That is the origin of the habit of writing "God" as "G-d." I grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home.66.108.4.183 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth[reply]

Place in Highest Grossing Films[edit]

I noticed that there's a disparity on the topic of the placement of The Ten Commandments in terms of highest grossing movies of all time. The article says it's 5th when adjusted for inflation, making $838,000 when adjusted for inflation, but by wikipedia's own list of highest grossing films, this puts it in 26th place in the "adjusted for inflation" list. I don't know which fact is the correct one.

Go back and look again. I think you've lost a zero or three. 70.189.74.104 00:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ten Commandments[edit]

"The ABC Television Network, along with Hallmark Entertainment, will present a new interpretation of the story of The Ten Commandments in the Spring of 2006."

This was posted in the moses article, is it true, and should we talk about it here?

Airing[edit]

Does ABC still continue to air the movie once a year around Passover / Easter? I remember they used to show the film at least once a year around this time, but I thought in recent years they stopped doing that.
JesseG

Yes, there was a time......when the only way you could see a film that had already "run" was waiting for it to come on television (and hoping that it would). If you lived in a large city with a "revival house" that showed old films, you could hope to see it there. "The Ten Commandments" was usually shown around Passover/Easter, and "King of Kings" around Christmas, and "The Wizard of Oz" around Thanksgiving, and "It's a Wonderful Life" also around Christmas. Now, everyone has his "Collector's Edition" DVD's, and can watch it in sensurround whenever he wants to...LOL How the world has changed... 66.108.105.21 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth[reply]

Ooo. That poster that just went up is nice. --Bluejay Young 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

miscategorized?[edit]

in the categories at the bottom of the page, this is listed as a Christian film. I have to disagree. The story, while common to several religions, is classically a Jewish story. The film is even classified on the Talk Page as a Jewish film. should we change the category then? 151.202.37.184 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC){{image source|Image:10com3.jpg)) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:10com3.jpg[reply]

I agree. It has nothing to do with Christianity per se, except to the extent that Christianity still acknowledges the Old Testament as a sacred text, and the ten commandments form the basis of the Christian commandments. But that is also true for Judaism and Islam. Just because it gets dragged out for broadcast on TV at Easter, does not make it a Christian story any more than "Dolly Parton's Smoky Mountain Christmas" makes Dolly Parton an important part of the Christmas message. -- JackofOz 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't anything Jewish about having Moses recieve the ten commandments, instead of the entire nation hearing them, as this national revelation (as opposed to one prophet saying G-d spoke to him) is the one of the greatest claims to truth of Judaism 141.151.178.221 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another error?[edit]

In the movie, Moses, is surprised as an adult to discover that he's a Hebrew and not an Egyptian prince at all. While it's not explicit in the book of Exodus, there's no epiphany moment and it seems fairly obvious that Moses knows his heritage -- the first episode of his adult life relayed is his murder of the overseer who was abusing his countrymen. In fact, since his own mother was retained as his wet nurse, he was probably aware of his heritage from childhood! Is my reading off base here? --Jfruh (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved to disambiguation page[edit]

Why was the title of this page changed? I can find no discussion about this, and I strongly object this change. A title like "The Ten Commandments (film)" appears to suggest that this is the one and only film of that title, but as becomes apparent from the article, this was only a remake of the 1923 film. Do see The Ten Commandments (1923 film). I am interested in learning:

  • an explanation of this change
  • more opinions

It is a bit strange that "The Ten Commandments (film)" was a redirect and not the disambiguation page that it should have been since 20 November 2005, which is the date the second article was made. Can the titlechanger, or anyone else who cares enough, please change it back and make a beginning with the writing of that disambiguation page at "The Ten Commandments (film)"? I think it should look something like

The Ten Commandments (film) may refer to:

{{disambig}}

Thank you in advance, 83.116.155.133 23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the Bible - and Other Differences[edit]

The 5th paragraph in the "Differences from the Bible" section should be a separate section on its own, since it does not really have anything to do with the Bible. Erudil 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CBDM's introductory comments?[edit]

Hey there, I just heard that (some version of?) The Ten Commandments has a well-known introduction delivered by the director himself... Is this true? And if so, what were the words (or better yet, any video clip found online?) BTW I heard this because the Sodenbergh film "Schizopolis" apparently parodies it by having him appear before the film saying "If you don't understand this movie, the problem is with YOU, not with the movie..." 199.214.27.209 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember his words, but it's certainly been there every time I've ever seen the film - and that would be about 20 times. He comes out from behind a curtain on a theatre stage, and says whatever it was he says. -- JackofOz 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think that the film would be better without it? It's portentous and hypocritical. All its guff about freedom 'under God' ignores the fact that the Ancient Hebrews themselves had slaves. Where was the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Practice Slavery"? O Murr (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Pharaoh identifications?[edit]

This section is totally inappropriate and uncalled for. I'm sorry but just because the movie credits the character of Seti I with the victory over the Hittites and later shows him dying after a long reign does not mean that Sir Cedric Hardwicke's character is "really" Rameses II or that Yul Brynner is "really" playing Merenptah. It just means that the writers took facts from the life of one person and ascribed them to another.

Also, the actual result of the battle of Kadesh wouldn't have mattered to the Egyptians. They had no ethical tradition requiring them to record history accurately. That way of thinking came a thousand years later with Herodotus. To view the walls of Egyptian temples, one would think they won every battle they ever faught. What is even more interesting is that for some battles we have accounts from both sides and both sides claimed to have won an overwhelming victory! At Kadesh, Egyptian accounts credit Rameses II (yeah, ok, it was Rameses, not Seti) with holding off the entire Hittite army, singlehanded with bow and arrow, from his chariot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far more to the point is the fact that Seti (I) in fact DID take Kadesh from the Hittites. Ramases II did have a well known battle with the Hittites over Kadesh during his reign, but that doesn't mean Seti didn't also, and in fact Seti had won a decisive victory over the Hittites taking Kadesh back from the Hittites, lost since the reign of Akhenaten. Since all of the rest of the argument presented in this section is based completely upon the contributor's incorrect argument that reference to the victory stele in the movie means Seti in the movie HAS to in fact be Rameses, the entire section should be removed. 96.255.159.197 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)mjd[reply]

With no action on this and no rebuttal of my argument, I'm removing the "Problematic Pharoah Identifications" section.
65.202.226.2 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)mjd[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ten-commandments22.jpg[edit]

Image:Ten-commandments22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:R2 2 010223.jpg[edit]

Image:R2 2 010223.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited cast[edit]

If the cast is uncredited, where do these actor names come from? Also, I find it strange / odd / bizarre / highly implausible that all of the uncredited cast members have last names that begin with the letter "A" or "B". That can't possibly be? Is this some incomplete list that someone started with the "A" and "B" actor surnames, and never completed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Baby Moses[edit]

At the time that Moses was discovered in a basket, it was during Ramses I's reign (father of Sethi I & grandfather of Ramses II). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of DeMille's screenplay[edit]

From the article: "There are many differences between the movie story line and the Exodus story as traditionally understood from the Bible. According to the commentary in the DVD, some details are taken from sources such as Josephus, the Sepher ha-Yashar, and the Chronicle of Moses, as well as the Qur'an. Some are fictional inventions."

How about a source? Which bits of the Qur'an were used, as an example? --MicahBrwn (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Sets[edit]

As a movie history buff I am interested in the massive sets used in this film - especially the city gates in the as the people left Pharoah. 1) Were these stone? 2) Where were the built? 3) Is there anything left today to visit?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSgtUSAFret (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that with Ben Hur the sets were dismantled/destroyed after filming to prevent a low budget company from coming in and using the sets. (Source: Ben Hur DVD Commentary) So they probably did the same thing with the Ten Commandments sets. The other two questions, I don't have the answer to. 24.93.132.122 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The great Pi-Ramses city set was built somewhere outside Cairo. It must have been demolished, or the Egyptian Tourist Board would have been promoting it as an attraction. They probably feel that they have enough of the real stuff to be going on with. The Giza Pyramids were used (they were already ancient in the time of Ramses II), but only in process shots. O Murr (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia deletions?[edit]

Some of the items in the Trivia section are largely redundant with items in the Differences from the Bible section. Can the trivia items be deleted? Dcwaterboy (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is James Coburn in this film?[edit]

What role did James Coburn play in this film? I see him in all the cash listing, but never with a role next to his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.185.206 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer:

As near as I can tell this is an internet hoax. None of the in depth (listing many uncredited actors) credits I have seen show him. None of the advertising posters show his name. And since all the pages that do list him have him in the same section as Yul Brenner and Charlton Heston but with NO character listed: Bogus

Mind you, I don't know for sure. But having seen the film, I am pretty darn sure he was not up there trading lines with the main stars.

If anyone knows different, let us know. Wiki-790 (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it at least 10 times, and he most certainly did not play any kind of speaking role. He may have played a very minor non-speaking role, but if so, it doesn't appear in his IMdB profile. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His wiki article says his first part was in 1959, but he would he have been over thirty, so possible he was an extra, if he had a speaking part or even a noticeable non-speaking one, he would have been recognizable at 26-28. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE[edit]

Mlpearc MESSAGE 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the fourth wall trivia[edit]

In the article it states that Sephora breaks the fourth wall when looking at the camera for a couple of seconds with an "oh please" look - I'm not sure this is without doubt breaking the fourth wall, it doesn't come across to me as her acknowledging an existence outside of the film, and what's an "oh please" look anyway? To me "oh please" sounds like it's a sarcastic eye roll. BulbaThor (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to search my discs for this moment just now - I'm going to bed. But does it matter if it's intentional or accidental? I doubt that anything in this film was ever intended to break the fourth wall - excepting DeMille's on-camera introduction - as in Olivier's "Richard III", from the same period. If it was accidental then it qualifies as a goof or blooper. O Murr (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running time[edit]

In Cecil B. De Mille's introductory comments, he says the film is 3 hours and thirty-nine minutes long, "with one intermission". That is 219 minutes. However, the article states the running time as being 231 minutes. This seems to be wrong, so unless somebody comes up with a suitable explanation for this discrepancy, I'll change it in the article. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies[edit]

I edited the text to further describe Sethi's heartbreaking decision to exile Moses from Egypt. In the film, he does admit that he still loves Moses as he's dying. I don't know. Maybe there is no reason to elaborate any further. I appreciate the person who reverted the content back didn't give me a verbal thrashing. I understand that the wording is sufficient for this article and is best left alone.Maddux0817 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is already twice the length recommended at WP:FILMPLOT. By all means edit away, but it would be gratefully appreciated if you could take the word count in the other direction. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Communism[edit]

From The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, I understood that there is a prologue in which Cecil B DeMille talks to the audience warning against communism. Is it so? I don't remember it but maybe I lost the beginning. --Error (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ten Commandments (1956 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about television broadcast of film in the Philippines[edit]

It seems that the section of the article about Television broadcast was modified (the changes appear in this version of the article, and its following one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ten_Commandments_(1956_film)&direction=next&oldid=748119488) to add some information about broadcast in the Philippines. This addition to the article has no sources and it is badly redacted. This section should be revised, in my opinion. Melpomenia (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshebel[edit]

I've always wondered why Yochebed was renamed Yoshebel for this film. Is that from Josephus or the Midrash or other sources? PurpleChez (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yul Brynner and Tutankhamun[edit]

Has anyone noticed the astonishing resemblance of Yul Brynner to the face of Tutankhamun on the famous gold funerary mask? O Murr (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No The Ten Commandments Courthouse Controversy Section[edit]

Why is there no courthouse controversy section?

The Wall Street Journal states the following about the movie in connection with courthouses:

"Thanks to an alliance between the Hollywood producer and a juvenile-court judge from St. Cloud, Minn., as many as 4,000 Ten Commandments monoliths were erected in public spaces across the country, for the dual purpose of promoting the 1956 epic and instructing the citizenry in behavior acceptable to God."[1]

Considering this was a major undertaking for the promotion of the film, it seems relevant to the movie. Am I wrong?

TheGreatAndHighExaltedStoic (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB987543322785247205

Plot bloat[edit]

Once again JaesemD.Manucan2021 has added excessive plot detail despite me specifically requesting that he refrains from doing so. WP:FILMPLOT stipulates that plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. Their purpose is to briefly summarise the plot, not to give a blow-by-blow account. If you think there are extenuating circumstances for extending the plot by this magnitude then please discuss them here rather than constantly reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Ten_Commandments_(1956_film)&oldid=1194447727"