Uneven The Bible According to Hollywood 
By Kristin Battestella
I caught part of the 1994 documentary The Bible According To Hollywood on television not long ago and was excited to find the show available on DVD.  Hindered by its under two hour time and an unsure approach, nonetheless The Bible According to Hollywood does have insights on the stormy marriage between Hollywood 
The Bible According To Hollywood feels a little biased largely due to its presentation.  Narrator John MacElwayne is only silenced by brief interviews with the likes of Charlton Heston, Peter Ustinov, and Virginia Mayo.  Some of the older footage of the talent is at a low volume and tough to hear, so what insights these gems might have is lost. It appears some material might also have been touched up or tacked on for the DVD print as well. MacElwayne’s tongue in cheek summaries of the film plots he’s describing also loose their wit after the first half hour.  The Bible According To Hollywood would have been served better by having a panel of film historians, religious scholars and critics interjecting how these Biblical films affected the society and industry of the time.  Brief touches of Red Scare talk and blacklisted players don’t go far enough in fully explaining the scope of Hollywood 
Likewise, anti-Semitism in religious film is only touched upon lightly.  If the Jews do run Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood 
In addition to not having a balance look or scholarly panel, The Bible According To Hollywood also confuses itself by presenting the Old Testament and New Testament as separate hours.  Instead of beginning with the history of cinema and continuing through the decades with hit and miss Biblical dramas, the two hours follow the books of the Bible.  The Bible According to Hollywood begins with adaptations of Adam and Eve and concludes with inspiration fiction from the latter half of the New Testament.  It’s a little confusing, to say the least.  We see snips of silent features misportraying Genesis and Exodus, then we jump up to the lavish spectacle of 1949’s Samson and Delilah.  We go from 1998’s The Prince of Egypt back to the 1923 Ten Commandments.  From Jesus Christ Superstar back to The Silver Chalice, this jumping through time does not work for a casual audience.  We can’t expect The Bible According to Hollywood to catch every film and television show, but it’s non linear approach means its more likely to miss something.  What happened to Barabbas and Jesus of Nazareth 
Film scholars will enjoy seeing clips from early pictures and lost silent film, but young Sunday School students aren’t going to care about a silent movie every ten minutes.  MacElwayne briefly mentions that some of the early pictures have been lost.  Unfortunately, I doubt a young audience will understand the meaning here.  Erroneous questions may arise-were these films banned? Deliberately destroyed because of their Biblical subject matter?  No explanation for the ravages of time on early nitrate film is given in all the bouncing to and fro.  I would rather have had the show start at the beginning of feature film and continue straight to the 21st Century, not leaving such basic history to chance.  Instead, The Bible According to Hollywood  ends with reflections on how the mid fifties spectacles and Bible epics were the height of religion on film.  While I still love a lot of those over acted yarns, I don’t think that sentiment is accurate.  Why bother to mention The Prince of Egypt and The Passion of The Christ if you aren’t going to talk about the modern independent film industry?  Where are all the made for television attempts and controversial TV series? Isn’t that where religious film is today?  I think the tacked on updates for the DVD, dated 2004, make The Bible According to Hollywood look more dated and out of touch.
The Bible According to Hollywood is very informative in highlighting early Biblical films and sharing the trials and tribulations of bringing such ambitious projects to the silver screen.  Unfortunately, its unusual presentation and lone narrator offer an uneven and one-sided view that doesn’t capture the whole scope of religion versus film.  The humorous approach jokes that Hollywood 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment