King David (1985) can feel silly and surreal
JPRetana
King David (1985) can feel silly and surreal in retrospect and perhaps even did a little at the time. A future Buddhist plays a legendary Jewish king, and the…
King David (1985) can feel silly and surreal in retrospect and perhaps even did a little at the time. A future Buddhist plays a legendary Jewish king, and the little cymbal boy that precedes the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley) anywhere he goes reminded me of Patsy “riding” in front of King Arthur while banging a pair of coconuts together — a reference that would have been only 10 years old when King David was released. Samuel, however, is deadly serious. More importantly, if this were Monty Python and the Holy Grail, God would be Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Film.
The latter is what makes King David more interesting than most biblical epics. This is not a story about the literal word of God; it’s a story about men interpreting what they may or may not believe is the God-given law.
In the opening scenes, Samuel rebukes King Saul (Edward Woodward) for “robbing the Amalekites of their women and cattle and holding their king” for ransom. Samuel is not about to ask Saul to be less of a dick, though. On the contrary, Samuel says God wants Saul to be an even bigger douche: “Send for my servant Saul and tell him to fall upon the Amalekites and utterly destroy them … Men and women, children, babes in arms, sheep and cattle. Spare nothing from the sword.” Samuel then beheads the Amalekite king on the spot. At least he leads by example.
Samuel claims God has rejected Saul, and goes to choose a new king from Jesse’s (Arthur Whybrow) sons. Samuel makes a show of consulting two small stones until he settles on a young David (Ian Sears). David says what we’re all thinking: “If I stand so well in His sight, let Him command me face to face.”
Thus far, the script appears faithful to the source material — except for the part where God actually briefs Samuel on what He wants done. The implication seems to be that Samuel is calling the shots independently while attributing his decisions to God to lend them more weight, which rings truer to the facts of the case such as they may have been.
The film even skips Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor to summon the spirit of the deceased Samuel, so as to make sure there isn’t anything the least bit supernatural in the story. This choice says more about the nature of faith than any burning bush could. The characters not only believe in but are willing to kill for a God whose absence is all the more conspicuous because the average biblical epic has taught us that He was pretty much a landscape fixture at the time that these things allegedly happened. As a result, King David arguably functions as an allegory of modern fundamentalism — but is it a criticism of it?
Early Christians believed David foreshadowed Jesus. Accordingly, David — at least in this movie — repudiates the lex talionis (if only because of personal reasons) and questions whether “God’s kingdom can be brought about by the slaughter of women and children.” However, David ultimately falls in line after Nathan chastises him for obeying his emotions rather than God’s laws and presuming “to know His will better than we, His prophets.” Years later, David dies peacefully after anointing Solomon as his successor. Happy ending, cautionary tale, or thought-provoking, agnostic reimagining? The fact that it resists categorization is perhaps King David’s greatest legacy.
★ 7 / 10
***Good but lacks the detail to make it
Wuchak
***Good but lacks the detail to make it great*** David is my favorite biblical character aside from JC himself. I never tire of reading the events of his life…
***Good but lacks the detail to make it great***
David is my favorite biblical character aside from JC himself. I never tire of reading the events of his life: the trials & perseverance, the agonies & ecstasies, the successes and failures.
"King David" (1985) stars Richard Gere in the titular role and covers the bulk of the events. You’ll see all the following happenings in the picture:
Samuel's choosing of David as successor to King Saul; Israel's battles with the Philistines; the fight with the hulking Goliath and David's victory with a sling shot; David playing his harp to soothe Saul's torment; Saul's increasing jealousy and hatred of “the man after God’s own heart”; David & Jonathan's brotherly love; David's wandering in the wilderness with his men, fleeing Saul; his stealing of Saul's spear while he sleeps in a cave, sparing him; Saul's suicide; David dancing in his skivvies when the Ark of the Covenant is brought into Jerusalem; Michal's love and, later, hatred of David (as he dances before the LORD); David secretly ogling the nude Bathsheba bathing from his palace roof and the ensuing adultery; David's indirect murder of Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) and Nathan's rebuke; Amnon's rape of his half-sister Tamar; Absalom's justified slaying of his half-brother Amnon; Absalom's stealing of the Israelite's hearts; Absalom's death and David's grieving
The film is worthwhile if you desire to see these numerous events depicted before your eyes. The cast, sets, costumes, locations and filmmaking are for the most part of the highest order for 1985. Edward Woodward is excellent as the jealous and bitter King Saul, even though he lacks Saul's height (as he was a head taller than any other Israelite). Most aspects of the David/Goliath challenge are great, like the troops shown on two separate hills. Cherie Lunghi possesses an intelligent and unique beauty as David’s first wife, Michal, while Alice Krige is beautiful as Bathsheba.
Despite the numerous events covered in David's life, the film only runs 1 hour and 50 minutes before the closing credits. The problem with this is that there's at least 3 hours of material and shortening it down to less than 2 hours prevents the viewer from being captivated by the myriad characters and happenings. This will leave some struggling to connect with the people and their stories.
Regardless of the numerous events flying by, the film has a bit of a lazy vibe. There's very little spectacle like "The Ten Commandments,” but it’s more realistic. David was a ruddy and handsome man, according to the Bible, and Gere is quite good in the role. Yet David was a very passionate, a "man after God's own heart, which is effectively shown in some parts, like what he does with the model of the Temple at the end, but not in others, like when the boy fights Goliath there's zero passion and righteous ferocity as seen in the Biblical account (e.g. "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine who would defy the armies of the living God?!!"). Plus the film doesn't show the serious trash-talking that went back and forth between the two. The fight's just too low-key.
Although the gist of the story is accurate there are inaccuracies that some nitpick, e.g. Goliath challenged David and the Israelites himself, he didn't speak through another man; David picked up stones before going out to fight the giant, not while fighting him; Absalom waited a long time before slaying Amnon, he didn't do it immediately; etc. Changes like these aren't that big of a deal and were made for dramatic or condensing reasons.
Someone criticized the film for showing Bathsheba at fault for seducing David. Actually, they both shared fault equally. Everyone in Jerusalem knew the king stayed home while the troops were out fighting, so Bathsheba was likely fully aware that the king could catch a tantalizing glimpse of her while she was bathing on the nearby roof. Besides, even though David was the king, she could have said 'no' when the proposition of adultery later presented itself. In other words, she was both into it and into David.
I've seen "King David" four times now and enjoy it every time. It's a well-done cinematic account of David's life for 1985 with a kinda weak ending. But the picture cuts off more than it can chew in a mere 1 hour and 54 minutes, leaving the viewer detached from the characters and events beyond David, in particular those who know little about the biblical account.
But don't listen to those who give this film an absurdly low rating. They're way off. It's good; it just lacks the detail to make it great. Nevertheless, I’d watch “King David” any day over the overrated “Braveheart.”
The movie was shot in Italy with studio stuff done Pinewood Studios, London.
GRADE: B
★ 6 / 10
I never quite understood why Richard Gere became
CinemaSerf
I never quite understood why Richard Gere became the Hollywood superstar he did, and films like this don't really help. It's a standard production depicting…
I never quite understood why Richard Gere became the Hollywood superstar he did, and films like this don't really help. It's a standard production depicting the rise to the throne of Israel of David. We start just as God is getting a bit irked with the behaviour of King Saul (Edward Woodward) and the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley) decides that the young David is to succeed. The King isn't so impressed with this and so sets about to ruin his would-be successor in the eyes of the army and the people. What now ensues takes us on some biblical adventures including that deadly slingshot moment and as it pitches father against son, an ascension to the throne and some tussles of his own with God - especially surrounding his relationship with Bathsheba (Alice Krige). As sword and sandal epics go, it's all rather ponderous with little by way of any notable acting going on and the soporifically dry adaptation from the Holy Bible isn't exactly setting the bush on fire either. If it serves to get folks to read the original stories from the Old Testament which are usually full of human skullduggery, naughtiness and corrupted souls then maybe it might serve a purpose, but otherwise it's an overlong television movie that looks like money has been spent on the costumes and locations, but that has little else to redeem it.
8%
TOMATOMETER
· 13 reviews
43%
AUDIENCE
· 1K ratings
5.3/10
2.8K
•••
King David = Black dude from Ethiopia. The fake land we see today is not it..