James Hitchcock Most of the Biblical epics of the forties, fifties and sixties were visually spectacular, but "David and Bathsheba" is something of an exception, even though it was inspired by the success of DeMille's very different "Samson and Delilah" from two years earlier. Here there are no magnificent sets, no spectacular battle scenes, no gladiatorial combats, no visual effects set pieces comparable to the collapse of the temple in "Samson" or the parting of the Red Sea in "The Ten Commandments". Nor is there anything like the orgy scene from "Solomon and Sheba" from around a decade later. The most elaborate scene is the combat between David and Goliath, told in flashback; this part of David's story is not really relevant to his relationship with Bathsheba, but the names David and Goliath are so closely linked in the popular imagination that it would have been difficult to omit it.This is a film which replies far more upon psychology and human relationships than it does upon spectacle. It seems to have been an influence on Bruce Beresford's "King David", that rare example of an epic from the eighties, which likewise eschewed spectacle. As the film opens David, who has united the Hebrew tribes into a single kingdom and led them to victories over their enemies, is successful in earthly terms but is, beneath the façade of a powerful monarch, a deeply unhappy man. He is troubled by grief over the death of his beloved friend Jonathan in battle. His marriage to Michal, the daughter of his predecessor Saul, has been an unhappy one and the two are estranged. Worst of all, he has become disillusioned with the religion of his kingdom, which he sees as excessively harsh and legalistic. As in Beresford's film, the chief representative of religious legalism is the prophet Nathan. In "King David" he is shown as advocating the wholesale slaughter of Philistine civilians; here he supports the application of the Mosaic Law in its full rigour, including the death penalty for offences such as adultery. (In the Bible Nathan is portrayed as speaking with the voice of God, or at least the voice of David's conscience, but in both films he emerges as a bloodthirsty and unsympathetic religious fanatic).David's life is transformed when he falls in love with Bathsheba, but their relationship is a perilous one. As King of Israel, David is not above the law, unlike the kings of neighbouring countries who were, if the film is to be believed, legally privileged to seduce the wives of their subjects with impunity. Uriah is a boneheaded soldier who cares only for fighting and nothing for his wife, and who shares Nathan's zeal for enforcing the Law, including the Law as it relates to adultery, to the letter. And, in a departure from the Biblical story, David's wife Michal and his son Absalom are keen to press charges of adultery against Bathsheba, meaning that there is a real risk that she will be stoned to death. (In the Bible Absalom did indeed turn against his father, but for reasons quite unconnected with Bathsheba).Having seen her both in "Demetrius and the Gladiators" (a poor performance in an otherwise reasonably good film) and "The Conqueror" (a bad performance in an atrocious one), I had concluded that Susan Hayward was not an actress ideally suited to the epic genre. Here, however, I was pleasantly surprised. Bathsheba is normally represented as a beautiful young woman, perhaps in her early twenties and considerably younger than David, but that is not how she Hayward portrays her in this film. She and Gregory Peck were much the same age, both in their mid-thirties in 1951. (Hayward, indeed, was considerably older than Kieron Moore who plays her husband Uriah). Although she was certainly attractive, Hayward plays Bathsheba not as the hapless object of David's lust but as his soul-mate, a woman as much in love with him as he is with her. Peck is excellent as David, a man torn between his love for Bathsheba and his conscience. He is also torn between his instincts, which are to rule as a relatively enlightened monarch, and the demands of certain of his subjects who would prefer a ruler who shared their own unenlightened zealotry.Some have complained that the film does not follow the Bible faithfully enough, but in my view its main weakness is that it occasionally tries to steer a middle course between sticking slavishly to the Old Testament account and reinterpreting it, with unconvincing results. Nathan's parable about the rich man who stole the poor man's ewe-lamb is only convincing if one assumes that Uriah loved Bathsheba at least as much as David did, something which is clearly not the case here. It might also have been better if scriptwriter Philip Dunne had omitted the death of David and Bathsheba's firstborn child, even though this detail is indeed in the Bible. In the context of the film, however, it seems too much like a vindication of Nathan's vision of Jehovah as a wrathful and vindictive deity, ready to wreak vengeance upon innocent children while inexplicably sparing their guilty parents.Overall, however, this is a low-key but pretty decent epic, proof that the Old Testament could serve as the basis for intelligent films as well as spectacular ones. It is certainly better than Beresford's rather dull "King David". 7/10

rooprect Unlike the classic biblical masterpieces of Technicolor days, "The Ten Commandments", "Samson and Delilah", "Sodom and Gomorrah", etc, this biblical film is not about the power and wrath of God. Instead, it's a very intimate story of a man's fall from grace and how he tries to find it again.While it can be approached literally as the story of King David's sins which brought drought, death and pestilence upon Israel, it is truly a secular story of a man who has lost his boyhood innocence. The power of the film rests in Gregory Peck's hypnotizing performance toward the end when, having hit rock bottom, he must answer for his life.Whatever religion you subscribe to, or none at all, this is such a powerful human theme because inevitably we all lose our way. Peck plays King David as a sort of religious skeptic, always investigating the scientific explanation behind supposedly supernatural events. And that diffuses the "biblical" aspect of the film so that we may enjoy it on any level.ABOUT THE PLOT... If you've studied the Bible, then you probably know the story and how it turns out. But if you're totally ignorant of the tale like I was, then I guarantee you'll have a great time. The suspense of not knowing how this volatile situation will play out is breathtaking. With that in mind, I won't say a thing about the plot, and I suggest you avoid any discussion of it. All you need to know is it's about 2 people named David and Bathsheba.About acting, technique and music. Very nice with only 1 minor complaint. In keeping with the times (1951) this can be a melodramatic film, and by that I point the finger at the music. Certain powerful, dramatic scenes are made a little syrupy with the characteristic lush Hollywood symphonic music of the Technicolor age. However, there are a few amazing scenes where Gregory Peck delivers his monologues in absolute silence, with a tight, stationary camera on his face, and those are the aforementioned scenes that are so strong they'll bring a tear to your eye.Directed by Henry King who, despite his masterpieces, never won an academy award in his 50 year career, "David and Bathsheba" is so impressive it makes me want to immediately run to the video store and check out his other films, particularly those he made with his favorite leading man Gregory Peck ("Twelve O'Clock High", "Snows of Kilimanjaro", etc). Susan Hayward did a great job, too. But this is really Peck's film, and King wasn't shy about using Peck to the fullest. Don't hesitate to see this film if you ever get the chance.

edwagreen Boring and often tedious, this picture was a disappointment to me.Despite its great stars, Gregory Peck, when supposing to look pensive, looks more like a raving lunatic. Susan Hayward has done far better work than this. Sometimes, she appeared hesitant.Raymond Massey stole the show as the prophet.The very best part of the movie was the excellent, haunting musical score. It really got you in the mood for some of what was to come.This is definitely a film of temptation and ultimate redemption. Perhaps, it would have been better had they spoken more about Goliath. Goliath would not have been satisfied with the film. Perhaps, he was needed to put an end to all of it.Surprised to have seen Jayne Meadows, of all people, as David's wife due to political reasons. She was nasty and definitely had her moments in the film.Gregory Peck must have been used to assuming another Jewish role, for 4 years before, he played Phil Green, a non-Jew masquerading himself as a Jew to get material for an article on anti-Semitism in the magnificent "Gentleman's Agreement." As for Susan Hayward, she proved her mettle in Judaism 4 years later, as Jewish singer Lillian Roth in the phenomenal "I'll Cry Tomorrow." In fact, we could have all cried when we saw this 1951 film. Of course, Hayward would be crying much more for a David in 'Tomorrow.' The irony of a film career, may it never end.

Al This film has all the size and grandeur of many of the great biblical epics of the 1950's and '60's. But it is also perhaps the first that really humanizes the biblical characters themselves. This is a unique and compelling balance that helps us to realize that even great figures like King David are flawed people who can find their faith and greatness in facing these very flaws.The actors are all first rate in the film from Gilbert Barnett as David's second son Absolom through to the wonderful Susan Hayward as Bathsheba. Hayward is at her best in this film. Her own larger than life but very truthful style of acting is quite at home on the TV screen as it was when first seen on the wide cinimascope screens of the 1950's. She is the seductress of the piece, but she plays the role in such a way that you sympathize with her.Raymond Massey does a great job as Nathan the prophet. As a child when I first saw the film, Massey seemed like he truly had just conversed with the Lord himself and was an awesome sight. No doubt helped also by the great music composed by the always amazing Alfred Newman who also had great successes in other biblical epics like "The Robe" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" along with perhaps 100 other films too! The cinema photography by Leon Shamroy is well done and adds to the size but also the intimacy of the film. Henry King, a truly underrated film director who like William Wyler never really pigeon-holed himself into any one genre, pulls together a larger than life production that never loses sight of the love story between David and Bathsheba and David's own deep struggle with his faith in God. The path tread in this film could have been very hokey, but King keeps it real and interesting all the way. Plus we never lose the sense of mystery about trying to understand the will of God, just as David himself is struggling with the same. From the first scene where a soldier dies trying to save the ark from destruction. David is not satisfied with Nathan's answer, (to paraphrase)that no one can understand the will of God. This is the journey we embark on right through to the powerful ending where David is finally confronted with himself.Finally this film belongs to Gregory Peck who is wonderful as King David. His David is a man you can believe could rule a country as King and Warrior but who was also at one time a gentle and faithful singer of psalms. This is one of his best performances.I don't see this movie on television much anymore, but when I do I never fail to watch it. I think it still holds up very well today.