moosish-628-965954
1. This is a movie, folks. Yes, based on a novel, but it was just that - a novel. Uris didn't claim to be writing a history textbook. As with all memorable literature, he tweaked some facts and embroidered his landscape with memorable fictional characters (although yes, many were based on real-life people.) So it's not appropriate to criticize either the novel or the book for not getting every historical fact absolutely right.2. This is a MOVIE, folks. Based on a novel, but it's still a movie. Which meant that the actors were cast for a variety of reasons, one of which was solid bank-ability at the box office. To those who complained that Eva Marie Saint is too old in this film, I'd like to remind them that she was only a few months older (in real life) than Paul Newman was. And having her a bit older than the character in the novel is fine, since she brings a different life perspective than someone in her 20s would have. Especially since she was playing a widow. just mho. 3. What has depressed me is that this IMDb discussion of a movie has brought out the Haters. I don't mean people who hated the movie; I mean people who hate Jews and the State of Israel. Apparently, no amount of art, or even actual history, will ever be enough for some people to stop hating, to get them to stop looking for every possible opportunity to malign any group of people they get something -- however perverse or destructive -- out of hating. 4. My personal opinion of this movie is that it's an excellent MOVIE. It entertains. It teaches us a few basic facts about the creation of Israel that most of us never learned in school. It is well-cast, well-acted, well-directed, and well-photographed. In addition, it has a great score throughout the film (not just the very memorable main theme.) I saw it at a movie theater when I was fairly young, and I've probably seen it on TV over a dozen times since then. I also read the novel (a long time ago), but if I've learned anything over the years, it's that movies and novels are different animals that can't fairly be compared page-for-page, so to speak. Heck - ever read "Gone With The Wind?" In the novel, Scarlett has one child with each of her husbands, but in the movie, she only has the one child, with Rhett. But no one complains about it because it's a damn good movie. And so is "Exodus." It's damn good movie.
tieman64
"Flatten all of Gaza! The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki too. There should be no electricity in Gaza, no neighbourhoods, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing!" - Gilad Sharon "The essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest." - EinsteinThe early 1960s saw the release of a number of Zionist flicks. These films typically portrayed brave Jews working in tandem with world leaders to set up the modern State of Israel. Standing in the way of our heroes are always various "evil Arabs", all hell-bent on killing Jews and destroying Israel (Israel "officially gained independence" in 1948). Two of the more famous films in this wave were Otto Preminger's "Exodus" and Melville Shavelson's "Cast a Giant Shadow", the latter co-funded by John Wayne, everybody's favourite psycho patriot.Most of these films are racist, propagandistic, demonize "Arabs" or selectively ignore the various atrocities and/or massacres committed by Britain and Zionists during the early 20th century. Unsurprisingly, they also adhere to Stuart Kaufman's famous 7 rules of nationalism. One: if an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us - you are merely occupiers. Two: if an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us - borders must not be changed. Three: if an area belonged to us 500 years ago, but never since then, it should belong to us - it is the Cradle of our Nation. Four: if a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must enjoy the right of self-determination. Five: if a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must be protected against your oppression. Six: our dream of greatness is Historical Necessity, yours is Fascism. Seven: our cultural continuity and purpose matters, yours does not.Regardless, Israel was illegally formed in the late 1940s, the result of the by-passing of the UN Security Council, and the violent ejecting of some 750,000 Palestinians from their land before any lawful international consensus was reached. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of "Israel", the sheer speed and tactlessness at which she was created would lead to decades of conflict. Lessing Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, would prophetically say in 1944: "The concept of a racial state – the Hitlerian concept - is repugnant to the civilised world. I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences." But nobody listened. In an instant, 55 percent of Palestine (85 percent of Palestine was controlled by "Arabic" Palestinians) was taken by a Jewish minority who had previously controlled 7 percent. The Palestinian majority, and their right to self determination, was ignored. Over the years Israel would acquire more land, which it would dub "disputed territory", though international consensus and international law deems these territories illegally occupied and in breech of the Geneva convention and numerous UN resolutions. Zionist mythology likewise portrays itself as the victim of several key wars (the Six Day War, the 1973 war, the Suez conflict, the 1947 war), when historical fact tends to state precisely the opposite.Bizarrely, most of these films use the Holocaust as the sole justification for the creation of the State of Israel. But Zionism predates the Holocaust, and really gained steam in the mid 1800s. Indeed, even the six million number – the official number of Jews who died in WW2 – has been around before WW2, the figure used in the 1800s and early 1900s to sanction various Zionist movements.The irony is, Palestinians and Jews are genetically virtually identical, they have the same paternal ancestors, and the whole concept of "Palestinians" was cooked up and propagated by the Roman and British Empires to scatter and rename Jews for the purpose of strengthening their own rule and destroying cohesiveness in the region ("Philistines", from whom the term "Palestinian" is derived, were originally the enemies of ancient Israelites). A further irony is that many ancient Jews simply converted (most were forced) to Islam and thus eventually became "Palestinians". Many Jewish customs themselves stem from an effort to assimilate to prevailing Muslim customs. And of course Palestine, under the Ottoman empire, was packed with Jews, Christians, Druze, Gypsies and Muslims, all living together.Some view Zionism as a religious movement (Israel is becoming increasingly atheist), others insist that "tribes" should be allowed to return to where they came, though it is unlikely that persons living in the year 1948 have any kind of memory of, or connection with, life in 1200 BC Jerusalem. Today, Israel is virtually an offshoot of the US military, no longer a state with an army but an army with a state. A common view is that she is a "tiny nation" in the middle of "aggressive Arab nations", but the northern and north eastern rims of Africa are virtually controlled by the Western Empires, along with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan further south and east. It is Syria and Iran who are surrounded by Western Power."Exodus" eventually degenerates into preachy speechifying. It is reductive, does no justice to any position and, as is typical of such films, casts Gentiles for most of its Jewish roles. Unsurprisingly, the films pander to American and Christian egos, the "Jew" rehabilitated for Western audiences after decades of Western persecution. Hollywood did a similar thing with the Japanese following WW2.2/10 - See "Paradise Now", "Lemon Tree", the masterful "The Time That Remains", Justine Shapiro's "Promises" and Yoav Shamir's "Checkpoint". Worth no viewings.
Robert Jetter
In my humble opinion, this wonderful directorial effort by Otto Preminger is left without an ending. With Leon Uris' novel as the backdrop, and my own mother's history as an inspiration, the movie leaves you flat.After all of the struggle to return the Jews to Palestine, after all of the drama of death and destruction and politics, we are left with a story that ends short of the finish line. The kibbutz are under siege and the death of Karen (Jill Haworth's character)leave us with a conviction for Dov Landau, Ms. Fremont and Ari Ben Canaan to go forward to commit Israel to the freedom it now enjoys.Of course, in 1960, it was premature to predict or film a story that would end in a free and liberated Israel. So it is not so much the story with which one must take umbrage but the time in which it was filmed.Eva Marie Saint, Ralph Richardson and Lee J Cobb are brilliant in the film while Paul Newman, Peter Lawford and Sal Mineo offer eye candy for the women of the day.The story must fall short due to its timing not its inclination but all in all, a story that must be finished to be important. Time for an Exdous2?
