Slaves of Babylon (1953)

Despite having been the subject of some of the very earliest Bible films, the various stories from the Book of Daniel rather fell from favour, to the extent that Slaves of Babylon is the only feature length take on one of the Israel's most iconic prophets (barring a handful of operas and musicals). Even on this occasion the filmmakers didn't take a huge amount of interest in the biblical subject matter and instead shift the focus to a fictional character called Nahum (Richard Conte). Nahum is one of the more rebellious Jewish slaves in post-exilic Babylon and so, after a couple of early skirmishes with the Babylonian authorities, Daniel sends to convey God's message to Cyrus (Terry Kilburn).

By this stage Daniel (Jewish actor Maurice Schwartz who would also feature in Salome in the same year) is now getting on in years and perhaps, given the filmmakers were clearly happy to use creative licence with the text, it might have been better to have been more relaxed on this point and create an all round action hero than to introduce a whole new character who inevitably steals the show. Nahum's mission is to find Cyrus who at this point is still just a shepherd, convince him of his divine mandate, teach him in the art of becoming a king, manage his campaign to make him and lead his attack on Babylon.

Various obstacles stand in Cyrus's way, not least and attempted assassination at the hands of a exotic dancer played by future Catwoman Julie Newmar who uses her feline charms to attempt to take Cyrus' life. It's a plan that not even Newmar's most famous role would have dared to pull off and is thwarted by the ever alert Nahum. Cyrus does seem to have an eye for the ladies though and his obsession with Linda Christian's princess does rather distract him from the task at hand.

Interspersed with this main plot are various stories from the early part of the Book of Daniel, his night, unharmed in the lion's den; Nebuchadnezzar's madness resulting in him eating grass; and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego being saved from the flames of the furnace. And of course there's the pivotal moment where Belshazzar's feast is interrupted by a giant hand writing "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin" on the walls of the banquet hall to prophesy his downfall. The special effects leave something to be desired - this latter scene relying on broadly the same technique (projection) as Pathé's Le Festin de Balthazar from 1905).

One of the episodes from the Book of Daniel that the film does leave out is the story about how Daniel and his colleagues choose not to eat the Babylonian's food, opting instead for a diet based largely on vegetables. It's not a story rich in dramatic potential, but it does really set Daniel and his friends apart from modern Christians. The film's costume design does place a very prominent Star of David across Daniel's chest, but otherwise Daniel is not particularly Jewish (as opposed to proto-Christian). But then also missing is the incident where Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue and none of his advisers can decipher it. None, that is, except, Daniel. It's perhaps not surprising that the second half of the Book of Daniel - the apocalyptic part - is absent, but this first omission does rather strip him of the gift that caused him to rise to prominence in the first place - the gift of interpreting dreams.

Whilst Slaves of Babylon was the product of a major studio (Columbia) it's fairly low budget and it shows. None of the male stars have any charisma, though Christian and Newmar do make up for the deficit to some extent, and whilst the plot adds a little excitement and allows a more tangential exploration of the story, it ends up compressing both stories so much that neither retains that much interest.

"The Lions' Den" in Film

The earliest known occurrence of the story of Daniel in the Lions' Den being adapted for film goes back to Pathé's Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (dir: Lucien Nonguet, 1905). Released within a decade of the invention of cinema it is one of the earliest examples of the spectacular in biblical films, which had been hitherto dominated by passion plays. Not only did the film make use of, the by then increasingly common, double exposure to portray angelic appearances, it also featured people trapped in enclosed spaces with real-life lions.

The success of this film resulted in a flurry of films about Daniel in the early silent era though only Gaumont's Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (dir: Louis Feuillade, 1908) and Vitagraph's 1913 film Daniel (dir: Frederick A. Thomson / Madison C. Peters) seem to have covered this particular story.

Surprisingly, from this point on filmmakers appear to have lost interest in the lions' den narrative. It was not until forty years after the Vitagraph film that the story would be brought again to the screen in Columbia's Slaves of Babylon (dir: William Castle, 1953). Even then the film is clearly cheaply made (particularly for a major studio) and Daniel is supplanted as the main character by the fictional Nahum. The brief lions' den scene occurs about halfway through the film and is set during the reign of Nebuchnezzar rather than Cyrus. This is because the film has made Cyrus one of its heroes who is mentored by Nahum and thus rises from a shepherd boy to king. The scene itself sees Daniel, who is wearing a large Star of David pendant, being abused by an angry crowd who jeer and throw stones at him en route to the den.

Despite the fact that the story has not been adapted a great deal as a standalone film, it has proved to be of more interest for those making a series of films, particularly for television. Daniel featured twice in The Greatest Heroes of the Bible series in 1978-79, including a whole episode being devoted to the story in Daniel in the Lions' Den (dir: James L Conway, 1978). As is typical of the series, it's a tame affair, with an invented sub-plot that makes Daniel appear incompetent, and a very poor special effect used to portray the divine presence that keeps the eponymous hero safe.

Another extended series to include the episode was the Welsh/Rusian collaboration Testament. The Bible in Animation. The Daniel instalment, directed by Lioudmila Koshkina in 1996, utilises a a story within a story plot structure, told centuries after the events have taken place. It uses an unusual animation style of oil paint on glass form of animation, which gives a rather gruesome appearance to some of the less child friendly moments in the story. The non-realistic animation makes these shots more permissible, yet paradoxically more disturbing at the same time and are particularly effective as the pack of hungry lions tears towards Daniel as the den is sealed.

Whilst the story of lions' den has not proved popular in the wider culture, recent years have seen far greater interest in animated productions of the story often aimed primarily at a Christian audience. These include Animated Stories from the Bible: Daniel (dir: Richard Rich, 1993), The Beginners Bible: The Story of Daniel in Lions' Den (dir: Gary Selvaggio, 1996), Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible: Daniel and the Lions' Den (dir: William R. Kowalchuk, 1998), Veggie Tales: Where is God when I'm S-S-Scared? (dirs:  Phil Vischer/Mike Nawrocki, 2003) and Bugtime Adventures: It's the Pits (Jeff Holder, 2006). All five of these productions originate in America suggesting that the story of Daniel in the lions' den is in an unusual situation. One the one hand it appears to be of little interest to wider audiences, but on the other it seems to be of particular interest to the Christian community.

Whilst the above titles could be merely suggesting popularity with children, there have also been two recent live action versions of the story the Liken Bible Series' Daniel and the Lions (dir: Dennis Agle Jr., 2006), a product of the Church of the Latter Day Saints; and The Book of Daniel (Anna Zielinski, 2013) by the American evangelical studio PureFlix. The latter film spends the longest amount of time developing the relationship between Daniel and Dairius. It's also the only films to show lionesses joining their male counterparts. Daniel cites the words from Lamentations 3:55-58 as well as various fragments from the Psalms.

The recent popularity of the story with American evangelicals suggests that this is a story they feel is particularly important them. Given the rhetoric in recent decades about traditional Christian values being under attack it's not hard to see how the Daniel story resonates with this. Daniel (and his friends) represent a beleaguered minority who are under attack from a hostile wider culture, but who, by holding true to their values, ultimately prevail. There's a double persecution metaphor here. Not only do they find the cultures of the Babylonians / Medes / Persians hostile but there is also the more raw and immediate threat of the lions.

Of course it is precisely for this reason that the phrase "the lions' den" has entered into the wider lexicon as a metaphor for entering a hostile situation. This metaphorical use accounts for the title of Argentinian director Pablo Trapero's Leonera (Lion's Den, 2008) which tells the story of a pregnant woman's incarceration in a state prison (pictured above). Whilst the references to the biblical text are largely limited to the film's title, the sense of fear, hostility, danger, oppression but ultimately survival resonate with the danielic theme.

The lions' den incident also comprised a significant part of the fifth episode of The Bible (2013) which manages to cover a significant proportion of the Book of Daniel. The lions' den scene portrays a genuinely terrified Daniel who is, rather oddly, clad only in a loincloth. Whilst the series was both produced by American evangelicals and with an eye very much on that demographic, it also sought to appeal to a wider audience, perhaps an indication that the story is finally finding a hearing in the wider culture, and redressing an under representation that has been in effect since the end of the early silent era.

For or Against the State? The Hebrew Bible and the Establishment

I've been having another look at Amos recently, in particular reading Dow Kirkpatrick's interesting Bible study guide to the book that bears his name.

In contrast, one of my churches is returning to the story of Joseph son of Jacob in the autumn and has asked me so for some advice on useful clips. It's the second (or is it third) time that they have looked at the story in recentish memory. This follows another recent repeat-series on the book of Daniel (very much on the first half of the book).

One of the main reasons for this is that as a church with heavy populations of students and new parents there is an enduring relevance in the stories of these men in strange circumstances, trying to adjust to life in a new land. Not to mention that for those in the workplace there's much to be drawn from these two upwardly-mobile professionals.

Part of this is, I think, due to the clear link between the two books. It's not the kind of church where the leadership team or the preachers would pay a great deal of attention (if any) to issues of authorship, composition, date of writing and literary genre, (In contrast, I'm guilty of occasionally finding these issues more interesting that the texts themselves) and there is, of course, a good level of dispute over these books with some seeing the Joseph narrative being written by Moses with Daniel as a roughly contemporary account, whereas others view Genesis as being (post?)exilic and Daniel as from the 160s BCE.

For what it's worth I lean towards the second position, but either way it's fair to see a degree of dependence, whether literary, or, to adopt a more conservative view, due to Daniel-the-man's personal identification with his ancestor. This latter point is essentially the idea that Daniel was well versed enough in the scriptures to be familiar with the story of Joseph. When he finds himself in a similar situation, particularly given the similarity of their gift with dreams, he draws inspiration and ideas from Joseph's example.

So whilst, to a certain extent, the type of dependence is not of primary importance it still matters to some degree. Personally I'm unconvinced there ever was a real Daniel and that these stories are the product of spiritual contemplation on the story of Joseph and then on stories from the exile in the context of another empire once again bearing down upon the descendants of Israel. So if a church in the 21st century church studies Daniel they are essentially (unknowingly?) contemplating a contemplation on the Joseph story. If they have done both twice in recent history then this is essentially a fourth visit to the Joseph narrative in recentish memory.

In contrast, whilst my church has used the odd proof text from Amos, they've never really looked at the book in any real detail. For me, the contrast is all the more noticeable because Kirkpatrick is very much committed to reading the book thought the window of Amos' worldview. Essentially he takes Amos as a member of the oppressed peasant farmers in a society dominated by a powerful combination of the religion and the state.

So Amos and Joseph/Daniel take very different approaches to the issue of oppressive statehood. Amos stands outside it and refuses to co-operate with it. He speaks against it from outside and is condemned by it. To him the religious and the political cannot be separated. Both are corrupt and worthy of judgement.

Joseph/Daniel's approach is markedly different. For them there is clear separation between religion and state. Indeed, whilst it is understood that Pharaoh and Neb/Cyrus/Darius are worshippers of other gods, that is no reason for Daniel/Joseph not to collaborate with them on issues of state. In fact religion is never really a conflict in the Joseph texts.

Whilst this is not really the case in the Daniel narratives, the conclusion still seems to be that foreign states and their religion are only a problem when they oppose servitude to Yahweh. There are two key places in Daniel where religion causes a clash. The first is the story where Daniel's friends are thrown into the furnace. Daniel is simply not mentioned in this story. The recent TV series The Bible depicted Daniel as being present with Nebuchadnezzar on his platform and hence exempt from the command to bow. This is a possible explanation, but (assuming Daniel was a real historical character) it's also at least plausible that that he was amongst those who bowed (even if he later realised his error). Either way the king's realisation of Yahweh's power has little impact on his religion or on matters of state.

The second such occasion is when Daniel is faced with the command not to pray. Here it is undoubtedly Daniel who is faithful. The similarities with the furnace story suggest either Daniel's chance at redemption, or that the furnace story deliberately anticipates the lion's den story and the story's climax of the king acknowledging that Daniel's god is God. However, again his position of power and his politics are largely unchanged aside perhaps from greater pluralistic tolerance.

(There is also the story of the Daniel and his friends refusing the king's food, but here the conclusion is even weaker - the four friends may keep their specifically religious diet as it still enables them to collaborate with the state.)

Amos' critique of church and state is radically different. He criticises the outworking of his own religion, and how it is complicit in state oppression and inequality. For him the two are not, and perhaps cannot, be separated. In contrast to Daniel and Joseph, both of whom end up in positions of power, Amos remains outside the power structures. Daniel and Joseph live fulfilled lives at the heart of power, their choices endorsed by the story's end, something they would have gone to their graves knowing. Amos's story just fizzles out. Perhaps he knew his words were justified, perhaps he died in questioning and despair.

Perhaps part of this derives from their relative roles in society. Amos is a peasant. He's a farmer growing a subsistence crop. Kirkpatrick describes the sycamore fruit as edible but not particularly delicious. (Had he been writing a decade or two later he may have quoted from Crocodile Dundee).

Joseph and Daniel however came from a very different social background. Both are educated to a good degree - rare at the time. Joseph is the favourite, first born, legitimate son of a tribal chief. Daniel is also part of the nobility (Dan 1:3-6) and highly educated. In other words both are familiar with being part of the establishment and the power structures of the day. They are men who easily slot into the upper echelons of not only their own society, but those in which they find themselves.

All three stories are worthy of study and contain examples of men trying their best to be faithful to the God their worship, but I can't help feeling that it would be better if my own church looked at Amos for a change. Arguments can be made both ways for who took the better path. Both Joseph and Daniel gave their people relief in a troubled time, even if Joseph's actions would lead to disaster long after hs death and It was Nehemiah rather than Daniel who secured his people's release from exile.

But only in Amos do we find a critique of the establishment and oppressive governments that use religion and religious leaders to further their unjust causes. Kirkpatrick makes the point that "God became not only human, but poor human" and goes on to discuss the incarnation and a Christology defined by "Jesus' relationship with the exploited ones".1 Amos has the more radical message, and it's the one which seems consist with Jesus' decision to stay outside of the power structures of his day and offer his critique from that standpoint.