Why did the creation
of the state of Isræl lead to war?
The origins of the
problem go back two millennia when, in 71 AD when most of the Jews were driven
out of Palestine- their homeland. Small communities of Jews did remain and over
the next centuries small groups returned. Until the end of the 19th century,
however, there were never enough Jews to make the Arabs feel threatened and who
now considered the area theirs.
It was in 1897 that
some Jews in Europe created the World Zionist Organisation in Basel,
Switzerland. Zionists believed that Jews should have a national homeland of
their own- a Jewish state. The chief candidate was Palestine.
i) At the time there was terrible
pogroms in Russia. They also faced persecution in France and Germany and thus needed
a sanctuary or place of refuge.
ii) Many believed Palestine was an
Holy Land promised to them by God- Genesis xv.18.
iii) They also wanted a place to unite
all Jews and, hopefully, be protected by a Great Power, whether Turkish
(Ottoman) or British.
The problem however
was that Palestine was occupied by Arabs who were alarmed at the prospect of
suddenly losing their land to outsiders.
Britain became
involved in 1917 when its foreign minister Arthur Balfour announced that
Britain supported a Jewish national home in Palestine. He, and other British
politicians, were deeply religious and believed in this as part of a divine
plan as well as political.
After 1919 when
Palestine became a British mandate, large numbers of Jews began arriving. Arabs
began protesting bitterly to the British and demanded:
- an independent Palestine for the Arabs
- an end to Jewish immigration
The British Government
in 1922 said that there was never any intention that Jews should occupy the
entire area of Palestine. In fact, they said that there would be no
interference with the rights of Palestinian Arabs. The British hoped to
persuade Jews and Arabs to live together peacefully in the same state without
understanding the deep religious and cultural differences between them.
To what extent was the film Exodus (1960) Historically and Politically correct in relation to historical events?
Originally a novel written by Leon Uris,
Exodus is described as one of the most poignant story on the Jew’s strive for
Israel’s independence from the British. The New York Times describes this book
as an “international publishing phenomenon”[1], and the first
Israeli Prime minister David Ben Gurion even mentions: “As a literary work, it
isn’t mush. But as a piece of Propaganda, it’s the greatest thing ever written
about Israel”[2].
The Story was then interpreted as a 3½
hour-long movie, directed by Otto Preminger, in 1960 staring America’s finest
actors: Paul Newman playing the role of the Protagonist ‘Ari Ben Canaan’, Eva
Marie Saint as ‘Kitty Fremont’ the charming American nurse, and many more. Many
viewers argue that the Movie was as epic and fascinating as the novel; others thought
it was dull, boring, and uninspiring.
Exodus is described as an ‘epic war film’ made by Alpha and Carlyle Productions, produced and directed by Otto Preminger , an Austrian American theatre and film director. The film was based on the 1958 novel Exodus written by Leon Uris, an American novelist, known for his historical fiction. Widely characterized as a ‘Zionist Epic’ the film has been identified by many commentators as having been enormously influential in stimulating Zionism and support for Israel in the United States. Although the film softened the anti-British and the anti-Arab sentiment of the novel, it remains controversial for its depiction of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and for what some scholars perceive to be its lasting impact on American views of the regional turmoil. Within this film review I will be giving a short summary on Exodus (1960), Referring to three important scenes within the film which were either historically or politically incorrect in relation to historical events, I will be comparing the film exodus to the book written in 1958, I will be stating why the historical mistakes were overlooked due to the heavily enthusiastic publicity in which the film received and finally I will conclude this film review.
Exodus is a screen adaptation of the
best-selling novel by Leon Uris. It is based on the events that occurred on the
ship Exodus in 1947 as well as the events regarding the founding of the State
of Israel in 1948.
The
film is concerned with the emergence of Israel as an independent nation in
1947. Exodus focuses on the efforts of six hundred and eleven Holocaust
survivors to defy the blockade of the occupying British Government and sail the
Exodus to Palestine.
Kitty Fremont is an American volunteer at
the Karaolos internment camp in Cyprus, where thousands of Jews are being held
by the British, refusing them access to Palestine. The Jews anxiously wait for
the day in which they will be liberated.
Paul Newman, a leader of the Hagannah and a
previous captain in the Jewish Brigade of the British Army, is willing to
sacrifice his own life and the lives of the refugees by smuggling Jewish
Inmates out of the camp for an illegal voyage to Mandate Palestine.
The
British finally agree to allow the Exodus to pass through to Palestine safely.
Once this victory is assured 30,000 more Jews, previously interned by the
British, flee also to the Holy Land.
Opposition to the partition of Palestine
into Arab and Jewish states starts to
become more heated and a Jew named Dov Landau proclaims his desire to join the
Irgun, a radical Zionist underground network.
Dov
successfully bombs the King David Hotel in an act of terrorism, leading to
dozens of fatalities.
He
then turns himself in so that he can use his knowledge of explosives to facilitate
the Acre Prison Break. Hundreds of prisoners are able to escape after this plan
succeeds.
An independent Israel then becomes plain in
view, but Arab nationals commanded by Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem, plot to attack the town of Gan Dafna and it’s villagers. An
overnight escape is put into place and many are killed, including Karen a young
Danish girl, close to both Kitty and Dov as she is murdered by Arab militiamen.
At a Jewish burial ceremony for both Karen and Taha, Ari (Paul Newman) swears
on their bodies, that someday Jews and Arabs will share the land in peace, in
both death and in life.
The
controversies over political bias, cultural authentic, and historical accuracy
that seem to plague every current film on the Middle East attests to the fact
that the press, academics, and politicians today would not look kindly on such
a type of film like Exodus (1960).
And
yet when Exodus, a most politically incorrect film was released in 1960, it was
treated by the American media with a politeness and fondness.
Exodus, running a massive three hours and
twenty eight minutes, has all the trappings of a classic epic adventure
including romance, idealism and a fight for freedom. However, it’s political
overtones are clear. The film allows each party within the conflict to present
it’s respective view point. These consist of Ari’s uncle, the leader of the
Irgun who explains why violence is necessary in order to force the British to
leave Palestine. Ari’s Arab friend strives for coexistence with the Jews, but
is ultimately treated as a traitor by the uncompromising Palestinian
leadership. And a friendly British general justify’s that the British troops
are following orders and wish to leave Palestine as much as everybody wants
them to leave.
Despite these moments of equity, the film
explicitly endorses the Zionist perspective and paints the founding of the
Israel in romantic terms. The fact that exodus is able to overtly defend one
side of such a controversial piece of history, and get away with it is
surprising by today’s politically charged standards.
The majority of the political overtones, so
jarring to modern sensibilities, were either ignored or overlooked in public
responses to Exodus at the time of it’s release.
Although a media Frenzy developed around
the film before it was released, the press paid more attention to it’s
“all-star” cast and exotic filming locations than it’s political subject
matter.
As
the novel Exodus, became a best-seller and the stars of the film were declared,
the press began to pay even more attention to the details of the films
production, especially because Exodus was filmed in Israel and in Cyprus.
The
New York times published two articles about the large-scale casting of locals
and the use of actual Israeli buildings and landscapes in the filming.
Even
further “special attention” was paid to the “impressive” logistics of the
production, including weaponry and military vehicles and also the camels used
in desert scenes.
The media blitz culminated in a front- page
photo essay on the film published in the December 12, 1960 issue of life. The
essay painted a melodramatic portrait of Exodus and included photographs of the
primary characters looking contemplatively into the distance with the fields
and the valleys of Israel as a beautiful backdrop. The photos were prefaced
with a glowing description of the film that claims it even “goes beyond the
book”
The
film went on to win an Oscar for best music and was nominated for best
cinematography.
Exodus is tremendously entertaining; it has
all the grandiose features found in classic, epic Hollywood films. As the
glowing review of the novel printed in the Nation pointed out: “[Exodus]
contains in its borders and it’s brief modern history every conceivable element
of drama-‘conquest of the desert,’ ‘return to the soil,’ ‘ingathering of
exiles,’ ‘conflict of cultures,’ ‘the Promise of Fulfillment’ of Biblical
prophecy”.
It
was fondly received by major newspapers and many reviewers stated that they
were moved by it’s ‘epic scale’ and historical subject matter. The New York
Times called it “a dazzling, eye-filling, nerve-tingling display of a wide
variety of individual and mass reactions to awesome challenges and, in some of
it’s sharpest personal details, a fine reflection of experience that rips the
heart.”
Time
named it one of the best films of 1960 and called it a “terrific show”
The
Los angeles Times remarked that the film showed a remarkable lack of political
bias, claiming that despite being somewhat slanted toward the Zionist cause,
all parties in the conflict “are allowed to present their sides”
Film
critic Stanley Kauffmann wrote one of the most flattering reviews in the New
Republic and despite being critical of the second half of the movie, which he
described as “not often more than superficially exciting”, he described the
film as not only an entertaining story, but a “powerful instrument of
contemporary truth”.
Even
somewhat disapproving reviews failed to make the kinds of political criticisms
that one would expect.
Reviews criticizing the film’s political
message only appeared in less mainstream sources. For example, Film Quarterly,
a scholarly journal published by the University of California Press, ran a
scathing review by Gideon Bachmann, in which he asserted that Exodus is not
only a “bad film” but propaganda designed to be “the best promotion Israel ever
had”.
Several writers inside and outside of the
United States were publishing harsh criticisms of Israel at the time, but these
criticisms have been deliberately overlooked or dismissed.
Many aspects of the film resonate strongly
with a uniquely American cultural and political sensibility.
For
example when Ari asks Kitty, who is skeptical of the Jews’ chances at
overcoming the odds and succeeding in establishing a state, “How many men did
you have at Concord the day they fired the shot heard around the world?” This
reference makes explicit what the audience feels during the course of the film;
that the Jews’ struggle is representative of a universal struggle of freedom
over tyranny. Exodus also avoids overt ethnocentricity. Exodus is adept at
bestriding the line between particularism and universalism: the film’s ideal is
a world where every nation is free to realize self-determination, but where
pluralism and peaceful cultural exchange- not violent struggles- are normal.
Where a Jew, can fight for Israeli independence, whilst similarly falling in
love with a christian and sustaining a friendship with an Arab.
Some have called Exodus orientalist, others
historically inaccurate, and the late Edward Said eve claimed that he was
alarmed to what extent the novel still defines the “narrative model that
dominates American thinking.”
Also
Ari’s character , a Jewish, native born Israeli is portrayed by Paul Newman, a
gorgeous, well-built, muscular man in his mid 30’s, with golden brown hair and
light blue eyes. The stereotype of Jews however are scrawny, weak and
unattractive and is challenged within the Film by Newman's good looks.
Exodus also made a large attempt in
suppressing what devastating historical events occurred during this time. For
example an extract from a report on the village of Deir Yassin by former
Haganah officer, Col. Meir Pa’el, written in 1948 states this: “In the exchange
that followed four Irgun men were killed and a dozen wounded...by noon the
battle was over and the shooting had ceased. Although there was calm, the
village had not yet surrendered. The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and
began to “clean” the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children
included; the commanders did not try to stop the massacre...I pleaded with the
commander to order his men to cease fire, but to no avail. In the meantime, 25
Arabs had been loaded onto a truck...and murdered in cold blood...The
commanders also declined when asked to take their men and bury the 254 Arab
bodies. This unpleasant task was performed by two units brought from
Jerusalem.” This extract taken from the report, describes the tragic and bloody
massacre in which took place between the Jews terrorist groups and the Arabs.
However in the film Exodus, the battles are less bloody and are Pro-Zionist
whereas this text causes sympathy for the Arabs rather than the Jews as only
four of the Irgun men where killed compared to the 254 Arabs.
In general negative characteristics of Jews
and “others” have been perpetuated for thousands of years by long-standing
religious, political and social stereotypes of them. Though they participated
in each city-state’s economic, civic, and social life, Jews were viewed as a
separate group based on their cultural and religious differences.
In
accordance with anti-Semitic stereotypes, many forms of cultural communication
including American motion pictures, depicted Jews as foreign outsiders. The
makers of Exodus utilized the idea that the Jewish “other” is not as foreign as
first assumed and wished for a positive shift in perspectives on the Jews to be
attained.
The film also repeated biblical references
and philosophies. Identification with Judeo-Christian religious traditions
would recognize the numerous biblical names and stories referenced within the
film, creating a link to past knowledge and recollections.
The
ancient history of the land of Israel and the Bible Book of Exodus are learned
and discussed by christians and Muslims, whose early biblical history is one
and the same. This story, of a compassionate God guiding the Israelites from
suffering to true freedom in the land of Canaan, parallels the modern account portrayed
in the film. Biblical history is also mentioned, illustrating where the Jews
first landed in the Jezreel valley 3,200 years earlier. As in the Old
Testament, moviegoers learn that Mount Tabor is where Deborah gathered her
armies to fight the Canaanites, and how the ruins of Meggiso hold the same
stepping stones that Joshua walked on when he conquered it thousands of years
earlier.
The action that took place in the Middle
East, was well documented through newspapers informing the public of the tensions
of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the British White Paper of 1939.
Furthermore, news brought the attention to the hundreds of thousands Holocaust
survivor refugees. This included distressing misadventure aboard the real
Exodus ship in 1947, when thousands of refugees were sent back to former German
concentration camps as there was nowhere else for them to go. These dramatic
events gained recognition, generated sympathy for the millions lost in the
Holocaust, and brought attention to the plight of Jewish survivors and their
desperate will for a homeland. Exodus presented a familiar story for many
Americans, allowing the storyline to become more deeply engrained in the
audience.
Within the scene in which the 611 Holocaust
survivors are aboard the “Exodus” they start towards Palestine, however General
Sutherland, a pro-Jewish General, blocks the ship from leaving the harbor in
which Ari threatens to blow the ship up with 200 pounds of dynamite.This part
of the film was based on a real ship named “Exodus” that sailed in 1947 from
France with over 4500 feeble Holocaust survivors bound for Israel. The plight
of the Jews aboard the Exodus ship ended in disaster with the British refusing
access to Israel. After being forced to sail back to France, the passengers
refused to disembark and declared a hunger strike, however this ended in the
British forcefully boarding the ship. A few survivors were killed and others
wounded, however the rest were sent back to the camps that were converted into
Displaced Persons camps after WWII. The film producers realized that it would
lead to extremely bad publicity for the British if it would have been
demonstrated within the film that the British did in fact board the Exodus and
so within this scene allowed the British to portray sympathetic characters as
they stayed away from the ship.
Dov within the film describes in the scene
in which he is speaking with the leader of the Irgun, some disturbing
experiences in which he endured whilst in a concentration camp. He explains how
he took the job of a Sonderkommando in order to survive and that the prisoners
arriving at the death camps were forced to strip down naked. He says also that
very humble people, including women who covered almost every inch of their body
in clothing to ensure modesty, were forced to undress together, in front of
strangers and their entire community. To degrade the Jews a little more, their
hair was shaved, and at this point, those who were strong enough were sent to
shower in order to prepare for their enervating jobs. Most, however, were too
weak to work due to years of starvation and thus were sent into the gas
showers, killing thousands of people.
As
Dov describes these historically true, horrifying experiences, he trembles with
shame and with anguish. However this cannot all be considered historically
accurate as Dov also describes three gates in which the prisoners would enter,
a gate for the prisoners to work, a gate leading to the gas chambers and
finally a gate as quoted by Dov “for the girls... the pretty ones”. Within
German Concentration camps however, there was no organization and there were no
gates. Jews were briefly inspected and a decision was quickly made in how they
should continue after their arrival. Also Dov explains how he chose to be a
Sonderkommando in order to survive, however these positions were often inducted
upon a prisoner immediately upon arrival with no other choice but death and
were not given any advance notice of the tasks in which they had to perform.
Since the Nazi’s did not want Sonderkommandos’
knowledge to reach the outside world, they followed a policy of regularly
gassing almost all the Sonderkommando and replacing them with new arrivals at
intervals of approximately four months. Therefore meaning that there existed approximately
fourteen generations of Sonderkommando
, also proving that Dov’s chance of being a
Sonderkommando survivor with information is very slim.
The final scene I wish to show containing
historical inaccuracies is the scene in which Karen and Dov are speaking about
how the Jews were shunned and forced to wear the Star of David. Also within the
book, an underground radio transmission reports that King Christian “himself
will wear the first Star of David and he expects that every loyal Dane will do
the same.” The myth however has several versions. The most inspiring image has
King Christian riding on horseback through the streets of Copenhagen while
wearing the yellow star. Danish Jews were never required to wear a yellow
armband or a star, and so the Danish king had no reason to wear one either.
Bo Lidegaard, editor-in-chief of the
Danish newspaper Politiken, says he believes that the story originated in a
private conversation between the King and a Danish official in 1942 over what
to do if Germany requested that Danish Jews wear the yellow star.
Within the film Exodus Karen introduces this story to Dov whilst
aboard the boat in order to show him that not all of the Danes or non-Jewish
people are bad people and that they do not necessarily follow the Nazi’s and
their decisions. Vilhjalmur Orn Vilhjalmsson, an Icelandic historian however
states that the story was created by The National America Denmark Association,
which was established in order to improve Denmark’s image after the country’s
capitulation to Germany and its policy of cooperation with the Nazis. “The
story can be seen as a response to the criticism Denmark received in the Allied
press between 1940 and 1943,” Vilhjalmsson wrote in “Denmark and the
Holocaust”, a book published in 2003 by the Danish Institute for International
Studies. King Christian wrongly accused, became a symbol of the lack of Danish
resistance to the German invasion.
Many previous reviews on the film
disregarded significant, influential issues such as Zionism and the need for a
Jewish homeland and instead concentration on the lack of historical precision
and comprehensiveness and it’s Pro-Jewish stance.
They
also believed that the film was a misleading, distorted version of the past.
In a review in Film Quarterly, Gideon
Bachmann demonstrated the influence and strengths of Exodus; however, his tone
was uncomplimentary and disapproving as he admonished the film for not being
“truthful enough”
Bachmann was in Palestine in 1947 and
witnessed the events surrounding the actual Exodus ship as it attempted to land
in the Haifa port. Bachmann did not appreciate the alternate of the refugees
being allowed to pass freely into the Holy Land. He also did not approve of the
manner in which the traits of certain characters and events were either over or
under emphasized to convey a less discomforting image. For example, during the
British Mandate, a strict limit on Jewish immigration caused great tension
between the Jews and the British in Palestine; however, the film was premiered
during the Cold War, and Britain was Americas ally.
If
the history was fully illustrated, Preminger would have portrayed the British
actions in a more negative light. The US also needed English support and so,
allowing the British to be made look bad in a Hollywood feature film could have
had damaging international-relations repercussions, Thus, as Preminger believed
there were legitimate reasons as he adjusted his portrayal of history to create
a balanced and benevolent representation of all groups and perspectives
including the British.
D.
Even though, primarily based upon the novel
Exodus published in 1958, the film does consist of a variety of differences
from the book.
An Israeli perspective writes about the
book and he states “I first read the book in 1970, around the time of my first
visit to Israel, and I fell in love with the book and the country.”
. The entire review is written in his
perspective as a first person. He says also that he could identify with the
Jews struggling to establish their homeland against tremendous odds. This
particular perspective also states that it was indeed a highly influential
book, becoming the No.1 best-seller for 19 straight weeks that also became as
he describes it, a “mawkish” movie two years later in which was portrayed in a
way only, that Americans were able to relate to.
“As a literary work, it isn’t much. But as
a piece of propaganda, it’s the greatest thing ever written about Israel,”
Israel’s first prime minister, David-Ben Guiron expressed.
The novel prompted the Jews to oppose the
communist regime and to demand the right to immigrate to Israel. It made them
proud.
Uris takes the readers back through a
series of different flashbacks that cover the history of Zionism and the
Holocaust. In one particular sentence, Uris describes the Holocaust as “a dance
of death with six million dancers!”, a quite unfortunate sentence as he allows
the Holocaust to be described as poetic.
“There was an aggressiveness and pride
about them...and they were always filled with the songs and ideals of the
redemption of the homeland...These were the ancient Hebrews! These were the
faces of Dan and Reuben and Judah and Ehphraim. These were Samsons and Deborahs
and Joabs and Sauls,” Uris breathlessly tells us.
A quite disturbing facet of the book is
Uris’ depiction of the Arabs in Palestine. Within the film however, the Arabs
were seen mostly to be ignoring the fact that the Jews had entered their land
in the beginning and were unaffected completely by the Jews. They also appeared
to be clean and rather friendly. A few examples of Uris’ contrasting
descriptions consist of:
“The air was foul with the mixed aroma of
thick coffee, tobacco, hashish smoke and the vile odors of the rest of the
village.”
“Nazareth stank. The streets were littered
with dung and blind beggars...filthy children were underfoot. Flies were
everywhere.”
“How pathetic the dirty little Arab
children were beside the robust youngsters of Gan Dafna. How futile their lives
seemed in contrast to the spirit of the Youth Aliya Village. There seemed to be
no laughter or songs or games or purpose among the Arab children.”
“They seemed the dregs of humanity. The
women were encased in black robes and layers of dirt. The children wore dirty
rags.”
As clearly described, the Arabs were seen
as filthy and useless beings or actual things rather than people to the
Americans and to the Jews. This is especially in relation to an American
perspective shown within this line:
“At least they are friendly,” Ari said. “They
are Christians.” “They are Christians who need a bath,” Kitty replied.
Uris also shamelessly invented events,
presented as if they are historical. Given the choice between the facts and the
legend, he went for the legend. He did this mainly as the Americans did not
know the history of the Middle East and are known to believe anything.
Ari Ben Canaan within the film, is
portrayed much too neatly in the film by a ‘well-shaved’ Paul Newman with
blonde hair and blue eyes. However within the book he is described much
differently as a “strapping six-footer with black hair and ice blue eyes”.
Both of these characters sound equally
attractive however the film portrays Ari as a much more American character.
Primarily because of the Americans watching the film who wish to relate to the
characters and because the film was produced in Hollywood. This has been seen
as slightly racist by the Jews as they believe that the film should have
portrayed Ari as how he was portrayed more realistically in the book with dark
eyes and a dark skin complexion.They believe also that the romance within both
the book and the film was a distraction to the pride and the accomplishments of
the Jews. It is believed that Kitty, the American Christian was ‘thrown into’
the book in order to receive higher amounts of American publicity in order to
shine a light on the Americans and the British and ignore the violence in which
the British too committed against the Jews.
It can be concluded that the novel
published in 1958 does have historical validity to a certain extent, primarily
due to the fact that the author travelled 50,000 miles in order to receive the
historical facts and has written not just a novel, but also a piece of history.
The film however, was not as prosperous in including historical validity due to
the mass of American publicity and the American ‘standards’ in which the film
was required to meet. The historical facts and figures within the film are
intermittently revealed however the majority of the valid facts are masked by
the stunning actors and the remarkable locations in which the the movie was
filmed, leading to the audience to be oblivious to the history of the film. The
author of the novel Uris also took advantage of the use of myth and fiction
such as the Jewish star and is described to have also made myths up himself in
which he used. The film followed in these fictional footsteps and so the film
Exodus can be concluded as being both historically correct and historically
incorrect. The majority of the most crucial moments however, being portrayed
within the scenes incorrectly such as the actual Exodus scene itself consisting
of the hunger strike, allows this film to be viewed on as slightly more
historically incorrect in many historians perspectives.
Introduction
At the age of 14, as part of an English course that I took, I have been asked to contact American kids, my age, to share and discuss our knowledge of the Jewish Holocaust. It was incredible for me to see, as a Jewish girl, whose own nation’s history and roots were shaped and built largely upon this event in history, the kids’ ‘vast’ knowledge regarding the matter. It struck me how a nation’s history cannot be taught at school, cannot be known. It seemed like the 14-15 years old kids with whom I talked, knew everything about the current Palestine- Israeli plight, however nothing about the two nations ’ histories.
At the age of 14, as part of an English course that I took, I have been asked to contact American kids, my age, to share and discuss our knowledge of the Jewish Holocaust. It was incredible for me to see, as a Jewish girl, whose own nation’s history and roots were shaped and built largely upon this event in history, the kids’ ‘vast’ knowledge regarding the matter. It struck me how a nation’s history cannot be taught at school, cannot be known. It seemed like the 14-15 years old kids with whom I talked, knew everything about the current Palestine- Israeli plight, however nothing about the two nations ’ histories.
Theme
It seems that the movie “Exodus” was made
exactly for this reason. It is a pro- Jewish propaganda movie, based on the
events that happened on the ship Olympia in 1947 and the founding of the state
of Israel in 1948, it educates and explains the continued abuse of Jews in the
diaspora as well as the struggle of founding of Israel.
Uris' book came about when Edward Gottlieb
an American public relations man seeking to improve Israel's image in the US,
decided to commission a novel about Israel's origin that showed Israel in a
good light and hired Uris to write it. [1]
Impact
Although this is an American featured film production, directed by Otto Preminger, it was financed by Jewish and Zionist officials. It has brought a major Zionist and Israeli propaganda throughout the world and in Jewish communities abroad in particular. The film made its debut in Israel on 21/06/1961, one year after it has been officially published.
The movie, based on Leon Uris’ highly anti-British novel, “Our Exodus” (1958), was produced in 1960, just 15 years after the end of the holocaust and with that, the end of world war II. It was a time of embarrassment. The Jews were ashamed of the weakness they have shown, as the Germans were ashamed of causing that misery, whilst the rest of the world were ashamed of not stopping this misery; so called holocaust. With this taken into consideration, ‘Exodus’ is aimed to persuade the Americans in favor of the Jews and their continued struggle to the founding of Israel.
Although this is an American featured film production, directed by Otto Preminger, it was financed by Jewish and Zionist officials. It has brought a major Zionist and Israeli propaganda throughout the world and in Jewish communities abroad in particular. The film made its debut in Israel on 21/06/1961, one year after it has been officially published.
The movie, based on Leon Uris’ highly anti-British novel, “Our Exodus” (1958), was produced in 1960, just 15 years after the end of the holocaust and with that, the end of world war II. It was a time of embarrassment. The Jews were ashamed of the weakness they have shown, as the Germans were ashamed of causing that misery, whilst the rest of the world were ashamed of not stopping this misery; so called holocaust. With this taken into consideration, ‘Exodus’ is aimed to persuade the Americans in favor of the Jews and their continued struggle to the founding of Israel.
“An entire generation of American Jews- and Americans generally- were riveted by the 1958 best-selling novel, “Exodus,” and by the blockbuster movie two years later” wrote author Jerome A. Chanes in the New York Jewish Week, in his review of ‘Exodus’." The writer sums the theme of the movie by saying "At bottom, 'Exodus' is about Jewish empowerment in a Jewish world that was yet emerging from the ashes of its destruction in Europe, and in America from high levels of antisemitism and discrimination, just what we needed at the time- the Americanization of Zionism and Israel."
The Haaretz, the Israeli Zionist newspaper, argues that Exodus was a book that transformed American Jews as no other work has done, before or since. It sold millions of copies and It was said that it was nearly as common to find a copy of "Exodus" in American-Jewish households as to find the Bible.1 American viewers and readers of ‘Exodus’ found themselves engaging and identifying with such foreign heroism, which can be presented through the main character and hero- Ari Ben Canaan, played by Paul Newman.
Character and Plot
Ben Canaan is a Palestinian Zionist Jew, who fought for the British during WWII, therefore learned the needed skills and became a Haganah leader. He believes that only a sheer increase in the amount of Jews in Palestine will truly influence the United Nations vote regarding the future of Palestine. Therefore, Ben Canaan fights to ‘release’ as many Jews as possible, from the British occupied Cyprus. He commandeers a ship, called ‘Olympia’ with 600 illegal Jews and Holocaust survivors immigrants headed to Palestine. As the illegal ship is being stopped by the British, the determined immigrants are threatening to blow up their own people who are also on hunger-strike. A horrific scene that touched me as a viewer and a Jew, was the dialogue between Ari, the captain of the ship and two women with new-born babies, where the three are discussing the hunger strike and the kids’ future. The women explain in absolute certainty that they will not send their children back to the detention camps in Cyprus, they will either come to Palestine or die with the rest of the immigrants on the ship. They justify their certainty by relating back to the horror of war. The woman says in bravery “You’re an important man Mr. Ben Canaan, but you know nothing. Look at these kids, they were born behind wires, for the first time they don’t have to look through a fence like animals. They are free now. And no one, no English man, no Haganah will ever lock them up again”. I believe this conveys a very powerful message, through which the Jewish ideology can be taught. The women’s incredible certainty shows how much freedom is appreciated after the horror experiences of the war. Ben Canaan is also convinced by the powerful speech given by the lady and therefore opposed the Haganah orders and did not send the children back to detention camps in Cyprus.
After an agreement from the British, the ship manages to get into Palestine, to Haifa port. The happiness is seen clearly through the endless line of Jewish people, approaching towards the ship, awaiting the immigrants. At this point of the movie onwards, we can clearly see the every-day conflict between Arabs and Jews, both fighting for the same goal- having the basic right to exist and create an independent country in Palestine.
Ben Canaan is a Palestinian Zionist Jew, who fought for the British during WWII, therefore learned the needed skills and became a Haganah leader. He believes that only a sheer increase in the amount of Jews in Palestine will truly influence the United Nations vote regarding the future of Palestine. Therefore, Ben Canaan fights to ‘release’ as many Jews as possible, from the British occupied Cyprus. He commandeers a ship, called ‘Olympia’ with 600 illegal Jews and Holocaust survivors immigrants headed to Palestine. As the illegal ship is being stopped by the British, the determined immigrants are threatening to blow up their own people who are also on hunger-strike. A horrific scene that touched me as a viewer and a Jew, was the dialogue between Ari, the captain of the ship and two women with new-born babies, where the three are discussing the hunger strike and the kids’ future. The women explain in absolute certainty that they will not send their children back to the detention camps in Cyprus, they will either come to Palestine or die with the rest of the immigrants on the ship. They justify their certainty by relating back to the horror of war. The woman says in bravery “You’re an important man Mr. Ben Canaan, but you know nothing. Look at these kids, they were born behind wires, for the first time they don’t have to look through a fence like animals. They are free now. And no one, no English man, no Haganah will ever lock them up again”. I believe this conveys a very powerful message, through which the Jewish ideology can be taught. The women’s incredible certainty shows how much freedom is appreciated after the horror experiences of the war. Ben Canaan is also convinced by the powerful speech given by the lady and therefore opposed the Haganah orders and did not send the children back to detention camps in Cyprus.
After an agreement from the British, the ship manages to get into Palestine, to Haifa port. The happiness is seen clearly through the endless line of Jewish people, approaching towards the ship, awaiting the immigrants. At this point of the movie onwards, we can clearly see the every-day conflict between Arabs and Jews, both fighting for the same goal- having the basic right to exist and create an independent country in Palestine.
Historical accuracy
David Ben- Gurion, Israel's founding and first prime minister argued, referring to the book written by Uris, "As a literary work it isn't much, But as a piece of propaganda, it's the best thing ever written about Israel". This summaries great what I think about the movie- it is a brilliant piece of propaganda. Firstly, as mentioned in the introduction, from my own experiences, Americans do not know much about Israel and the history of it. That is why the movie is great for this type of audience as it puts everything into context and therefore creates a deeper understanding of the Jewish roots in the viewers' minds. The movie indeed cover a lot in 3 and 1/2 hours;
the idea of Zionism, first founded by Theodor Herzl, Nazism in Europe, the origin of the ghetto system, the pogroms in Russia, the long journey of two brothers from a small Russian town to Palestine by foot, the birth of the kibbutz and the yishuv in Palestine and the continued kibbutzniks' struggle to make the land fertile to plant growth.
Similarities between 'Exodus'- the movie & 'Exodus'- the real story
David Ben- Gurion, Israel's founding and first prime minister argued, referring to the book written by Uris, "As a literary work it isn't much, But as a piece of propaganda, it's the best thing ever written about Israel". This summaries great what I think about the movie- it is a brilliant piece of propaganda. Firstly, as mentioned in the introduction, from my own experiences, Americans do not know much about Israel and the history of it. That is why the movie is great for this type of audience as it puts everything into context and therefore creates a deeper understanding of the Jewish roots in the viewers' minds. The movie indeed cover a lot in 3 and 1/2 hours;
the idea of Zionism, first founded by Theodor Herzl, Nazism in Europe, the origin of the ghetto system, the pogroms in Russia, the long journey of two brothers from a small Russian town to Palestine by foot, the birth of the kibbutz and the yishuv in Palestine and the continued kibbutzniks' struggle to make the land fertile to plant growth.
Similarities between 'Exodus'- the movie & 'Exodus'- the real story
The movie also captures the dramatic story
of the United Nations voting for partition of Palestine to two separate states
(1947), in the horrific scene where the leaders of the Jewish Yishuv gather
around an old radio which announces quietly the countries' votes. When a final
decision has been reached, the Jewish people awaiting for David Ben Gurion to
announce the results. When he walks down the balcony and shouts the sentence
every Jewish kid knows; "אני גאה להכריז בזאת על הקמת מדינה יהודית בארץ ישראל" ("I am proud to declare of the establishment of a
Jewish state in Eretz Israel").
After showing my great grandfather this particular scene of 'Exodus' he was close to tears. He said that the level of accuracy in unbelievable. Under the balcony where the announcement took place ( was later renamed 'the independence street') there were masses of people, waving with the Israeli flags, cheering and singing the "Tikva", the Israeli anthem. All of these elements that my great- grandfather remembers from his childhood were there; the endless cheering, the Israeli flags and the "Tikva".
After showing my great grandfather this particular scene of 'Exodus' he was close to tears. He said that the level of accuracy in unbelievable. Under the balcony where the announcement took place ( was later renamed 'the independence street') there were masses of people, waving with the Israeli flags, cheering and singing the "Tikva", the Israeli anthem. All of these elements that my great- grandfather remembers from his childhood were there; the endless cheering, the Israeli flags and the "Tikva".
Through the comparison between the movie
scenes and the a primary source as well as the picture taken at the night of the
announcement, it is understood that the movie was filmed on actual ground where
the actual event took place. The scene where the approval of the UN partition
plan is announced took place at the same street in Tel Aviv as my great-
grandfather has been. This comparison helps American viewers especially, to
learn the story told through the movie better, to engage, connect and relate
with the storyline and the theme of the struggle of Jews to an establishment of
a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It also boosts the historical accuracy of the
movie, as it gives a clear idea to the viewers of the places at the time which
contributes to the empathy created towards the Jews through the view of the
movie.
However, there are several limitations that hinder the reliability and the historical accuracy of the movie, which can be seen through the list below;
However, there are several limitations that hinder the reliability and the historical accuracy of the movie, which can be seen through the list below;
Distinguishes between 'Exodus'- the movie &
'Exodus'- the real story
In the movie, the ship 'Exodus' is a Cyprus
ship called 'Olympia'. Its function is to deliver the 611 illegal immigrants
arrived by the ship 'Star of David', and transferred to a detention camp in
Cyprus, while
in fact, 'Exodus' was an American ship, bought from WSA Warfield on November 9, 1946, to transport 4,500 Jews from Europe to Palestine.
in fact, 'Exodus' was an American ship, bought from WSA Warfield on November 9, 1946, to transport 4,500 Jews from Europe to Palestine.
The ship's route was different to the one
in the movie. The 'real' ship left from Baltimore on February 25, 1947 and
headed for the Mediterranean. With Palmach (Haganah's military wing) skipper Ike
Aronowicz as a captain[2]
The ship was now headed to the port
of Marseille, France to make the necessary preparations. However, as the British
pressure on France had rose, the ship needed to head to a different port; Porto
Venere, Italy (departs on 23rd April). It stayed there for 7 weeks. Again, the
British had pressured the Italians not to allow refueling and departure with
immigrants, meaning the ship will have to search for another port. After the
French government gives a permit for thousands of Holocaust survivors to enter
France, about 4,500 refugees are transferred from camps in Germany &
Austria to transition camps near Marseille. This move makes it clear that the
ship would carry these refugees, and that the departure country would be
France. Accordingly, the Mossad orders the ship to return to France[3]. The
ship leaves the port on July 9th and now heading to Port the Sete, France,
where 170 trucks of immigrants (around 4,530 immigrants) embarked from the
camps to the ships and left quickly, before the British pressure on French
government increases. On July 18, 02:00am, only 20 miles west to the Gaza port,
the British Navy suddenly opens an attack on the ship in an attempt to
intercept her. A bitter fight that lasts about four hours ensues, in which
three Jewish people find their death. After 200 immigrants were wounded, the
captain gave up, calling to stop the fighting. Now the ship is headed towards
Haifa port, under British control. Then, they are sent back to France, where
they carry out a one day warning hunger strike on Aug. 18th, and threaten more
to come. The British give up and on Aug. 22nd the ship departs towards Hamburg,
Germany which is still under British control. In Hamburg they were forced into
[more] camps, named Papendorf and Amstau detention camps.
The Irgun and the Haganah rarely
worked together, in contrast to the combined act of the two towards the end of
the movie. The two groups had different agendas, different believes on how the
establishment of a Jewish state should be obtained. The Irgun was a terrorist
organization and embarked on terrorist attacks against the British as well as
Arabs every so often. David Ben Gurion himself stated "the Irgun is our
[Jewish nation's] biggest enemy".
The Haganah was the largest Jewish organization. It had asked to act first and foremost to strengthen the yishuv community itself, by an increase of immigrants, basing the economy and strengthening of defense against Arab attackers. In contrast to the Haganah, the Irgun believed in fighting without compromises against the enemies of the Jewish settlement, the British and the Arabs, meaning, it is not enough to protect the settlements, but they should also launch an attack against the Arabs and the British. In fact, In 1944, the Irgun began to make military operations against British and Arab targets; Government Bureau, the police, immigration offices of the Mandate authorities, government income taxes office, radio station Mandatory Ramallah etc. In July 1946 Irgun members blew Irgun the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in which were located the headquarters of the British army and the civilian government center of the British Mandate.
Afterwards, the Haganah acted in collaboration with the British against the Irgun. Many members of the Irgun were kidnapped by members of the Haganah and imprisoned in hidden places, while others were turned over to the British.
Another factor that hinders massively the
reliability of the movie, is that it is simply one- sided and is extremely
biased towards the Jews. There is no mention of Arabs throughout the movie
without an additional adjective of "dirty" or "stinking",
which automatically gives the viewers a context of villains, beasts, etc. An
example for this can be seen through the following quotes (taken from the book,
however, the same message is portrays through the movie) ;
"How pathetic the dirty little
children were beside the robust youngsters of Gan Dafna. How pathetic their
lives seemed in contrast to the spirit of the youth Aliya village."- this
quote clearly shows the distinguish made between the Arabs and the Jews. The
Jews seem to have a cheerful, joyful spirit, as the Arabs seem helpless, zero
sense of enjoyment etc.
"Nazareth stank. The streets were
littered with dung and blind beggars... fifty children were underfoot. Flies
were everywhere"- this shows how 'dirty' the Arabs are in the movie, as
well as the book.
There is only one Arab who is presented in
a positive light all throughout the movie; the neighbor village chief and Ari's
closest childhood friend, Taha, Kammal son's. Taha seems to be the only 'good'
Arab in the story, and therefore is to be killed for supporting the Jews.
Conclusion
To conclude, I believe that the movie 'Exodus'
is not a reliable historical source, as the distinguishes highly overcome the
amount of similarities in real event and the movie. Therefore, it is understood
that Uris has 'invented' certain things and edited other in order to make his
dramatic story appeal to readers and viewers. The movie would not be helpful,
therefore, for studying and understanding the roots of the Israeli- Palestinian
conflict, as it simply does not show both sides of the coin. However, it will
be extremely helpful for understanding the pure bravery, passion and motivation
the entire Jew nation felt towards Israel and the background behind it.
It is also a great piece of propaganda. It
conveys the theme of the Jewish struggle clearly, 'forgetting' about the other
side of the conflict- the Arabs. Arthur Stevens, an English footballer who
fought for Britain during WWII summarizes that issue by saying; "Uris'
novel solidified America's impressions of Israelis as heroes, of Arabs as
villains; it did more to popularize Israel with the American public than any
other single presentation through the media".
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_%28novel%29#The_origins_of_Exodus
[2] http://www.jewishmag.com/140mag/exodus/exodus.htm
[3] http://www.palyam.org/Hahapala/Map_present/ExodusEn
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Arazi
[2] http://www.jewishmag.com/140mag/exodus/exodus.htm
[3] http://www.palyam.org/Hahapala/Map_present/ExodusEn
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Arazi
Bibliography
"Exodus Movie Poster #4 - Internet
Movie Poster Awards Gallery." Exodus Movie Poster #4 - Internet Movie
Poster Awards Gallery. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
"Exodus (1960)." Wikepedia. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
"Otto Preminger." Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
"Leon Uris." Wikipedia. Wikimedia
Foundation, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Identity politics on the Israeli Screen.
Yosefa Loshitzky page 2
Said, Edward. Propaganda and War.
Ira Nadel. Leon Uris: Life of a Best
Seller. 2010, page 116
"Exodus (1960)Synopsis."
Fandango. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Lumenick, Lou. “The King-dumb.” New York
Post Sept. 28, 2007
"POLITICS, CINEMA, AND THE MIDDLE
EAST: RECONSIDERING EXODUS." New Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Thompson, Howard. “Preminger Tells of
‘Exodus’ Plans.” New York Times Dec. 9, 1959: 58.
Hift, Fred. “Guiding a Film ‘Exodus.’” New
York Times Apr. 17, 1960: X5.
Crowther, Bosley. “Film Cameras Over the Holy
Land.” New York Times May 15, 1960: X1.
“A People’s Return to the Promised Land.”
Photographs by Gjon Mili. Life Dec. 12, 1960: 70-76.
Crowther, Bosley. “Screen: A long
‘Exodus.’” Review of Exodus, dir. Otto Preminger. New York Times Dec. 16, 1960:
44.
“The Best Pictures of 1960.” Time Jan. 2,
1961.
Scheuer, Philip K. “‘Exodus’ the Record of
a New Genesis.” Review of Exodus, dir. Otto Preminger. Los Angeles Times Dec.
11, 1960: B3.
Kauffmann, Stanley. “Double Feature,” Review
of Exodus, dir. Otto Preminger. New Republic Dec. 19, 1960: 21-22.
Bachmann, Gideon. “Exodus.” Review of
Exodus, dir. Otto Preminger. Film Quarterly 14.3 (Spring, 1961): 56-59.
Wakfield, Dan. “Israel’s Need for Fiction.”
Review of Exodus, by Leon Uris and The Anglo-Saxons, by Lester Gorn. Nation
Apr. 11, 1959: 318-319.
Said, Edward. “Propaganda and War.”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 549 (Aug. 30-Sept. 5, 2001).
Exodus (1960): A Movie with a Message.
N.p.: n.p., n.d.
"Sonderkommando." Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Dr. Miklos Nyiszli (1993). Auschwitz: A
Doctor's Eyewitness Account. Arcade Publishing.
"King Christian and the Yellow Star –
Forward Thinking." Forward Thinking. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
"Review of Exodus Novel." Rev. of
Online. n.d.: n. pag. Print.
The Tops
One of the movie’s greatest qualities, that
has brought special attention from the press, is that ‘Exodus’ was filmed in
both Cyprus and Israel, and not in Hollywood with all special effects and few
decorations. The New York Times[3] published two
articles about the large-scale casting of locals and use of actual Israeli
buildings and landscapes in the filming. “Special attention was paid to the
impressive logistics of the production, including the large collection of
weaponry and military vehicles gathered for the sets, and of course, the twenty
camels used in desert scenes.[4]” Comments Jacob.
M Victor, from Harvard University. For further proof, The New York Times itself
even mentions: “Furthermore, Mr. Preminger has captured within the scope of his
color cameras a continuously varied and vivid panorama of Cyprus and Palestine.
He shot his picture in those places most of it in the present Israel.”[5] These
landscapes, along with real artifacts, have made the movie almost as realistic
as the book, and it is all thanks to Otto Preminger.
Another Fantastic aspect of Exodus is that
the actors show an excellent understanding of the characters placing themselves
in the flesh of the heroic protagonists. The filmmakers do manage to come out
strongly, even brilliantly, in certain powerful scenes. The character of Dov
Landau, a Polish terrorist, played by Sal Mineo, is absolutely overwhelming in
a scene where he dedicates himself as a member of the Irgun, the Jewish
extremists' underground. And the character of Akiva Ben Canaan, the Irgun
leader, who is performed by David Opatoshu in a moving and unforgettable way,
is also fine in this scene and others, a flaming symbol of devotion to a cause.[6] Ralph Richardson
and Peter Lawford are incisive as British military types; Jill Haworth is fresh
and deeply poignant as a brave 15-year-old refugee; Lee J. Cobb is impressive
(particularly in one scene with Mr. Opatoshu) as a Jewish conservative, and
Felix Aylmer, Michael Wager, Martin Miller and the late Gregory Ratoff are amusing
and strong as other Jews.
The Flops
Despite all the remarks, many other viewers
thought that the movie was unimpressive, lacked many important details, and in
conclusion Exodus is definitely not a masterpiece.
For example, a crucial detail that the movie
hasn’t shown at all is the Story of Dov Landau suffering in the Warsaw ghetto,
and his terrifying experience at the concentration camps in World War II. Dov,
the victim of Auschwitz, does explain in the movie how he escaped the ghetto,
and all the terrible sights he’s witnessed at the camp such as: the certain
“three gates” that the Jews were assigned to after their examination, the gas
chambers, burning the bodies in the ovens[7], and sadly how
he was used as a woman[8]. However, Exodus
should have added scenes about Dov’s whole story at Warsaw, fighting against
the Nazis, and how he struggled at Auschwitz.
Furthermore, many other important parts of
Jewish history from Uris’ novel aren’t included. For example: Otto Preminger
has completely ignored the story of two Jewish Brothers fleeing the U.S.S.R,
escaping the horrifying persecutions under communist regime, and marching to
their holy promised land, Palestine, by foot. “Ironically, with all this
running time (3½ hours), the best, the most inspirational parts of the book did
not make it to the film. Among them are historical events dealing with the
origins of ghetto system, pogroms in Russia, the long and fascinating journey
of two brothers from a small Russian town to Palestine by foot, the ideas of
Theodor Herzl, the birth of kibbutzes in Palestine, and enormous labor of
kibbutznicks to make the land fertile, to grow plants and trees where the
desert, rocks, and swamps had been, as well as the tragedy of European
Holocaust and dramatic story of United Nations voting for partition of
Palestine in 1947”- comments Galina in the “Exodus – 1960” page of IMDb.[9]
As a result, Exodus should have included
all the magnificent historical events related to the poignant Jewish history of
the 1940s. To make things better, the movie should have also been divided up in
episodes showing each character’s own story instead of jamming only a few
details of what should be fascinating Jewish history all in 3 hours.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Exodus has many qualities.
The most important one: being filmed on location, in modern Israel and Cyprus,
making the movie look completely realistic.
However, viewers comment the movie was
ridiculously long, and that it didn’t include some of the most crucial Jewish historical
events from the novel, making the movie completely dull and uninspiring
compared to Leon Uris’ Book.
Nonetheless, the movie was still rewarded.
The movie had one Oscar for the best soundtrack music composed by Ernest Gold,
and Sal Mineo playing as Dov Landau, the young Warsaw Ghetto and Auschwitz
survivor, was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor.
Bibliography:
"Exodus Reviews and Ratings -
IMDb." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 08 May 2014.
Review Titles: “Exodus, the movie and the
book”, “The fighting heart of Israel.
"Exodus Part 10." YouTube.
YouTube, 29 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 May 2014.
"Exodus Part 9." YouTube.
YouTube, 29 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 May 2014.
Victor, Jacob M. "POLITICS, CINEMA,
AND THE MIDDLE EAST: RECONSIDERING EXODUS." New Society. N.p., n.d. Web.
08 May 2014.
[1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42697.Exodus [2] Mr. David Heath – History teacher. [3] Hift, Fred. “Guiding a Film ‘Exodus.’” New York Times Apr. 17, 1960: X5.
Crowther, Bosley. “Film Cameras Over the Holy Land.” New York Times May 15, 1960: X1. [4] http://newsociety07.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/politics-cinema-and-the-middle-east-reconsidering-exodus/ [5]http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9803E2D61130EF3ABC4E52DFB467838B679EDE [6]http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9803E2D61130EF3ABC4E52DFB467838B679EDE [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emE4-rCxH7w&list=PL8AADBFB624046868 [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwKP09W6-vU&list=PL8AADBFB624046868 [9] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053804/reviews?ref_=tt_urv “Exodus, the book and the movie”
1900-1939
|
