Otto Preminger has an odd track record among film directors. He liked to tackle big topics, and some of his films remain quite good: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM about drug addiction; ANATOMY OF A MURDER about the law and rape-murder trials; ADVISE AND CONSENT about the maneuvering of politicians in the selection of a controversial Secretary of State. Some of his films date badly, like THE MOON IS BLUE where the personality of the pert young woman, who mentioned she was a "virgin" was a big thing in 1953 but now the comedy seems quite lame. Also there are his awful later films like SKIDOO (Groucho Marx's swan song film) or HURRY SUNDOWN about racial antipathies in the "New South" of the 1960s.
EXODUS, based on a popular novel by Leon Uris, is one of Preminger's best films - dealing with the creation of the state of Israel, and the problems the Jewish immigrants and settlers faced against the British and Arabs. Actually Preminger's own Jewish background possibly made the film more personal than most of his films. In the 1940s, as a refugee come to the U.S. he frequently found himself playing Nazi villains in films like THEY GOT ME COVERED or THE PIED PIPER. It probably did not sit too well with him, although he would occasionally still do a Nazi in a movie after his directing took off (as the Commendant of the prison camp in Billy Wilder's STALAG 17).
The Preminger effort at directing was actually one of his weaknesses. When his films were great it was because of the subject matter, acting, and vigor of his directions (he ran a tight ship on his productions), but he never developed a style like Hitchcock or Welles or Ford or Hawks. In fact his success at the box office was in part due to his getting his movies in on time, and keeping to budgets (which shows his tight ship approach worked well). But none of his films consecutively show a developing approach to movie making like "the Lubitsch Touch".
Given a big theme, and a decent script, and a good cast Preminger could do well. He does very well here. The founding of Israel is still a remarkable story that is not concluded yet - especially as the survival of the state remains a major international problem to this day. One only has to read the newspapers to see how many Arabs want the state to end, or at least be controlled by international policies. But the Israelis are not pushovers - the film explains that. They won't go out of existence again for anyone.
During World War II the fate of Europe's Jews was basically ignored in the rest of the world, angering the survivors. One particularly galling aspect to it was that (due to concerns about oil) the British controlling Palestine refused to allow Jewish refugees in. The Arabs were willing to toy with collaborating with the Nazis (the activities of the Grand Mufti with Hitler is mentioned in the film). At the end of the war Jewish refugees began flooding into Palestine (or at least trying to). The British, now under a Labour Government under Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, kept the refugees in "camps" in Cyprus.
The British were facing the end of their empire. India and Pakistan shared newspaper coverage in 1946-1948 with Israel as "trouble spots". The former were better handled by Attlee's Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who knew how to hand over the power. But not Palestine. Too many interests in neighboring Arab states from Egypt to the Persian Gulf were involved. So the British acted quite ham-handed.
And the Jews reacted violently. One of the incidents of the film is the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1947, but there had been earlier ones (such as the assassination of Britain's High Commissioner to the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in 1944). Each time the Jews acted, the British reacted. In the end the Jews considered the Labour Party (normally the party most English Jews supported) anti-Semitic, labeling the camps that were set up "Bevingrad" after the British Foreign Secretary.
The script gets the time down flawlessly. Look at Peter Lawford's anti-Semitic officer (one of Lawford's best performances by the way), who sees Jews as either Bolsheviks or Pawn Brokers. Or Ralph Richardson's General Sutherland, a humane mane who resigns when he can't stand the job anymore. Look at John Derek's "good Arab" who sacrifices himself to save Paul Newman's Jewish settlement. Or the Nazis (Marius Goring) who are now offering their service to the Arabs. Note too the serious divisions among the Jews who favor diplomacy and law (Lee J. Cobb) as opposed to those who favor terrorism (David Opatashu). The film is excellent for presenting the Jewish version of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Is it the full story? No, the full story can't be compressed that easily into one film or one book. But it is a good place to start.
EXODUS, based on a popular novel by Leon Uris, is one of Preminger's best films - dealing with the creation of the state of Israel, and the problems the Jewish immigrants and settlers faced against the British and Arabs. Actually Preminger's own Jewish background possibly made the film more personal than most of his films. In the 1940s, as a refugee come to the U.S. he frequently found himself playing Nazi villains in films like THEY GOT ME COVERED or THE PIED PIPER. It probably did not sit too well with him, although he would occasionally still do a Nazi in a movie after his directing took off (as the Commendant of the prison camp in Billy Wilder's STALAG 17).
The Preminger effort at directing was actually one of his weaknesses. When his films were great it was because of the subject matter, acting, and vigor of his directions (he ran a tight ship on his productions), but he never developed a style like Hitchcock or Welles or Ford or Hawks. In fact his success at the box office was in part due to his getting his movies in on time, and keeping to budgets (which shows his tight ship approach worked well). But none of his films consecutively show a developing approach to movie making like "the Lubitsch Touch".
Given a big theme, and a decent script, and a good cast Preminger could do well. He does very well here. The founding of Israel is still a remarkable story that is not concluded yet - especially as the survival of the state remains a major international problem to this day. One only has to read the newspapers to see how many Arabs want the state to end, or at least be controlled by international policies. But the Israelis are not pushovers - the film explains that. They won't go out of existence again for anyone.
During World War II the fate of Europe's Jews was basically ignored in the rest of the world, angering the survivors. One particularly galling aspect to it was that (due to concerns about oil) the British controlling Palestine refused to allow Jewish refugees in. The Arabs were willing to toy with collaborating with the Nazis (the activities of the Grand Mufti with Hitler is mentioned in the film). At the end of the war Jewish refugees began flooding into Palestine (or at least trying to). The British, now under a Labour Government under Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, kept the refugees in "camps" in Cyprus.
The British were facing the end of their empire. India and Pakistan shared newspaper coverage in 1946-1948 with Israel as "trouble spots". The former were better handled by Attlee's Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who knew how to hand over the power. But not Palestine. Too many interests in neighboring Arab states from Egypt to the Persian Gulf were involved. So the British acted quite ham-handed.
And the Jews reacted violently. One of the incidents of the film is the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1947, but there had been earlier ones (such as the assassination of Britain's High Commissioner to the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in 1944). Each time the Jews acted, the British reacted. In the end the Jews considered the Labour Party (normally the party most English Jews supported) anti-Semitic, labeling the camps that were set up "Bevingrad" after the British Foreign Secretary.
The script gets the time down flawlessly. Look at Peter Lawford's anti-Semitic officer (one of Lawford's best performances by the way), who sees Jews as either Bolsheviks or Pawn Brokers. Or Ralph Richardson's General Sutherland, a humane mane who resigns when he can't stand the job anymore. Look at John Derek's "good Arab" who sacrifices himself to save Paul Newman's Jewish settlement. Or the Nazis (Marius Goring) who are now offering their service to the Arabs. Note too the serious divisions among the Jews who favor diplomacy and law (Lee J. Cobb) as opposed to those who favor terrorism (David Opatashu). The film is excellent for presenting the Jewish version of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Is it the full story? No, the full story can't be compressed that easily into one film or one book. But it is a good place to start.