failfive

A great problem of making a documentary film of this kind, is that you cannot merely make a film about archeology or history. For this to work coherently, you need to make a film about not only two subjects which already relate to each other deeply, but about other subjects that play large roles in the objective proving of text. Physics, Biology, Geology, Chemistry, are all subjects that you need to even make an attempt at stoutly reconciling a text of this kind, because in the end, the text does not only make historical and archeological claims, but it also makes physical claims as well, and on a broader scale, even biological claims. If you want to objectively, and that word plays a large role here, prove the bibles canon, you need to ask the questions: Is it objectively possible that Moses could have split the red sea? Is it possible to biologically survive in such conditions that the Israelites were in? Now, some of you may cringe at me asking those questions, because you may say that the bible obviously cannot be reconciled with modern evidence, however, the point of the film is to do exactly that, which is precisely why the questions need to be asked again. To even begin to prove the bibles claims, you would also have to make a book about philosophy and morality: Was it morally right that Abraham would so willingly kill his own son because he heard a voice in his head that told him to? I would estimate that to at least give a well researched viewpoint on such matters you would need a documentary of at least 20 hours long. But within the confines of a two hour film, of course the filmmakers bias would show, of course the research would be skew. These are obvious prerequisites, which is why the attempt to do so (That is, to prove a book in biblical cannon as true) is a futile attempt, and really is evidence of apologetic impotency.

Modern history writing requires the critical evaluation of sources, and does not accept God as a cause of events, but in exodus, everything is presented as the work of God, who appears frequently in person, and the historical setting is only very hazily sketched, which makes it tirelessly difficult to accurately document. A critical observation is imperative in modern history, and this film is severely lacking in that area, and given its time frame, and largely comical prerequisites, it isn't surprising. Which really makes this film, from an academic point of view, almost unwatchable. And that is mostly due to its general premise.

Now with all that being said, is it unwatchable for the general viewer? No. Of course not. If you are truly interested in the subject, or just want to hear a different viewpoint, no matter the lack of criticism, then this movie is not a terrible one. But I do think that the general viewer should also understand that the claims made in the movie, and in the bible itself, are all still just claims, that don't have much scientific or historical validity (At least compared with the evidence). The film itself is actually well made, the cinematography is surprisingly good, and the cgi, for a movie of its kind, isn't bad (But not good either). So I really would like to give the people behind the camera some sort of recognition.

So I really wouldn't recommend watching the film per se, unless you're legitimately interested in the subject, but if you want something to pass the time and you're a bit curious, then go ahead. I just implore you to remember what I said about historicity, and to take the film for what it is: A film made by an apologist, trying to prove apologist points. Just as you would with anything else.