Is religion becoming a marketing gimmick? As Hollywood realizes the potential for profits off the movie-going religious community more and more biblically based stories are being adapted for the screen. This is nothing unusual, Bible stories have been acted out in front of a camera for years. The difference now is that the higher-profile studios are realizing that we want reverent depictions like Passion of the Christ and Prince of Egypt, not insulting dribble like that Noah's Ark miniseries slop from the late 90's.

 

I've always thought the book of Esther would make for good cinema. It reads more like a novel than most Bible stories. One Night With the King proves me right. This is one of the better Bible-adapted movies I've seen considering its entertainment value and biblical accuracy. If you've read the book you know the story, but I will refresh your memory and put it in context with how the movie handles it.

 

In the midst of political turmoil King Xerxes is in need of a queen. He is choosing from the girls of his kingdom one of whom is a Jew hiding behind the name Esther. Thanks to her strong character built upon a Godly faith she catches his eye and becomes queen. This is not a rags to riches love story, though. Esther's challenge begins because of her hidden heritage and public position. A plot to undermine the king and destroy the Jewish community puts Esther in the position to save the nation and her people, but in order to do so she will have to lay her own life on the line.

 

Essentially this is a love story with dark intrigue. It's a story with complexities worthy of Shakespeare. Watching the villain spin his trap only to... well, I guess I won't give that much away, but it's quite interesting to see what happens. It's a tale of God watching over his chosen people, and how, by placing her very life at his feet, Esther became the tool of God's salvation.

 

The humanity of the characters adds a lot of strength to the story. This is particularly important since there is no action or flashy visuals such as you might see in a blockbuster like 300 or a fantasy like Lord of the Rings. It's completely a character-driven story. I guess the downside to that is that if you don't get pulled into the portrayals and drama it can seriously downgrade the effect the movie has on you.

 

Esther's faith in God is clear, but she is no super hero. She is brave not because she has no fear of death but because she is willing to put aside her fear for the good of others trusting that God is in control. Xerxes is the high king but he is smitten by Esther's beauty, intelligence, and inner strength. He's not much different than any other man who has been bitten by the love bug. He remains the powerful king, but beneath the surface is a man who knows what it is to love a woman with all his being. Is this how he would have truly acted within that culture? I can't say, but he obviously felt enough partiality towards her to pardon her when she came before him unbidden so maybe this portrayal is at least somewhat accurate.

 

The humanity wouldn't be all that strong if the actors couldn't get this across. I wasn't sure if I was going to like Luke Goss as Xerxes at first. He seemed very stiff, but as the movie wore on I came to like him. Tiffany Dupont as Esther is beautiful and nails her role admirably. I’ve been amazed at the number of people that have commented that she’s not beautiful enough for this role. I think they’re crazy.

 

I wondered about the critisms for a while, but I began to realize that the actors that the critics would suggest for the role in Tiffany’s stead were all more mature ladies exuding more sexuality than Tiffany does. That's not what this character is about. To desire a “sexier” person in the role is to not understand who Esther is. She is a young virgin therefore she would exude innocence not sexuality, at least that’s what I would expect. Some childlike qualities fit perfectly with her. I prefer to have a more honest portrayal than the stereotypical Hollywood sexuality just to tittilate the male audience.

 

A handful of other notable names appear including John Noble and John Rhys-Davies. Both are actors I respect, and while they don't necessarily have a great deal of screen time (particularly Rhys-Davies who really has little more than a cameo though his character is of vital importance) they add some real credibility to the cast.

 

So how realistic and faithful is this movie? Some liberties are taken, of course, in order to make a movie worth watching we need to have a flow and logical progression that wouldn’t be possible by lifting the pages straight out of the Bible. I think you’ll agree with me that the Bible doesn’t record every word spoken by every person in every situation, nor is an adapted movie ever exactly like its written source material. To create a narrative the gaps need to be filled, and to create a visual presentation some things written out have to be changed to become images that can be filmed.

 

The book of Esther, for example, doesn’t mention God. However, it’s logical that Esther, being a Jew, would be versed in the history of her people built solidly on deistic beliefs. Depicting that by her reading about and discussing scriptures is necessary from all points of view: establishing character and context while remaining a drama rather than a documentary, creating mood, and reaching out to the religious community that is the primary target audience. There are changes to make the movie marketable as well such as having it spoken in English. I believe what’s most important is that the movie stays true to the spirit of the story approaching it with reverence. I see One Night with the King as accomplishing that.