'THE QUEEN OF SHEBA'

Evening Star, Issue 17924, 21 March 1922, Page 5

'THE QUEEN OF SHEBA'

LAOT SUSPICIONS OF A SCANDAL. FILM CAUSES CONTROVERSY. "No scandal affecting Qiieen Elizabeth, £ hope?" says a diameter in one of Sheridan's comedies. A scandal in regard to fi much earlier historical character, no leas a personage than the Queen of Sheba, is suggested by (he latest film "super" production, which hns caused some contro-versy-recently in London. In a notice" of a private before its public production 'The Times' described the film as " interesting, because it epitomised both the strength and the weakness of contemporary American film productions." It was at once magnificent and grotesque—in fact, a very characteristic American film. ' The Qucon of Sheba ' has a very thin thread of story running through it—just enough to link the spectacles together. In history, as recorded in the Old Testament, we have only a glimpse of the Queen, too meagre to form by itself the basis of a long film; but the glimpse of her womanly curiosity and queenly magnificence might have stirred the imagination of a story-writer to good purpose. In this film she becomes the mistress ot King Solomon, giving rise to plots by the wife and the brother of the King, counterplots, and a final parting between the King and his mistress. Afterwards a son is born, who eventually returns to the court of King Solomon ; but there seems no reason for introducing him into the story, except to cause a terrible anti-climax and to give a chance for a clever pieco of acting. That is the story, and it is quite obvious that tho producers were concerned neither with history nor plot, but with spectacle. The spectacles arc so many and so brilliant that eventually they be~come just a little tiresome, and at 'last one longs for the normal in just the same way as Gulliver must have prayed to Ret back to England from Brobdingnag. Apparently tho producers had lavished all their money on tho spectacles, and when they came to the costumes of the Queen of Shoba henelf they had only small change left. The dresses she has to wear arc startling in the extreme—startling even when oomptred to those- of the other female characters in the film. It is difficult to understand why the Oueen of Sheba should be represented as a half-clothed courtesan. It is true that there is no evidence to the contrary, but it would have been in better taste in a film of this kind to have given her the benefit of the doubt. A MINISTER'S PROTEST.

The next notice of the lilm was a protost against its public exhibition by the Rev. F. B. Meyer, who wrote to ' The Times' as follows:—"1 should be untrue to myself if I uttered no word of protest against the censor's permission for the approaching exhibition of the above film, referred to in your isatie of to-day. A society in which I am interested had already entered a protest, but evidently it was unavailing. " The film tends to discredit the Bible with the general crowd by suggesting the immorality of a character which was commended by the greatest of all Teachers. Why blast the character of the Queen of Sheba by presenting her as 'a half-clothed courtesan' ? We understand what the limitation to adults means, but why should pictures be produced before a popular audience that need this proviso ? Docs not adolescence need protection?

" I do not believe for a moment that Hastiness is necessary to attract a popular audience. If a tote could be taken, in my judgment, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of a clean bill of health." AN UNLIKELY STORY. ' The Times ' was moved to discuss the momentous question, not of tho film's propriety as a public spectacle, hut of the Queen's character, in a leading article as follows : Our authorities for the character of the Queen of Sheba are the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and in those books we learn nothing but good of her, or at least no evil. Hearing of Solomon's fame, she came, with much Oriental splendor, to prove him with hard questions; fiho communed with him of all that was in her heart, and Solomon answered all her questions. Further, when she had seen all his wisdom and splendor, there was no spirit left in her, and she confessed that she. had heard a true report of him, though she had not believed it. So, having given him many presents and. received many in return, she went back to her own country. There is no hint of scandal hero; yet scandal has been made out of it, even by Robert Browning, among others, partly no doubt because of the known facts of Solomon's life, and partly because there are many who cannot believe that any woman could travel so far to see even Solomon merely with tho object of asking him questions. But there is a tiresome monotony in this kind of scandal, especially when it is tatted about people so remote; and it encourages the Freudians, who will have it that only one motive underlies all human actions and thoughts and dreams. Tho kinema, indeed, is Freudian without knowing it, for love -alone is what makes the world go round, and also causes most other things. to happen 5 and so it causes tho Queen of Sheba to make that long journey, and to make it with most of her possessions, though few of her clothes. All the way from Arabia she came, with an enormous caravan, drawn by a passion which must have been based merely on hearsay, and for a monarch whose heart she cannot have expected to find unoccupied; fc-r, if she know anything at all about him, she must have known that ho was not a bachelor. It is not a likely story ,_ and wo prefer the one in the Book of. Kings. No doubt the story in tho Book of Kings does not lend itself to tho kinema. It is easier to represent people making love in dumb show than asking questions and answering them: but, that being so, why take- a story of two people who ask and answer questions and turn it into a story of two people who make love? Why not cheese, out of all tho thousand characters of history, myth, and legend, two who were lovers indeed? Tho answer, no doubt, is that kihema audiences like, above fill things, a combination o[ lovo and splendor; tho splendor is there in the original tale, and it is improved for kinema audiences by tho addition of love. But still we think oven kinema audiences would prefer a more romantic lover to Solomon, for they are above all things romantic. Will they not Temember all the other wives while they watch him yielding to the charms of the Queen of .Sheba? Will they not feel that he ought to 1m the villain rather than the hero of the piece? Bigamy, in modern life at least, is not a crime for a hero; and we need to coin a word to exnresa tho extent to ■whicfo Solomon exceeded it. If _ tho Union of love and splendor is required, there is tho story of Antony and Cleopatra—and Antony, if not «ntirely monogamous, was at least devoted to one lady at a time. And Antony and Cleopatra belong to secular history. Wo do not think, with Dr Meyer, that " the film tends to discredit tho Bible with tho general crowd," for wo do not beliovo that kinema audiences will connect the film with the Bible at all. It will mean for them merely that association of splendor and love which, for obscure psychological reasons, they enjoy. And yet wo wish the associations had been found in the story of Antony and Cleopatra. For tho Bible story is a good one; the notion of a queen drawn all the way from Arabia to Palestine by tho roport of Solomon's ■wisdom is interesting and not incredible, while the notion of the same queen travelling all that way to make love to him is iieither interesting nor credible.