This review was also done on the Bryan First Brethren Church Facebook page.
When I saw that Amazon had developed a series focused on the life of David I scoffed. Amazon—with their reputation of mishandling source material! I had no interest in seeing another hackneyed, low-IQ, hypersexualized, false-psychologized, bastardized Hollywood retelling of a Biblical story.
So I refused to watch it—for a couple weeks. And then, last Friday evening, it was late, I was too tired to read but too awake to sleep, and so I thought, “Why not?” I decided that if it was good, then I got to watch a good show; if it was just mediocre I could always turn it off; and if it was abysmal and heretical, I could at least warn people.
I watched the first episode, and I have to say—I think it might actually, somehow, some way . . . be good!
And, because it might be good, I decided that I would do reviews of each episode, as I see them. I’m not going to wait to watch the whole season and then give an overview. I want to take each episode as it comes.
I’m also not going to rewatch episodes until I’ve done a review for that episode. The reason being, that I want to let my first unbiased impression be that which guides my reviews. I want to be fair.
I’m also not going to look up anything about the writers, directors, producers, or actors. Some actors I DO think I recognize from Israeli TV, but I haven’t searched them out. I don’t want that information, because I don’t think it matters.
What matters is: 1, did Amazon produce a show that entertainingly tells the story of David; and 2, is the show faithful to the theology of the story of David.
Now, please pay especial attention to that point 2. Because I’m not asking if it was faithful to the Bible—in a slavish, literal sense. The show explicitly tells us that it isn’t! And that’s entirely fair. Producing something for the screen requires decisions and changes and things that don’t perfectly match the Biblical record. That’s OK. It’s impossible to perfectly satisfy a literalist adaptation and do a high-quality series length drama. Bible and high-drama TV are two different media.
What I DO care about is whether the show accurately conveys the theological points and motifs of the story.
So, for this review I’m going to quickly talk about some inaccuracies that are not important, just for the sake of due diligence—as well as talking about what was done well!
Then we’ll talk about some inaccuracies that are important, but not essential. These are divergences from the Biblical record, yes, but these are divergences which I think are justifiable and I’ll try to explain why I think the writers/ directors did what they did. I don’t want to make cows’ tools, but I DO want to be as fair and reasonable as possible.
Lastly I’ll review the stuff that’s essential and important—the theology of the show.
So, let’s get started!
Part the First: the unimportant differences. So, let’s get it out of the way, most of the actors look the part—they appear as Sephardic Jews . . . darker complexion, dark hair and eyes. As above—some of the actors looked familiar from Israeli TV and movies I’ve seen. There are notable exceptions—Samuel being the most important. Samuel has piercing blue eyes and lighter hair—though it’s hard to tell because his hair is white, but he’s also lighter complected.
Now, the thing is, we don’t ACTUALLY know what the complexion of the ancient Israelites was. Based upon ethnographic research as well as ancient sources, the best information would lead us to believe that they were, as one ancient source has it, the Jews were neither white like the German, nor black like the Ethiopian, but were like boxwood.
It is worth noting that there was certainly never skin-tone uniformity among the tribes. There would have been some lighter and some darker, with a range of physiognomy because of all the intermarriage with gentiles throughout the history of the Israelites—going back to Abraham. We know that in Song of Songs, fair skin is desirable for women—likely a sign that they did not have to do agricultural labor. David is even described as “ruddy” “אַדְמֹונִ֔י”.
My assumption is that the casting used people who looked vaguely Middle Eastern, with the exception of Samuel. And my assumption is that Samuel was the exception because they wanted the prophet to look immediately set apart and different. The blue eyes and his gaze makes him look a little rheumy and maybe blind/ maybe otherworldly.
The other routine criticism is that the horses are modern looking. Ancient warhorses would not have been saddle horses, they would have been hitched to chariots. They also would have been MUCH smaller—more like ponies. In fact, the only time I’ve ever seen a historically accurate depiction of ancient warhorses was a satire show about Vikings and it was comical to see those Scandinavian giants on what look like little more than big dogs.
But, on the whole, the show does a great job of looking real, with allowances that everyone makes for modern viewers. YES, they could use ponies, but it would look comical and it would put us in the uncanny valley. There are more things I could point out that are unimportant inaccuracies—like Goliath’s shield bearer not going in front of him and Goliath carrying his own shield. But these are little things and they should not in any way impact the way we watch a show.
Part Two: things that are important but not essential. The whole thing about David’s mother being different from the mother of Jesse’s other children is entirely fictional. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Could it be true? Sure! It COULD. It COULD be true that David had a microwave that a time traveler brought him. It COULD be true, but there’s no reason to believe that it was.
Now, is it PLAUSIBLE that David’s mother was not the same women as David’s siblings? Yeah, there might be a case to be made here, but it’s all an argument from silence. There COULD be an ancient tradition that I’m unaware of. But I think this was simply done so we could see David being an outcast and to heighten the sense of alienation he had from his brothers—who viewed him as being conceited.
Next, Saul appears to only have two sons: Jonathan and Ish Bosheth. This is not accurate. Jonathan appears to be about the right age and the right deportment, he’s played well and his character in the story fits the Biblical description. Ish Bosheth is a BIT too soft and scheming. I always viewed him as more of a chump than a Chad, but I can understand the direction he has, and I can live with it.
Michal, Merab, and the rest of the Saulide house are played well and their motivations make sense of the source material and the culture as we know it and, honestly, apart from Ish Baal—which, by the way, the actors I could swear, kept pronouncing as “ESH” and not “ISH” or “EESH” . . . which was odd . . . But, honestly, A+ in the depiction of the family—only there aren’t enough people.
Abner son of Ner looks a little too little like a might warrior—but that’s my personal opinion. David looks the right age; they have him killing lions with his hands, and he’s a beautiful soul and fine musician. I think he should be taller and more physically imposing. Remember, Saul offered David his armor and Saul was a head taller than all the Israelites when he was anointed king, and David’ brother Eliab (which the show does a cool thing with!) is depicted as being a fine physical specimen. I think the casting of David was good. I think he could have been bigger, but I’m being knit-picky.
The biggest complaint I have about important but non-essential issues is that David does not deliver the speech before facing Goliath, and he’s also wounded by Goliath.
Frankly, not using David’s speech is screenwriting malpractice. There is no boy or man who won’t get chills down his spine or tears in his eyes when hearing that speech. It is, in my opinion, on par with Theoden’s speech on the Pelennor Fields. As no self-respecting man can watch the Ride of the Rohirrim and not leak some face-water, nobody could hear a competent actor deliver David’s speech and not get pumped up! PERHAPS it’s being saved for Episode 2. I REALLY hope so.
Again, I could go on and on, going scene by scene, but that’s not really needed. The show is astoundingly faithful to the text of the Bible!
Part Three: essential and important stuff. Honestly, they did a great job. They got the theology right! It’s really good.
Now, caveat lector, I might watch Episode 2 and take back everything I’ve said. But I don’t think so.
In my opinion, whoever wrote this is a genuinely competent, and fairly humble person. The writers know that the David story is already chock-full of drama, action, romance, political intrigue, deep psychology, pathos, humor, and passion. You just need to do the genuinely challenging job of getting it on screen: realizing it, to borrow the French word.
So, as far as Episode 1 goes—it’s really good and worth watching. YES there are liberties—but the show tells you in a disclaimer that they took liberties. I think that a Christian can watch Episode 1 (as long as they have an open mind and are adult enough to realize that realizing the Bible on screen means making changes) and they’ll like it, and maybe get something out of it.
If nothing else, it puts the Bible in the public sphere and gives believers an opportunity to talk about the Word of God with our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. And for that, I’m truly grateful!