What is the Jewish perspective of this depiction of Moses' encounter with God?

[Epic Beard Man]

*First and foremost I understand Judaism, like Islam does not believe in anthromorphism in that God does not need to materialize into a human to do things. I also understand this may not be an accurate depiction, rather the depiction of an atheist director (Ridley Scott) who forseen the encounter with Moses and the angel Malakh adonai.

Considering the Muslims did not want this movie shown in their country (with the exception of a few), and considering there was no media opinion concerning this movie, what is the Jewish perspective of this scene and the movie overall (if anyone is aware that anyone of Jewish faith has seen it)?

Considering Ridley Scott's concept, I like the idea. I know this is historically inaccurate however the concept is different but possibly likely that such an encounter could have been. The rocks in the formation of a pyramid was genius directing.

Because the scene between Moses and God is still complicated for me to understand still, I read an interesting explanation regarding the encounter Moses had with God:

Edit: Ironically that information suddnly is not there. I wonder if there is web issues.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Good luck with this.

 

[Tumah]

You have it backwards. Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to G-d. We use that all the time to refer to metaphorically refer to different methods of conduct G-d uses. What we don't believe in (like Islam) is in incarnation of G-d in any fashion.

I don't really understand what your question is. Is this anything like what is says in the Good Book? No, it is not. In Ex. 3, Moses sees an angel in the form of a fire hanging out on a thorn bush, he goes over to check it out and G-d tells him to take his shoes off because he's standing on holy ground. There's no rain, as in this clip. There's no mudslide, as in this clip. There's no child - or what I suppose it meant to be a cherub - as in this clip. You can read all this for yourself. What more than that are you looking for?

 

[Flankerl]

Fun Film.

That's about it.

 

[rosends]

I can't really respond effectively because the video wouldn't play any sound (I checked my volume and settings and they aren't the problem...maybe it is divine intervention) but why was Moses lying down in mud? That stopped him from approaching and taking his shoes off. Also, why was that boy (why was there a boy there?) playing with kugelach?

 

[RabbiO]

Apparently, based on what I've read on the web, the boy is a character named Malak who.......... Well, I've provided the dots. You can connect them.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You have it backwards. Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to G-d.

Right, my apologies.

We use that all the time to refer to metaphorically refer to different methods of conduct G-d uses. What we don't believe in (like Islam) is in incarnation of G-d in any fashion.

Got it.

I don't really understand what your question is?

The question is quite clear with the provided video, what is your view of the depiction in the video. Considering that Muslims in different countries were unhappy with this movie, what was the Jewish opinion (if any) regarding the release of this movie and its depictions? I should have added, if you were an advisor to this film what would you do different that would draw biblical accuracy as well as theatrical attraction to people?

Is this anything like what is says in the Good Book?

Most Hollywood made films portraying individuals of the Bible are not entirely accurate. Theatricality of depictaed characters is apparently more important for Hollywood.

There's no child - or what I suppose it meant to be a cherub - as in this clip. You can read all this for yourself.

Well Ridley Scott made it clear that the "child" is Malakh Adonai and I believe Scott's intent was to make the apparition relatable as you see in the movie in certain scenes Moses mistakes his own child for Malakh during his struggles for his mission. I think Scott's struggles was not only his own personal atheism but what was most likely to have occured. Apparently a voice that comes from a burning bush was not as believable I suppose.

What more than that are you looking for?

What your views are regarding this particular clip of the scene of the movie. In addition as i mentioned earlier, as an advisor to Scott, what would you have done better?

Also, in additon I found an interesting piece as to why the movie was "white washed" which leads a more deeper issue within Hollywood:

"Like most high-profile religious pictures since Martin Scorsese’s 1988 “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Exodus” became the subject of intense media scrutiny before Scott had ever exposed a frame of (digital) film on stages at London’s Pinewood Studios and on location in Spain. Much of the outcry online stemmed from his decision to cast white American, European and Australian actors in most of the key roles, no matter that the same could be said of “The Passion of the Christ,” “Noah,” “The Ten Commandments” and virtually any other big-budget Bible movies. “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such,” Scott says. “I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.”

Ridley Scott’s Explanation For Whitewashing His Exodus Movie Is Infuriating

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Apparently, based on what I've read on the web, the boy is a character named Malak who.......... Well, I've provided the dots. You can connect them.

Are you aware of any backlash from the Jewish community concerning this film?