Although the faith-based film industry has received legitimate criticism over the years, Christian creatives have, at times, adeptly utilized the visual arts to imaginative, and even ground-breaking, ends. For example, Big Idea Productions began releasing the CGI-animated TV series VeggieTales two years before Pixar released the world’s first feature-length CGI-animated movie (1995’s Toy Story). And as we all know, VeggieTales became an enormously successful franchise.
In more recent TV history, The Chosen has gained international recognition for its artistic quality, speculative elements, and unique business model (being crowdfunded rather than financed through the normal channels). Similarly, The Promised Land (with only its pilot episode currently available to the public) shows promise as a humorous-yet-reverential melding of historical fiction and faux documentary filmmaking à la The Office.
Speculative treatments of scriptural narratives can make the familiar feel fresh once more, reminding us that these well-known stories were not well-worn to those living them out.
And now comes the newest in faith-based TV: Amazon’s House of David. Created by Jon Erwin (I Can Only Imagine, Jesus Revolution), this series depicts the biblical story of David, with an emphasis on his slow rise to kingship. Season one begins with David (Michael Iskander) as a shepherd boy and Saul (Ali Suliman) triumphant after his victory over the Amalekites. We meet familiar characters like Abner (Oded Fehr), Samuel (Stephen Lang), and Jesse (Louis Ferreira), as well as not-so-familiar characters like Saul’s wife, Queen Ahinoam (Ayelet Zurer), daughter Mirab (Yali Topol Margalith), and son Eshbaal (Sam Otto).
In the first three episodes (screened in advance for this review), David seeks to crawl out from under his father’s thumb—not to mention those of his brothers. Meanwhile, Saul is confronted with the ramifications of disobeying God by refusing to completely destroy the Amalekite army. The story appears to be working toward a climactic season-ending showdown between David and Goliath (Martyn Ford).
Artistic License
House of David is a piece of historical fiction. It fills in the gaps of the biblical narrative, complementing what we do know with speculative elements. While some of these elements work better than others, none of them do violence to the biblical text—certainly no more than Nefretiri’s love-triangle presence in The Ten Commandments, Clavius’ search for the body of Jesus in Risen, or Rameses’ brotherly bond with Moses in Prince of Egypt.
Not everything lands perfectly, though. One line from David about knowing he is destined for great things gives off a distinct Disney princess vibe, and the lowly shepherd’s meet-cute with Mychal (Indy Lewis) feels more Hollywood than historical. Also, the cross-cutting between David’s fight with Goliath and the rest of the material feels disjointed and unnecessary. The story the filmmakers have crafted is engaging enough without the need to tease audiences about where the narrative is going. Fortunately, these are all minor issues, and they are rare.
One narrative embellishment that works particularly well is King Saul’s descent into madness at the loss of God’s favor. The show speculates how his diminishing sanity affects not only himself, but those around him, as well. And fleshing out key characters from Saul’s and Jesse’s families deliciously sets up conflict that will no doubt expand in episodes (and possible seasons) to come.
When History Meets Fiction
Speculative treatments of scriptural narratives can make the familiar feel fresh once more, reminding us that these well-known stories were not well-worn to those living them out. Already in the first three episodes, we see traces of Jonathan’s (Ethan Kai) nobility, David’s impetuousness, and Doeg the Edomite’s (Ashraf Barhom) cruelty—all of which heightens the dramatic tension of the story beats we know are coming.
To be fair, there is the potential danger of speculative Bible-based fiction straying too far from its source material, changing adaptation into exploitation (or outright blasphemy). But there’s also a danger of critiquing a story’s biblical accuracy based on what author E. Stephen Burnett has called “evangelical headcanon.” That is, we fail to acknowledge that the Bible-themed movies we love from times past did themselves face criticism for “alter[ing] significant details of the [biblical] account,” even though we give them a pass today without a moment’s hesitation.
What’s more, our fondness for those past fictionalized accounts might color our ability to evaluate the quality of new Bible stories. In such cases, our fears of biblical inaccuracy may reveal misguided assumptions rooted (ironically enough) in biblical illiteracy on our part. And before you dismiss that error as beyond your capabilities, I’d recommend taking Burnett’s Bible movie quiz. Sometimes nostalgia, rather than biblical fidelity, unwittingly motivates our criticism of speculative biblical fiction.
Not a House of Cards
House of David’s large budget and high production values are evident even in the trailers. There is genuine talent behind and in front of the camera. Everything from script to sets to cinematography demonstrates a strong commitment to artistic excellence. Even elements like sound design and fight choreography are impressively proficient.
As an exploration of war, kingship, and political maneuverings, House of David handles some weighty themes. That, combined with the numerous and interrelated plot threads, almost seem aimed at an older audience. Nevertheless, unlike other shows that address mature topics, the series avoids using the misnomer of “maturity” as an excuse for gratuitous material.
More specifically, the sexual objectification of actors—almost a staple of any “serious” television show—is noticeably and welcomely absent. Somewhere between salacious and sanitized (where I believe the visual arts should be), this show does include a Caligula-like member of the royal family (the aforementioned Eshbaal). He has an unmistakably lecherous streak, but his actions are presented in a way that respects the dignity of the actors and the audience.
The show’s TV-14 rating is due to intense thematic elements and violence, content that’s comparable to what one would find in another Amazon show: The Rings of Power. As such, House of David is recommended for teenagers and above.
A Series of Fortunate Events
Historically, I have been rather critical of faith-based filmmaking—possibly even bordering on cynical. I want to see my fellow Christian creatives succeed, but too often they’ve fallen short of even the baseline of mediocrity. For every title like The Passion of the Christ, there are seemingly two dozen titles like The Judas Project. (Google it. Or, better yet, don’t.)
However, the quality of faith-based filmmaking is leveling up. As I’ve written elsewhere, there are some significant “strides in the right direction, even if there are some faltering steps along the way.” In the realm of television in particular, I’m seeing more that I can both fully enjoy and fully admire.
Our culture is demonstrating a rising interest in Bible stories. Perhaps we’re seeing the next iteration of a Big Idea television phenomenon, this time in the realm of live-action. Whatever the case, if House of David‘s first three episodes are any indication of faith-based filmmaking’s trajectory, then color me impressed.
No, scratch that. Color me downright excited.
