Today was the debut of Amazon’s new epic miniseries, House of David. I took the opportunity to watch the first episode – there are three (as of this writing) available for viewing – and wanted to share my first impressions.
Created by Jon Erwin, the series is a collaborative effort between The Wonder Project, Nomadic Pictures, Argonauts, Kingdom Story Company, Amazon MGM Studios, and Lionsgate Television. It features multiple directors and writers and was filmed mostly in the Meditteranean. It chronicles David’s early years, from his humble beginnings as a shepherd to his anointing as Israel’s future king.
Quality
Let’s be honest here. Christian movies have a reputation — and not a good one. The Gospel Coalition’s Brett McCracken said it best in his review: “I used to wince when publicists sent me faith-based films or TV to preview. Almost always, the genre’s reputation—cheaply made, cheesy, preachy—proved well deserved.”
That is not the case with this series. House of David boasts breathtaking cinematography, sweeping landscapes, and intricate period-accurate set designs. As one review put it: “The Bible has never looked this good on TV.”
As far as the acting goes, the supporting cast shines—Ali Suliman’s portrayal of King Saul is particularly compelling. Unfortunately, the series lead feels a little bit flat. Played by Michael Iskander, the young hero is likable and probably resembles the real-life David more closely than others who have played the part (such as a young Richard Gere from years ago). But, at least insofar as the first episode goes, Iskander seems to lack the presence and charisma needed to anchor such a series. This may change as the series continues.
On a personal note, I enjoyed seeing Stephen Lang as the prophet Samuel. Lang was the lead villain in Avatar (2009), General George Pickett in Gettysburg (1993), Ike Clanton in Tombstone (1993), and Stonewall Jackson in Gods and Generals (2003). That’s just a sampling of his roles. He’s a great actor!
The dialogue in House of David sometimes feels overly scripted and a little forced, but I don’t fault the actors for this. Or the writers or directors. I believe they are trying to keep the dialogue at least consistent with what we see in Scripture. This, I appreciate. And that leads to…
Accuracy
When we bring history (including biblical history) to life, which should be the highest priority — accuracy or story? Just about everyone in Hollywood will answer “story,” and that’s why movies and TV productions based on historical characters or events almost always play fast and loose with the facts.
One of the most recent egregious examples of this would be Ridley Scott’s Napoleon (2023), a travesty of a biographical film widely trashed by respected French historians (and with good reason). But even when Scott played closer to historical reality, such as with Black Hawk Down (2001), he still had to make a lot of creative choices (such as on which participants to focus the story) and creative liberties (such as creating composite fictional characters based on two or more real-life participants) with the Battle of Mogadishu in order to bring out a compelling cinematic “story” and fit it into 144 minutes.
Many Christians have a hard time accepting this kind of creative license or “Hollywood treatment” when it comes to the Bible.
And I get it.
I don’t think Scripture is something we should mess with, but…
If we’re going to take episodes from the Bible and turn them into novels, plays, movies, or TV programs, we have to be a little creative in the retelling.
However…
There is an honest way to do it, and a dishonest way to do that.
At the very beginning of the opening episode to House of David, we see the honest way. Before we even see the first frame of the show itself, we get a black screen with the following disclaimer:
Some of the events depicted in this series may not accurately represent all historical and biblical facts or figures. While we have made efforts to portray certain aspects of history authentically, creative liberties have been taken for storytelling purposes.
That tells discerning viewers that we’re getting a fictional take on a true story from the outset. We can approach the series accordingly. I appreciate that.
We didn’t get that disclaimer — or anything like it — with the recent film Mary that debuted on Netflix this past December. Instead, we got the dishonest approach. The opening line of Mary (delivered by the actress who portrayed Mary) was: “You may think you know my story. Trust me, you don’t.” Such a pretentious claim implies that the Netflix viewers of Mary are getting the real story — even more so than that given us in the Bible!
I can accept creative license when it comes to novels, plays, movies, and TV shows based on biblical stories and characters if the following criteria are met:
- The producers/directors/writers are honest about that creative license
- The characters, dialogue, story elements, etc. stay within scriptural guidelines and are consistent with what we know of these things from the Bible.
Let me explain the latter point by way of an example. If you’re going to do a movie about Noah’s Ark (looking at you, Darren Aronofsky and Russell Crowe), don’t show me massive stone creatures like mythical Golems helping build (and later defend) the Ark- calling them “Watchers.” I mean, seriously? I felt like I was watching a fantasy movie, not a biblical one. And don’t have Noah trying to kill his own grandsons! If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it means you escaped Noah (2014). I’m glad for you. Keep yourself safe from that awful catastrophe of a movie – and don’t look back.
House of David does take liberties, but (for the most part) the liberties are respectful of the Scriptures.
For example, in I Samuel 17:36, David tells King Saul he killed a lion and a bear. This is part of his job interview (if you will) for the role of Israel’s champion to face Goliath. House of David takes that passing reference — and runs with it! We get a whole story of a lion that terrorizes Jesse’s flock (watched over my David), even assaulting Jesse’s house! David tracks the lion to its den, and…. well, watch House of David. That’s an example of creative license that I can live with.
Another is a village destroyed by Goliath and Philistine warriors — which sets up a little mystery that foreshadows Goliath’s challenge to the Israelites. That too is creative license. Okay, I say. No problem.
Now, we come to the problems…
David is presented as a “bastard” son of Jesse. (Excuse my language – I’m quoting the show). This may be the makers of House of David taking liberties with David’s confession in Psalm 51:5 as if David weren’t talking about his general sinful conception (common to all of us) but instead some kind of an illegitimate birth. This may be unpacked more in subsequent episodes, but that seems to be the implication in the first episode. And I didn’t like it…at all.
Then we come to King Agag and the Amalekites. In House of David, they are a nation given over to sorcery and cannibalism. Yes, cannibalism! And their king is depicted as a hideous “witch king” and bloodthirsty cannibal. (Thankfully, we don’t see him actually engage in cannibalism).
There’s no question that Agag and the Amalekites were a wicked people. The pagan cultures of the Ancient Near East regularly practiced divination, necromancy, and ritual sacrifices (Deuteronomy 18:9-12). But this doesn’t mean everyone — including the king — was an actual sorcerer. And…cannibalism? That struck me as completely out of left field. It is a wholly unnecessary exaggeration. It’s like the series makers have to make them more wicked in order to justify God ordering Saul (via Samuel) to slaughter all of them.
Are we that afraid of the Bible? Have we become so politically correct that we have to package up the Bible in a dishonest, exaggerated manner in order to “justify” what God did?
While that may be the most jarring example of creative license, there’s also the confrontation with Goliath. Episode One gives us a brief prologue and then opens with the scene of David stepping forward to take on Goliath. Then…
- David starts running toward Goliath. Okay, good. That’s definitely scriptural.
- Goliath starts throwing spears. Hmmm. No mention in the Bible of that, but … okay. I can believe that may have happened. Okay.
- David is shown dodging these spears, until…one hits him. Wait! What!? Yep, in House of David, in the opening scene, we have Goliath striking David down with a spear throw. At the end of the first episode, we see David regaining consciousness and grabbing for a rock. No, House of David makers. That’s taking creative license a wee bit too far!
Those were the creative liberties taken in the first episode of House of David that don’t sit well with me.
Bottom Line
Since I have only seen the first episode, I can’t give the entire series a recommendation yet. But…
House of David‘s production quality rivals Hollywood’s best biblical adaptations, and while significant creative license is employed, the story — in spirit and in substance — mostly respects its source material (the Bible) and (with the three big exceptions given above) stays within biblical parameters.
If you’re able to watch it, knowing it’s a fictional take on a true story, and take it in with not only a grain (but bag) of salt… go for it. For the most part, I enjoyed the first episode and plan to watch the second.
Give it a watch yourself (if you have the time and inclination ) – and let us know what you think in the comments.
Thank you for Reading!
🙏 Be sure to visit Olney Baptist Church
👥 Follow me on Facebook
📕 See my Resource & Recommendation Page
📖 Check out my latest book: Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Ancient Commandment We Dare Not Break
Sounds like a plan Pastor.