I'm a theologian "by trade," and so I am always curious about how others portray the Subject of my faith.
This film is actually the first of a series of "Jesus" movies that I and a number of people from my congregation are watching in a series called "Jesus in Film," and it was a good place to start. How would Jesus be portrayed by Hollywood in the Roaring 20s? How different would the silent medium be compared to today? How would Cecil B. DeMille, known for his blockbuster extravaganzas portray the story? I intentionally did not prepare the group by telling them that this was a silent film. I simply stressed that it was made in 1927 by Cecil B. DeMille. None of them put 2 and 2 together to figure it out, which was just fine. I would say it took about 10-15 minutes for everyone to get into the silent presentation--the conversation and comments about the exaggerated facial expressions etc. eventually just ceased as the story absorbed them...which is probably the best way to describe our viewing experience. All of the viewers were long-time believers who know and love the story backwards and forwards. These were knowledgeable critics of the story and how it would be presented.
First of all, with regard to the "art" of the movie itself, all of us thought it was fantastic as a period piece. It seemed to us that while there is a good deal of "action," (healings, miracles, etc.), DeMille's vision worked masterfully toward a series of still life portraits with each episode, with each character intentionally blocked and staged around Jesus, "The Last Supper," "Behold the Man," etc. (Though, I will have to say, since we watched the original uncut version--all 155 minutes of it--it did get a wee bit tedious toward the end with one still life portrait after another, especially since we knew how it ends!) Second of all, there were a number of extremely masterful movie story-telling techniques. DeMille did a tremendous job of introducing Jesus, keeping the audience in suspense, since of course, everyone's wondering, "What will he look like?" Jesus is referenced numerous times both as protagonist and antagonist before the audience actually gets to see him, and the WAY the audience finally gets to meet Jesus is quite good.
Third, there were also some interesting little connections throughout the film, as well, and I don't want to give too much away here. We see Peter's sword long before it ever gets used. Notice, as well, what eventually happens to the rope that is used to bind Jesus' hands.
Fourth, we watched the movie with the digitally remastered music, which was also very good. Not only did it complete the silent film experience (we were wondering before hand whether it would be sort of the stereotypical melodrama or "Keystone Kops" type music!), but it was simply beautiful music. And of course, it helps convey the characterization, as well--think "Darth Vader's" theme from Star Wars.
DeMille does play fast and loose with the Biblical text itself, some of it is not so bad; other moves are terrible. It was a little annoying how words and dialog are taken out of biblical context in order to fit the scene that DeMille has set. Similarly, the relationship between Judas and Mary Magdalene is pure bunk. On the other hand, while DeMille completely leaves whole episodes out (obviously) but then also seems to give a creative nod to some of those episodes with wholesale new interpretations. For example, in John's Gospel we are privy to the words between Jesus, the disciple John, and Mary the Mother of Our Lord: "Son, behold your mother; mother, behold your son." That is not present in King of Kings. However, there is a touching little vignette at the foot of the cross in which the mother of one of the thieves on the cross is consoled by Mary. Completely creative license, but not outside the character and possibility of the story at all.
Wonderful movie. Not exactly something I'd pop in all the time. But a great study in movie history.
This film is actually the first of a series of "Jesus" movies that I and a number of people from my congregation are watching in a series called "Jesus in Film," and it was a good place to start. How would Jesus be portrayed by Hollywood in the Roaring 20s? How different would the silent medium be compared to today? How would Cecil B. DeMille, known for his blockbuster extravaganzas portray the story? I intentionally did not prepare the group by telling them that this was a silent film. I simply stressed that it was made in 1927 by Cecil B. DeMille. None of them put 2 and 2 together to figure it out, which was just fine. I would say it took about 10-15 minutes for everyone to get into the silent presentation--the conversation and comments about the exaggerated facial expressions etc. eventually just ceased as the story absorbed them...which is probably the best way to describe our viewing experience. All of the viewers were long-time believers who know and love the story backwards and forwards. These were knowledgeable critics of the story and how it would be presented.
First of all, with regard to the "art" of the movie itself, all of us thought it was fantastic as a period piece. It seemed to us that while there is a good deal of "action," (healings, miracles, etc.), DeMille's vision worked masterfully toward a series of still life portraits with each episode, with each character intentionally blocked and staged around Jesus, "The Last Supper," "Behold the Man," etc. (Though, I will have to say, since we watched the original uncut version--all 155 minutes of it--it did get a wee bit tedious toward the end with one still life portrait after another, especially since we knew how it ends!) Second of all, there were a number of extremely masterful movie story-telling techniques. DeMille did a tremendous job of introducing Jesus, keeping the audience in suspense, since of course, everyone's wondering, "What will he look like?" Jesus is referenced numerous times both as protagonist and antagonist before the audience actually gets to see him, and the WAY the audience finally gets to meet Jesus is quite good.
Third, there were also some interesting little connections throughout the film, as well, and I don't want to give too much away here. We see Peter's sword long before it ever gets used. Notice, as well, what eventually happens to the rope that is used to bind Jesus' hands.
Fourth, we watched the movie with the digitally remastered music, which was also very good. Not only did it complete the silent film experience (we were wondering before hand whether it would be sort of the stereotypical melodrama or "Keystone Kops" type music!), but it was simply beautiful music. And of course, it helps convey the characterization, as well--think "Darth Vader's" theme from Star Wars.
DeMille does play fast and loose with the Biblical text itself, some of it is not so bad; other moves are terrible. It was a little annoying how words and dialog are taken out of biblical context in order to fit the scene that DeMille has set. Similarly, the relationship between Judas and Mary Magdalene is pure bunk. On the other hand, while DeMille completely leaves whole episodes out (obviously) but then also seems to give a creative nod to some of those episodes with wholesale new interpretations. For example, in John's Gospel we are privy to the words between Jesus, the disciple John, and Mary the Mother of Our Lord: "Son, behold your mother; mother, behold your son." That is not present in King of Kings. However, there is a touching little vignette at the foot of the cross in which the mother of one of the thieves on the cross is consoled by Mary. Completely creative license, but not outside the character and possibility of the story at all.
Wonderful movie. Not exactly something I'd pop in all the time. But a great study in movie history.