Going through DeMille films as part of my self assigned cinema history watchlist. I am not religious and decidedly not a huge fan of Christian film nor Jesus worship. So I was probably destined not to enjoy this one.
For what it is worth I do know a little bit about the Bible and the life of Jesus of Nazareth (as told by this one book). I was actually curious to see how intimate Cecil would depict Jesus being toward his disciples, and he absolutely opted for the newer sanitized Biblical depictions where there is no intimacy at all. One of my personal favorites is John 13:23 and how it was reconned from Jesus snuggling a man by the table to everyone sitting at the table spaced evenly like nice cis hetero men should. This film depicts the latter with no manly embrace at the emotional last supper. That is a microcosm of the artistic choices made in this film by Mr DeMille, which are largely based on renaissance and revisionist versions of Jesus of Nazareth.
I could go on and on about the historical inaccuracies and exaggerations in this. Why are there so many white people in ancient Palestine? Why does it seem like the Jewish Rabbi tells the Romans how to govern? Weather in Jerusalem? Jesus is depicted as an unmarried Jewish man in ancient Palestine, which is entirely unheard of? Why is Jesus so much older than his mother? But none of that really matters because this is a movie about a book that is largely about magic and parables, so the book isn't meant to be taken literally. Which seems to be at odds with this film.
Instead of making a movie focusing on the parables and morality (i.e. The most interesting parts of the Bible), Cecil B DeMille opted to recreate the magic of Jesus and his last days on Earth. He is only a lowly carpenter from Nazareth in that we are told that is what he is. Jesus doesn't do much of anything in the film aside from walk around, look sad, and use his magic powers. This is the least interesting way to depict a worker from a small village upset with how oppressed his neighbors are. Jesus spends most of his time in the good book teaching and showing people how to be good humans. Yet in this film the focus is on how much better he is than his fellow man. We are meant to recognize the divinity of Jesus and experience the tragic betrayal that beset him, and I guess all of us because no more magic is amongst us.
I really wasn't surprised with what direction DeMille took this film. I've seen a few of his earlier silents where he used concepts of class struggle and community and took the worst possible meaning from them. Seems he has a habit of always missing the point. Almost like he had an agenda that he wanted to shoehorn into his films. Such a shame that he is among the pioneers of Hollywood and really it says a lot about Hollywood that this man is so idolized.
As far as filmmaking and technical aspects of this one go, it really isn't as impressive (for it's time) as his earlier biblical effort, The Ten Commandments (1923). That one had much more impressive special effects, notably the flood scene. This one largely uses standard filmmaking techniques of the era to go for a solid film, rather than impressive. All of the special effects, especially set designs, pale in comparison to Metropolis (1927) and really most of what was being produced in Germany.
One interesting thing DeMille did was use quotes from the book as intertitles. Maybe he saw how interesting it was in Victor Sjöström's Terje Vigen (1917) and I think it was at least one interesting thing with this film. That and also the two color technicolor scenes: one at the beginning with Mary Magdalene (here depicted as a courtesan) and near the end with the resurrection of Jesus.
Not entirely sure why I subject myself to these way too long uninspiring films. Especially since that almost put me to sleep so often. Either way I finally watched this one and hopefully I will never revisit it.
(Also this film apparently has a very rare Ayn Rand appearance, which is another reason to hate it.)
For what it is worth I do know a little bit about the Bible and the life of Jesus of Nazareth (as told by this one book). I was actually curious to see how intimate Cecil would depict Jesus being toward his disciples, and he absolutely opted for the newer sanitized Biblical depictions where there is no intimacy at all. One of my personal favorites is John 13:23 and how it was reconned from Jesus snuggling a man by the table to everyone sitting at the table spaced evenly like nice cis hetero men should. This film depicts the latter with no manly embrace at the emotional last supper. That is a microcosm of the artistic choices made in this film by Mr DeMille, which are largely based on renaissance and revisionist versions of Jesus of Nazareth.
I could go on and on about the historical inaccuracies and exaggerations in this. Why are there so many white people in ancient Palestine? Why does it seem like the Jewish Rabbi tells the Romans how to govern? Weather in Jerusalem? Jesus is depicted as an unmarried Jewish man in ancient Palestine, which is entirely unheard of? Why is Jesus so much older than his mother? But none of that really matters because this is a movie about a book that is largely about magic and parables, so the book isn't meant to be taken literally. Which seems to be at odds with this film.
Instead of making a movie focusing on the parables and morality (i.e. The most interesting parts of the Bible), Cecil B DeMille opted to recreate the magic of Jesus and his last days on Earth. He is only a lowly carpenter from Nazareth in that we are told that is what he is. Jesus doesn't do much of anything in the film aside from walk around, look sad, and use his magic powers. This is the least interesting way to depict a worker from a small village upset with how oppressed his neighbors are. Jesus spends most of his time in the good book teaching and showing people how to be good humans. Yet in this film the focus is on how much better he is than his fellow man. We are meant to recognize the divinity of Jesus and experience the tragic betrayal that beset him, and I guess all of us because no more magic is amongst us.
I really wasn't surprised with what direction DeMille took this film. I've seen a few of his earlier silents where he used concepts of class struggle and community and took the worst possible meaning from them. Seems he has a habit of always missing the point. Almost like he had an agenda that he wanted to shoehorn into his films. Such a shame that he is among the pioneers of Hollywood and really it says a lot about Hollywood that this man is so idolized.
As far as filmmaking and technical aspects of this one go, it really isn't as impressive (for it's time) as his earlier biblical effort, The Ten Commandments (1923). That one had much more impressive special effects, notably the flood scene. This one largely uses standard filmmaking techniques of the era to go for a solid film, rather than impressive. All of the special effects, especially set designs, pale in comparison to Metropolis (1927) and really most of what was being produced in Germany.
One interesting thing DeMille did was use quotes from the book as intertitles. Maybe he saw how interesting it was in Victor Sjöström's Terje Vigen (1917) and I think it was at least one interesting thing with this film. That and also the two color technicolor scenes: one at the beginning with Mary Magdalene (here depicted as a courtesan) and near the end with the resurrection of Jesus.
Not entirely sure why I subject myself to these way too long uninspiring films. Especially since that almost put me to sleep so often. Either way I finally watched this one and hopefully I will never revisit it.
(Also this film apparently has a very rare Ayn Rand appearance, which is another reason to hate it.)