I saw the Criterion DVD a while back and mostly enjoyed it. A big grand Pious Campfest served up in that inimitable DeMille way. I remember being impressed with H.B. Warner’s understated performance as Christ. An undying masterpiece? No. An important piece of film history, though, and well worth watching.
Tom, I agree. I think Warner did an excellent job in the role of Jesus – pretty much the way that the Gospels (at least in their King James translation) present him: austere, other-worldly, and detached, though still compassionate toward the lowly and downtrodden. I have made a hobby of watching other Jesus movies over the years, trying to pick up on the nuances that various actors bring to the role. I think it must be one of the most challenging assignments an actor can undertake and sadly, very few seem to have even come close to hitting the mark. I generally find myself laughing at contemporary evangelical marketing attempts to make Jesus seem warm, earthy and “likable” to today’s media saturated audience.
There are so many nice “painterly” tableaux scattered throughout the film… like Dore’ engravings brought to life. And oh how they make Jesus glow in most every scene. He’s downright luminous!
The DVD extras are kind of cool too – especially the behind-the-scenes reels featuring DeMille, D.W. Griffith and the cast. Those shots cut through the spectacle we grow accustomed to seeing on the screen to reveal just how much work went into putting this production together. The Temple set and the stampedes of sheep and cattle… and the earthquake scenes… spectacular! Also gotta love 1927 Technicolor!
It’s honestly one of my favorite criterion selections, because of the way Jesus is introduced. That whole build-up and presentation is perfect, I think. The rest of it doesn’t come to mind very quickly, but I do remember enjoying it, and being fascinated with the film mainly because I hadn’t seen alot of silents at the time, but I was interested in any criterion movie, so I rented it.
Like the topic and these comments, all foolishness to God.
Amen!
I just finished watching the 1927 premier cut of the film. I agree that the film is “schmaltzy” and “overtly pious”, but that it’s also a very intriguing piece of film history. The way DeMille shoots the build up to the reveal of Christ, his glow and greatness, the backdrops on the inter-titles, and both Warner’s Christ and Joseph Schildkraut’s Judas are pointedly played.
The film disregarded, the release is pretty fantastic. Of course Criterion has packaged it well, with a very beautiful and intriguing 40 page booklet, and two cuts of the film with three different scores to choose from. As I said, I’ve only just watched the ‘27 version, which has one soundtrack option (a new score by Donald Sosin), but I’m very excited to sit down in the coming weeks and see the ’28 cut along with the original score and a new organ score.
hey if you live in Los Angeles area, you can see this film with live accompaniment at the Cinefamily on Fairfax, Sunday at 8pm. I just read that minutes ago in the LA TImes. WIsh I could go.
CriterionRefs
I have a hunch that the silent film epic “King of Kings” is not such a high priority or favored film by many on this board but I hope some of you can prove me wrong. I’ve been watching it over the past few weeks, since I got it for Christmas, and I really enjoy it. However, it seems on the surface kind of a misfit for Criterion in that the overall message of the film seems so overtly pious, reverent, sentimental and “mainstream.” Not to mention schmaltzy at times. So what do you make of this film… masterpiece, mediocrity or abomination?