The King of Kings

I'm not a religious man. Nevertheless, I found this to be a very moving picture.

Or series of pictures. So many of the shots are very clearly carefully set up, often to evoke famous paintings.

The use of light, though simple given the techniques of the day, is often very effective.

The story is told to include all the well-known episodes in the story of Christ. The pace is leisurely, but never too slow. Each scene is developed to its fullest.

And the acting - which is to say the faces - are sometimes remarkable.

If you're used to action movies, you'll never get through this. But if you can adopt yourself to its pace, you'll be amazed how effective this movie is.

What a masterpiece! Visually stunning and deeply moving, even for the non-religious. DeMille was at his best in the silent era, and I have never seen the story of Christ told so beautifully. With more than a passing nod to nineteenth century Biblical painting, DeMille recreates the last days of Jesus' life in painstaking detail. He takes some liberty with chronolgy, and there is his trademark combination of religious fervour and delicious decadence. But the passion and sincerity are so strong that I'll be surprised if you don't shed a tear once or twice. And Joseph Schildkraut is stunning as Judas.

Eye-popping sets and superb photography combine with huge crowds of extras and excellent costumes to create one of the great epic films. And dig that opening orgy scene involving a scantily clad Mary Magdalene, a couple of old men, a leopard and a hunky charioteer leading a team of zebra! Wow! The first shot of Jesus is also cinema magic, an unforgettable moment. This film is superb.

This Cecil B. DeMille silent classic is still well worth seeing. It is creative and interesting, while remaining respectful to its subject, and thus it is among the best of the many movies made about Jesus. Unlike most directors (especially today), DeMille did not think that he was bigger than his subject, and thus he uses his skills to illustrate the well-known story and to make it memorable, rather than expending time and energy in trying to push some trivial perspective of his own. He makes it lavish when it should be lavish, and keeps it simple when it should be simple.

The opening scene, with Mary Magdalene and her admirers hearing bits of news regarding Jesus and Judas Iscariot, is a good introduction to the rest of the story, and also sets the tone for what follows. While it is a fictionalized scene not found in the Bible, it seems natural and works well. The rest of the movie likewise does not always follow the biblical narratives exactly, but the added material is always in keeping with the main themes. The cast is pretty good, although given the nature of the story, most of them have limited screen time. H.B. Warner looks just a little too old to be fully convincing as Jesus, but otherwise he is good enough in a difficult role. Probably the best performance is given by Joseph Schildkraut as Judas. He is quite believable, and is especially good in the Last Supper scene. His father Rudolph is also good in a smaller role as the high priest Caiaphas.

With the vast number of movies that are always being made about religious subjects, no doubt it will only be silent movie fans who will seek out this version of "The King of Kings", but that's unfortunate because it is nicely made and has many positives that make it worth seeing.

King of Kings is an extraordinary movie. I was so caught up in it if they had said in the credits "Jesus as played by himself" I would have believed it. The scenes of the little blind boy finding his way to Jesus, and the interaction between Jesus and the little children stand out as the high points of the movie. There is a "healing" while with the little children that stands out as one of the finest movie moments ever.

It is a silent movie, but if you get caught up like me, you will swear there was talking as you look back on it.

I saw it in May of 1977 at the 50th anniversary of the Graumanns Chinese theater in Hollywood. It had opened 50 years ago that night with its first movie being King of Kings. Interesting, the next night was the premier of the first Star Wars movie.

Mr. DeMille's daughter or niece shared anecdotes about the filming after the movie. For example, there is a seen during the last supper, where, after everyone gets up and walks away a dove comes and lands on the table by the holy grail and gets lost in the lighting special effect. She informed us it was not planned.

She told us the movie played somewhere in the world every night for 46 years. And in South America, people would get on their knees in the theaters after the performance.

Powerful movie and very moving.

King of Kings, The (1927)

**** (out of 4)

It's interesting that Mel Gibson was originally going to show The Passion of the Christ without any subtitles because he felt the story spoke loudly enough and that audience members would know the story well enough so words weren't really needed. With The King of Kings being a silent film the silence really adds to the story but on the other hand, unlike Gibson it's very apparent that DeMille wasn't quite sure whether the audience would know the story good enough and that leads to the film's one weak spot. The film probably would have lost a good twenty-minutes if it weren't for all the intertitles, which become quite annoying because it's easy to read the lips of what the actors are saying. Even with that one flaw DeMille created one of the greatest tellings of the story of Jesus.

The first hour and half deals with Jesus (H.B. Warner) as he walks the Earth with his disciples where he cures the blind and helps the cripple to walk. The second hour then turns to the crucifixion and eventual resurrection and with each passing frame you can tell this is a film being made by someone very passionate about the subject matter. The great lengths DeMille went through to create this film have become somewhat legendary. The director would have ministers bless the film each day before filming and even made his actors sign papers swearing they wouldn't get into any trouble to where the audiences might not believe them in their part.

I find it quite odd to bash a religious film for not staying true to the source material because no movie ever has and I'm sure one never will. DeMille adds some interesting changes including having Mark be a young boy who is cured by Jesus but the most infamous change is the romance between Judas and Maria Magdalene. According to the liner notes, this so-called romance was a German legend but why DeMille decided to use it is anyone's guess. DeMille also said that the Jews were the most unfairly treated in the Bible and to avoid any anti-Semitic controversy, it's made quite clear that Rome was behind the deeds of that certain day.

As I said earlier, The King of Kings is epic in scale but DeMille thankfully never goes over the top and remembers that the story is the most important thing to make a movie work. Each and every frame is told in such loving care that it doesn't take any time for the film to transfer you back and make it seem as if you're actually there witnessing these events on your own. The lavished sets and thousands of extras also add a great deal of realism to the story and W.B. Warner, while a bit too old for the role, delivers a remarkable performance where he tells every feeling of Jesus with a simple look or body gesture.

The film is also quite moving especially the scenes with Jesus working with a group of sick people. DeMille usually slows the pace down so that we can see the love these sick people felt for Jesus and that clearly jumps right off the screen. DeMille also makes sure to show Jesus as a mythical character who can work wonders and most importantly, the film allows Jesus to be seen as someone who knows what love is and knows his mission in life.

When Jesus is working these wonders the director usually has a light shining on him, which would come off as camp but once again DeMille knew how far to push this and the effect works quite nicely. Another wonderful thing is that DeMille allows some humor to be thrown in with the off-screen violence. The best example of this is the guards getting ready to put the crown of thorns on Jesus but they keep hurting their hands trying to make it.

Another wonderful scene has a little girl asking Jesus to heal her doll, which has had a leg broken off.

Perhaps this was the showman side of DeMille coming into play but the director decided to film the resurrection with Technicolor. In the 1927 "Premier" version, Technicolor is also used at the very beginning of the film but soon fades to black and white when Jesus is introduced. The resurrection sequence with the use of color perfectly brings the detail of a life returning back to the Earth. It's rather hard to put it into words but when the B&W fades and the color comes shining through, with this little experiment DeMille is able to create some wonderful emotions and get his point across very quietly.

There have been dozens of religious movies since The King of Kings (including a remake) but I feel this one here is a film that would appeal to everyone no matter what their personal beliefs are. This is classic DeMille, which shows his talent at storytelling as well as his showmanship of delivering a spectacle like no other.