Two Cinematic Visions of Christ: The King of Kings (1927) vs. King of Kings (1961)

On the 18th of Could 1927, Grauman’s Chinese language Theater hosted the premiere of The King of Kings, a silent spectacle dramatizing the previous few days of Jesus Christ’s life. Directed by Cecil B. DeMille—the Hollywood impresario finest identified for his entertainments based mostly on Biblical tales, equivalent to 1956’s The Ten Commandments—the movie captivated spiritual and secular audiences alike with its grandiose pageantry: large units, a forged of 1000’s, and lavish particular results. Additionally noteworthy was the restricted use of shade pictures. Whereas predominantly shot in black-and-white per the usual of the time, the movie featured two Technicolor sequences: a gap bit that includes an unique Mary Magdalene and one other close to the tip depicting Jesus’s resurrection. In his e-book Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood, Robert S. Birchard claims the image’s finances equated to $2.26 million and quotes what was definitely meant to be a pious assertion from the director: “I’m solely the common-or-garden and grateful instrument via which the display screen… is carrying the best of all messages to lots of of 1000’s of fellow human beings.”

In 1961—two years after DeMille’s dying—a equally titled film was launched to audiences nonetheless clamoring for epics set within the historic previous. Whereas not an official remake, Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings additionally dramatized Christ’s life and teachings, dying on the cross, and resurrection. By this time, shade movie had grow to be widespread all through the world, as seen in additional modern Biblical epics equivalent to William Wyler’s Ben-Hur (1959), which received a whopping eleven Academy Awards. Ray’s image deviated from DeMille’s in that its content material was nearer to that of different ‘60s historic epics, that includes a prolonged prologue, politicking, and scenes of battle. However at its core remained the well-known story of Jesus and the way he endured crucifixion so the remainder of the world may have a chance at salvation.

DeMille’s The King of Kings and Ray’s King of Kings dramatize Jesus’s life inside the widespread frameworks of their respective occasions: the previous as silent-era showmanship and the latter as a historic epic. And whereas they may not be official variations of each other, their tackling of the identical story (below comparable titles, no much less!) warrants a level of comparability. A comparability by which DeMille’s image emerges superior as each a chunk of storytelling and, extra importantly, a cinematic rendering of Christ’s legacy.

One of many shortcomings of Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings is how distant and indifferent it appears for an adaptation of a Biblical story remembered for grace and intimacy. A part of the issue is that Ray and producer Samuel Bronston dedicate an excessive amount of time to superfluous expository materials. King of Kings begins with a prolonged prologue displaying how the Romans conquered Judea, full with violence and energy exchanges which are well-staged but wholly pointless. There’s a battle whereby Jewish rebels assault Roman troopers—many minutes of impersonal mayhem that merely introduce Barabbas (the insurgent whom the Jews spared to make sure Jesus’s crucifixion). There’s a unnecessary scene depicting the dying of Herod the Nice and the ascension of his son, Herod Antipas. Blended in with all of this detritus are Christ’s beginnings, however they arrive throughout as secondary to the encircling politics and warfare. By the point the grown Jesus (performed by Jeffrey Hunter) seems thirty minutes in, King of Kings, hampered by gratuitous exposition, is off to a weak begin.

Though DeMille’s The King of Kings additionally takes its time introducing Jesus, it does so through compact, streamlined storytelling. As talked about earlier than, the image opens with a Technicolor sequence that includes a scantily dressed Mary Magdalene (Jacqueline Logan). Surrounded by would-be sexual companions, she inquires concerning the whereabouts of 1 lover, Judas Iscariot, and learns he has grow to be a disciple to an area carpenter reportedly performing miracles. And so she ventures into the town to seek out them each. As the colour pictures switches to black-and-white, DeMille introduces a crowd of individuals responding to the work of Jesus, whom we’ve not but seen. A once-crippled boy named Mark (destined to put in writing one of many Gospels) emerges from the carpenter’s home, proclaiming to have been cured of his limp. One other little one—this one blind—begs the healed Mark to take her to see Jesus. From the beginning, the film is about Jesus and makes use of the setup, not for world-building, however to create a way of surprise anticipating Christ’s reveal.

It’s a reveal that DeMille correctly attracts out. Even because the digicam accompanies the 2 youngsters into Christ’s house, the Son of God stays off-screen. And when finally he does seem, it’s via the attitude of the blind little one regaining her sight. Mary Magdalene shortly thereafter enters the home, turns into spellbound by the person she meant to confront, and is cleansed of the Seven Lethal Sins which have lengthy outlined her life. The twenty minutes spent anticipating Jesus repay with two life-changing miracles. This sense of surprise—this sense of narrative—begins a set of patterns that distinguish The King of Kings as superior to its 1961 counterpart.

Though each motion pictures exceed two and a half hours, DeMille’s The King of Kings is the one one concerned with dramatizing Jesus’s works. Take, for example, the well-known account whereby Christ saves an adulteress from a crowd able to stone her. In DeMille’s image, Jesus’s heroics are preceded by a jar of flour being unintentionally dropped and shattered earlier than the girl. The Son of God crouches earlier than the spilled contents and together with his finger traces the phrases for numerous sins (“assassin,” “thief,” “adulterer”). These within the crowd acknowledge their hypocrisy—noticing the proverbial log in their very own eye—and retreat in disgrace. It’s a positive second capitalizing on the visible nature of cinema to inform the story largely via imagery. In contrast, the corresponding scene in Ray’s King of Kings is disappointingly fundamental: Jesus merely shouts for a sin-free individual to forged the primary stone and the group disperses, the battle ending in a matter of seconds.

In actual fact, Ray’s movie is essentially impersonal in depicting Jesus and his works. In contrast to The King of Kings, which used chatter amongst secondary characters to generate a way of surprise for the Son of God, Ray’s movie merely plunks Jesus’s miracles into the narrative with out dramatic buildup (and a few of his feats—equivalent to strolling on water—are merely talked about). The movie additionally pales due to some unlucky miscasting. H.B. Warner’s efficiency as Jesus within the DeMille model is immaculate, the actor relying totally on his soulful eyes and delicate mannerisms to convey a comforting sense of affection. (That Jesus appeared like a person we’d strategy for assist and steering.) In contrast, Jeffrey Hunter—a good-looking actor finest referred to as John Wayne’s sidekick in The Searchers (1956)—is unfortunately uninspiring and at occasions awkward in Ray’s movie.

For all these causes—an actor mismatched to the half and path not allowing ample room to what ought to be key scenes—the Jesus in 1961’s King of Kings comes throughout extra like a sketch of an individual than a plausible character, not to mention an inspiring non secular chief. Solely as soon as does he get an opportunity to correctly shine, in the course of the well-known sermon on Mount Galilee. Right here, director Ray permits enough time for the drama—and Hunter—to develop a way of knowledge and majesty, particularly when Jesus teaches the Lord’s Prayer. Sadly, it’s a uncommon efficient second in a film begging for extra prefer it.

The King of Kings additionally surpasses its 1961 successor by way of supporting characters. The disciple Peter in DeMille’s film (performed by Ernest Torrence) is a completely developed individual together with his personal persona and shortcomings—described in his introductory intertitle as “fast of mood however tender of coronary heart.” As a result of we come to know him, there’s emotional resonance when he fulfills the prophesied three-time denial of figuring out Jesus. The Peter in King of Kings (Royal Dano), in contrast, is—like the person he follows—merely a sketch, his denial amounting to little. However maybe most evident are the totally different depictions of the disciple who finally bought out the Son of God and paved the way in which for his struggling on the cross.

In The King of Kings, Judas Iscariot (Joseph Schildkraut) is given a transparent motivation for following—and later betraying—Jesus. He believes Christ is fated to be king, however within the worldly sense. He imagines a Jewish monarch who occupies a palace throne, instructions armies, and possesses huge wealth—and he hopes that his discipleship shall be rewarded “with honor and excessive workplace.” Therefore his disappointment when Jesus rejects worldly energy. (This results in an incredible second visualizing sin because the Pharisees tempt Judas by dropping the notorious thirty items of silver one after the other on a desk beside him.) In The King of Kings, Judas, like Peter, is a completely drawn individual. His counterpart in Ray’s film (performed by Rip Torn of Males in Black fame) is relatively bland and so hardly ever seen that the viewers by no means works up any explicit feelings towards him. (Moreover, in what would possibly show perplexing for secular viewers, King of Kings by no means explains why Judas kisses Jesus when betraying him. One have to be acquainted with the Biblical story to appreciate the kiss was a way of figuring out Christ to his captors.)

However probably the most hanging distinction between the 2 movies is how their endings are used to convey why Christianity issues to folks all through the world. Each The King of Kings and King of Kings climax with the well-known closing occasions of the Gospels: Jesus dies on the cross, Judas hangs himself, and the Son of God rises from his tomb. However contemplate what occurs subsequent. In King of Kings, the resurrected Jesus lingers off-camera, casting a vertical shadow upon a rolled-up tarp that lies horizontally on the bottom—the shadow bridging the tarp to create a symbolic crucifix. A strongly visible ending, however it’s DeMille’s that viscerally factors up the significance of the story each movies are based mostly on.

After exiting his tomb in The King of Kings, the Son of God briefly returns to his disciples, calling upon them to unfold his teachings all through the world. Then, in one of the profoundly lovely and non secular moments in cinema historical past, the digicam slowly tracks in on him whereas his followers and the background fade from view. The digicam continues advancing as Jesus’s environment are changed not with a Biblical setting from two thousand years in the past, however with a contemporary city skyline. Jesus lovingly gazes upon the town and his newest era of followers, and a superimposed intertitle transmits his ultimate spoken phrases within the movie: “Lo I’m with you at all times.” On this, we obtain an ending that constitutes greater than the capper to a narrative from the traditional previous. This denouement cinematically reminds audiences that Christ’s love—and his presence and his teachings—transcends the ages.

Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings is definitely watchable as a historic epic. It accommodates some spectacular imagery and some highly effective moments, however finally suffers from a clunky, unfocused narrative. Moreover, the movie lacks the uncooked emotional energy essential for its material and is about as private because the historical past lesson on which it opens. Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings, however, is a marvel: constantly entertaining, with well-defined characters and a supremely transferring efficiency at its heart. And for Christian viewers, it triumphs for saluting why the story represented on-screen has and can proceed to matter via the generations. It’s directly majestic and comforting—as a movie about Jesus ought to be.