Jesus of Nazareth 1916
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c767/4c7675c8401a5d1f9d4ced5eea5a2871e8bddb88" alt=""
So I was slightly disappointed to find out when the DVD arrived that it appeared to be a poor quality version of 1912's From the Manger to the Cross starring Robert Henderson-Bland. However, I decided to go through the film anyway just to see if there were any extra scenes added at all. The beauty of watching silent films on DVD is that you can play through at double or quadruple speed and still catch most things that are going on. Sadly it seemed that there was no new material.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ffadc/ffadcdc45c358145ea40ba544db5191b5fe682c9" alt=""
Yet in this 1916 re-issue, all of a sudden there is a resurrection scene, not to mention a burial scene and an ascension scene. None of these scenes were present in the original 1912 film which literally looked at the life of Jesus from the manger to the cross.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1af3b/1af3b6e9aff59fd62d93478ffc7cca2bbc6c45f4" alt=""
Furthermore, the intertitles have changed replacing the gothic font with something more art deco, and dropping the bible quotations and references for a simple explanation of the scene.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/65263/652639443fca3a7475af8253fae0188a2940d60b" alt=""
This film two seems to parallel another theological conundrum the ending of Mark's gospel. Whilst most translations still retain Mark 16:9-20 they usually acknowledge that it is absent in the most reliable manuscripts. Sadly, only a few include the various other endings that are found amongst the various manuscripts. It is generally agreed that both because these verses are often absent, and because they exhibit a dramatically different writing style that this is not the original ending to Mark. There are a number of different opinions on what actually happened. One theory is that Mark's gospel only ever went as far as 16:8 and was deliberately ended with things up in the air to form a theological challenge to the readers / hearers. Others, such as Tom Wright, suggest that there was an alternative ending that is lost to us. Both theories suggest that the Christian community (communities?) found the abrupt ending of Mark's gospel to be inadequate in some way and someone penned an ending which gradually gained acceptance.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c4f2/2c4f2005e299b3a732d4d4596f90d5f6af86c85d" alt=""
At some stage I plan to draw out the parallels here in more detail and see what light the relationship between these two films may shed on the debate about the ending of Mark's gospel.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/34307/3430715c0e3b83f76212d26d7346f09b5248ca9e" alt=""
Unfortunately, despite a number of enquiries, I've yet to find anyone that is able to guarantee that they sell the 1928 van Loan film, and not this Henderson-Bland one. Having tried to buy the van Loan one twice, I am a little hesitant to part with more money without such a guarantee. If anyone knows where it can be bought for definite, I'd appreciate knowing.
5 Comments:
At 2:56 pm, May 27, 2006,
WitlessD said…
I think I have found out where your version of "Jesus of Nazareth" comes from. The original film - the full title of which was "From the Manger to the Cross; or Jesus of Nazareth" - was a five reel feature. But, according to the AFI Catalogue of Silent Films: "The Vitagraph Co. of America acquired Kalem's properties in Feb 1919 and, according to a modern source, released a six reel re-edited version of the film." (http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=1&Movie=13552) Your DVD may well be that version, the additional reel being the scenes of the burial, resurrection and ascension. So 1919 is perhaps the correct date rather than 1916, as advertised on eBay. If all this is right, the question remains whether the additional scenes were newly shot by Vitagraph or "acquired" from some other source.
Cheers
At 1:48 pm, May 30, 2006,
Matt Page said…
Thanks for the info Witlessd.
I remembered after buying the 1916 version of the film that the original film was also known as Jesus of Nazareth, but that's the first piece of evidence I can recall to date the longer edition discussed above. I'll re-check the books tonight to see if they say any more.
Thanks for the link.
Matt
At 6:24 pm, April 07, 2010,
Jeff Staley said…
Matt, As you probably know, this film is available on YouTube. today, I was watching the scene of Jesus in the temple at the age of 12, and noticed an added scene, where Mary and Joseph watch through a window as Jesus teaching the elders. Quite nice.
At 8:53 am, April 08, 2010,
Matt Page said…
Thanks Jeffrey,
Hadn't realised, so I'll maybe check out that extra scene. This does confirm my suspicions that the film available on ebay as the 1928 Jesus of Nazareth is actually this film. I'd still like to think it wasn't but don't want to risk the cash!
Matt
At 10:39 am, February 17, 2016,
charlesjhnsn said…
I wanted the full Philip Van Loan version myself. A&E's documentary "The Story of the Twelve Apostles, " has excerpts with Van Loan as Jesus that are not in Manger to the cross/Jesus of Nazareth. I contacted A&E to enquire and got no response. After much research I believe the Philip Van Loan version may have deteriorated and the remains were featured in the A&E documentary and spliced long ago onto the manger and the cross. Hence the the two titles at the beginning of manger to the cross and the two actors in Jesus of Nazareth.
Post a Comment
<< Home