Queen Esther (1948)

About 6 years ago I mentioned that the Gospel Films Archive were hoping to release a DVD of the 1948 Cathedral Films production Queen Esther. It's been a longer wait than any of us expected, but I was really excited this week to get an email from them informing me that the restoration work on the film has finally been completed and it's now available to buy on DVD alongside the 1937 biblical film, Ruth which I'm yet to see¹ Here's my brief review of what I think is quite an important work, given the general of paucity of US biblical films in the 20 year prior to its release.
=====

Esther has often been a popular choice for Jewish and Christian artists working in an array of media over the decades. The patriarchal succession for Israel and Judah meant that biblical queens have tended to only been involved in the royal families by marrying into them, and of those few to get anything more than a cursory mention, often they are seen as having a negative influence rather than a positive one.

Esther, though, is distinctly different. As a Jewish woman who gets elevated to be a queen in the Persian Empire. Not only does her story have excitement and glamour built into it, but she is also given a heroic role that she can fulfill by being faithful to God. No surprise, then, that during that first big crop of films based on the Hebrew Bible from 1908 to 1913, Esther got her movie debut in 1910 (Esther and Mordecai & The Marriage of Esther) and that by the end of the decade her story had graced the silver screen seven times. 

Yet by the time Cathedral films released Queen Esther in 1948 it had been almost three decades since her story had been made into any kind of film. As such it's the first Esther film to feature sound and one of the rare American Bible films from the period from the Great Depression to the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

Interestingly the film starts in a modern setting with a Jewish family reading the Bible as part of celebrating Purim and using her Jewish name Hadassah. This framing of the story as a Jewish story is quite remarkable given its age, but perhaps just three years after the horrors of the Second World War the resonances between Haman's attempted destruction of the Jews and Hitler's were unavoidable. Indeed when we return to this family at the conclusion of the film the family's patriarch ("Grandfather") reminds them that "throughout the centuries there have been many who have attempted to destroy our people..."

By the time the story transitions to Ancient Persia then Esther has already married the Persian king, here identified as by the Greek version of his name Xerxes (rather than Ahasuerus). Esther, played by Ottilie Kruger, is also identified as Mordecai's cousin. The opening scene is fictional and, somewhat bizarrely,² features Mordecai (Richard Hale) explaining to Esther that those who approach her husband without permission risk being condemned to death. There's also an additional episode where Haman (Addison Richards) tries to convict one of Mordecai's associates of stealing from him, only for Mordecai to outwit him. While it remains an implication, it certainly is implied that Haman is acting dishonestly. It also firmly establishes that Mordecai is the kind of brave, forthright, quick-witted person whose character will be used to heroic effect later on.

Only then do we come across the first biblical episode from Esther 2:19-23 where Mordecai overhears a plot to kill the king, tells Esther who informs one of the kings advisors meaning the plot is foiled. Xerxes (Charles Evans) assumes this is Haman's work, but the official involved makes sure that it's recorded in the annals that it was Mordecai who was responsible for saving the king. But the official continues in his conversation with the scribe. It's clear that even a (presumably) neutral Persian considers Haman a bit iffy.

It turns out though that really this official should be more concerned about Haman's wife (pictured below) than he himself. Following Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman, it is she who comes up with the idea to kill all the Jews and then urges Haman to do it. "It's beneath your dignity and rank to avenge yourself against one man. If all the Jews refuse to pay homage, let them all suffer" Later she will also suggest building some gallows for Haman to have Mordecai executed. I'm not sure if this is the impact of film noir and its femmes fatale, but its strange to shift the blame from the villain in the text to another when no motive is particularly apparent.

Xerxes seems to have a rather laissez-faire attitude to Haman's authority which makes him somewhat unsympathetic. Nevertheless, Mordecai is very positive about his emperor's character, even calling him "Good King" when he is not around, stressing that "the king is not unkind, not unreasonable". Even when Haman's plan becomes apparent Mordecai is unable to blame the king. "It's evident that our good king has been misled". What's interesting is that (thankfully) there's no real attempt to present Xerxes as a romantic figure to whom Esther is drawn, something that is bolstered by the opening of the story being excised. But then in some ways this is because Mordecai is almost more of the focus in this film than Esther herself.

For a low budget production the sets are pretty good. I can't speak to their authenticity, though as with The Story Esther  (1910) there are suggestions of the bas-reliefs in Haman's house and Xerxes' palace. The exteriors seem pretty good too. Likewise I don't know enough about the costumes of this time and place to be able to pronounce on their authenticity, (Haman wearing trousers) but they do seem to be more distinctive and of better quality than in some of the other releases by Cathedral Films. 

There's the occasional nice use of the camera too. As many of the shots are fairly static the more dynamic shots – such as the pivotal scene when Esther risks all to request a dinner date with Xerxes and Haman – stand out all the more. The eve of the second banquet finds neither Esther nor Xerxes able to sleep, leading Xerxes to discover Mordecai's heroics meaning Haman's spends the day before the banquet leading Mordecai around the city to be honoured.

I always feel with the Esther story that the protracted stages with which Esther makes her request doesn't really translate very well dramatically. Here the film takes steps to make that seem less awkward while maintaining the original three-request structure of the original text. The first banquet follows immediately after her shock appearance in the courtroom and is very short: As with the Bible, Haman arrives at the second banquet hot on the heels of his day honouring Mordecai finally arrives. 

It's interesting, though, how director John T. Coyle has subtly altered the seating arrangement. Esther sits to the left of the frame in both scenes, but in the first she sits next to Xerxes, literally getting him on-side: In the second, now Haman sits between the king and his wife, as if underlining the fact that his schemes threaten to separate king and queen permanently. Esther seizes her moment when Haman proposes a toast to the royal couple's reign "may it be a long, prosperous and happy one", opting out of the toast and then, when pressed by Xerxes, explaining her predicament. Xerxes is angered. Haman exposed. Xerxes orders that Haman and his sons be hanged on their own gallows and promises Esther that he will find a way to save them.

It's here that the film cuts back to the film's modern book-end. The extent to which the Jewish people fought back (killing over 75,000 of their enemies) is doubly watered down here. Firstly, no scenes of this violence are depicted, but also when instead the "Grandfather" (played, I think, by the same actor as Mordecai) narrates the end of the story his rather child-friendly summary is that  "they defended themselves so valiantly, their enemies were discouraged". 

For those familiar with Cathedral Films' other efforts, particularly The Great Commandment (1939), No Greater Power (1942), I Beheld His Glory (1952) and Day of Triumph (1954), this film is more or less what one might expect. The story holds fairly closely to the biblical story, with the most significant variations being being the point at which the story dips in and out of the original text, often using some kind of framing device. The costumes and sets look good value for the low budget and the acting is to a better standard than similar church produced films in the era. While, like nearly all Esther films, it makes certain elements of the story more palatable and family friendly, at least it doesn't take things in the opposite direction of making it a love story. And of course the kind of more incisive interrogation of the text that that we might give it today was not remotely on the agenda in 1948.

What was on the agenda back then is reflection on the Holocaust and it's here where the film is most powerful and creditable. Its framing of this as a Jewish story and a reminder that persecution of Jewish people has been an ongoing aspect of history, not a one off, seems unprecedented to me, even with biblical films from the post-war period. It's even more remarkable given its the product of an unashamedly church-based producers and deserves to be seen more widely.

==============
1 - I haven't been paid to endorse this film though I did receive a screening link. I don't even make money via Amazon affiliate links: They're just convenient.

 2 - I don't mean that the law permitting this is bizarre, even though it seems so to our eyes, more that it seems odd that Mordecai is explaining this to Esther only after she has married him and that this wasn't covered during the 12 months she was being institutionalized at court.

The Great Commandment (1939)

Which was the first "talking Jesus"? It's a question which is more complex than it might initially appear. Depending on how one defines what constitutes a Jesus film, where it plays, and the language in which Jesus is speaking there is a variety of different answers from 1935's Golgotha to 1961's King of Kings. And then there's the various silent Jesus films which were re-released with sound after the advent of the new technology. Do they count?

Twelve years after the last, major silent Jesus film, DeMille's The King of Kings came the release of  The Great Commandment (1939). It's one of the many that can, perhaps, stake a reasonable claim to being the first Jesus talkie. It was also the first film made by Cathedral films; produced by John T. Coyle, assisted by Rev. James K. Friedrich and directed by Irving Pichel. The team would work together for almost twenty years creating a series of biblical and religious films which were shown in churches, cinemas and on television.

That said, technically speaking, the film is not quite a proper Jesus film, but lies partway between a full Jesus movie and the kind of Roman-Jewish-Christian epic where Jesus' role is reduced to that of a significant cameo. Here Jesus does not feature until the halfway point and whilst we hear his voice, his face is shown only once as a fleeting reflection. Thereafter, we hear him speak, and even see things from his point of view, but his face remains off screen.

The story revolves around a love triangle between two zealot brother who both have an interest in Tamar (Marjorie Cooley) a girl from their village. The elder brother Joel (John Beal) is in love with her, but she is betrothed to his younger brother Zadok (Warren McCollum). The dispute leads Joel to fall out with his pacifist scholarly father so he goes off in search of the charismatic leader from Nazareth about whom he has heard so much.

Such a plot, where a zealot mistakes Jesus for a political leader before ultimately becoming one of his followers, was one that Coyle, Friedrich and Pichel returned to a number of times, most notably in the television movie I Beheld His Glory (1952) and the cinematic release Day of Triumph (1954).

This early incarnation perhaps lacks the finesse and pacing of the latter version. There's not a great deal of chemistry between Joel and Tamar, and John Beal's boyish good looks make it hard to take his seriously as a hardened zealot rebel. That said, things pick up in the second half when Beal encounters Jesus. By giving only vague indications as to the story's date (30 AD) and location ("In between Jericho and Jerusalem") the film makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly whereabouts in Jesus' life Joel is encountering him. This adds a sense of tension and mystery to proceedings, even though the audience ultimately senses how things will end.

This lack of a frame of reference is enhanced by the way the film selects material from the gospels. Aside from a couple of miracles, it largely utilises the sayings material, and even then the order of the material is jumbled up. The Beatitudes (Matt 5) come after the, much later, phrase "Those who live by the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt 26). Material from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is mixed with parables from far later in Luke. The Jesus we encounter seems far closer than the one from the Q material unique to Matthew and Luke's gospel than any one of the canonical gospels.

Joel is gradually drawn closer to Jesus, best expressed in a tracking shot of him whilst Jesus recites the Beatitudes. Shooting Joel from below he gradually moves from the outside of the crowd listening to Jesus to close to where Jesus is speaking. The lateral movement enables him to maintain a purposeful pace whilst his eyes remain purposefully fixed on his new master. There are a number of longer moving shots like this throughout the film often portraying a sense of togetherness of those captured together.

One particularly striking example is a two minute long shot taken from Jesus' point of view. At first it is not even clear that this is perspective from which the shot is taken, but then the camera focuses on Joel's father before panning right to Joel and Andrew and then back to his father. The way the camera, and Jesus' gaze, links the two men and suggests a reconciliation which is never quite fully realised within the film itself.

Perhaps the most significant of these extended shots occurs when Joel returns home for Zadok and Tamar's wedding, joining the guests in harmony before an abrupt cut to a close-up on Tamar's, slightly regretful, face. The scene is also significant for the emphasis it places on the Jewishness of its characters. The dress, music and dancing style of the characters may seem a little stereotypical, but it's an undeniably positive attempt to capture the Jewish nature of the story, and Jesus himself, just as the Second World War was beginning. Given the film's final scenes, perhaps it can be ready as a naive argument for appeasement, before the horrors of the Nazi regime had become apparent. Nevertheless, any such argument is based on and rooted in the Jewishness of Jesus and his early followers.

Day of Triumph (1954)

Day of Triumph's claim to fame in the pantheon of Jesus films is often misreported, but essentially it's this: it was the sound era's first American film about the life of Jesus to appear in cinemas. Between it's release in December 1954 and the previous major Hollywood Jesus film, The King of Kings (1927) there were Jesus films from other countries, such as Golgotha (1935) and El Mártir del Calvario (1952); films in which Jesus featured around the margins of the main story, such as The Last Days of Pompeii (1935) and The Robe (1953); and even American Jesus films that played in smaller venues like churches or on TV, such as No Greater Power (1942) and 1951's Hill Number One. So whilst things are a little less clear-cut than is sometimes imagined, Day of Triumph's role is certainly a significant film and a forefather to the many American Jesus films that would follow in its wake.

What's surprising on watching the film again, after a great many years, is how well it tackles some of the issues latter Jesus movies have grappled with. Like many Jesus films there were accusations of anti-Semitism in the run up to its release, which apparently "made many theatre owners reluctant to book the movie".¹ The film does have a few problematic elements in this respect. Judas, for example, is depicted with arched eyebrows and a devilish beard and is shown to be both overly ambitious and scheming ("I'll begin to offer casual suggestions on important matters, later I'll advise on more vital affairs."). Ultimately it's over-confidence and hubris that lead to his downfall. Yet at the same time, in other ways it is a sympathetic portrayal of Judas. He has strengths as well as his eventual weaknesses: he is eloquent and visionary, delivering the film's best dialogue in a scene affirming Jesus' humanity; his betrayal of Jesus is not in the least motivated by the money, but out of a desire to see Jesus elevated to Judah's king; and he is played with great sympathy by James Griffith such that ultimately it is Judas that is the character the audience is left rooting for. It's perhaps the most intimate and fleshed-out portrayal of Judas yet captured on film. It doesn't milk his suicide, unsensationally keeping it off camera. Had it, no doubt it would have detracted to a certain degree, from the film's "happy" ending.

The film attempts to try and present the historical and religious context of the film in a fair light. Various characters, including Jesus, are called by their father's names (e.g. Jesus bar Joseph), the Zealots - who here appear on very good terms with numerous disciples - are unmistakably Jewish, not least because they wear skull caps and pray. These key plot elements here were reproduced in Nicholas Ray's King of Kings (1961) - a zealot party divided between those backing Jesus and those supporting Barabbas, ultimately betraying the former in favour of the latter, to Judas' heartbreak - but whereas Ray's film largely secularises the zealots, here they belong, and are very much motivated by the Jewish faith.

Historically speaking whilst the film still implicates Caiaphas and Annas, their actions are largely isolated from the general populace and Arthur T. Horman's script has them make it clear that only Pilate has the power to execute Jesus. Pilate himself is portrayed as being cunning and sly, deliberately trying to make the priests appear culpable. When it's suggested that Pilate might consult the people, it's the priests that instruct their servants to go and assemble a group of their supporters to deliberately influence the vote. The zealots infiltrate the crowd as well, of course, unusually with Judas still amongst their number. By this stage, however, whilst he is still with them in person, in spirit they have rejected his vision and switched their alliances to Barabbas. When Judas, seemingly alone in such a biased crowd, continues to call for the release of his master, he is struck on the head and knocked out by one of his fellow zealots who prefers Barabbas to the "weeping" Jesus. It's the last time Judas is seen in the film.

The strength of the portrayal of Judas, the fact that it is supposed to be a film about Jesus, and the presence of two major stars (Lee Cobb who plays Zadok and Joanne Dru's Mary Magdalene), does give the film something of a problem, namely that it's a little unclear who the film is actually about. At the time of filming, it was Dru that was the film's biggest star, having had the leading female roles in 1948's Red River and the following year's She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, though her appearance is only brief. Interestingly, Dru's Magdalene is never specifically identified as a prostitute, indeed the film portrays her as a woman of some means - an assertion that there is at least some evidence to support.

As Zadok, Cobb (whose performance in On the Waterfront earlier that same year had propelled him to stardom) features far more prominently. Indeed in some ways the film is more about Zadok, and his path to faith, than it is about Jesus. As the most prominent of the various 'narrators' in the film, it is primarily through Zadok's eyes, or at least those of someone alongside him, that we watch the events of the film unfold. Jesus is the Amadeus to Zadok's Salieri. Zadok is a relatively neutral presence amongst the disciples and zealots who intermingle throughout the film repeatedly asking the various characters what news they have in order to gain updates about the latest developments. In addition to Judas the political schemer he also maintains a good relationship with Barabbas and his supporters (militant firebrands), Simon (the former zealot, who has now opted for Jesus's peaceful path) and, unusually, Andrew who is seemingly linked to both the zealots and the disciples. It's a device that means that Zadok, and by extension, therefore, the viewer get to hear about and ultimately witness the resurrection, in the scene that top and tails the rest of the film.

What, then of the film's depiction of Jesus? In many ways the film's most radical statement about Jesus was its decision to show his face. It's true that the film's producer/writer/director team of James K. Friedrich, Arthur T. Horman and John T. Coyle had already produced a series of short films (The Living Christ series, 1951) featuring the same actor, Robert Wilson, as Jesus, as well as a longer film for church use I Beheld His Glory (1952). But this was the first time since the introduction of the Hays Code that Jesus had appeared in US cinemas.

Having waited 27 years the filmmakers waste no time in revealing the face of Jesus. In a teaser shot, before even the credits we see Jesus in close-up, shot from below against a rich blue sky (top). It forms an interesting contrast with the long wait before Jesus' appearance in The King of Kings (1927) and his hidden performance in the previous year's The Robe. It also anticipates similar shots in Ray's King of Kings that would be released 7 years later in 1961. This appearance before the credits role is also somewhat reminiscent of the start of John's Gospel, a reminder of Jesus' preeminence, his existence before the beginning of the world/the film.

Within the main body of the film, Jesus' first appearance is also interesting. Jesus appears behind a drying fishing net which in effect places a veil between him and the audience. It is a veil that is soon to be torn down to reveal the face of God made flesh. Indeed the concept of a fully human Christ, one who fully partakes in human experience is close to the heart of the film's portrayal of Jesus. In the speech alluded to above Judas describes the man he is following in the most sold and physical terms:

I've lived travelled eaten and slept with Jesus bar Joseph for more than two years and I've studied him more closely than any man. He's learnéd, but he's human; mortal, flesh and blood, just like you and me. When briars scratch his legs, he bleeds. When the day is hot he thirsts. He hungers, he sweats, he tires, he laughs, he cries. Would God or the son of God have such weaknesses?

This conversation (between Judas and Zadok) is just one of many behind-the-scenes musings about who Jesus is and how he might be used to forward various individuals' differing agendas; they are left frustrated by his refusal to conform to the patterns of behaviour they expect of him. When he enters Jerusalem, swept along on a wave of euphoria and seemingly well poised to declare himself king, he stops at the temple, weeps and disappears from sight. The music shift in tone at this point from typical epic pomp to something more nightmarish. This is the music of Judas' perspective as his plan for Jesus fails just when it was set to succeed. Whilst Judas insists it could all happen again the zealots decide Jesus is not going to fulfil the role they had hoped and turn their attention to the urgent task of freeing the captured Barabbas.

This kind of speculation and dramatic license was a significant shift away from Friedrich and Coyle's earlier work on The Living Christ series, perhaps due to the introduction of Irving Pichel as director. Not only does the film include a far more varied and meaningful range of music in the film and a far more interesting use of the camera, but it is also liberated from the kind of slavish keeping to the text that made Living Christ good for Sunday schools but ultimately unsuitable for cinemas.

Having said that, in places the film's dramatic additions give it a few structural problems. Major characters such as Mary Magdalene appear prominently only to retreat to obscurity, their role reduced to little more than an opportunity to get Jesus to say or do a particular thing. More pointedly, the film seems to have three or four different beginnings and almost as many natural endings. Yet this weakness doesn't detract too greatly from the film's many strengths

====
1 - https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/revival-of-distinguished-1954-classic-film-day-of-triumph.html

Day of Triumph (1954) Comes to DVD and Download

Despite the many Bible films to have been released to DVD in the last twenty years one that has been curiously omitted up to this point is 1954's Day of Triumph. Thankfully the good people at the Gospel Films Archive/Christian Movie Classics (whose other work I've covered here) have finally made the film available both on DVD (via Amazon) and for digital download from Vision Video. The DVD also features an introduction to the film from the son of its producer James Friedrich and the 1941 short The Child of Bethlehem (dir. Edwin Maxwell).

At the moment the film has not been digitally remastered, but I know that is something the team at Gospel Films Archive are hoping to do in the future. However, the recording on the DVD is from a good quality TV broadcast master, it's just not an HD version taken from the original negative. The image at the top of this post is a screenshot of the film's opening scene. There's a little discolouration but otherwise it's very clean and the resolution is certainly far better than that VHS copy you may have stashed in the attic.

I've been sent a review copy of the DVD and I'll post a review of the film shortly. Having seen it on VHS a few times many years ago it was really interesting to watch it again with a far better appreciation of the successes and failures of the Jesus films sub-genre. I will include some screen shots from the film so any fellow purists can assess the quality for themselves.

Essentially, though, for the time being this is the only version currently available of what is a significant entry in the canon.

No Greater Power (1942)

Many years ago I won a copy of the cine projector release of this film and have been waiting for our family projector to get into a fit state to be able to watch it. Having finally got around to seeing it I’ve now found out that the Gospel Films Archive have released it on DVD (along with I Beheld His Glory (1952) and the 1949 film Ambassador for Christ from Cathedral Films’ “Life of Paul series) so it’s available to view for considerably less hassle than I had to go through.

The film itself dates from 1942 which puts it in that early talkie period when very few companies were making Jesus films were made. One of the major exceptions was Cathedral films who also made other early, sound-era, Jesus films such as The Great Commandment (made in 1939 but not released until Fox did so in 1942) and Child of Bethlehem (1940). Like those films No Greater Power was produced by Rev. James K. Friedrich who also co-wrote it with Robert Edmunds. Friedrich’s regular collaborator John T. Coyle directed, a partnership that would produce a vast body of Bible films in the years to follow.

The film starts, somewhat unusually, with a man and woman arriving in what appears to be a rural village. As she is pregnant and riding a donkey it’s natural to think of the Nativity and to wonder how these images will fit with what we have already been told is the story of Zacchaeus, particularly as the couple are searching for somewhere to stay the night.

Further unexpected twists are to come: We meet Zacchaeus, but he’s only a down-on-his-luck potter; the couple are not married but brother and sister; and it emerges that the man of the couple, rather than Zacchaeus who is the tax collector.

Initially Zacchaeus turns the couple away. He already has some financial difficulties and offering hospitality to a tax collector is bad for business such is the feeling of hatred and the fear of spiritual contamination from his fellow townspeople. But then there’s a chance encounter with a pernickety Jewish scribe who forces him to destroy one of his pots when it momentarily comes into contact with a dead insect. Zacchaeus is infuriated and decides to reject the strictures of the Jewish law and offer hospitality, at a considerable price, to the tax collector and his wife.

As the evening passes, the two men chat and the tax collector persuades Zacchaeus of the benefits of that particular profession, namely that there is money and power to be gained. When his guests leave, Zacchaeus enlists and a quick montage shows us him accruing considerable wealth.

It’s clear though that his perceived rejection by his fellow townspeople, and his subsequent power and wealth have changed him such that whereas initially he was the kind of man who might be compassionate towards strangers in town, he is now motivated almost solely by profit. So it is that we arrive at the story from Luke’s Gospel.

Later on Cathedral Films’ offerings tended to adopt a more straightforward, point and shoot methodology, perhaps as the pressures of covering so much material in such a short period of time took precedence over more artistic concerns. Here however there are several notable shots and it’s not inconceivable that these were due, in part, to cinematographer John Alton who went on to greater things in Elmer Gantry and Robert Siodmak’s classic Film Noir The Killers (1946).

Perhaps it’s just the era, or the black and white photography, but it’s the Noir film that seems more closely related to Alton’s work here, particularly the interiors of Zacchaeus’ house, which is shot from a variety of high and low angles. There’s also interesting use of light, not least the film’s most discussed shot (below), where backlighting forms a halo effect around Jesus’ head.

Significantly our first shot of Jesus is taken from over Zacchaeus’ shoulder (below), not quite a point-of-view shot, but certainly suggestive of such. Jesus is a small figure in the background, distant, remote and cut off from the film’s eponymous anti-hero. The audience is then privileged with closer shots of Jesus as we see him interact with some of the townspeople. There are blessings of children, and perhaps the suggestion of a healing.

Here as well we’re given a brief sample of Jesus’ teaching, all of which comes from the Gospel of Matthew rather than Luke. In the main it’s Matthew 5:43-48 (shown as intertitles in the cine release version), but the final line is Matt 5:20: "...except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

It's not entirely clear why the filmmakers decided that, of all the words of Jesus available to them, it was these that should be chosen here. The "love your enemies" passage from Matt 5:43-48 is conceivably the kind of thing that Jesus might have thought Zacchaeus's neighbours needed to hear, but did they think their audience needed to hear it as well? Given that this film was released the year after the United States entered the Second World War, it's hard not to think of that conflict in the background. And what of the use of Matt 5:20? To end on this passage - and to graft it onto a passage where it doesn't belong, in a story that neither passage belongs in suggests some kind of message intended for the audience.

It's not long however, Zacchaeus gets to meet Jesus. From a theological angle it’s perhaps significant that this is very much a film about Jesus finding the sinner and not the other way round. Indeed the film brings out some of the more available metaphors in the story which are easily overlooked solely by reading it. Zacchaeus isolated and to, an extent, tangled in the tree. It’s reminiscent of Absalom and also of the tree in the Garden of Eden: neither connection had really struck me before.

Jesus enters Zacchaeus's house and things largely proceed in line with the account in Luke 19:1-10, but there are more interesting ideas visually, not least the shot of one of the women of the house washing Jesus' feet. Zaccheus' wife had not been convinced about his career change, but was largely absent from the montage that charted his rise to power, but here she (?) takes the first active role in responding to Jesus, unwittingly aligning herself with the "woman of sinful life" from Luke 7.

The moment of Zaachaeus' conversion is also portrayed interestingly, with a double exposure of his face overlaying a montaged flashback of earlier scenes in the film. Looking back it's easy to smirk at this shot which seems a quite dated by today's standards, but it's easy to forget that this film was made just a few months after the release of Citizen Kane, and only 12 years after Vertov's Man With a Movie Camera, of which it's most reminiscent.

However, arguably the film's most satisfactory shot comes right near the end, as Zacchaeus leaves his house to return his ill-gotten gains to his victims. The moment (see below) is shot from inside the house, over the shoulder of Jesus who stands in the doorway. Zaccheus gradually diminishes as he moves towards the townspeople, gradually merging with them and so bringing the attention back towards his new Lord. It pairs perfectly with the shot over Zacchaeus's shoulder earlier in the film, suggesting both unity and, perhaps, substitution, with its connotations of atonement. It's a fitting end for a production that uses strong visual ideas and good filmmaking technique to elevate it above its humble origins.

Heavenly Holiday Film Classics

Heavenly Holiday Film Classics is a collection of six lesser known Christmas films from days gone past. The majority go back to the fifties and sixties but at least one has their roots even further back. As a result these films are hard to get hold of and Festival Films has done a great service by collecting them and making them more widely available. But make no mistake, the films have not been digitally remastered or restored and Festival Films make no such claim.

Silent Night:A Story of the Christmas Carol (1953)
The first of two films on this DVD to look at the story of how "Silent Night" was written. This is the later film which focuses on the spread of the carol after an organ repair man chances upon the song in Oberndorf. Whilst this legend is popular, there's not a great deal pf evidence for it, in fact Wikipedia cites Silent Night historian Renate Ebeling-Winkler Berenguer as tracking this part of the story back only as far as 1965 - 12 years after this film (though it also mentions a 1947 play).

Christmas is Magic (1953)
Christmas is Magic is probably my least favourite of the six films on this DVD, although even then it's a nice film to look at even if the plot and the dialogue are rather weak. Frances Rafferty plays Julie, a young widow about to get remarried to the effortlessly grumpy, Christmas cynic, Brad. It's in this pairing that the plot first falters, aside from being stable, it's hard to really see what he has to offer her. Julie and her son Sonny meet an amnesiac war veteran by the Christmas tree in town, and when his Christmas cheer warms their hearts they welcome into their homes. If you're the type that loves Christmas schmaltz laid on thick then there's a chance you might enjoy this. This visuals do have a certain something. Unfortunately, on this one, I'm with Brad.

Star of Bethlehem (1956)
Star of Bethlehem (1956) is a film I've known about for quite some time, and been meaning to see, but never quite got around to it. It is one of the films available at the BFI's mediatheques. The original film apparently dates back to 1921, being the work of the German silhouette-animator Charlotte "Lotte" Reiniger (June 2, 1899 -- June 19, 1981). But in 1956 Cathedral Films re-released with narration in English.

The film itself is simply, but effectively made. Black silhouetted characters move in the foreground contrasting starkly with the film's coloured backgrounds. The simplicity of the medium should not be mistaken for a lack of sophistication however. The graceful, skillful movements are capable of evoking genuine feeling, the birth scene, for example, evokes surprising intimacy. The one notable change in style is the appearance of the angels to the shepherds. In contrast to the rest of the film, he its the angels who light up against a dark background.

The story is straight forwardly told, and whilst the medium and voiceover are both a little dated, younger children will still enjoy it. My 4 year old and 6 year old did at any rate.

Three Young Kings (1956)
Perhaps the best of the six films on offer here is Three Young Kings by director Richard Kinon. Kings tells the tale of three boys from the mission school who have the honour of playing the wise men in the village's traditional present-giving ritual. Parents provide presents for their children via the school and the eldest three children don magi costumes and go round the richer parts of town dishing round their gifts. But this year the trio take a short cut through the poorest part of the village and end up giving the presents away to those children instead - most of whom will not get presents. The pivotal scene is a delight with the three boys switching from mild annoyance at being inconvenienced to handing round other children's presents with gleeful abandon, but it's the final scene with echoes of the still-to-be-made Spartacus and 12 Angry Men in the mix that clinches it. The boy's main opponent is possibly a little too cartoon-like for my liking, but that fails to rob the story of it's genuine emotional wallop that makes it the film of all these likely to become a stable (sic.) of Christmas viewing in the Page household for years to come.

Star of Bethlehem (1954)
Star of Bethlehem (1954) was a pet project of actor James Mason who produced, directed and narrated the film and cast his own daughter as Mary.

It's an funny old project. The first half of the film consists of Mason dully narrating the nativity account from Luke. It's not helped by the use of a (now) fairly archaic translation, but Mason's famous voice is renders the story dull by its lack of intonation.

The second half however is very different, a charming adaptation of the story using children. Child actors can be a real hit-or-miss affair but these children do a decent job of playing their roles without swinging to far into honey-coated sentimentality. I'm not sure my kids would sit through the first half of this film again, but they would certainly re-watch the second part.

Starlight Night (1939)
The second "Silent Night" origins storyline the collection is actually the elder filmed in pre-war Austria in 1939. The timing of the film would have made it strongly political as it draws out parallels between Napolean's forced conscription in 1811 and similar events in the austria of their time, but its focus is more on the need for reconciliation once the conflict is over. These debates are focussed in on a single estranged family - a man who having lost his son in the hostilities can't forgive his daughter for marrying a survivor, not least because he is also the son of a survivor from a previous forced conscription. Even the birth of a grandson fails to melt the old man's heart. What is melting however is the snow above the young couple's house in the mountains, leaving the three of them homeless the night before Christmas.

Finding the family bedding down in a nativity-esque stable Father Mohr decides to take action, writing a song to accompany his homily on the scandal of unforgiveness and estrangement and when he teams u with Franz Gruber the world's most well loved Christmas Carol is born, leaving the old man defenceless to his grandson's advances. At times it's a little forced, but, I must admit, I'm a sucker for stories of reconciliation and, not for the first time whilst watching this collection of films, the odd tear might have been shed.

---

All in all then an interesting mix of films with different degrees of quality effectiveness, emotion and religious content and for the completists, or those keen for a bit of nostalgic content this would make a great addition to your Christmas film collection.

Living Christ/Bible Films

I've been trying to find some information on "Cathedral Films" in general and the Living Christ/Living Bible series in particular.

IMDB lists the production date for this series as 1951. It also seems that there were two series made about the same time with similar names.

1 - The Living Christ series which was made about 1951, and starring Robert Wilson, 12x30 minute episodes discussed below.

2 - The Living Bible Series was made about 1952 (so unrelated to the paraphrase of the bible), and seems to star Nelson Leigh, 24 or 26 episodes. Some of these are available on DVD.

I've found this interview which relates to the casting of "Bob" Wilson in I Beheld His Glory. This may indicate that this film was shot before the series and that Day of Triumph was shot after it. There are plenty of details on this page which includes a few pictures from a number of other films including From the Manger to the Cross

Matt

N.B. - This post was back-dated to when much of it was first noted down in a discussion at the Arts and Faith discussion forum

The Living Christ Series - Intro

I first came across this series of films at the Arts and Faith Discussion Forum about a year ago when someone posted a link to some spoof Jesus film shorts. Sadly it appears these are no longer available.

There were 4 clips and two of them definitely seemed to star Robert Wilson from I Beheld His Glory (1952), but the other two I couldn't quite work out. The question of the identity of the actor/film of the 2nd and 4th clips in this link has bugged me for almost a year.

I'd also heard of a film called the Living Bible, which I'd not really been that interested in and assumed was a 70s tie in with the translation / paraphrase of the same name. Nevertheless, it came up cheap on eBay the other day so I bid for it.

It turns out that what was actually on the discs was something called The Living Christ series, and this was indeed the film used in the spoofs above. It would appear that the 12 half hour episodes started being released individually 1951 as films shown to church youth groups. The films were made by Episcopalian film company "Cathedral Films", and became so successful that they created two film spin offs, I Beheld His Glory in 1952, and Day of Triumph in 1954, although the IMDB lists both films as being 1953.

Day of Triumph is often credited with being the first American Jesus "Talkie", coming 27 years after Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings in 1927. This may now be due a revision depending on how you classify a "film". If it is just moving pictures shot onto celluloid then the first Living Christ episodes deserve that claim. That said Day of Triumph was the first American Jesus film to gain cinema release in the sound era, and was also the first film in that era that was feature length, so I'll leave it to the reader to decide.

I am surprised that neither Campbell and Pitts's "The Bible on Film" nor Kinnard & Davis's "Divine Images" seem to mention this series.

Matt

N.B. - This post was back-dated to when much of it was first noted down in a discussion at the Arts and Faith discussion forum