King of Kings (1961) Revisited

I watched King of Kings (1961) on Easter Monday for the first time I what seems like a very long time. Whilst I've revisited certain clips in the intervening period it was good to take it in in it's entirety and on a large high definition screen, making those colours stand out all the more and doing justice to Ray's bold images and Jeffrey Hunter's blue eyes. Ray is perhaps best appreciated for his use of internal space and smaller' more intimate stories, so it's interesting that it's the big scenes that I most appreciate here.

One such scene, that has always been one of my favourites is the historical prologue, voiced by Orson Welles. Many recent films have highlighted the story's context of the Jews living under occupation by the Romans, but rarely to the extent here. Pompey's victory is effectively year nought for this story, everything beforehand is largely irrelevant and everything afterwards is related to it. Welles' narrative seamlessly moves from narrating Pompey's invasion and the subsequent skirmishes into directly quoting Luke's "historical" prologue to the nativity story as if they are cut from the same cloth. But of course Ray is essentially doing to his gospel what Luke has done to his - prefix it with historical gloss to give a sense of place, time and context.

It's disappointing, then, that this all gives way to such a conventional retelling of the nativity. Having seen this part of the story reworked and reinvented so many times, it's retelling here is entirely devoid of drama, except the slaughter of the innocents. Indeed it seems that Ray intends the main point of the first part of this story to focus on the violent context. Pompey's murder of the priests, the Romans' executions of insurrectionists, Herod's slaughter of the infants and finally Herod Antipas assisting his father's death literally kicking him off his perch. The narration links this all together with the unusual phrase "Herod self-crucified" linking him to both the executed revolutionaries before him and Jesus' inevitable crucifixion. Herod is an evil man, but in a sense he is just another person destroyed by the violence that accompanies the thundering machinery of a violent empire.

And herein lies the basis of Ray's gospel: Jesus is a messiah of peace that stands in opposition to all this power and violence. Perhaps this is why there is a such a preponderance of low angle shots in this film, stressing the towering magnitude of the Roman Empire and the lowly humble path Jesus and his followers will undertake. The camera often gazes up at the authorities in this film, but down on Jesus, most notably of course in that camera-attached-to-the-top-of-the-cross shot that is so very reminiscent of Dali's famous painting. That said there are exceptions in both directions: the Sermon on the Mount often captures Jesus from below, but when Salome asks Herod for John the Baptist's head, we get a high overhead God shot, a reminder that what goes on in the private quarters of the powerful and wealthy is still seen and judged by the god who sees everything.

However, this is one of the rare occasions where Ray uses some kind of filmmaking technique to force a supernatural interpretation of what we are seeing, perhaps because of the film's interest in power and the use of force. It's notable, for example, that we're treated to a very Markan baptism. There's no literal dove or protestations from John. Jesus may have heard a voice from Heaven, but we do not.

Furthermore, whilst several miracles are seen on screen, they don't use special effects. This isn't because the film is low budget, and I don't think it is necessarily to accommodate doubt, but rather that doing so would have forced a particular perspective. Lucius' reporting of other miracles is well documented, but note also how the resurrection is all off camera. I think it's significant that the only time a classic "special effect" is used, it's used by the devil during the temptation, and it's a lurid and unconvincing overlay of a tacky looking city. It's so jarringly out of kilter with the rest of the film's look and feel that it seems deliberate to me.

Jesus of course rejects Satan's advances, in fact the first words Jeffrey Hunter utters are "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God". Again given Ray's concerns with violence and social injustice this seems significant. Those opening scenes pit Zealots against Romans but sides with neither, because whilst Barabbas and the Zealots are concerned with earthy issues such as! presumably, "bread" Jesus emphasises that some things are more important.

As the film progresses, the idea persists that Barabbas's fighters are really just the opposite side of the coin to Roman violence. Jesus' way is radically different. It's interesting that every time there is a big set piece battle in the film, the kingdom of peace is shown going about its business in virtually the same space, but somehow in parallel to the warring Romans and Zealots. So in the opening overview whilst Rome defeats the Zealots Jesus is born. Later when Barabbas's men ambush Pilate's soldiers, the scene is prefaced by footage from just over the hill of John baptising his followers. And, of course, there is Jesus' alternative entry to Jerusalem via donkey which the Zealots attempt to turn into a revolution which ends in them quite literally being trampled into the dirt by the Roman army. There's perhaps a fourth example: in the background when Jesus is crucified there is, to borrow from Welles' opening narration, a sea of crosses - a sign that Roman violence has once again overcome Jewish violence.

The other notably unusual use of the camera that Ray utilises extensively in this film is the split-focus diopter lens. (This is a split lens allow one half of the camera to focus on a character in the extreme foreground whilst the other half focuses on a character or object in the background). Despite my familiarity with this film it was a surprise to see it used to widely given that it's a technique largely associated with the seventies. It's used significantly in All the President's Men and on YouTube there are demonstrations of Brian DePalma's repeated use of it in Blow Out. But this was 1961 which makes Ray very much a leader in this field. In high definition there's at least one shot that is useful for demonstrating the technique. After the Sermon on the Mount Jesus and Peter talk and if you look at the tree that runs diagonally across the scene you can see how it moves from being blurred on Jesus' side to being in focus next to Jesus.

There are a few other nice camera moments that I had not noticed before. There were a couple of nice compositions I really appreciated this time around. The one at the top of this post is from the Sermon on the Mount, the one lower down is from Jesus' trial. Also between Jesus' arrest and his subsequent death there's quite a bit of footage of Judas including one where he somehow gets literal blood on his hands and another where he witnesses the crucifixion up close and picks up a stone (this doesn't seem coincidental so it's perhaps a reference to the earlier non-stoning of the woman taken in adultery scene).

Another character who gets developed in ways beyond their character's development in the Bible is Pilate's wife. Firstly she is involved in discussions that it seems highly unlikely that Pilate's real wife would ever have been. But, in contrast to her waspish, jaded and cynical husband, she is consistently intrigued by Jesus, his message and the stories that surround him. It's stressed that she is Caesar's daughter but she sneaks out with Lucius to witness the Sermon on the Mount. There's a moment of reflection by a pool of water, and most significantly she is present on Jesus' road to the cross. Indeed when he stumbles she even steps forward as if to offer to carry the cross. All this seems in keeping with the moment in Matthew when she warns Pilate of the potential consequences of killing Jesus, but unusually this moment is not present in the film. The film was much cut and perhaps this is a moment that was filmed but ultimately left on the editing room floor.

I think the same fate must have accompanied some of the footage of Mary Magdalene. She is present in early scenes, most notably when she pops in for a chat with Jesus' mother, but then she disappears from the film right up until it's time for her to witness the resurrection.

However, the main omission that most Jesus films include is the presence of the Jewish authorities. This isn't just about edits in post-production, it's far more significant. Caiaphas is one of Herod and Pilate's cronies, but there are no other Jewish official leaders to speak of, nor are there any Pharisees. Indeed, aside from Caiaphas and Barabbas's dismissal of his significance there is no real opposition at all to Jesus and his message from within Judaism. Jesus trial in from of Caiaphas is given the briefest mention, but the soldiers who arrested him are Roman. Given how many Jesus films have been labelled anti-Semitic, this film goes to considerable lengths to distance itself from any such accusations fitting for a version of the Jesus story that goes to such lengths to portray him as the antidote to violence.

Lastly, there is the Great Commission scene on the beach, clearly in Galilee rather than Jerusalem and on the flat rather than on a mountain. Interestingly, immediately after Jesus words the disciples split up and head off in different directions. According to Acts of course, the church clung together in Jerusalem for several years before really splitting up to travel further afield, but it' say nice visualisation of their future. As a big fan of Rossellini's 1950 film Francesco, giullare di Dio (Francis, God's Jester) I can't help wondering if this is a nod to the final scene in that film where Francis' followers spin round until they fall over and then head off in the direction they are pointing. Jesus' method of commissioning may be more serious, but it's message no less important, for those living under Roman rule, for those in 1961 and for us today.

The Vikings and King of Kings

I'm finally sitting down to watch 1958's The Vikings starring Kirk Douglas. It's notable for a number of reasons not least teaming up Douglas with Tony Curtis for the first time, two years ahead of Spartacus.

But I was struck in the early scenes between this and another 60s Roman crucifixion film, Kings of Kings (1961). The thing that first caught my attention was the voice-over that sets the scene for the action and a quick check of IMDb confirmed my suspicion - like King of Kings the narator is Orson Welles. The voice-over comes to a close over the opening scene and here there is a further similarity with the Jesus film, the opening scene is of an invading army overpowering the locals.

Then there's the importance of the special baby. In The Vikings it's the son of the Northumbrian queen and her Viking attacker rather than Jesus, but the son is sent away to leaving many to wait expectantly for his return.

Given the wide range of openings to Jesus films - from Rossellini's trip back to the selection of King Saul to Jesus making crosses in Last Temptation - it's significant, I think, that King of Kings adopts this incredibly similar opening approach.

And then there's the appearance of Frank Thring as a disreputable King (Aella here, Herod in Kings). He even sits his throne on the top of a little set of velvet steps. I think that's more coincidental and there aren't many other major similarities in the rest of the film. But it is significant that King of Kings takes The Vikings' introduction and basically reproduces it.

Just a couple of other film links. Firstly there's a scene where Curtis sends his hawk to peck out Douglas' eyes. Being a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock I could help thinking of The Birds, still 5 years away, not least because this film also stars Janet Leigh who would go on to star in another early 60s Hitchcock film, Psycho.

Lastly, there's a scene where Douglas is trying to rally round his men to set off on another mission. There's an awkward pause whilst Douglas earnestly scans the group looking for people to indicate their desire to join him. If it wasn't two years before it was released you'd have been forgiven for thinking it was influenced by another film as you waited for someone to stand defiantly and declare "I'm Sparatcus!"

Nativity Scenes Revisited - Part 3: King of Kings (1961)

I know Christmas ended yesterday in the west, but as there is at least one regular reader of this blog that celebrated Christmas yesterday, I thought I might make at least one more entry in this series before moving on. In fact, there might be at least one more give the last news from Mark Goodacre). Besides I got a new Blu-Ray / up-scaling DVD player yesterday and this is is usually the first Bible film I head for in these circumstances.

For a three hour film, the Nativity sequence is surprisingly short at just three and a half minutes, although, as with other entries in my series, that's excluding the slaughter of the innocents. In this film that's quite a significant point. The Nativity sequence is just a part of a much bigger prologue, which last for around 18 minutes in total. The thrust of this prologue is political and historical rather than theological. The film is big on the political context of the Romans invading and oppressing the Jews; the violent attempts to overthrow them by some; and Jesus' coming as the Prince of Peace.

The Nativity scenes themselves are a bit mixed. There are a couple of astounding long shots, but the closer scenes look too obviously fake. This is made worse by the voices not being in-sync with the actor's mouths.

Orson Welles narrates over a series of shots of the holy couple starting as specks in the distance and then in a wide shot and then in a mid shot. The next scene is Bethlehem which the voice notes has been "much corrupted by Rome" (again inserting the political) and Joseph struggling to find somewhere for Mary to give birth. Eventually they find the cleanest stable, not only in Bethlehem, but one suspects, the whole world.

One thing that is striking is that the birth happens entirely "off camera". There's not even an establishing shot accompanied by relevant sounds or a fraught looking Joseph. The first we see of it is a remarkably perky looking Mary laying down the new born king.

There's a beautiful shot of the magi following the star, one of those that relies on its movement for it's composition - I couldn't find a screen grab that captured its essence - shots like this are truly cinematic. Then it's back to the studio as the magi dismount and continue on foot to the rather twee "ah-ah-ahs" of the background chorus. Unlike the magi, the shepherds are not mentioned, but have already arrived and there's a couple of classic Nativity scenes before the scene ends in a classic pose. Interestingly this nicely composed shot bears very little relation to the reverse shot that is shown directly before it.Like other artistic interpretations of Matthew's gospel there is a certain level of parallelism between Jesus the new born king and Herod the Great. Here however things are ramped up. The scene after the stable scene is of Herod and his son who will also go on to be a king (or at least a tetrarch) in discussion with Lucius about the "King of Judea". Interestingly Herod senior almost seems to defer to his son as to the best course of action. Herod junior plays it with a straight bat, preferring to bide his time one the one hand whilst simultaneously giving tacit approval to his father's horrendous solution. Lucius objects but obeys, yet it's here that his long path to salvation begins - it seems as if this is the first time Rome's orders have ever clashed with his own morals.

The Sermon on the Mount in Film

Next weekend I'm due to do a talk on "Blessed are the poor in spirit" which has got me thinking about portrayals of the Sermon on the Mount in film. The different films emphasise different parts of the sermon, although obviously the Beatitudes get a good showing in a lot of different films. Anyway, I thought I'd list some of my favourite portrayals and give a brief explanation.

King of Kings (1961)[Pictured above]
In contrast to Matthew's arrangement, Ray uses the Sermon on the Mount as the climax of the movie's first half. The buzz has been building about Jesus so everyone gathers to hear him preach and check him out. It's a spectacular build up and the idea of Jesus moving through the crowd is good, if lacking in realism. Sadly the post-production overdubbing of Jeffrey Hunter's original vocals leaves this feeling stiff and forced. But the build up and the colours are spectacular.

Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
Pasolini's filming of this part of the gospel is perhaps the most interesting, certainly from a scholarly angle. Most scholars believe that rather than their being a single key sermon Matthew 5-7 is a compilation of Jesus' teaching. Some films reflect this by simply splitting up the sermon into different parts and placing them throughout the film. But Pasolini stays true to the gospel by leaving all the material, but also acknowledges the scholarly angle by changing the setting, weather and background Jesus is speaking against as well his clothes and hair. Sadly whilst it's clever, it's also a little dull.

Son of Man (1969)
Dennis Potter's take on the Sermon is to excise the Beatitudes and focus on the "Love your enemy" part of the Sermon. The previous scene is critical here: a group of Roman soldiers have just attacked a local Jewish village and there is a seething contempt in the crowd Jesus addresses. Potter plays fast and loose with the wording, but certainly stays true to the spirit of the text. And Colin Blakely delivery is incredible. One of my favourite clips from a Bible Films ever.

Life of Brian (1979)
Life of Brian's take on the Sermon on the Mount is so well known that I knew all the best jokes before I'd even seen it. Still the timing and delivery are so perfect that even after all the times I've seen it, I'm still amused by "Blessed are the cheesemakers". It was perhaps the first time that anyone had ever considered what it was like to be someone at the edge of one of Jesus' sermons. We often wonder how he would have been able to address such a large crowd, but never consider what it was like for those on the edge. What's also impressive about the scene is how it nails so much of biblical interpretation: "obviously it applies to all makers of dairy produce". Of course if you missed it you may very well not understand the whole film. Not normally a problem unless you're about to be interviewed about it on national television as happened to Malcolm Muggeridge.

Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Like Potter before him, Paul Schrader plays a little loose with the original wording, and gets brilliant results, again thanks to the lead actor's delivery. Last Temptation opts for Luke's Sermon on the Plain rather than Matthew's Mount, and it fits well with the confrontational prophet that Scorsese portrays in certain parts of the film. The spontaneity of this portrayal has a real vitality about it, and the ending, which makes it a little controversial for church use, nevertheless highlights the issue that occurs again and again in the gospels of Jesus' original audience failing to understand him.

The Miracle Maker (2000)
The Miracle Maker makes little attempt to depict the Sermon on the Mount although it does include a few extracts of some of the less famous passages, at least two of which are animated. The "why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?" is played for great comic effect with the audience laughing in the background. But the best part is Jesus' twin similes contrasting the wise man building his house upon rock with the foolish man building on sand. It's a nicely stylised piece of animation, and rather memorable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rossellini's Il Messia also includes a segment of Jesus teaching the disciples the words from the sermon whilst they go about their everyday tasks, but I haven't got the time to check it out just now. Does anyone else have any favourites that I've missed?

Comparison: Good Samaritan

Last week I looked at various Jesus film portrayals of Jesus' Gospel Manifesto from Luke 4, as part of trying to find a suitable clip for a session on Luke I'm taking. I also want to include a clip of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, so I thought I add a few notes here as well (times indicate the point at which the relevant clip begins).

Kings of Kings (1961) - 1:28:20
Whilst Ray's Jesus is one who speaks about "peace, love and the brotherhood of man", the story part of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is missing. All that is left if the question "I'm a camel driver, who can I call my neighbour?" and Jesus' answer "He to whom you show mercy and compassion, whether you know him or not. This is all part of the Sermon on the Mount scene.

Godspell (1973) - 35:08
One of Godspell's strengths is the way it creatively re-tells the parables, reflecting the fact that when Jesus first spoke them there was a freshness and vitality about them. Here the Godspell trope act out the story with their hands. There's a slight change to the characters here, We get a priest, a judge along with the Samaritan, rather than a priest and a Levite. Curiously however there's a suggestion that the Samaritan is drunk.

At the end of the parable, the Samaritan is then hoisted onto someone's shoulders and paraded along until Jesus interjects with Matt 6:2-5 ("So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...").

Il Messia (1975)
This is the only film to show Jesus telling the parable in standard fashion. In fact it's a fairly unremarkable sequence, in keeping with the off-hand way Rossellini has Jesus deliver much of his teaching. Sorry I didn't note down the starting time for this one.

Jesus (1979) - 60:48This was, for me, the most memorable moment. Initially we see Jesus being questioned as per Luke, but then there's a watery dissolve into a dramatised version of the story. It's wordless, accompanied instead by a incredibly memorable little jingle, before we dissolve back to Jesus and the crowd. A couple of points here. Firstly, all three of those who approach the beaten man do within a very short period of time. This keeps the story brief, but it does rather let the first two off the hook to a small extent. The road looks busy, so the hurrying by looks less like desertion and dereliction of duty than it looks like simply leaving it to someone else. Secondly, here it's a woman who asks Jesus the initial question rather than an expert in the law which makes the scene softer and less confrontational. Likewise it's a young girl, not the original questioner, who answers Jesus' closing question, leading Jesus into "suffer the little children" passage.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999)
This version has Mary telling Jesus the story as a boy in keeping with the high view of Mary the film has. Jesus ends by asking "so the Samaritan was good?" to which Mary, rather curiously replies "yes, even though he was a Samaritan". The scene following this one links in, showing Jesus getting beaten up by a group of boys but refusing to fight back.

Miracle Maker (2000) - 45:50
This is one of the sections in this puppet animated film that switches to 2D, hand drawn animation, and it's done in a rather angular spiky style, which might actually be quite scary to younger children. It also explains some of the cultural reference points such as how the priest believed it made him unclean to touch a dead body, the Jewish people's hatred of the Samaritans (even showing one the children shouting out that he hates them). In the context of the film this is probably my favourite portrayal, but for a free-standing clip I don't think it would work so well.

So none of these are ideal really. What I probably will do instead is show the Mitchell and Webb version of the story, which never fails to amuse me, and ties in somewhat with Mary's response in Mary, Mother of Jesus

Danny Miller on Bible Films

I've not got much time today but for a while I've been meaning to link to three of Danny Miller's articles on Bible films, one on King of Kings (1961), The Ten Commandments (1956) and a general article on Jesus films. Miller is apparently Jewish, and his write-ups have a nice humorous edge.

Who is Your Favourite Herod?

Over at NT Blog, Mark Goodacre asks "Who is Your Favourite Herod Antipas?" Mark is torn between Josh Moshtel's campy turn in 1973 film version of Jesus Christ Superstar and Jose Ferrer in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965).

I think my favourite portrayal of Herod Anitpas is Frank Thring's turn in 1961's King of Kings (pictured). Thring was a veteran of numerous historical epics, including Ben Hur, and El Cid, and, as anachronistic as it is, I like his murder of his father, Herod the Great. In honesty, though, I'm not willing to commit 100% to Thring until I've checked the relevant chapter in Adele Reinhartz's "Jesus of Hollywood".

Incidentally, In trying to find a decent photo of Thring in the role (I cropped the above to make Thring more prominent, but you can see the full picture here) I also turned up Thring shredding ex-neighbours star Craig Maclachlan in an interview, and numerous images on Jeffrey Hunter Movies. The latter site is definitely worth checking out as they have scanned in three articles about the film from 1961.

Ferdy on Films on King of Kings

Just a quick post to link to an article by Ferdy on Films about King of Kings (1961). As I've mentioned before, its one of my Top Ten Jesus Films, though I recognise it's one of least defensible movies on the list. Anyway, one of Ferdy' more interesting observations is the comparison netween this film's Jesus / Barabbas, and Martin Luther King / Malcolm X. It's a very apt comparison. Incidentally I also stumbled across a photo collection for this film which includes the one above and the screenshot where we see Jesus' shaven armpits.

Jeffrey Wells on King of Kings

Jeffrey Wells has a brief piece on Nicholas Ray's King of Kings (1961) which is showing tonight at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard. King of Kings has always been my guilty pleasure amongst my top ten Jesus Films. It's easy to make disparaging remarks about it, but even in spite of it's flaws I still love it. Wells gives five reasons why the film is well worth seeing and I have to agree with them all.

(a) Miklos Rosza's score, particularly the overture;
(b) Ron Randell's performance as Lucius, the thoughtful, morally conflicted Centurion;
(b) Jeffrey Hunter's lead performance during the last third;
(d) the shots that show perfect focus in both the foreground and background (which was pretty amazing during a time in which films would commonly rack focus to catch the foreground or background, but never both); and
(e) the eloquent narration by Ray Bradbury.

Point "e" is a little confusing, as Ray Bradbury (who will introduce the film tonight) actually wrote, rather than performed, the narration. That role was, of course, fulfilled by Jeffrey's namesake Orson Welles.

I have a number of posts on this film already, including a scene guide and a review and I also wrote and performed a podcast on King of Kings about this time last year.

Wells also has a follow up piece comparing the film with Ray's best known work Rebel Without a Cause, where he talks about one of my favourite aspects of the film - its use of colour. There's also this great comment towards the end.

"In defining the major Jesus films of the '60s-70s period, it's fair to say that Stevens' The Greatest Story Ever Told is the Protestant version, Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth is the Catholic version, Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew is the Marxist version and King of Kings is the Zionist version."

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the tip offs.

Interrupted and Ray's King of Kings

Director Nicholas Ray is best remembered for Rebel Without a Cause (1955), even though the masterful In a Lonely Place (1950) is, in my opinion, his best work. But he was also the director of the 1961 Jesus film King of Kings. Whilst King of Kings is clearly not in the same league as those other films, it does continue to explore some of the thematic elements from those earlier pictures. It was apparently a bad experience for Ray though, indeed Bernard Eisenschitz catalogues the production team fall out regarding the film¹ and his wife Betty Ray regarded it as "the start of his self betrayal".².

So it will be interesting to see if King of Kings features in next year's Ray biopic Interrupted. There's precious little information about it at the moment. It's based on Ray's posthumously published auto-biography 'I was Interrupted', and is being produced by City Lights Pictures (The Ten). Philip Kaufman (Quills, The Unbearable Lightness of Being) is lined up as director and City Lights claim that there's "A-list talent slated to star". Variety has a brief piece on this, as do a few other outlets, but there's not much to go on so far (and the Variety piece is from Jan. 2006).

In any case, I suspect King of Kings won't figure too highly: it is mentioned on only 5 pages in the index for 'I Was Interrupted', as opposed to 24 in Eisenschitz's index (although Eisenschitz's is book is more than twice as many pages) . But it would be interesting if it were included. No doubt it could make an interesting double bill with the sort of DeMille biopic Sands of Oblivion.

================
1 - Bernard Eisenschitz, "Nicholas Ray: An American Journey", Faber and Faber (London), ch.34, but especially p.371-375
2 - Bernard Eisenschitz, "Nicholas Ray: An American Journey", Faber and Faber (London), p.379

Jesus Films Podcast Corrections!!

Oops!
Yesterday I was obviously having a dizzy day. Not only did I fail to post a link to the podcast to which was the whole reason for the post, but I also forgot to attach the audio file to the post at the Podcast site.

I also forgot to link to the other entries in this podcast. And, as it happened, the rest of the day pretty much sucked as well. Oh well.

Apologies to anyone who tried, in vain to find the MP3 yesterday. I'll try and be more on the ball next month!

Podcast: King of Kings (1961)

It's reached that point in the month again where I post the latest entry in my Jesus Films Podcast. This month I'm looking at King of Kings (1961) directed by Nicholas Ray.

Despite it's flaws it's one of my top ten Jesus Films, (although perhaps the least defensible selection) mainly down to some great visuals.

Herod's Tomb Found

I meant to post this on Tuesday whilst it was still fresh. However, I suppose the benefit of posting now is that I can link to some of the more interesting posts about this one around the blogosphere.

In case you haven't heard yet, a team led by Israeli archaeologist Ehud Netzer (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) has uncovered what they believe to be the tomb of Herod the Great at Mount Herodium. The discovery is the culmination of a 35 year hunt for the tomb of the man dubbed by the Romans "The King of the Jews", and the find includes Herod's grave, sarcophagus and mausoleum.

Herodium, a palace fortress on the edge of the Judean desert, had long been touted as the likely location for the tomb. The process of discovering it, however, appears to have been somewhat more complicated than they originally imagined. Until 2006 the hunt for the tomb had focussed on the "Tomb Estate" in Lower Herodium, but after over 30 years with no success Netzer's team switched their attention to inside of the slope of Mount Herodium. The hill's volcano-type shape is due to an artificial cone towards the top and it appears that it was there that Herod was buried.

It appears that Herod originally intended to be buried in the grand Tomb Estate, but later changed his mind. If his intention in so doing was to prevent his tomb being sacked following his death, his change of plan was wasted. Excavations have found the mausoleum to have been dismantled, and the sarcophagus to have been smashed into many pieces, apparently in ancient times. I imagine another possibility might be that Herod never changed his plans, but that his successor (or indeed the Romans) buried him in this location instead to affect the way he was remembered by future generations.

The various Biblioblogs have been buzzing with news of this one. I first heard about it on NT Gateway, but Mark Goodacre has left the spade work to others on this occasion. Only too happy to take up the challenge, Tyler Williams has four posts on the subject: his initial post quoting the Israeli newspaper Haaretz which broke the story; Extensive excerpts from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem press release; a brief pointer to Todd Bolen's excellent King Herod: Ten Things You Didn’t Know; and finally three pictures courtesy of Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Elsewhere, Jim West updated his initial post several times and has since added links to more photos. Finally, I wrote a brief and simple piece on this story for rejesus.

By the way, couldn't resist using the photo above taken from King of Kings (1961) one of the few films that actually shows Herod's death.

King of Kings A Few Additional Comments

Having already reviewed Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings (1961), and written the accompanying scene guide I recently watched it again, for the first time in widescreen, and noticed a few extra things I’d like to comment on. Whilst most critics view the film as a bit of a disaster, no doubt due to the power struggles etc. during production, there are several places where the artistry of Nicholas Ray still shines through, particularly visually.

One thing I noticed on this viewing was this shot of Jesus at the Last Supper (above). Whilst even early Jesus film’s like The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ avoid showing him with a halo, many Jesus films find alternate, subtler ways to continue this tradition. For example, Godspell depicts Jesus with a 70s "afro"-style hair cut; The Greatest Story Ever Toldplaces him in front of a lighter coloured arch. Here, Ray places a light on the back wall directly behind Jesus actor Jeffery Hunter’s head.

I also noticed the visual similarity the film makes between the betrayal of Jesus, and the way Herod the Great is betrayed by his son Herod Antipas (as he murders him). Both scenes involve overhead shots, and the betrayer walking up steps en route to their betrayal. Both are attempting to climb up in the world under their own steam. Also in that scene we see the death of one King of the Jews – Herod, prefigure that of Jesus. As Herod falls back down the stairs he lands on his back in a cruciform position, a point which Orson Welles’s narration also notes.

Despite the vast backdrops this film is shot against, and the spectacle of scenes such as the Sermon on the Mount, Ray also creates a far more intimate Jesus film than those that preceded it, with more of a focus on the motivations and emotions of the key players. This is partly due to the number of close ups in the film, in particular there are two shots where Jesus’s eyes fill the screen. There are also a number of close ups of Judas’s face. Whilst DeMille also uses close ups they feel more detached and objective. DeMille often clouds his close ups with soft focus effects, or refrains from showing Jesus looking directly at the camera. The notable exception – where he heals the blind girl – is the warmest part of HB Warner’s portrayal.

Alongside the use of close ups we also see a number of shots where Ray physically arranges the actors in places which speak volumes. There are several places where although two characters are talking, the one nearest the camera has their back to the other who stands to the rear of the shot. Such placing, which was popular in the 50s and sixties in films such as Paul Newman’s Cat on a Hot Tin Roof signifies the one character trying to shut out the other, and prevent them from coming any closer, or perhaps having their mind on other things. The distance between the characters signifying some other form of distancing, or that their thoughts are far away. In the final scene with Jesus at his mother’s house, Jesus tries to talk about unfinished tasks from his days as a carpenter, but his mind is clearly elsewhere. It takes Mary to articulate what is on Jesus’s mind.

Whilst I’m discussing some of the visual references of the film, I may as well mention the only place where this film deliberately references the earlier film The King of Kings (1927). On the road to Calvary we see the end of Jesus’s cross bump its way along the street, and just as in the DeMille film the camera moves in for a close up.

Music in Movies about Jesus

Peter Chattaway let me know about a feature taking place this week on BBC Radio 4. Silverscreen Beats is a regular programme, hosted by Miles Jupp, but this week they are looking at the music from 5 films about Jesus as follows:

Monday - King of Kings
King of Kings presents a treasury of tunes and surprising stories from behind the scenes. Composer Miklos Rosza reveals that despite winning an Oscar for the music of Ben Hur, this was the toughest score he ever had to write.

Tuesday - Godspell
Composer Stephen Schwartz reveals that he took five weeks to write the classic songs such as Day By Day. Another song, Beautiful City, became the unofficial anthem of the World Trade Centre disaster, and virtually all the words in Godspell are derived from the New Testament.

Wednesday - Jesus Christ Superstar
Lyricist Tim Rice reveals that the movie only came about because the stage show was such a flop, and how Tom Jones inspired the title to the film.

Thursday - The Life of Brian
Composer Geoffrey Burgon reveals how he wrote a traditional, serious score to counteract the comedy in a controversial film. Director Terry Jones admits that he was surprised that the song Always Look on the Bright Side became such a hit.

Friday - The Last Temptation of Christ
Composers Peter Gabriel and David Bottrill reveal insightful and surprising stories from behind the scenes of this controversial movie. Director Martin Scorsese admits to receiving death threats during production.

The series actually started yesterday, but fortunately you can listen to it online. I'm not sure how long they will be available though - the only Silverscreen Beats programme I can find to listen to is yesterday's King of Kings.

It looks like it will be an interesting series. Certainly today's had a number of pieces of information on King of Kings that was new to me, plus a couple of recording of Rosza himself (speaking not playing). There's also a story about Rosza finding out that not only did the actress playing Salome (Brigid Bazlen) have no dancing experience, but also that the choreographer, who was Nicholas Ray's wife, had no experience either. This fits fairly well with a number of other stories about chaos on the set that I mentioned in my review of this film. That said, I'm currently re-watching this film, for the first time in widescreen, and I find myself liking it more and more each time, even despite its problems.

As for the series as a whole, I suspect it is a repeat. Certainly before Mark Goodacre's brief quote he is introduced as being from Birmingham University which would make it at least a year old! If that is the case, it's a very much welcome one. There's precious little discussion about the music of Jesus films (Godspell, The gospel Road and Jesus Christ Superstar aside), so this is a much needed area of analysis. I'm surprised by some of their choices though. I suppose Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were obvious, and King of Kings is usually described as the finest piece from Rosza's incredible body of work. But Life of Brian is a (pleasant) surprise - comedy is often not taken seriously enough to be deemed worthy of any kind of analysis, let alone musical analysis. Hopefully it will go beyond simply discussing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". Last Temptation is an interesting choice too. Whilst not as controversial as many aspects of the film, the score still caused something of a stir in some quarters whilst generally gaining critical acclaim. So much so in fact that it clearly influenced John Debney's score for The Passion of the Christ.

Sadly though there is no analysis of Pasolini's amazing score for his Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew), which is easily my favourite of all the Jesus film music.
Silverscreen Beats is playing every day this week at 3:45pm on BBC Radio 4. Programmes can be downloaded after the broadcast from the BBC website.

King of Kings (1961) Scene Guide

It's actually quite a while since I watched this film in full. Given this film is one of my top ten Jesus films this is perhaps something that needs addressing soon. Anyway, as a result this scene guide may have one or two omissions, although I think primarily it is extra-biblical material that is excluded. Scripture citations follow the normal format. FWIW, I reviewed this film back in March.

[extra-biblical episode] - based on Josephus
Bethlehem - (Luke 1:26-38)
[extra-biblical episode]
Nativity - (Luke 2:1-7)
Wise Men - (Matt 2:1-12)
Death of the Infants - (Matt 2:13-16)
[extra-biblical episode]
John the Baptist - (Mark 1:2-8)
[extra-biblical episode]
Jesus' Baptism - (Mark 1:9-11)
Temptations - (Matt 4:1-11)
Calling of the Four - (Mark 1:16-20)
John and Herod - (Mark 6:18-20)
Various Miracles - (Mark 1:32-34)
Adulterous Woman - (John 8:2-11)
Deliverance of Madman - (Mark 1:23-28)
Death of John - (Mark 6:21-28)
[extra-biblical episode]
Sermon on the Mount - (Matt 5-7)

Beatitudes - (Matt 5:2-12)
Kingdom within you - (Luke 17:20-21)
Love your neighbour - (Mark 12:28-31)
Good Shepherd - (John 10:1-15)
Law & Prophets - (Matt 5:17-20)
Love Enemies - (Matt 5:43-48)
Sinners & Taxmen - (Mark 2:16-17)
Can't serve two masters - (Matt 6:24)
Consider the lilies - (Matt 6:25-30)
Weak & heavy laden - (Matt 11:28-30)
Lord's Prayer - (Matt 6:9-15)

Calling/Training of 12 - (Mark 6:6-13)
Interval
Triumphal entry - (Mark 11:7-11a)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Last Supper - (Mark 14:16-25,27-31)
Gethsemane - (Mark 14:32-42)
Jesus's Arrest - (Mark 14:43-50)
Peter Denies Jesus – (Luke 22:54-62)
Sanhedrin Trial - (Mark 14:53-64)
Pilate 1st trial - (Luke 23:1-7)
Before Herod - (Luke 23:8-12)
Pilate 2nd trial - (Luke 23:13-25)
Road to the Cross – (Mark 15:20-22)
Crucifixion – (Mark 15:22-32)
Two Robbers on the cross - (Luke 23:39-43)
Jesus's Death - (Mark 15:33-41)
Appearance to Mary - (John 20:11-17)
Great Commission - (Matt 28:18-20)

A Few Notes
This is one of the few films that actually shows how Jesus involved the disciples in spreading his message. The final scene before the interval is Jesus commissioning the twelve shortly after the Sermon on the Mount. It's an interesting juxtaposition of the two blocks of teaching which Matthew's gospel (the nearest literary parallel) separates by several chapters. In the film, it's as if Jesus is saying "this is the basic information for the masses, and now this is the real meat for my closest followers".

One of the most notable set design features of the film is the Y-shaped table at the Last Supper. It's an interesting prop which is surprisingly discussed. The initial decision facing the film-makers at this point is whether or not to mirror Leonardo's famous painting, as this is the definitive artistic image of the Last Supper. However, in most cases, where a Leonardo derived composition has been rejected, a more modern arrangement is taken with all the disciples around two or more sides of long tables. It's noticeable for example that Jesus films never show all the disciples eating at separate tables all within the same room, even though John's gospel happily accepts Jesus did not treat all his disciples equally (John 13:23-25). Almost without exception the disciples are pretty much treated equally. However, film-makers are also at pains to visually highlight the other-ness of Jesus, so, as far as I am aware, no film-maker has ever located the Lat Supper on round table as per King Arthur - in fact Jesus is always seated centrally, even though that is only assumption based on traditional Christian Art and the assumptions drawn from our culture.

Ray's Y shaped table is interesting then as maintains the centrality of Jesus, whilst being strikingly anti-Leonardo. Visually it is like three arrows all pointing to Jesus in the middle.

Whilst this book is part of the harmonising tradition, it is almost entirely based on the synoptics. Only three references from John feature in the entire 3 hours; The teaching about the good shepherd, the appearance to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and the woman caught in adultery. Furthermore although this last episode is taken from John, it is excluded in many early texts of John, and included in some early texts of Luke.

In "Reading the Gospels in the Dark", Richard Walsh devotes a chapter to this film comparing it to the Gospel of Luke. It's an interesting comparison, although I am not entirely convinced as the major point of comparison appears to its function. From the point of view of form, the centrality of the Sermon of the Mount is difficult to ascribe to any of the canonical gospels. The book's cover is based on an image of actor Jeffrey Hunter though.

Lastly, It is noticeable that Jesus spends so little time on screen. Peter Chattaway has done some serious analysis on this, which is reproduced in the second half of this post at the Arts and Faith discussion forum.

Top Ten Jesus Films

Peter T Chattaway has just had his list of Top Ten Jesus Films published by Christianity Today. We chatted a bit about the subject a while back and I've been meaning to post my list for a while. Peter's films are:

The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1902-05)
The King of Kings (1927)
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
Godspell (1973)
The Messiah (1976)
Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
Jesus (1999)
The Miracle Maker (2000)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Since Peter has now had his list published, and, as this is the last major post before Good Friday I thought it was probably about time I posted mine up as well. We actually agree on 6, although I'd be happy to swap 2 of those 6 for 2 on my list of honourable mentions further below. However, here are my Tope Ten Jesus films in chronological order:

From the Manger to the Cross (1912)
More of a film than The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ, more natural and genuine than DeMille's The King of Kings, This film, for me, stands out as the best Jesus film of the silent era. Controversial in it's day, for its very existence, (not to mention its ommission of the resurrection), Sidney Olcott's film has a quiet dignity about it, which is best captured by turning off the overbearing sountrack which was added later. The film was re-issued with a resurrection scene in 1916 as Jesus of Nazareth, and under that title again in 1932 with sound.

Golgotha (1935)
Golgotha was the first Jesus talkie, and set a high standard for those that were to follow> originally released as Ecce Homo. Julien Duvivier's use of the camera was way ahead of his time and he manages to capture the miraculous events in Jesus's last week as if they were the most natural thing in the world.
My review

King of Kings (1961)
The first Hollywood film about Jesus since the end of the silent era 34 years earlier. King of Kings remains enjoyable even though behind the scenes power stuggles destroyed the films promise. The Sermon on the Mount scene is still wonderful though, even if elsewhere Jesus is squeezed out of the film by the zealots.
My review

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964 - The Gospel According to St. Matthew)
Widely considered the masterpiece of the genre, at least among film critics, Pasolini's neo-realist style gave us a Jesus of the people, who delivers his pithy sayings with revolutionary urgency. The camera work draws the viewer into the story more, whilst the use of ordinary people cuts through the gloss of so many Jesus films both before and afterwards.

Il Messia (1975 - The Messiah)
The Godfather of neo-realism was Roberto Rossellini who ended his career with this film. Like Pasolini's film, Rossellini depicts a peasant Jesus, who continues his carpentry even as he teaches, and whose followers pass on his message at the same time he does. Of all the versions of Jesus in film this one perhaps focusses the most on his teaching. The film is also unusual for it's opening scenes from the time of Samuel.

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
One of my least favourite films in this list, and yet where would the genre be without it? In many people's eyes the definitive film Jesus, and a favourite amongst the faithful, Zefferelli does so much very well. Sadly, his leading character is dreary, and the film drags on without a charismatic compelling lead. That said the other performaces are wonderful and the period detail is impressive.


Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
A mixture of the good, the bad, and the dull. In parts Scorsese's film soars breathing new life into the character of Jesus and challenging the viewer about their cosy pre-conceptions. In other places though the film, is just bizarre and has offended many, whilst still other places seem to drag. For those looking for fresh insights and who like to judge films on their merits there is plenty to be mined here. For those who find whole films are spoiled by particular sections stay away, particularly if you are easily offended.
My review

Jesus (1999)
Jesus explores similar territory to Last Temptation, but in a safer more palatable form. Sisto's performance has many strengths, but it slightly spoilt by a few too many scenes of of him goofing around. That said the early scenes are particularly strong. Much of it is speculation, but certainly such that is within reason. It's also one of the few films to clarify that that it was the Romans, not the Jewish leaders that were in charge in Jerusalem in Jesus's time.

The Miracle Maker (1999)
The claymation version of Jesus's life is one of the genre's highs. Whilst clearly less arty than Pasolini's film, it is theologically, and historically strong, and surprisingly moving for a stop motion film. Ralph Fiennes does an excellent job as the voice of Jesus, and Murray Watts's scripts is excellent but the most credit must go to the team of animators who produced a wonderfully realistic and creative film.
My review

Passion of the Christ (2004)
Whilst there are several troubling aspects of this film Mel Gibson did plenty of excellent work with this as well. The film looked incredible, and whilst it starved us of insights into Jesus's earlier life, the few scraps we were allowed certainly aroused our appetites for more. And as filmic meditations on the stations of the cross go, I doubt it will be surpassed.


Honourable mentions
There are a few films which I had to exclude, for various reasons, but which really deserve a mention.

Son of Man (1969)
Son of Man isn't really a film, it's the filmed version of a Dennis Potter play. Nevertheless it remains one of the strongest visual portrayals of Jesus to date. Colin Blakely portrays a Jesus with fire in his belly, who speaks in the language of normal people, but in a manner that makes his collision with the authorities inevitable. The Sermon on the Mount scene again is amazing, and deserves repeated viewings.

Life of Brian (1979)
This is excluded form the list becuase it isn't actually a film about Jesus (although he makes a brief cameo at the start). Instead it's about the folibles of religion, and of humanity in general. Life of Brian does what all good films do - be excellent at something. In this film's case its comedy is hilarious hwilst remaining thoughtful. As a result it has gained a dedicated following, and appears time after time in those "best of" programmes.

Jesus of Montreal (1989)
Jesus of Montreal is another satire, only this time the target is modern day Quebec. The film follows five actors as they put on a controversial passion play which and finds the life of the groups leader mirroring that of Jesus whom he plays in the film. Perhaps the strangest scenes at a first viewing, is actually one of the best - where Jesus wanders through the subway proclaiming God's judgement in the style of Mark 13.

Book of Life (1999)
Hal Hartley's film stars Martin Donovan as Jesus returning to earth on the eve of the new Millennium, and finding that his love for humanity conflicts with his mission. Another sharply observed satire which explores form as well as content.

King of Kings (1961)

On paper King of Kings (1961) should have been one of the most successful Jesus films ever made. Producer Samuel Bronston and writer Philip Yordan were just months away from making the smash epic El Cid, Nicholas Ray was one of Hollywood's hottest new directors, Mikos Rozsa wrote arguably his best ever score, and Jeffrey Hunter, possibly the most aesthetic Jesus ever, lead an impressive cast. Somehow, even despite the face of Jesus finally returning to cinemas after a long exile, it all went wrong. Whilst this film still ranks amongst my favourite Jesus films, it's certainly the least defendable selection.

Ironically, it is perhaps precisely because of the many big names amongst the film-makers that things went so awry with the final product. Whilst Bronston, Yordan and Ray all had good reputations, they had been earned in different fields. Bronston's ability to produce opulent epics a million miles away from Ray's more personal films such as Rebel Without a Cause (1955), and the masterful In a Lonely Place (1950).


Furthermore, a clash between these personalities seems to have left the film in a mess. According to Nicholas Ray biographer Bernard Eisenschitz¹, at the last minute Ray was told to include the Jewish rebellion action scene three-quarters of the way through the film, and an extra character called David (played by Richard Johnston), was brought in to play a similar role to the finished film's Judas. By then the film was 3½ hours long, and although Ray thought that was necessary, Margaret Booth (head of the editing department) decided to cut out "David" altogether. This resulted in one scene between Barabbas and "David" having to be re-filmed with Judas instead. As a result of these major, last minute changes, any sense of continuity was destroyed, as was the long standing friendship between Ray and Yordan.

To make things worse, once Ray had left the project, his final scene of Jesus leaving the disciples on a mountain was replaced by the now infamous "giant-Jesus making a cross on the beach" shot. Worse still, Jeffrey Hunter's dialogue was re-dubbed in its entirety so that he would have a lower, more serious, voice.

Given all this internal wrangling, it is hardly surprising that the film falls short of it's potential. It never really seems to know what kind of film it is. Is it a Roman action epic, or an introspective look at a rebel with a cause?² Thankfully it is possible to peer through the rubble of the finished film to glimpse what it might have been. In fact, in places the film really soars.

Perhaps the best scene in the film is the lengthy Sermon on the Mount scene, "Ray saw it as the linchpin of his film", and thankfully the final version of it remains strong ³. The sermon is built up from a number of different angles as Jesus' friends, his foes, and those who are simply curious to hear him gather to hear him lay out his views. After opening with the beatitudes, he moves amongst the audience to take questions, plying them with various sections from the gospels as he goes. Whilst many scholars today would questions whether such a "sermon" actually existed, Ray's attempt at demythologising it by interspersing it with the audience's questions does provide a more realistic scenario.

Another real high point of this film is the use of colour. The action constantly takes place under an intense blue sky. There is a real vibrancy of colour in the costumes from the luxurious colours of the Romans and Herodians, to the everyday colours of the normal people that gather around Jesus. Whilst many Jesus films are concerned with Jesus's eyes, none give so many intense close shots of them as this film. I've never seen it on the big screen, but the effect of such arresting shots of his azure blue eyes shown on such a scale must have been overwhelming. Perhaps the most interesting use of colour in the film is Jesus's robes. The opening scenes before his baptism show Jesus wearing dull browns, but once his ministry begins he switches to an intense red robe - rich in connotations of authority, danger, leadership, passion, and of course of his blood that will soon be spilt. However, once he enters Jerusalem for the final phase of his ministry he switches to a white garment, emphasising his purity and presumably his innocence in all that he is about to undergo.

The other key device that the film uses is that of a fictional Roman character, Lucius, played by Ron Randall. Lucius is first introduced as a loyal soldier who's conscience is stung when he is instructed to carry out Herod's orders to massacre Bethlehem's infants. He again happens to meet the boy Jesus in Nazareth, and finds himself encountering the adult Jesus as his popularity swells. Sent by Pilate to spy on the Sermon on the Mount he is deeply challenged and ultimately becomes the centurion exclaiming those immortal lines as Jesus dies. Lucius provides a way into the film for the viewer. Whereas the other characters have already been influenced by various connotations, Lucius is neutral, and as he, like the viewer, sees more of Jesus, he is changed by what he sees.

Perhaps one of the strangest things about this film is how little time Jesus actually spends on screen. Excluding credit sequences etc. Jesus is onscreen for less than half of the film's remaining run time. The rest of the film is taken up with Barabbas and the zealots' fight against Rome. This was the first major Jesus film after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the greater awareness they brought about the zealots and their fight. Whilst this subplot sprawls seemingly out of control, King of Kings is one of the few films to place Jesus in this kind of revolutionary saturated context. At one point Barabbas contrasts himself with Jesus, declaring, "I am fire he is water", unaware that as does so, water is shown literally overcoming the red hot swords smelted in the zealots' fire.

These scenes do seem to gain a little too much screen time, but they are undoubtedly well executed. Whilst this detracts somewhat from the more thoughtful film about Jesus that I suspect Ray intended, it does at least make entertaining watching. And from time to time there are some memorable moments. Perhaps most significant about this film is the way it embodies its subject. Just as in the film the political machinations seem to overwhelm Jesus and lead to his downfall, so the film falls down by swamping Jesus with a depiction of that same politics and violence. Ultimately though, it is the Sermon on the Mount that has the most lasting impact.



1 - Nicholas Ray: An American Journey, Bernard Eisenschitz, (1996), Faber and Faber
2 - It is obligatory to use this line in every discussion of this movie.
3 - Nicholas Ray: An American Journey, Bernard Eisenschitz, (1996), Faber and Faber