Judge Bill Gibron applauds Cecil B. DeMille's silent epic on the life of Elvis Presley. Wait, that's the wrong King.
Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful
observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the
kingdom of God is within you."
The Bible is often called the greatest story ever told. Too bad that the same can't be said of the movies made from it. Looking over the crass canon of commerciality that passes for religious enlightenment, it's no wonder most film fans avoid the Biblical epic like one of the plagues Moses visited on Egypt. Either they take themselves so intensely seriously that no amount of acting precision or directorial flair can enliven their morbid mannerisms, or they're filled with so many misplaced cameos that the inherent star power overwhelms the importance of the icons being portrayed.
Certainly, there are films that get closer to an evangelical epiphany than others. For all its faults and flaws, its desire to turn the passion of Jesus into a pseudo-snuff film of unbelievable mean-spiritedness, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ found the proper balance between fundamentalist fervor and cinematic spectacle to give us a truly visceral approach to the Stages of the Cross and the Crucifixion. And even with some of that unnecessary stunt casting straining at the supporting characters (Edward G. Robinson?), The Ten Commandments has an overwhelmingly original way of portraying God's glory and infinite power.
It is interesting to note that the filmmaker behind that 1956 extravaganza, Cecil B. DeMille, was also responsible for one of the best, most basic versions of Christ's life ever put on film. During his days as a pioneer of silent cinema, DeMille took the last few days in Jesus's ministry, combined it with a radical rethinking of how to portray such sacred events on film, and came up with a certified classic of religious revelry. New to DVD from Criterion, The King of Kings is one of the most important works in the pantheon of the pious. It represents a pinnacle in the way in which ethereal events and individuals can be made much more human and natural.
Facts of the Case
When high-class courtesan Mary Magdalene learns that her lover and prized paramour, Judas Iscariot, has come under the influence of a carpenter from Nazareth named Jesus Christ, she demands to see the proof for herself. Arriving at Christ's dwelling, she sees hundreds of the sick and lame waiting for a moment with the master (Christ is rumored to be capable of miraculous healing). Determined to get Judas back, she confronts the man. But instead of returning with Judas, she suddenly repents, moved by the power of Christ's simple, sacred forgiveness.
We soon learn that Judas is unhappy in his role as Christ's apostle. He wants Jesus to take up the causes of the rich, guaranteeing that both he and Jesus will be put in places of power—maybe even king. While the rest of the disciples, including the powerful protector Peter, are wary of Jesus's growing influence and following, Judas wants to play on such popularity. Naturally, all this talk about the simple woodworker has drawn the attention of the religious leader of the Jews, High Priest Caiaphas. When Jesus comes to the temple and throws out the merchants and moneychangers that Caiaphas has installed inside, the cleric demands that Christ be arrested. But the Jewish council needs someone to betray Him. Judas is pressured into the act.
Jesus is found in the garden of Gesemene. He is taken to Caiaphas and charged. Without the true power to punish him, the Priest turns to the Roman representative in Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, to issue the penalty of death. After chastising Christ, Pilate is faced with a dilemma. Thanks to the efforts of the Council, the citizenry is calling for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate, naturally, sees no need for such a severe penalty. Finally caving into their demands, however, he orders that it be done. Jesus is forced to carry his own cross through the streets of the city, and when he reaches the spot known as Cavalry, he is nailed to the wooden structure. There, he dies, with the promise that he will rise up from his tomb in three days. He does.
When one looks back at the golden days of Hollywood, back before big business turned the industry into a cash machine hell-bent on making every opening weekend the most important aspect of filmmaking, there was one name that guaranteed spectacle and larger than life entertainment. With a canon, both as producer and director, that ranged in subject matter from the circus (1952's The Greatest Show On Earth) to the high seas (1958's The Buccaneer), the Wild West (1937's The Plainsman) to the frozen tundra of Canada (1940's North West Mounted Police), Cecil B DeMille made movies for and of the masses. Known for his casts of thousands, his attention to historic detail, and sets that usually dwarfed his performers, DeMille guaranteed that moviegoers got their money's worth, understanding that people could see all the everyday world they wanted right outside their own back door. To DeMille, movies were invented to tell the really oversized stories, to create the myths and the mystery that kept seats filled and box office registers ringing—especially when having to compete with the variety of vaudeville and the growing popularity of the newest home-based novelty, radio.
And when it came to the sacred in scope, the holy in histrionics, perhaps no one excelled in the telling of the ultimate legends carved out of the Bible than DeMille. Over the course of his fifty years in show business, he made at least half a dozen films with religion as its overriding theme, including the classic The Ten Commandments, Samson and Delilah, and, naturally, The King of Kings. Treating these tellings as testaments to his own personal faith, and formulated to follow the scripture as closely as dramatics would allow, DeMille fueled his fanciful preaching with opulent sets, incredible effects, and carefully crafted, flawless filmmaking. The results were regal in their resplendence, luxuriant without being decadent, and filled with as much meaning and message as possible. Certainly, some efforts were better than others, but there is no denying how direct, forthright, and inspiring his films could be. Indeed, DeMille was on of the few filmmakers who could fill his frame with the actual sense of God's omnipresence, power, and grace.
The King of Kings is an example of such sensational storytelling. It is cinema at its most artistic. It is also moviemaking at its most basic and effective. There are no massive overriding themes or brave symbolism to overshadow the situations. This is a simple, straightforward saga (the last few days in Christ's life) told with skill and obvious sentiment. Like seeing a series of prayer cards come to life, or witnessing a literal imagining of imagery from the Gospels, The King of Kings is a somber, sobering experience in overall mood and atmosphere. DeMille designs his film like a Bible reading, highlighting passages to propel his narrative, and quoting chapter and verse to solidify his sacrosanct purposes. All throughout he hints at standard iconography, creates his own new vibrant visuals, and manages to dig down deep into the very core of Christ's time on earth. Naturally, this means miracles (the curing of the blind, the raising of the dead) but instead of turning this title into some sort of misguided magic act (The Ten Commandments can occasionally be faulted as being too effects-heavy), DeMille keeps this a very personal, very profound look at Jesus, the man.
Compared to other versions of the life of Christ, DeMille's reinvention is marvelous and quite moving. He knows the command in the parable and prophecy contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and builds off their fundamental narrative strengths to compel his story. His compositions are carefully constructed, used to accent the spiritual nature of each scene while keeping us connected to the characters. The King of Kings is really remarkable in its tone and talent. DeMille barely makes a wrong move here, picking the parts of Christ's life that synchronize seamlessly into the overall significance of His life and works. The plot points out problems to be overcome, moral issues to be addressed, and Jesus is presented as the emblematic response, a period on the end of all ethical statements that solidifies the soundness of his teachings. Jesus is never shown as being too strong or overly passive, only using his command when absolutely necessary. But he is also shown drawing on his more humble vulnerability to make God a personified, approachable person. Unlike other Christs who seem, pardon the pun, holier than thou, DeMille's Messiah is a completely three-dimensional entity, a near perfect epitome of consecration in human form.
This is not to suggest that The King of Kings is faultless. While the imagery is among the best ever created, some of the liberties taken by story scribe Jeanie Macpherson may confuse even the most learned Christian. Those who know their Bible should not expect The King of Kings to be historically, or even contextually correct. For example, Judas Iscariot is portrayed as a king-making Jesus wannabe, living an impossible existence in his master's substantial shadow. We constantly see actor Joseph Schildkraut (who is very, very effective, by the way) rubbing his hands together and flaunting his ego as he tries to sway some attention the Iscariot way. His retrofitted relationship with Mary Magdalene seems like a cheap meet-cute way of getting the famed religious figure in with Jesus at the beginning of the narrative. It's almost as if DeMille needed to present Christ with a scoundrel more viable than a poorly described member of his disciples who would end up betraying his master for thirty pieces of silver. From a short sequence where Judas tries to "cure" an insane child, to the final confrontation with the Council where he practically begs for audience sympathy, the new and improved Judas Iscariot will be, perhaps, the sole sticking point for Biblical purists.
No one could argue with the acting, however. As stated before, Schildkraut is amazing, less mannered than you would expect in the vain, villainous Judas role. Indeed, the hyper-serious nature of the story seems to have inspired DeMille to pull back a great deal on the typical silent movie Method acting. Usually so arch and over the top that modern audiences balk at the horrible hamminess of it all, The King of Kings contains some of the most naturalistic, normal performances in any religious epic. The rest of the cast is very powerful indeed. H.B. Warner essays the lead role of Jesus Christ with a near ideal depiction. Never too pious to isolate the audience, but never resorting to the kind of intense humanism that hampers other portrayals of Christ (especially Jim Caviezel's gut wrenching Christ in Mel Gibson's Passion, or Willem Dafoe as the emotionally tortured Savior of Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation).
Unlike other versions of this prophet and religious leader, DeMille is more interested in the deeds than the man, and it is left to Warner to center and suggest the inner sanctity of Christ unending love. And he does so brilliantly. From Ernest Torrence's big bear of a disciple (Peter), to Rudolph Schildkraut's (Joseph's Dad) piercing portrayal as Caiaphas, we never once feel like we watching one of those hoary old classics were people are playing it large and lumbering. There is more subtlety than show-off during this stirring drama, and it is one of the reasons why The King of Kings succeeds so well.
Still, some may seem put off by a silent film that takes a very picturesque, anglicized version of the Christ's passion. DeMille is not trying to affect some kind of radical rethinking of the story of Christ. No matter what later genealogy or archeological findings would warrant, the director envisions his Jesus a Caucasian white male, traditional close-cropped blond hair framing a face full of noble virtue. Well-trimmed beard in place and eyes alive with deep inner warmth, there is never a moment when Warner doesn't look 100% the part. But not everything DeMille does is mired in the mundane. In order to keep the cinematic aspects of the film fresh and forceful, DeMille does have some marvelous tricks up his sly sleeves. In a scene where Jesus drives the Seven Deadly Sins out of Mary Magdalene, the director uses a wonderful optical effect to have the horrible, harmful harpies surround their victim. By applying some splendid double exposure, we see several actresses made up to be grotesque decadent demons draping the figure of Mary. As expected, Jesus normally has a luminescence around him, a glorious glow that separates and sanctifies him for the audience. A bit with the Devil's temptation is spectacle at its most amazing, and the ending is equally effective, filled with the kind of pre-CGI physical effects that used to be the studio system's bread and butter. Once you've witnessed the quaking of the earth and the renting of the temple vestment in The King of Kings, you'll immediately understand that DeMille was determined to make us believe in the truth of this tale.
DeMille also trusts the inherent narrative in the Bible (Judas jerry-rigging aside) to carry his story, and when he stays true to its tenets, The King of Kings is remarkably powerful. Naturally, there will be those who wonder if DeMille is as guilty as Mel Gibson for portraying the Jews as a bloodthirsty cult of stereotypes bent on feeding every negative image the world has ever had of Hebrews. The answer is no. DeMille takes a decidedly tame position on both the High Priest Caiaphas and the Romans (who ridicule Jesus, but don't beat him with anywhere as near the insane fervor of Gibson's gratuitous guards). Some could point to a few hackneyed actions or caricature-ish faces that fill out the crowd scenes, but one never gets the feeling that DeMille was out to condemn a people for the death of the Savior (this could also be the reason for the retrofitting of Judas). True, the crimes they pile on Christ seem stupid, and the decision to put him to death does derive out of a pathetic power struggle amongst a corrupt set of Council members, but the overriding idea is that Jesus's untimely end is preordained, and that we are merely witnessing the motions that needed to be gone through to reach the resplendent Resurrection goal.
Since DeMille is a master storyteller, both from a production and a directorial standpoint, the end result is a movie that truly moves you with the spirit of its sincerity. Though Gibson's modern marriage of mise-en-scène with emotion and message would present a far more potent set of cinematic pictures, The King of Kings is equally evocative for far less boastful reasons. DeMille believes the Bible is the greatest story ever told and he is willing to work within the parameters it provides to tell his tale. He then carefully casts his creation, manages the tone and the flow with expert efficiency, and finds just the right visual cues to bring it all back home in Heavenly respite. Inspiring and insightful, The King of Kings is classic old school theatricality at its most monumental. It truly lives up to the regal reputation of the individual it champions.
Naturally, everything you read above applies to the brand-new restored transfer of DeMille's original 1927 cut, 155 minutes of mesmerizing moviemaking. Thanks to the painstaking efforts of Criterion, this newly remastered version of the movie is the only way to enjoy The King of Kings. While the 1928 general release adaptation is also available, it is not up to the standards of the "road show" offering (more on this in a moment). DeMille's original contains not one, but two early color sequences (quite a shocker for audiences in the late '20s). During the opening banquet at Mary Magdalene's home, we see her suitors and her surroundings in all their basic pigmented glory, and in both the '27 and '28 versions, the resurrection is in color as well, giving us a chance to bathe in the glorious golden light of Christ rising from the dead. It is interesting that the tinted sequences are the worst looking aspects of an otherwise amazing 1.33:1 monochrome transfer. Looking better than a movie from nearly 80 years ago should, the 1927 King of Kings is fantastic—freshly minted and beautifully black and white—in Criterion's reconstruction. Certainly, there are faded aspects, and the amount of soft focus on Christ occasionally washes out the image. But it is hard to fault something that looks this amazing when the elements were long considered unsalvageable or unavailable.
As for the 1928 release, there are monochrome issues in abundance. Even though the transfer is restored, we still get editing miscues, scratches, dirt, negative flaws, and an overall image that is less dynamic and rather dull. Since approximately 43 minutes of the movie are also missing, the 1928 release is also a much lesser film. The narrative flow is off, the lack of a purposeful pace is apparent, and the story has far less of an impact than in the full 155-minute running time.
On the other hand, the soundtracks offered on both versions run the gamut from good to fantastic. On the 1928 release, there are two options: one features the original score by Hugo Riedenfeld and a very moody and ambient modern score by organist Timothy Tikker. While the orchestrated version by Riedenfeld is fine, it does suffer a little from the technical limitations of early 20th century recording techniques. Tikker's amazing organ soundtrack nearly salvages the 112-minute movie. Equally dark and dreamy, foreboding and celebratory, this is one of the better single instrument soundtracks ever created. However, the best musical accompaniment for The King of Kings comes on the 1927 version. Written by composer Donald Sosin and perfectly capturing the emotion of each scene, this amazing, ambitious soundscape completely complements the emotions and the action onscreen. With all the modern music presented in pristine Dolby Digital Stereo and the older material reconfigured to substantially clean up the flat and tinny qualities, the aural attributes of this DVD package are incredible.
As for bonus material, it is sparse but special. The main find is a 13-minute collection of silent clips showing DeMille and his cast making The King of Kings. While some of the footage feels like material found on the cutting room floor (snippets shot before the slate, the occasional camera test) we do witness DeMille working with his actors and setting up shots. Without some supporting voices or narration, however, there is a tendency to feel lost in a soundless shuffle. The rest of the added content is gallery based. We are treated to photos, advertisements, telegrams, and the original pressbook and illustrated materials from the movie's premiere. There are also production and costuming sketches, a set of behind the scenes stills, a portrait gallery by on-set photographer W.M. Mortensen, and a few trailers from the film's Broadway engagement (touting the movie's magnificent run in NYC). Along with a scholarly 40-page booklet featuring articles on/by DeMille and King of Kings, this is yet again another stellar, well-researched presentation by those pioneers of preservation, Criterion.
Because of its very nature—the incredibly personal proclivity of religion—Biblical epics are a source of divisiveness and controversy. Even the best made movie will anger at least some portion of the population simply because they do not share the particular beliefs being championed. Yet oddly enough, even within the choir of converted you are claiming to preach to, there will also be those who argue and take issue. Almost all organized religion is based in interpretation, and how you the filmmaker view the life of a sainted sacred character may differ radically from the norm, or the accepted. That Cecil B. DeMille decided to tackle the life and times of Jesus Christ may have had more to do with his own personal beliefs than a desire to dig into the box office, but it still takes a special moviemaking mentality to tackle such a potentially touchy situation. That he succeeds so well, making a film so fabulous in its look and feel, is testament enough to his talent and temerity. If the Bible is indeed the greatest story ever told, then The King of Kings is one of its greatest visualizations. This is a film that, dare it be suggested, stands as timeless as the subject matter it glorifies.
The King of Kings is found not guilty. It is an amazing testament to the power of cinema and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Give us your feedback!
What's "fair"? Whether positive or negative, our reviews should be unbiased, informative, and critique the material on its own merits.
Scales of Justice
• Two Versions of the Film: 155-Minute 1927 Roadshow Version and 112-Minute 1928 Theatrical Version
Review content copyright © 2005 Bill Gibron; Site design and review layout copyright © 2016 Verdict Partners LLC. All rights reserved.