King of Kings (1961)

This is a biblical movie, one of many that was made in the mid-fifties and sixties. It accounts, in a somewhat light way, the life of Jesus from birth to the ascent to heaven and, thus, runs counter to the general tendency of focus only on the birth or passion of Christ. On the other hand, the film makes a very interesting use of peripheral biblical characters (Herod, Salome, Pilate, Barabbas etc.) to make a movie with more movement than one would expect, which prevents it from appearing slow and drawn. The problem of doing this is the indispensable resource for creating scenes that aren't in biblical accounts, but cinema does a lot of that, it's normal and I deal well with it, as long as creative freedom doesn't contradict the biblical story. Nicholas Ray assures the direction in a competent way and Orson Welles makes a great narration of the events. The cast is mostly composed of illustrious strangers (at least for me) which reinforces realism, probably in a conscious move by the director. The cast usually does a convincing and enjoyable work, especially Jeffrey Hunter, who gave birth to Jesus, and Robert Ryan, who played John the Baptist. The environment, costumes and scenery are convincing, beautiful and look good on the screen, but they have no comparison to other biblical films such as "Ben Hur" or "Quo Vadis", where everything is bigger and done in greater detail.

I saw this film when it was released in 1961, I was about thirteen and ancient historical epics were just about my favourite kind of movie. However "King of Kings" fell somewhere between a spectacular epic and a Sunday School lesson. There have been quite a few films about the life of Jesus since this one was made including a couple of biggies: George Steven's "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth". Unlike the other two, "King of Kings" didn't go for a multitude of well-known stars doing one-minute, pop-up appearances. Producer Samuel Bronston spent the money in other areas, and every dollar showed on the screen. Although there is no accepted physical description of Jesus, Jeffery Hunter would have to be about the best looking movie Jesus of them all. He was an actor who always looked like he should be in movies. He was almost too good looking, but in this, those piercing blue eyes added to the sense of a man who had the charisma to draw thousands of followers to him even at the risk of their lives.Robert Ryan likewise made a powerful John the Baptist; it's hard to imagine him any other way after seeing this movie.Hurd Hatfield delivers an autocratic and urbane Pilate, but Frank Thring as Herod Antipas rose to the challenge, and then some. Over-the-top and scenery devouring maybe, but he's mesmerising - he even makes Charles Laughton look positively restrained in the same role in 1953's "Salome".Nearly all the major films about Jesus base their scripts around the gospels. "King of Kings" features many of the well-known episodes, but whenever the film looks like slowing down with too many sermons, either the Zealots attack the Romans or we cut straight to the palace as Herod attacks the Ten Commandments including lusting after Salomé, his teenage step-daughter. There are no slow spots in Samuel Bronston's "King of Kings".The film has its own style, which is set with the ominous opening narration by Orson Welles; it's an absorbing three hours with more than one inspirational scene. Whether it's the best movie about the life of Jesus is definitely down to the way you like your bible told.

I own A DVD of this film and try to watch it at Easter time about every second or third year. In my view, it's the best and most reverent depiction of Christ's life that I've seen with a wonderful score by Miklos Rozsa and excellent production values associated with the epics of the famous producer Samuel Bronston (El Cid, Fall of the Roman Empire). Moreover, Orson Welles' splendid narration conveys the right amount of solemnity and descriptiveness.I'm well aware that King of Kings was largely panned by critics when first released, and although it has gained much in stature in recent decades, it still has its share of critics. Much of that criticism seems to be based on the blue-eyed, heartthrob Jeffrey Hunter playing Jesus in the film, and it was reported that he was selected for the positive effect his looks would have on the box office. But he's grown on me; he has a very rich and charismatic voice and a penetrating stare that conveys an other-worldly look ("my kingdom is not of this world"). His performance in the Sermon on the Mount is commanding and when asked "teach us to pray", his recitation of the Lord's Prayer is soaring and emotional. There's sympathy in his depiction of Jesus: "woman, where are they that condemn you?"; there's steadfastness: "do not tempt the Lord thy God! (to Satan in the wilderness), there's fear: "take this cup from me!" and then there's inscrutable resignation: no responses to Pilate's "art thou a God?" The doctrine of the Incarnation must make playing Christ extremely difficult as you must convey divine attributes and very human emotions.For my money, the best scenes for staging, visual and sound / musical effects, reverence, and spiritual depth and intensity are the aforementioned Sermon on the Mount, the temptations in the wilderness, Jesus' the extinction on the cross followed by dark clouds and rushing wind and the final acknowledgment of God's presence by the cynical centurion, and finally the off-camera presence revealed by a lengthening shadow of Christ's final admonition to the disciples at the Sea of Galilee to "go and make disciples of all nations" amid the soaring music of Rozas. Very inspiring moments! My one criticism, and I thought of knocking the rating down to a 9 because of this but did not, was the over-emphasis on Barabbas and his mission to violently oppose the Romans and free Judea. Barabbas was interested in political freedom. Compare this to Jesus who tells the guards of John the Baptist, who remains in his dungeon, that "I've come to free John from within himself." I suspect the minutes of the film given to Barabbas and his cohort were an excuse to provide several superfluous battle scenes with the Romans, add some unneeded "action" and attract younger audiences. Jesus is not El Cid!

Jeffrey Hunter, at age 35, does the most haunting portrayal of Jesus ever filmed. Some will argue that Max Von Sydow does it better in "The Greatest Story Ever Told" but I have recently watched both films. This Jesus has dirty brown (almost blonde) hair and piercing blue eyes. He portrays Jesus in a joyous manner until his Crucifixion becomes most eminent. Also, this film is so much better, having been directed by Nicholas Ray and not by George Stevens. It plays like a "Cecile B. DeMille" production. The scenes are more memorable here. Especially effective is the "Sermon on the Mount", which reportedly had 7,000 extras. Sure, parts of it are very melodramatic: Salome's dance of the 7 veils. Herod's impending madness. Pontius Pilate's prosecution of Jesus in such a "forgiving" manner. The unnecessary spectacle of the Roman battles. But all this makes for a very watchable film that does not bore, in spite of its 168 minute length. Orson Welles' narration even adds an air of "authority" to the proceedings, as does the dramatic musical score. Rip Torn as "Judas" gives an Oscar-worthy performance. There are weaknesses as well, as not even a movie about the Christ is perfect: Most of the "extras", and even Mary, look Italian because they are. Various accents occasionally mar the dramatic performances. However, it avoids a glut of possible "special effects" that could have been used to portray the miracles but would have "cheapened" the end result. Most miracles are described but not shown. (Unlike "The Ten Commandments") Although not accurate to "The New Testament", you will watch this version many times; and that alone makes it superior to "The Greatest Story Ever Told", which was beautiful to see, but almost put me to sleep several times! Too graphic for small children. PG-13 is my rating.