The King of Kings (1927)

I have no idea exactly what it means, but the DVD I watched of "The King of Kings" was the roadshow version. Why called 'roadshow' I have no idea, but it's significantly longer than the official version released to the general public. So, it has more than a half hour additional footage. Exactly what extra it has, I really don't know.The film is interesting because it is different from some other films about the life of Christ. It does not start with his birth but begins in the weeks before his crucifixion. As for Jesus, his version starring H.B. Warner is pretty good--mostly because he lacks the ridiculously long hair and angelic visage in some films. He does, occasionally, sport a halo--a rather old fashioned look. However, he is a bit more human than some Jesus portrayals--as he smiles a bit. I wish that Jesus smiled a lot more in films and behaved like a more normal guy, but I have yet to see this sort of Christ in film. And, while it might sound morbid, I wish the crucifixion had been a bit more bloody and realistic (I am NOT talking about to the extent of "The Passion of the Christ", but there is practically no blood at all in the "The King of Kings")--an impossibility.In some ways, the story seems a bit more like a Catholic version of the last days of Jesus. Mary is a very traditionally Catholic one--in headdress and with doves--almost angelic. Also, like the Catholics and Church of England, there is an emphasis on the notion of a 'holy grail'--that glowed with mystical powers. These are not so much complaints--more just observations.What I did have a complaint about, however, is the odd timeline used in the film. Again and again, verses and Biblical accounts are mixed up chronologically--with events from early in a Gospel appearing late in his life. In other words, instead of writing a script, it looked almost like they just randomly picked verses from a hat. So, despite lots of verses being used on the intertitle cards (a good touch), the sequence just did not seem all that important--at least not until the last portion of the movie that centered on the death and resurrection. A bit of research and effort would have made a more historically accurate script.Now although I have complained a bit, there isn't that much to dislike about the film--especially in light of when it was made. The sets and costumes are what you'd expect from a Cecil B. DeMille film--top-notch and quite expensive. And, unlike some of DeMille's later works, this film is much more respectful of the characters and is not inundated with smut (yes, smut--as DeMille's early Christian epic "The Sign of the Cross" had bestiality, lesbianism and all sorts of shocking topics in a Christian epic). Additionally, the Two-Color Technicolor was a terrific addition at the beginning and end of the film--really state of the art for 1927 and one of the best examples of this sort of filming. Overall, a terrific silent--one of the best.

I just recently viewed the original silent film "King of Kings" (released in 1927) for the first time. Needless to say, it is the kind of awe-inspiring epic that Cecil B. DeMille became famous for. At first glance, my big issue was that I thought H.B. Warner was way too old to play Jesus. Warner was already 50 when he played the famous man, who was supposed to be only 30 year old at the time of his death. Once you get past that, however, Warner is brilliant in the role. DeMille has a "glow" around Warner throughout the whole film, obviously to show him as s divine being, and it is very effective. Warner is able to bring amazing humility and wisdom to the part of Jesus -- all without dialogue, folks! DeMille uses scripture quite liberally in this silent epic, and it makes it wonderful for those of us not quite so familiar with them. The supporting cast is outstanding -- Joseph Schildkraut plays the handsome traitor Judas Iscariot, and his performance is excellent. Schildkraut is effective at being able to portray Judas' conflict, jealousy and hypocrisy. Dorothy Cumming as Jesus' mother Mary has a small role, but the emotions she exhibits on her face are heart-wrenching. The rest of the cast is great, and of course, the thousands of extras so common to DeMille's films. DeMille uses great lighting techniques and special effects that seem to be way ahead of their time. According to TCM host Robert Osbourne, DeMille was so powerful at this time in Hollywood he even insisted his stars be on their best behavior off the set and not get into any scandals. While this certainly seems silly by today's standards, it was DeMille's respect for his project that prompted him to reportedly keep tabs on them! Anyway, the film is amazing, and even if you think you do not like silent films, this one is a masterpiece.

The silent factor doesn't hurt THE KING OF KINGS. As seen on TCM with an appropriate background score and all of the two-strip Technicolor scenes intact, it's stunning visually and impressive from beginning to end. Of course, some of the acting belongs strictly to the silent period but overall the performances are right on target.H.B. WARNER is touching as Jesus, but Joseph SCHILDKRAUT is the standout in the cast, portraying Judas with great skill and conviction. ERNEST TORRENCE as Peter is effective too. DOROTHY CUMMING as Mary does a sympathetic job and VICTOR VARCONI makes an impressive Pontious Pilate. JACQUELINE LOGAN makes a vivid impression as Mary Magdelene. Child actor MICHAEL D. MOORE is excellent as Mark.The sets and costumes are opulent, as one expects in a De Mille epic, and the story is told at an even pace that belies the fact that it's extremely lengthy for a silent film of this period. TCM showed the full version.While the director took liberties with Biblical text to create a vivid cinematic work, it faithfully follows all of the main threads of the greatest story ever told. The film is enhanced by the silent factor since it does allow the viewer to use his imagination when it comes to the voice of Jesus.Summing up: Must rank among the great silent films--well worth viewing.Trivia note: Interesting to spot WILLIAM BOYD (Hopalong Cassidy) as Simon of Cyrene who helps Jesus carry the cross. He's very effective.

King of Kings, The (1927) **** (out of 4) It's interesting that Mel Gibson was originally going to show The Passion of the Christ without any subtitles because he felt the story spoke loudly enough and that audience members would know the story well enough so words weren't really needed. With The King of Kings being a silent film the silence really adds to the story but on the other hand, unlike Gibson it's very apparent that DeMille wasn't quite sure whether the audience would know the story good enough and that leads to the film's one weak spot. The film probably would have lost a good twenty-minutes if it weren't for all the intertitles, which become quite annoying because it's easy to read the lips of what the actors are saying. Even with that one flaw DeMille created one of the greatest tellings of the story of Jesus.The first hour and half deals with Jesus (H.B. Warner) as he walks the Earth with his disciples where he cures the blind and helps the cripple to walk. The second hour then turns to the crucifixion and eventual resurrection and with each passing frame you can tell this is a film being made by someone very passionate about the subject matter. The great lengths DeMille went through to create this film have become somewhat legendary. The director would have ministers bless the film each day before filming and even made his actors sign papers swearing they wouldn't get into any trouble to where the audiences might not believe them in their part.I find it quite odd to bash a religious film for not staying true to the source material because no movie ever has and I'm sure one never will. DeMille adds some interesting changes including having Mark be a young boy who is cured by Jesus but the most infamous change is the romance between Judas and Maria Magdalene. According to the liner notes, this so-called romance was a German legend but why DeMille decided to use it is anyone's guess. DeMille also said that the Jews were the most unfairly treated in the Bible and to avoid any anti-Semitic controversy, it's made quite clear that Rome was behind the deeds of that certain day.As I said earlier, The King of Kings is epic in scale but DeMille thankfully never goes over the top and remembers that the story is the most important thing to make a movie work. Each and every frame is told in such loving care that it doesn't take any time for the film to transfer you back and make it seem as if you're actually there witnessing these events on your own. The lavished sets and thousands of extras also add a great deal of realism to the story and W.B. Warner, while a bit too old for the role, delivers a remarkable performance where he tells every feeling of Jesus with a simple look or body gesture.The film is also quite moving especially the scenes with Jesus working with a group of sick people. DeMille usually slows the pace down so that we can see the love these sick people felt for Jesus and that clearly jumps right off the screen. DeMille also makes sure to show Jesus as a mythical character who can work wonders and most importantly, the film allows Jesus to be seen as someone who knows what love is and knows his mission in life.When Jesus is working these wonders the director usually has a light shining on him, which would come off as camp but once again DeMille knew how far to push this and the effect works quite nicely. Another wonderful thing is that DeMille allows some humor to be thrown in with the off-screen violence. The best example of this is the guards getting ready to put the crown of thorns on Jesus but they keep hurting their hands trying to make it.Another wonderful scene has a little girl asking Jesus to heal her doll, which has had a leg broken off.Perhaps this was the showman side of DeMille coming into play but the director decided to film the resurrection with Technicolor. In the 1927 "Premier" version, Technicolor is also used at the very beginning of the film but soon fades to black and white when Jesus is introduced. The resurrection sequence with the use of color perfectly brings the detail of a life returning back to the Earth. It's rather hard to put it into words but when the B&W fades and the color comes shining through, with this little experiment DeMille is able to create some wonderful emotions and get his point across very quietly.There have been dozens of religious movies since The King of Kings (including a remake) but I feel this one here is a film that would appeal to everyone no matter what their personal beliefs are. This is classic DeMille, which shows his talent at storytelling as well as his showmanship of delivering a spectacle like no other.