On May 18, 1927, Growman’s Chinese theatre held its premiere. King of KingsA quiet sight that dramatizes the final days of Jesus Christ’s life. Director Cecil B. DeMille – The Hollywood Imprezario, the most famous for his entertainment based on biblical stories like 1956 The Ten Commandments– The film captivated a religious and secular audience with its epic pageantry: a huge set, thousands of cast, and gorgeous special effects. It is also worth noting that the use of color photographs is limited. Although the film was mainly shot in black and white by standard at the time, the film featured two technicolor sequences. With his book Cecil B. DeMille’s HollywoodRobert S. Burchard claims that the photo’s budget is worth $2.26 million, certainly cites it as a respectable statement from the director.
Two years after Des Mille’s death, in 1961, the film of the same title was released to an audience still screaming epic set in the historical past. It’s not an official remake, but Nicholas Rays King of Kings It also dramatized the life and teachings of Christ, death on the cross, and resurrection. By this time, colour films have become common all over the world, as seen in more modern biblical epics like William Wyler. Ben-Her (1959), which won an Eleven Academy Award. Ray’s photographs deviated from DeMille’s photographs, as its content is similar to that of other historical epics from the 60s, featuring long prologues, politics and fighting scenes. But the core was the famous story of Jesus and how he endured the cross, allowing other parts of the world to have the opportunity to save him.
DeMille’s King of Kings And Rei King of Kings It dramatizes Jesus’ life within the general framework of each era. The former is as showmanship in the silent era, and the latter as a historic epic. And while they may not be an official version of each other, their same narrative effort (under similar titles, less!) requires some comparison. It is a comparison that makes DeMille’s photographs great as both part of storytelling and, more importantly, as a cinematic rendering of Christ’s legacy.
DeMille’s King of Kings And Rei King of Kings It dramatizes Jesus’ life within the general framework of each era. The former is as showmanship in the silent era, and the latter as a historic epic.
One of Nicholas Ray’s drawbacks King of Kings It is how far and isolated it is for the adaptation of the biblical story, remembered for grace and intimacy. Part of the problem is that Ray and producer Samuel Bronston take too long to do the extra explanatory material. King of Kings It begins with a lengthy prologue showing how the Romans conquered Judea. There is a battle in which Jewish rebels attack Roman soldiers. This is simply a few minutes of impersonal mayhem that introduces Barabas (the rebels that the Jews did not spare to secure Jesus’ crucifixion). There is an unnecessary scene depicting the great and great ascension death of his son Herod Antipas. Mixed with all this, the beginning of Christ, but secondary encounters with the politics and war around him. By the time the grown-up Jesus (played by Jeffrey Hunter) appears in the 30 minutes, King of Kingsstumbling by the free exposition and getting off to a weak start.
It’s from DeMille King of Kings It also takes time to introduce Jesus. It does so through compact and streamlined storytelling. As mentioned before, this photo begins with a technicolor sequence featuring a slightly dressed Magdalene (Jacqueline Logan). Surrounded by her sexual partner, she asks about where her one lover, Judas Iscariot, and learns that he has become a student of a local carpenter, who is reportedly performing a miracle. And she challenges the city to find both. When the colored photographs switch to black and white, Demire introduces many people to respond to the work of Jesus that we have not yet seen. Once upon a time a boy named Mark (who will write one of the Gospels) comes out of the carpenter’s house and declares that his feet have healed. Another child – this blind child takes her with a healing mark and takes her to see Jesus. From the beginning, the film is about Jesus, and uses the setup to create a sense of wonder that anticipates the obvious things of Christ, rather than the buildings of the world.
It makes clear that DeMille is wisely drawn out. Even when the camera takes two children to the house of Christ, God’s child remains off-screen. And when he finally appears, it is through the perspective of a blind child regaining her vision. Mary Magdalene enters the house shortly afterwards, captivated by the man she was going to stand up to, and cleansed from the seven deadly sins that have long defined her life. I spent 20 minutes expecting Jesus to be rewarded with two life-changing miracles. This sense of wonder – this sense of story – grasps a set of patterns that distinguish them. King of Kings It’s better than the 1961 counterpart.
Both films last over 2.5 hours, but DeMille King of Kings There is only one person who is interested in making Jesus’ work dramatic. For example, consider the famous explanation of Christ saving adultery from the crowd. In Demire’s photo, a bottle of flour is accidentally dropped before the hero of Jesus and crushed in front of a woman. The Son of God traces the various words of sin before the spilled contents, and with his fingers (“murderer”, “thief”, “adulterer”). People in the crowd recognize the hypocrisy of retreating in shame by making the proverb logs in their own eyes absent and shameful. It’s a great moment to harness the visual nature of the film. In contrast, Rei’s corresponding scene King of Kings Unfortunately, it’s basically the basics. Jesus screams for the innocent to cast the first stone, the crowd disbands, and the conflict ends in seconds.
In fact, Ray’s films are primarily impersonal in portraying Jesus and his work. Unlike King of KingsRey’s film, which uses chatter between secondary characters to create a mysterious sense of the Son of God, only jumps into the story without a dramatic accumulation of Jesus’ miracle (and some of his feats have been mentioned, such as walking on the water). The film also pales thanks to unfortunate false arbitrary. HB Warner’s performance as Jesus in the Demille version is pure white, with the actor primarily relying on his soulful eyes and gentle mannerisms to convey a pleasant sense of love. (that Jesus seemed like the person we approached for help and guidance. ) In contrast, Jeffrey Hunter – the handsome actor best known for John Wayne’s partner Searcher (1956) – Sadly, it’s creepy and sometimes annoying in Ray’s films.
For all these reasons, the actors have been inconsistent with the parts that do not allow enough space for what should be important scenes – yes in 1961 King of Kings Needless to say, he is an emotional spiritual leader, he comes across like a sketch of a person rather than a believable character. During his famous sermon on Mount Galilee, he only had the opportunity to shine properly once. Here, Director Ray gives drama and hunters plenty of time to develop a sense of wisdom and dignity, especially when Jesus teaches the Lord’s Prayer. Unfortunately, it is a rare and effective moment in the film that begs more people.
King of Kings He also outperforms his 1961 successor in terms of support characters. Peter, a pupil from DeMille’s film (played by Ernest Torrence), is a fully developed man with his own personality and flaws, described as “fast but heart softness” in his introductory intertitle. As we come to know Him, there is emotional resonance when he fulfills the three denials prophesied to know Him. Peter King of Kings (Royaldano) is, in contrast, mainly a sketch, like the man he follows, with little denial of his denial. But perhaps the brightest of the shining is the different portrayal of the disciple who eventually sold out the Son of God, paving the way for his suffering on the cross.
in King of KingsJudas Iscariot (Joseph Schildkloth) is given a clear motive for Jesuus to follow and later betray him. He believes that Christ is destined to be King, but in a secular sense. He imagines a Jewish monarch who occupy the throne of the palace, commands his army, and possesses enormous wealth, and hopes that his disciples will be rewarded “in honor and high office.” Therefore, his disappointment when Jesus rejected worldly power. (This leads to a great moment of visualizing sin. The Pharisee seduces Judas by dropping 30 infamous silver one by one on the table next to him.) King of KingsJudas, like Peter, is a fully painted man. His counterpart in Ray’s film (played by Rip Torn) Black man Fame) is relatively bland and rarely seen, so the audience never moves any particular feelings towards him. (In addition, in what could prove confusing to secular viewers; King of Kings Never explain why Judas kisses Jesus when he betrays him. You must be familiar with biblical stories to realize that kissing is a way to identify Christ with prisoners.
But the most notable difference between the two films is how their outcome is used to convey why Christianity is important to people all over the world. both King of Kings and King of Kings Climax with the famous closing events of the Gospels: Jesus dies on the cross, Judas hangs himself, and the Son of God rises from the tomb. But think about what will happen next. in King of KingsThe resurrected Jesus remains away from the camera, casting a vertical shadow on the winding tarp lying horizontally on the ground. This is the shadow that bridges the tarp to create an iconic cross. It is DeMille who viscerally points out the importance of the narrative on which both films are based.
After leaving his grave King of Kingsthe Son of God returns to his disciples temporarily and calls them to spread his teachings all over the world. Then, in one of the deepest, most beautiful and spiritual moments in cinema history, the camera slowly tracks him, his followers and background fade from sight. Cameras continue to advance as Jesus’ environments are replaced by modern city skylines rather than 2000-year-old biblical environments. Jesus lovingly stares at the city and his latest generation of followers, and the intertoitru built on top conveys his last spoken words in the film. “I’m always with you,” in this we receive the ending that constitutes more than a capper in ancient past stories. This denial cinematic reminds viewers of Christ’s love, and his presence and his teachings, over the ages.
Nicholas Rays King of Kings It certainly can be seen as a historical epic. It contains some impressive images and some powerful moments, but ultimately suffers from an clunky, unfocused story. Moreover, the film lacks the raw emotional power needed for its subject, and is as personal as the history lessons it opens. Cecil B. DeMille King of KingsOn the other hand, it’s amazing. There are consistently interesting, well-defined characters and very moving performances at the heart of them. And why do we honor and win with respect for Christian viewers, why the on-screen stories remain important for generations? It is immediately majestic and comforting – the film about Jesus should be.
