"
King of Kings"
*** (out of ****)
This December I have spent some time reviewing Christmas themed movies - movies centered around Santa Claus and gift buying. Of course the despite the best intentions of retailers and secularists, Christmas is a religious holiday. It is a day to celebrate the birth of the lord and savior, Jesus Christ.
In the past I have reviewed religious movies during the Christmas season - "The Nativity Story" (2005), the animated movie, "The Star" (2017) and the silent Cecil B. DeMille film, "The King of Kings" (1927). I knew I wanted to review another religious themed movie this year but wasn't sure which one. I figured since I reviewed the silent version of "The King of Kings" maybe it would make sense to review the sound remake "King of Kings" (1961).
Growing up, I always had a kind of reverence for movies like "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965) and "King of Kings". In my family it was almost sacrilegious to criticize a religious movie. Why would you criticize something that is explaining the word of God? However in the cinematic world, I don't believe the popular consensus is to regard either movie as a "classic". My impression has been "The Greatest Story" was something of an "epic flop", along the lines of "Cleopatra" (1963) - a big budget epic filled with an all-star cast but a troubled filming production. "King of Kings", I thought, was viewed as having aged a bit better. Upon its original release "King of Kings" opened to mixed reviews but made a profit for M-G-M. When compared to "The Greatest Story", "King of Kings" is considered the better movie.
Directed by Nicholas Ray, "King of Kings" tells the story of the life and times of Jesus Christ (Jeffrey Hunter), going from his birth to his crucifixion. Being a bit older and less afraid of speaking my mind, I can now say the movie plays like a crash course in the life of Jesus. So much of "King of Kings" is presented in a matter-of-fact way. It is an extremely impersonal film. It gets the words right but lacks feeling.
Beginning with a narration by Orson Welles the movie quickly goes over a brief history of the Romans (Gen. Pompey) taking over Jerusalem, the reign of Herod the Great (Gregoire Aslan) and his death at the hands of his son, Herod Antipas (Frank Thring) and Joseph (Gerard Tichy) and Mary (Siobhan McKenna) arriving in Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. There isn't any character development or motivations explained. The camera doesn't provide any great emphasis on Mary and Joseph. They are introduced plainly and events simpy keep spinning along and onward. As characters in a story, the audience isn't really asked to identify with anyone.
What is most interesting about "King of Kings" is the theme lurking around in the background - how best to deal with injustice? Is it through peace or violence? I suppose in some ways the movie could have been relevant to the civil rights movement of the mid-50s to late 60s. In "King of Kings" the contrast exist between Jesus, advocating for peace between Jews and Romans, and a Jewish rebel, Barabbas (Harry Guardino) who promotes violence against the Romans. This could be the equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
Notice how Ray and his trio of cinematographers film scenes revolving around the words of Jesus and this drama of ideas between Jesus and Barabbas. For that matter, compare scenes between any character and Jesus. Every scene not involving Jesus is filmed far more compelling and emphasized for dramatic tension. Scenes with Jesus have a thematic and visual simplicity you could compare to Pasolini's approach in "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" (1964), which I would declare is a "masterpiece" and for more emotionally rewarding film experience.
Other interesting moments in "King of Kings" revolve around the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist (Robert Ryan). They are presented as having a brotherly bond between them. Some of the movie's more heartfelt moments involve their relationship and consist of some of the more powerful statements in the film on the subject of faith. John and Baptist and Barabbas are meant to be the opposite of one another. John the believer and Barabbas an opportunist who contends if he could capitalize on the "celebrity" of Jesus and present Jesus as a believer of his cause it would elevate him. Together Barabbas feels he and Jesus would be unstoppable and able to defeat the Romans.
This fictionalize conflict is further complicated when Judas, (Rip Torn) a follower of Barabbas, finds himself drawn to the teachings of Jesus. Judas must decide whose path he will follow. Of course eventually he chooses to follow Jesus but never quite stops believing in Barabbas' cause and methods. According to "King of Kings" this is the main motivating factor in Judas' betrayal of Jesus, his desire to help Barabbas. Torn, I believe, gives one of the film's better performances.
Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus may be the actor that has received the most praise for his performance. His best sequence for me is when he delivers the Sermon on the Mount and we see Jesus address the questions of the crowd. This "crash course" in religion is at its best here because of the ways it shows Jesus' handling of the crowd and is one of the few scenes that places its greatest emphasis on Jesus' words and allows the viewer enough time to digest his teachings. As I had mentioned before the movie quickly glosses over events and moves through history rapidly. This sequence however is a wonderful marriage of visuals and dialogue.
What is further suspicious about Ray's choices in "King of Kings" is the lack of miracles. Two of the most famous would be the healing of the leper and the feeding of the multitude - when Jesus fed thousands with five loaves and two fish. Also absent is the Wedding at Cana - when Jesus turned water into wine. Some of these miracles are mentioned in dialogue in "King of Kings" but none of them are shown on-screen. Was this Ray's way of invoking faith in the movie? Viewers hear of these miracles but don't see them. Do we still believe they happened? Or was Ray hinting at something else? It is an unusual decision to make for a biblical story.
Prior to directing "King of Kings", Nicholas Ray may have been best known for the James Dean vehicle, "Rebel Without A Cause" (1955), for which Ray was nominated for an Academy Award for the movie's screenplay. It was the only Oscar nomination in his career. He also directed "In A Lonely Place" (1950) with Humphrey Bogart, "They Live By Night" (1948), and "Johnny Guitar" (1954) with Joan Crawford. You could make the case Ray was attracted to stories that challenged social conventions. These examples include films about individuals wrongly accused and social outcasts. These themes have may been what drew Ray to this story of Jesus.
But all in all I can't call "King of Kings" a great movie. It never stirred me as powerfully as a story about the life and teachings of Jesus should have. I prefer DeMille's version of this story. He presents Jesus as a awe-inspiring figure. I mentioned by admiration of Pasolini's work. I even prefer Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" (2004). "King of Kings" glosses over too much history. The first 20 minutes of this movie could have been its own two hour movie. The relationship between Herod and his son could have been it's own movie. And it goes on and on. Everything that didn't make its way on-screen could have been another movie.
Jesus' teachings aren't given the dramatic impact they deserve. The movie doesn't create a reflective atmosphere allowing the viewer to take in these teachings and inspire us.
I am all for people remembering the religious significance of Christmas. If "King of Kings" serves as a reminder of what this holiday is about, wonderful. I say unto you go and watch it! But I no longer hold it in such reverence as I once did. It is an interesting effort with some interesting themes and perhaps social significance but not the awe-inspiring work about Jesus some may have hoped it would be.
Posts
