Thanks, Sam. You put it better than I could have w...

2009-06-04T09:15:50.922-04:00

Thanks, Sam. You put it better than I could have when you say: "For decades afterwards this was one of the only films religious congregations had to screen, and as such it was embraced more affectionately than it should have been."

I find it curious that the Bible, which would seem to lend itself so majestically to the big screen, so often leads to cinematic flops. There are good ones, of course, but only those that realize the material can't carry a film alone. (Which is no doubt a heretical belief in some corners of religion.) As I wrote in my review, sometimes it feels as if some of these films are purely made just to give a moving visual to what would otherwise be text and stained glass. But when you love art as much as we do, you realize it's not enough at the images are moving; the film must capitalize on all its cinematic opportunities to move the audience as well. And indeed it may be that my own drift from organized religion has built in that bias, but that at least lets me see the forest and the trees, so to speak.

There needs to be a deft hand involved; as you say, Pasolini, Zeffirelli, and Scorsese all understood that, as did DeMille. (Zeffirelli's version is actually a family favorite here, particularly of my father and grandfather.)

You are right to accentuate this film's histor...

2009-06-03T22:28:47.156-04:00

You are right to accentuate this film's historical importance above all, as it's a dated relic, significant solely for the reasons you mention here.

I agree that the Lazarus section is the best, as much as I concur with your well-stated disclaimer here:

"As later films about Christ would realize, in the narrative of his life these demonstrations of divinity are meant to be felt as hope as much for the ill as for the living. The speed with which Olcott shows them robs them of their objective importance. (How easy it seems to cure leprosy in long shot and with bandages covering the leper's supposedly festered head!)

Ha! In any case, for decades afterwards this was one of the only films religious congregations had to screen, and as such it was embraced more affectionately than it should have been, as it was static and a period of its time.

The best film ever made about the life of Christ was Pier Paulo Pasolini's THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, but a splendid mini-series, JESUS OF NAZARETH directed by Franco Zeffirelli pushes close. Beyond that only Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is (in my view) praiseworthy.
As a Catholic, who rarely attends Mass, Lucille and I are nonetheless having all our kids receive their First Holy Communion and Confirmation, I nonetheless defied the call to boycott the Scorsese film upon release, and I was told by nuns and religious zealots lined up at the Ziegfeld Theatre that I "would burn in hell" for my indescretions. There is still some vocal opposition to the Scorsese film, but regardless of what one thinks of this great director and the craftsmanship of the film, one can't hold this up as a representative conscription of the Life of Christ.
As far as the Mel Gibson film, well, I won't even go there!

In any event, I appreciate seeing a review of this film, and especially an exceedingly well-written and insightful one. But alas, like you, it simply doesn't hold up.

Comments on Screen Savour: From the Manger to the Cross (1912)

Thanks, Sam. You put it better than I could have w...

You are right to accentuate this film's histor...