. . . directly ordered from producer\director Cecille B. DeMille by God Himself, according to one of the first Intertitles of KING OF KINGS. Therefore, it's obviously sacrilegious to rate this movie below a perfect score of "10." It would be nice if ALL of the world's religions could lend themselves to film adaptations, since some have hundreds of such flicks in circulation. Others behead film makers, which is the ultimate outrage against practitioners of Film AS Religion. One of several fallacious charges made against this 1927 silent, KING OF KINGS, is that it helped inspire the Nazis to "sell" the Holocaust as a revenge killing. However, Caiaphus, the High Priest of Israel, says on an Intertitle card after the rending of the veil over the Holy of Holies, "I ALONE am guilty" for Jesus' execution. Even if Hitler did not grasp that this confessed crucifixion mastermind was long dead and buried by 1927, other Germans were around to fill him in and point out that under this blame-the-Jews logic, he also should be attacking Pontius Pilate's Italian descendant Mussolini, instead of being so Palsy Walsy with him. Controversy aside, is this a MORE authoritative religious film than THE LIFE OF BRIAN or APOCALYPTO? Don't forget they're putting on the Council of Massachusetts on the Boston Commons Feb. 29 to set the canon for the Church of Filmogy. Buffers can be part of it, or be apocrypha.

ONCE AGAIN, RANTING about a topic in film that is one about which that we feel very strongly' brings us to our feet and 'up to the podium'. The subject is that of films of the silent screen form. While having been relegated to a position of being either 'old hat' or passé; there are many among us who never have lost their connection with the silent screen, but also have a deep love for the form. Some would go so far as to suggest their superiority and view them as being the Cinema at its purest form.WE WOULD PROBABLY agree with about 75% of this and still spend a great deal of our time in film study (glorified 'Movie Watchin')with some of these "Olde Time Movies". The form demands a state of non interruption and of minimal distraction. One surely cannot be doing a crossword puzzle, paying your bills on-line, reading the daily newspaper or participating in a Board game of Risk, Parchesi or Monopoly; while at the same time as viewing an old Classic of the Silent Screen. The venerable, dialog free, title card ridden form is just too demanding on one's attention.AS FOR TODAY'S subject matter, Cecil B. DeMille's THE KING OF KINGS (DeMille Pictures Corporation/Pathe Exchange, 1927), it does likewise hold sway over one's concentration; but it is done in such a manner as to make us willing mind slaves. The story, cast and the film, archaic as its style may be, convinces our senses to surrender to it willingly with our personal gratitude. That is the power of this true work of art.FACTUALLY AND BIBLE based as this story is, and few will dispute that these events did occur and this is therefore mostly historically correct. Any difference of opinion concerning the Passion, Crusifixion and Glorious Ressurrection are matter to be left to each one's own religious traditions and upbringing.AS TO THE story, other than the 4 Gospels, Director,Mr. DeMille and his production crew start off with some contrivance in the scenario concerning Mary Magdalene (Jacqueline Logan); who we truly no very little about. In this Scenario, Magdalene is a courtesan** with wealth and many friends in high places in the Roman dominated Puppet Government and a "Girlfriend" of Judas Iscariot.THIS SETS US up with a good story foundation; as Mr. DeMille proceeds to focus the action on that short period of time in which Jesus enters Jerusalem triumphantly, greeted as a hero and the time he is dishonestly condemned to death on the cross.ALL OF THE events between those above mentioned happenings are portrayed and chronicled as they are in the New Testament narratives. A fine touch is the use of scriptural quotations, line and verse,with the particular quote being attributed to one of the Four Gospels and their authors; being either Matthew, Marl, Luke or John.THE CAST MEMBERS would be largely unfamiliar to most any viewer in our now nearly 2010 Anno Domini. 0ther than the above mentioned Jacqueline Logan (Mary Magadelene), we have Jesus the Christ (H.B. Warner-probably known best as Mr. Gower, the Druggist in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, Dorothy Cumming (the Blessed Mother, Mary), Ernest Torrence (St. Peter), Montagu Love (the Roman Centurian at the Crucifixion), William Boyd (that's the future Hopalong Cassidy as Simon of Cyrene!)and versatile beefcake exponent Noble Johnson (Chariot Driver).MAKING IT A SORT of family affair, a young, handsome, matinée idol-type Joseph Schilkraut is prominent (in the pivotal role of Judas Iscariot); while his Father, Rudolph Shilkraut is cast in an equally important part (the Roman appointed High Priest of Israel,Joseph Caiaphas).THE RESTORED DIGITAL print that we watched a week or so ago, is so strikingly beautiful in its mostly black & white scenes, that it would seem to be quite enough; with its clean, archival appearance,one's subconscious is surely fooled into thinking it is witnessing the actual events. Then, to top it all off, the Movie has about a full half-dozen scenes that were originally shot in an early, two strip Technicolor. These newly restored sequences are truly breathtaking to behold.WHEN ONE ADDS the innate, dream-like quality of the Silent Film, with the lack of human voice and the vibrant and emphatic incidental music, you may believe deep down that you HAD actually viewed these events of nearly 2000 years ago! THERE SHOULD BE a DVD or VHS Copy of this in every Christian Home.NOTE * A 'Courtesan' is defined as prostitute with a courtly, wealthy or upper class clientèle; kind of like a modern day political bimbo or Rock Band groupie.

For a silent religious film this is quite good. H.B. Warner plays Jesus. He looks about twenty years too old for the part (didn't Jesus die when he was 33?) and spends too much of his time looking pious while holding his hands out the way Jesus does in the drawings. His beard looks false, and you can almost imagine the make-up guy standing just off camera sweating over whether a corner is about to detach itself from Warner's face.The film doesn't follow Jesus's early life. He's already causing quite a stir in the Holy Land by the time we catch up with him, and almost half of the film takes place after Judas has betrayed him, probably because Hollywood felt it needed to add some kind of suspense to the story to sell it to the great unwashed. For a DeMille film the excesses are mostly reined in apart from a couple of huge sets. There's a lot of dialogue, and most of it is comprised of sound-bites from the Bible that are still instantly recognisable. You know the sort of thing: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Maybe this was also an attempt to keep the masses involved because I remember thinking as I watched that it was strange that all the catchy lines appear in the second half of the Bible. Perhaps there was some judicious shifting around of the good book's catchiest phrases. Not being a religious man, I wouldn't know.While the pace is fairly slow by today's standards, the last reel, which follows the resurrection of Christ, still retains some of its power and must have been really impressive in its day. There's even a couple of colour scenes to emphasise the miracle we are witnessing.

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.