The King of Kings (1927)

Cecil B. DeMille's skill of bringing epic sized movies to the big screen was well known, and it would be natural for him to produce a film adaption of the most famous story in the world with the story of Jesus of Nazareth in The King of Kings. He would bring a scope to the film as large and lavish to match the size of the importance of the story in the western world. Despite it being what we see today as just another retelling of the same old Jesus story, DeMille puts his own spins of the story of Jesus which are seen as very creative and can be seen as influencing future retellings of the story years later.

For any filmmaker to attempt to encompass the story of Jesus Christ in a couple of hours is quite an undertaking, for it is perhaps the best known story in the story in the history of man, the story is not all that exciting for it rather drags, and everyone already knows the story, so you will not surprise them with the ending and for the most part everyone already has expectations as to how the story should be treated. But we are talking about one of the best directors of this period of filmmaking, and DeMille would take it upon himself to widdle down the the story of Christ with a few additions and manipulations to make the story work, not letting it drag on with details from Scripture, making the story entertaining, giving the story an inner driving force, and making it a more interesting then reading the Gospels, even though the movie directly quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

DeMille's story of Jesus, unlike most every Jesus films we see, does not start with a stable with sheep, three wise men, and a manger. Rather, the picture puts us near the last weeks of Jesus' life. The film has a little liberty with the story of Jesus from the Bible to make the tales play better for the screen. In fact the first time we see the face of the actor that portrays the Nazarene (seen up to this point mainly by his hands and seeing title cards for his words) is the point of view shot when he heals a young child of blindness and the heavenly Jesus goes from blurry to clear. We meet the usual people along the journey as Jesus days are numbered, including Mary Magdalene, Judas, Peter, Mark (author of the gospel as a young boy, an interesting concept), the Virgin Mary, and the rest of the disciples. We follow Jesus all the way through the betrayal by Judas, the trial, and crucifixion. The finale with Jesus' resurrection was made to stand out with the use of early two-strip Technicolor to glorify the scene in the film.

DeMille does take some liberties with the film to make Jesus more personable and not the lifeless zombie-like do-good preacher that he can be portrayed like in many other films we would see through the 20th century. One scene has Jesus healing the sick and a little girl comes up to Jesus asking him to heal broken legs, Jesus says he will and the girls hold up her broken doll. This provides a special touch of humor as Jesus smiles at this cute act of faith and miraculously fixes her doll. Another time in the film Jesus is visited by a demon that tries to tempt him with the idea on not having to be the Messiah. I found this to be very shockingly similar to The Passion of the Christ, whether or not this helped inspire a similar scene in the future film is uncertain, but interesting none the less for it is not directly seen in the Bible. One scene even has the uses forshadowing when we see in a carpenter's shop a cross made and Jesus knowing he will end up on it. DeMille for the most part tries to stay within the means of Gospels when it comes to the crucifixion and the words of Jesus by using direct quotes and referencing the verses in the Bible where it comes from. DeMille's work with the scenes he takes liberty with and the the scenes with actual word for word following of the texts is mix very well in order to make the film be aweinspiring, interesting, and even stirring.

The production of the film has its interesting fact to go along with what we see on screen. The set for the gates of Jerusalem would be reused in other films including King Kong and meet its end with the burning of Atlanta scene Gone with the Wind. To help give the movie creditbility DeMille made his star actors sign contacts to act "holy" for a five year period, which included not drinking, riding in convertibles, and other nonsense, but we all know that could not be held to Hollywood actors as H.B. Warner, the actor that played Jesus, would be caught up in affairs with Dorothy Cumming, who played Mary Magdalene, as well as an unnamed extra. Hardly holy acting I would say.

Of coarse the film was a hit for its time and still proves to be one of the best Jesus films one can find, for the film has a heart in it that seems to lacking for other Jesus films which tend to be more along the lines of watching a really expensive children's play of Jesus that follows word for word the Bible to a point of cinematic boredome. To handle such a story with care and respect and still make it entertaining and stirring manifests just how great of a director Cecil B. DeMille really was. His skill with shot composition, his visionary technique, editing, and a couple of special effects show us the genius that was working the camera that became this classic movie. In its time making Bible epics were like printing money for major Hollywood studio Today studios would not touch religion with a 29 and a half foot pole, which is why Mel Gibson had to pay out of his own pocket to get his film made. Hollywood has changed, but classics live on and DeMille proves he was a master of the silver screen with this Biblical epic.