Lent Reviews Week 6 - Kings of Kings

  King of Kings was released in 1961. It was directed by Nicholas Ray (Rebel Without a Cause) and stars Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus. The film tells the story of Jesus life, from his birth to his death and resurrection.

   Unlike other films about Christ, King of Kings focuses more on supporting characters than on Jesus himself. It especially focuses on the political conflict involving Herod Antipas (Frank Thring), Pontius Pilate (Hurd Hatfield), John the Baptist (Robert Ryan), Barabbas (Harry Guardino), and also the Jewish Sanhedrin. Barabbas is a zealot and Pilate is concerned about his insurrection.  Meanwhile Herod is troubled because John the Baptist accuses him of adultery for taking his brothers wife as his own. Barabbas on the other hand sees John's influence on the people and hopes to win him over to his side. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin seek to cooperate with Pilate in order to prevent bloodshed. Judas Iscariot (Rip Torn) is in league with Barabbas and once Jesus enters the scene tries to persuade Barabbas to go to Jesus for support. Barabbas is not impressed by Jesus however, as He only talks of peace. Meanwhile John is arrested by Herod, further inciting Barabbas and his followers. John looks for Jesus' coming and in prison hopes to here from His own lips that Jesus is the Messiah. In addition to this there are also scenes focusing on Peter (Royal Dano) and Mary Magdalene (Carmen Sevilla). Peter's scenes are mainly there to serve as a counterpoint to Judas, as both men betray Jesus in a way but, while Judas ultimately despairs and kills himself, Peter repents. Mary Magdelene's scene's also serve as a kind of contrast with Salome (Brigid Bazlen), Herod's stepdaughter. One is guilty of adultery and the other with indulging a man's lust. Each one has an encounter with a religious figure (Jesus and John the Baptist respectively) that call them to repentance. Salome rejects this while Mary embraces it.

  The film does not do a perfect job juggling all of these characters. Peter's character arc, for instance, never feels complete as his threefold confession of love to Jesus after the Resurrection, counterpointing his threefold denial, is omitted. I also felt confused about Barabbas' arc. How does Judas' and Jesus' death affect him? Does he decide to embrace Jesus' way of peace or does he continue in his violent ways? Fortunately, other characters fair better. Judas' motivations are very well established and his end feels appropriately tragic. Herod and Pilate both ultimately fall to their lust and arrogance. John is vindicated in his mission before his martyrdom. One character I haven't mentioned is the Roman Centuriun Luscious (Ron Randell), early in the film Herod's father Herodias orders him to see to the slaughter of the innocents, a task he is not entirely comfortable with. Later he encounters Jesus as a young boy in Nazereth and starts to suspect His greater destiny when he learns that he was born in Bethlehem, and therefore must have escaped Herodias' wrath. He continues to have encounter's with Christ throughout the film, finally being converted at the end despite telling Pilate in an earlier scene that the things he's seen serving for Rome have shown him "that there can be no God."

  Jesus himself feels somewhat unapproachable in this film. He influences those around him and ultimately brings about the redemption of man but you never get to know him as a person (and Jesus is a Person). I don't necessarily disagree with this sort of second hand approach to telling the story but in this case I think that more focus needed to be placed on Jesus in order to hold the film together better. As it is, there are just too many characters and none of them ultimately feel like the main focus of the movie.

  With that said King of Kings is not a bad film. There is still alot of interesting character study, even if it's not focused. Some of the performances are pretty good, particular Robert Ryan's. Of course being an old school epic there are alot of great visuals, the sermon on the mount being particularly impressive. Finally, Miklos Rosva's put's out another amazing score, serving as an interesting companion piece to his score for Ben Hur, from which he reuses certain themes.

Score: 8/10

Lent Reviews Week 5: The Agony and the Ectasy

Ok I guess you should just resign yourselves to reading these a week late at this point...

  The Agony and the Ecstasy was released in 1965. It stars Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison and was directed by Carol Reed (The Third Man). In it Pope Julius II (Harrison) commission Michelangelo Buonarroti (Heston) to paint the Twelve apostles on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Not wanting to tie himself to such a monumental task because he considers himself a sculptor, Michelangelo at first flees, invoking the wrath of the Pontiff. He finally returns with his own, much grander, proposal for the ceiling: to paint a visual representation of humanity's need for salvation, portraying nine scenes from the book of Genesis, twelve prophetic figures, and the ancestors of Christ. Julius approves his plan and as the work carries on over the course of four years the two men continue to clash.

  I first saw this film as a young child. I remember the impression it made on me about the difficulty of work that Michelangelo undertook, as well as the idea of artistic integrity. Michelangelo doesn't want to make someone else's idea of art but is compelled to follow his own inspirations. The film plays with the idea of censoring art and also of the unique vocation of the artist. I find this exchange between Michelangelo and his rival Raphael particularly interesting.
Raphael: We are harlots always peddling beauty at the doorsteps of the mighty.
Michelangelo: If it comes to that, I won't be an artist.

Raphael: You'll always be an artist. You have no choice.

  The main focus of the film is the often antagonistic relationship between the two main characters. Julius and Michelangelo are both vain and very egotistical people. Michelangelo resents the fact that the Pope is making him do this, often without being paid. Julius, on the other hand, is impatient to have the work done. One of the things I remembered from seeing it as a kid was Julius continually asking Michelangelo "When will you make an end?" to which he replies, "When I am Finished!" There is also a contrast between their relationship with, and perception of, God. In one scene Michelangelo finds Julius in the chapel late one night inspecting his work. As he looks at Michelangelo's depiction of the creation of Adam he asks him "Is that truly how you see Him, my son? Not angry, not vengeful but like that? Strong, benign, loving?" Michelangelo replies, "Well, he knows anger too, but... the act of creation is an act of love." The Pope, in this scene, is doubting his own resolve, while Michelangelo is more determined to finish the ceiling than ever. There different viewpoints, I think, reflect their relationship with God at this point in the film. 

The ceiling was actually recreated for the film by an Irish painter!

   The film is fairly faithful to actual events though there are some discrepancies. Michelangelo really did leave Rome for Florence, only to be hunted by the Vatican, though he did so for different reasons than depicted in the film. There is no evidence (to my knowledge) that Michelangelo had a relationship with the Contessina de'Medici, this appears to be completely fabricated, as does the crippling illnesses both Julius and Michelangelo experience at different points in the film. Most of these departures are understandable but as a history buff I'm always concerned about Hollywood misleading people. With that said I haven't read the book this was based on and don't know how well researched the book was or how accurate the film is to it.

  The Agony and the Ecstasy is certainly not without its flaws. There's a 15 minute opening scene where a narrator gives biographical information about Michelangelo and his works which, though interesting, seems a little unnecessarily  long. In addition to this there's a point near the end of the film (mirroring an earlier scene where the roles are reversed) where Pope Julius is dying, his attempts to restore the papal states seemingly failed. Michelangelo, who recently has taken to humbling himself before Julius comes in and tells him that he is not going to complete the ceiling. This infuriates Julius and brings him out of his stupor. The film then cuts to years later when the work is finally complete and Julius is now triumphant over his enemies, ending the film. I understand why they did this, as the relationship between Julius and Michelangelo has come full circle at this point and the film wasn't getting any shorter, however it can't help but feel abrupt.
  Despite these pacing issues its still a very worthy film, featuring great performances from both leads, solid direction from Carol Reed, and a stirring score from Jerry Goldsmith (First Blood and Star Trek: The Motion Picture) and Alex North (Spartacus). I would say its definitely worth checking out, especially if your interested in renaissance or Church history.

Score: 9/10

Next Week: King of Kings (1961)