Lent Reviews Week 6: The Greatest Story Ever Told

 

     The Greatest Story Ever Told is a biblical epic released in 1965. It was directed by George Stevens and stars Max von Sydow as Jesus. It tells the story of Jesus from birth to death.

     The Greatest Story Ever Told bears some resemblance to King of Kings (1961) in that they both frame Jesus' ministry in the context of a larger struggle between Rome and Isreal. Herod Antipas, like his father (played by Claude Rains in his last performance), is afraid that Jesus might pose a threat to his reign. His conflict with John the Baptist (played by Charlton freaking Heston!) is quite well done and sets the stage for his encounter with Christ. Pilate's role in the Passion is less well developed. Jesus' main "antagonists" however, are the Sanhedrin. As with Pilate there is not really enough set up for that conflict in the film. This is an emerging pattern with this film, it is often unfocused.

     Jesus himself, played by Max von Sydow, feels appropriately human at times and divine at others. Unfortunately he is shown mostly at a distance, in wide shots, and his voice is much more of a presence than his face. This succeeds, for the most part, in distancing the audience from Christ which makes the film feel rather cold and unfeeling. The visuals and score, which are rather low key in comparison to other Hollywood epics of the time, add to this feeling. The supporting characters, besides Pilate and John the Baptist, are all rather underdeveloped. This is especially problematic in the case of Judas, who's highly dramatized betrayal and suicide I can't really understand the motivation behind. The usual Zealot motivation is not shown and he does not seem interested in the money. Once again the Blessed Mother is sidelined, only to be seen during the birth of Christ and once more at His death. With that said the film is well paced, there are alot of good visuals, and Alfred Newman's score is quite good though, as I said, far less bombastic and instantly memorable than other epics of this period (King of Kings in particular).

     Max von Sydow, though an unconventional choice for Jesus, is very good once you get used to his Swedish accent (and prominent chin). He is able, with the limited material given him, to portray Christ's weak humanity at certain points, His righteous anger at others, and (mostly) His strong authoritative personality. The rest of the casting is somewhat hit or miss. Heston is great as John the Baptist, an obvious choice in retrospect. Donald Pleasence is his usual creepy self as Satan. Claude Rains final performance as Herod is quite strong, with Rains at his most despicable. Jose Ferrer is also solid as Herod Antipas. Sal Mineo and Ed Wynn are great as the lame man and the blind man (respectively) that Jesus' heals, who then become his followers. David McCallum's Judas is decent, if a bit overwrought. Gary Raymond's Peter comes off, mostly, as arrogant. And finally Telly Savalas can't help but be slightly distracting as Pilate. Alot has been made of the distracting celebrity bit roles in this film but I found most of them to be to brief to really distract me.

     Overall, like many biblical epics, The Greatest Story Ever Told is a bit of a mess but it's (mostly) strong performances, visuals, and score make up for this to a certain extant.

Score: 7.5/10

Lent Reviews Week 5: Risen

     Well I'm late again. I also would like to warn you that this review contains minor spoilers...

     Risen (released earlier this year) is directed by Kevin Reynolds (of Waterworld fame) and stars Joseph Fiennes. It tells the story of Clavius, a Roman tribune tasked with investigating the rumored Resurrection of Jesus.

Clavius fishing with the apostles

     Risen opens with an attack on Jewish Zealots by a Roman legion lead by Clavius in which Barabbas is captured and killed. Clavius is then summoned before Pilate, who sends him to see that Jesus, who is being crucified as they speak, is dead. My immediate thought during this scene was "if Jesus is still on the cross, Barabbas really didn't waste any time after being released to start an uprising". This is the one of many ways the film plays with the biblical narrative of Christ's death and resurrection. The main change is that Clavius' quest to find Jesus' body creates a sense of tension and danger for the apostles which is not present in the story we all know. In addition to this, his presence during many biblical scenes later in the film is somewhat distracting. I also find it odd that the Blessed Mother is not seen at all in the film outside of the Crucifixion, though , to be fair she is not explicitly mentioned in the bible during the events of the Resurrection. In my review of Noah I defended many of its departures from the text. But, while that film loosely followed the biblical narrative to create its own unique world and story, Risen follows these events much more closely, making the changes that are present much more jarring. Despite this Risen is still able to tell a fairly compelling, faith based story.

     The Roman world this film portrays is a nihilistic one. Looking at a corpse that Clavius says may be Jesus' Pilate proclaims "That's us in but a few short years" (*I may be misquoting). Clavius hopes, through his service to the empire, to attain "a day without death", to attain some peace. His journey to find this peace changes him from a nihilistic skeptic, trying to come to terms with events that are beyond his comprehension, to a more charitable man who believes that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. It works in part but, once Clavius meets Jesus he seems stuck in a perpetual mood of ponderous questioning, effectively stopping his character arc mid-narrative. This is the films biggest flaw. It is fairly compelling in the first act, as Clavius struggles to find Jesus' body and round up his followers, but falls apart in the second.

Yeshua and John

     Reynold's direction is, mostly, competent. The films portrayal of the Crucifixion is especially well done, effectively conveying a somewhat disinterested view of a truly savage act. Joseph Fiennes' stoic performance works well in the first half of the film , as Clavius struggles, more and more despairingly, to uncover the "conspiracy" surrounding Jesus' death but after he comes into contact with the apostles this stoicism works less well (this may be due to the actor not having much to work with). The supporting cast is an equally mixed bag. Peter Firth is good as the jaded Pilate as is Tom Felton as the ambitious Lucius (no relation Lucius Malfoy). Stewart Scudamore and Maria Botto put in solid performances as Simon Peter and Mary Magdelene respectively. Joe Manjón's Bartholomew is, perhaps, less convincing, coming across like some kind of 1st Century Charismatic. I appreciate that Cliff Curtis, who plays Jesus (referred to as Yeshua throughout the film), is not a white European but of Polynesian descent, after all Jesus himself was Hebrew not Aryan. With that said Curtis' portrayal of Jesus is one of the weaker one's I've seen. He comes across as "nice" but there isn't much else there.

     In the end, Risen's strong first act makes up enough for its weak second act that I would recommend it.

Score: 8/10

Lent Reviews Week 4: El Cid

This isn't exactly a religious film but oh well...

     El Cid was released in 1961. It was directed by Anthony Mann and stars Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren. It tells the story of Rodrigo de Vivar (known as El Cid) a Spanish nobleman who fought against the invasion of Spain by the Moors from Africa.

     Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar was a Castilian nobleman in Spain in the 12th century. He became allied with King Sancho II, who was assassinated in 1072. Rodrigo clashed with Sancho's brother Alfonso VI, who was suspected of complicity in Sancho's murder. He was exiled in for unauthorized military campaigns against the Moors in Granada in 1080. For the next seven years he served under Moorish lord al-Mutamin and helped to defend his lands against invasion from other Spanish and Moorish lords as well as Yusuf ibn Tashfin's African Moors. Alfonso recalled Rodrigo after suffering a crushing defeat from invading Moors but Rodrigo followed his own agenda, leading a combined Moorish and Spanish force to take Valencia, where he effectively ruled (though in Alfonso's name) a (semi) puristic Muslim/Christian community until his death in 1099, during a siege from Yusuf ibn Tashfin's forces. He later became a figure of legend and was the protagonist of the epic Spanish poem El Cantar de Mio Cid.

     The film follows the legend of El Cid much more than historical fact. It get's a few basic facts right. El Cid is exiled by Alfonso after Sancho's death, though for different reasons. He does work with al-Mutamin during his exile. He is recalled by Alfonso and does take Valencia and rule it in Alfonso's name. He is also married to Dona Jimena Diaz, though most of their tense relationship is fictional and their son is not portrayed in the film. According to popular belief El Cid made Alfonso swear that he was not complicit in his brother's (Sancho) death. This is also shown in the film and is the reason for El Cid's exile. Finally, according to legend, El Cid's corpse was placed on his horse and lead his troops to victory, repelling the Moorish invaders, this is how the film ends. There are also many divergences. In the film, Rodrigo becomes the King's "champion" and defeats a knight in single combat winning the city of Calahorra for him. There is no historical or legendary basis for this. Nor is there any evidence that Alfonso came to Valencia with his troops to aid El Cid during the siege. But the biggest (and cleverest) Hollywood invention in this film is Rodrigo's stormy relationship with Jimena.

     In the film Jimena's father Count Gormaz insults Rodrigo when he is accused of treason for setting Moorish prisoners, including al-Mutamin, free. When Rodrigo's father calls Gormaz a liar, Gormaz challenges him to a duel. In order to save his old father from shame Rodrigo begs Gormaz to withdraw the challenge and apologize to his father. In his pride Gormaz refuses so Rodrigo challenges Gormaz to a duel himself and ultimately kills him. With his last breath Gormaz asks Jimena to avenge him and she swears to do so. This is much more complicated than a simple revenge subplot however. Jimena stills loves Rodrigo but she also hates him for killing her father. So there is a danger that, if she continues to court Rodrigo, her love will turn into a kind of lust. Moreover, she feels that she must show the same filial devotion to her father that Rodrigo showed to his. Otherwise how can she be worthy of his love. So she spurns his love, even plotting to have him killed at one point. Despite this Rodrigo still loves her and, at the command of the king, she marries him. It is only when El Cid is banished and loses everything that she finally feels she has kept her vow to her father and can show Rodrigo love once again.

     Rodrigo himself is, almost, an entirely honorable character. He always does what he feels is right no matter the personal cost. He fights Jimena's father in a duel to save his father's honor, even though it means losing her love. He forces Alfonso to swear that he was not involved in Sancho's murder which ultimately causes him to be banished. After finally being reconciled with Jimena they only enjoy a brief moment (exactly one night) of happiness before loyal lords show up, asking him to lead them. He and Jimena plead with them to leave, so they won't have to suffer banishment themselves, but he finally decides to lead them, for the honor of Spain. Through all this, despite unfair treatment and treachery on Alfonso's part, Rodrigo remains loyal to his King. Rodrigo is also shown as a compassionate hero. His first real act in the film is one of mercy, freeing his moorish prisoners despite accusations of treason. This act wins him a loyal friend in al-Mutamin, who later helps him to take Valencia. Pluralism is a bit of a theme in this movie, as El Cid is able to unite Christian and Morish Spaniards against Arab conquest.

     Besides having complex characters the the film is also epic in scope, featuring scenes with 1000's of extras and massive sets (though most of it was filmed on location in Spain). The cinematography is magnificent, really giving the film a mythic quality, especially at the end, as the Cid (or his corpse actually) rides out of Valencia, the sun glistening on his armor, to lead his soldiers to victory. The stirring score, by the always reliable Miklos Rosza, also adds to this mythic quility and gives the film a real Spanish feel. It also features fairly solid, though at times over the top, performances.

     For all it's strengths, El Cid is not without flaws. First of all, there is a point late in the movie where El Cid's moral integrity is put into question. When his men are poised to take Valencia he finds out that Jimena and his daughters are being captive by Alfonso, who wants to punish Rodrigo for not assisting him in his ill advised attack on Yusuf's forces. El Cid decides to delay his attack on Valencia to rescue his family, putting there needs above Spain's. This would fine. Saving your family from possibly dying in the dungeons is certainly an understandable motivation and I'm perfectly fine with giving the hero a moral quandary, even in a mythic tale of this sort. The problem I have with this is two fold. First of all Jimena, on finding out that here husband is coming to rescue her, declares that she'd rather kill herself and the children than allow him to sacrifice the good of Spain for them. While, again, her motivations are understandable, suicide and filicide are not something I'm convinced she would ever consider, especially considering her strong Catholic faith (she lives in a convent for much of the film when Rodrigo is away). Secondly the question this brings up, of devotion to one's family vs. devotion to one's country, is never really resolved. A soldier helps Jimena escape and Rodrigo is able to continue his assault on Valencia. The decision which caused so much consternation is never brought up again.

     There are other problems as well. Like many epics, El Cid is unfocused at times. The rivalry between Sancho and Alfonso is not set up very well and their sister, Urraca, has an antagonistic relationship with Jimena that I never really understood. It also would have been nice to have a scene or two between Rodrigo and his father after Count Gormaz's death. Finally there is a lack of chemistry between Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren. Apparently the two did not get along very and while this may have actually helped sell their early discord, it hurts the more romantic scenes, although they aren't terrible.

     El Cid is not a perfect film but its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. Its epic scope and exciting action combine with a really complex human story to make it one of the best films of its kind.

Score: 9/10

Update: More video reviews!

Here are four more YouTube video reviews I've done for theBrothersThre3. We reviewed Drive, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Kingdom of Heaven and Deadpool! If you guys want me to post these videos on here regularly let me know in the comments section.

Lent "Reviews" Week 3: Becket and A Man for All Seasons - A Tale of Two Thomases (belated)

This week I watched Becket and as I already reviewed it two years ago when I stared doing Lent Reviews I thought I try something a little different for this week...

St. Thomas Becket and St. Thomas More have much in common. Both men were English martyrs who were killed opposing a king (named Henry) who wanted to usurp the rights of the Catholic Church. Both were, at one time, Chancellors of England. And both were the subjects of an Oscar winning adaption of a stage play made in the 1960's. There are also (obviously) many differences between the men. In this weeks Lent "review" I'm going to compare and contrast both of these saints and the films that tell their stories.

Thomas Becket's England (circa the late 13th century) was much more primitive than More's (circa the early 16th century). England was still recovering from the Norman conquest of 100 years prior and there was much enmity between ruling Normans and the oppressed Saxons. These racial tensions had ceased by Thomas More's time. The church was also still consolidating secular political power in the 13th century, while in the 16th century it was at the height of its power in England. So in many ways Thomas Becket helped the church to gain power under the reign of Henry II. In Thomas More's time, Henry VIII would challenge that power and ultimately break from Papal authority altogether.

The actions of both men also had similarities and differences. Becket opposed the Constitutions of Clarendon which gave the clergy less independence from the government and weakened their connection with Rome. More refused to swear an oath to the Act of Succession, which declared Anne Boleyn the wife of Henry VIII contrary to the ruling of the Pope. So the act that More opposed was a much more specific one but both challenged the Pope's authority. The biggest difference between the two men is that Becket was steadfast in his opposition and clashed with Henry II much more directly. More, on the other hand preferred to stay out of trouble and only came into conflict when directly confronted. Both men would resign their post as Chancellor of England but while Becket did this in opposition to Henry, More did so to hoping to stay out of the conflict. The source of these differences may be in the two men's political positions. Thomas More was a lawyer and then a chancellor, purely temporal political positions. Thomas Becket was the Archbishop of Canterbury and, as such, responsible much more directly for the Church's well being. Of course another major difference is that Becket's death caused Henry II to eventually make public penance and it helped the church to consolidate its political position while More's martyrdom was followed by many more.

The films themselves take different approaches to the material. A Man for All Seasons is the more historically accurate of the two going so far as to use actual quotes (though changed and translated to modern English) from More's trial and interrogation. Becket takes certain liberties, portraying the saint as a Saxon when he was, in fact,  a Norman (Jean Anouilh, who wrote the play, was misinformed about this at the time)  and exaggerating the extent of his personal relationship with Henry. There are also differences in narrative structure. Becket goes back and forth between Thomas and Henry while A Man for All Seasons focuses solely on Thomas More's perspective. Finally there are thematic differences. Becket focuses on the theme of honor. Thomas finds honor in defending God and his church as Archbishop that he never possessed as Henry's chancellor. A Man for All Seasons, on the other hand, is all about conscience. Thomas More feels compelled to follow his conscience under increasingly difficult circumstances.

With so much focus on scandals in the clergy and the separation of church and state lately, both films feel very relevant. The Catholic Church of today does not have the same temporal power that it did in the times of Becket and More. Considering many of the recent sex scandals many would say this is a good thing. It certainly demands more transparency and accountability from the clergy. On the other hand the Pope and the Bishops are no longer able to defend Catholics from religious persecution in the same way. So, while there is perhaps, less temptation toward corruption within the church the church has less ability to curb political corruption outside it. In many ways however I feel that this is ultimately a call to action for the laity. Like Thomas More we must stand strong in the face of worldly corruption. As shepherds the priests and bishops can and should support us in this, taking example from Thomas Becket. In an ever-changing world we, as Catholics, must remain strong.