Though I've had it ever since its release, for obvious reasons I decided to watch THE KING OF KINGS (1927) over the Easter period. Apart from CARMEN (1915), this was the only De Mille film I've seen from the Silent era and, given the subject matter, I kind of expected an uneasy mix of ostentatious production values and heavy-handed sermonizing. While I got that in spades, resulting in my failing to keep a straight face virtually throughout the entire film, it was however counterbalanced by a surprisingly efficient pace (for a 2½-hour Silent picture about over-familiar events, I didn't find it draggy at all) and quite a few impressive individual sequences:

• the first view of Jesus as a blind girl regains her sight

• the cleansing of Mary Magdalene from the 7 deadly sins

• a surprisingly tender and humorous touch as a little girl naively asks Jesus the "Miracle Maker" to mend her broken doll

• the ever-ambitious (and sorely misguided) Judas attempting to cast the devil out of a possessed child

• the tax-paying sequence when Christ asks Peter to catch a fish – found to be carrying a gold coin in its mouth – followed, amusingly, by the Romans themselves casting hooks in the river hoping to make a similar catch!

• Christ leaning on a piece of wood and being distressed when realizing that it's a concealed cross, an omen of his own imminent fate

• the stoning of the adulteress with Christ exposing her accusers' own failings by writing them down on the ground (I had always wondered just what he was supposed to be scribbling, and this here explanation is most satisfactory methinks)

• the Devil's temptation of Christ (though it takes place in the temple rather than the desert)

• the spectacular earthquake sequence following the Crucifixion, in which even the tree on which Judas hangs himself is engulfed

• the Resurrection sequence, and especially the final dissolve from Christ being surrounded by the Apostles to his ascent over a modern-city skyline

Naturally, I preferred the "Roadshow" edition to the shorter "General Release" version (***) which omits several of my favorite sequences and even changes them around a few times. However, I was disappointed that the latter also featured very brief scenes which were missing from the longer cut (the picking of olives prior to the "Suffer little children" sequence, Caiaphas taking the blame for Christ's death before Pilate washes his hands, Jesus being offered a 'drink' by the Romans as he is being prepared for the Crucifixion) – though these admittedly add very little to the proceedings, I would have preferred an uncut version of the film to two vaguely different ones! The extras were mainly text-based and kind of light for a Criterion 2-Disc Set (I skipped their typically bulky booklet for now, as going through them is always a time-consuming task!) though, of course, still quite interesting in themselves.

I'm a theologian "by trade," and so I am always curious about how others portray the Subject of my faith.

This film is actually the first of a series of "Jesus" movies that I and a number of people from my congregation are watching in a series called "Jesus in Film," and it was a good place to start. How would Jesus be portrayed by Hollywood in the Roaring 20s? How different would the silent medium be compared to today? How would Cecil B. DeMille, known for his blockbuster extravaganzas portray the story? I intentionally did not prepare the group by telling them that this was a silent film. I simply stressed that it was made in 1927 by Cecil B. DeMille. None of them put 2 and 2 together to figure it out, which was just fine. I would say it took about 10-15 minutes for everyone to get into the silent presentation--the conversation and comments about the exaggerated facial expressions etc. eventually just ceased as the story absorbed them...which is probably the best way to describe our viewing experience. All of the viewers were long-time believers who know and love the story backwards and forwards. These were knowledgeable critics of the story and how it would be presented.

First of all, with regard to the "art" of the movie itself, all of us thought it was fantastic as a period piece. It seemed to us that while there is a good deal of "action," (healings, miracles, etc.), DeMille's vision worked masterfully toward a series of still life portraits with each episode, with each character intentionally blocked and staged around Jesus, "The Last Supper," "Behold the Man," etc. (Though, I will have to say, since we watched the original uncut version--all 155 minutes of it--it did get a wee bit tedious toward the end with one still life portrait after another, especially since we knew how it ends!) Second of all, there were a number of extremely masterful movie story-telling techniques. DeMille did a tremendous job of introducing Jesus, keeping the audience in suspense, since of course, everyone's wondering, "What will he look like?" Jesus is referenced numerous times both as protagonist and antagonist before the audience actually gets to see him, and the WAY the audience finally gets to meet Jesus is quite good.

Third, there were also some interesting little connections throughout the film, as well, and I don't want to give too much away here. We see Peter's sword long before it ever gets used. Notice, as well, what eventually happens to the rope that is used to bind Jesus' hands.

Fourth, we watched the movie with the digitally remastered music, which was also very good. Not only did it complete the silent film experience (we were wondering before hand whether it would be sort of the stereotypical melodrama or "Keystone Kops" type music!), but it was simply beautiful music. And of course, it helps convey the characterization, as well--think "Darth Vader's" theme from Star Wars.

DeMille does play fast and loose with the Biblical text itself, some of it is not so bad; other moves are terrible. It was a little annoying how words and dialog are taken out of biblical context in order to fit the scene that DeMille has set. Similarly, the relationship between Judas and Mary Magdalene is pure bunk. On the other hand, while DeMille completely leaves whole episodes out (obviously) but then also seems to give a creative nod to some of those episodes with wholesale new interpretations. For example, in John's Gospel we are privy to the words between Jesus, the disciple John, and Mary the Mother of Our Lord: "Son, behold your mother; mother, behold your son." That is not present in King of Kings. However, there is a touching little vignette at the foot of the cross in which the mother of one of the thieves on the cross is consoled by Mary. Completely creative license, but not outside the character and possibility of the story at all.

Wonderful movie. Not exactly something I'd pop in all the time. But a great study in movie history.

Cecil B. DeMille's film about Jesus was made during a period in his career when he left Paramount and organized his own studio. Unfortunately for DeMille his studio went belly up after the stock market crash of 1929. The King of Kings is unquestionably the greatest film he made during that period.

But in DeMille's cinema gospel he eschewed the traditional Christmas story to be found in those four other gospels. DeMille begins his movie with a real lavish party at the home of a noted women of the town Mary Magdalene played by Jacqueline Logan. It's DeMille showing revelry at its best and most alluring.

Logan asks why one of her favorites, Judas Iscariot hasn't been attending her clambakes recently. She hears he's been hanging around with this carpenter from Nazareth reputed to have performed some miracles and who doesn't approve of her lifestyle.

That's it for Ms. Magadalene; she's not about to let this hick take one of her favorites away. Off in a chariot pulled by Zebras she goes after this carpenter. She finds H.B. Warner as Jesus doing one of the miracles and becomes a follower herself.

After this the film becomes a reverential straightforward account as you would find in the Bible.

Reverence and revelry, the hallmark of a DeMille film is found in equal measure in The King of Kings. H.B. Warner does a fine job in the lead role, he makes a saintly Jesus. I do wonder what led DeMille to cast Warner, to think of him in the first place. Warner was 52 at the time playing a 30 something Jesus.

The King of Kings offers the movie fan to see father and son Rudolph and Joseph Schildkraut who play Caiaphas and Judas. Both contribute fine performances to the endeavor. Unlike later gospel based films, this one clearly has Caiaphas as the villain of the piece. He's described in the subtitles as a man concerned more with 'revenue than religion' which doesn't make him all that different from some folks I could mention today. The Schildkrauts however were Jewish and stars in the Yiddish Theater in Europe and America. They got good and slammed for their participation in The King of Kings by more than a few of their co-religionists.

Sharp eyed viewers will also note that the guy playing Simon of Cyrene who helps Jesus with his cross is none other than Hopalong Cassidy, William Boyd. Boyd was a DeMille discovery and had previously starred in another DeMille production, The Volga Boatman. This of course was years before he became the idol of the nation's children.

In his autobiography DeMille goes into some detail about how Jeremiah Milbank helped him with the financing of the DeMille Studio from which The King of Kings was produced. After the initial run, Milbank set up a foundation in which prints of The King of Kings were copied and made available to various Christian mission groups free for their work. It's one reason why this particular film is never in any danger of being lost.

DeMille was told on at least one occasion that this was his greatest picture because there is no greater subject. It's arguably one of his best from a technical standpoint. Still for the hundreds of millions of affiliated Christians on the planet, The King of Kings certainly occupies a special place.