From the Manger to the Cross

This inaugurates a handful of Good Friday-related films that I will be watching all through this week. It is perhaps the first major effort on celluloid about the life of Christ but, being virtually a century old, cinematic technique was obviously still very primitive then; though the static camera-work makes the whole feel more like a succession of religious tableaux than a film, framing is generally pretty crammed and sometimes even offers admirable depth for its era. While obviously recounting events which would be familiar to most viewers, this aims for absolute authenticity: not only is the entire script composed of direct (albeit stilted) quotes from the Scriptures but the film-makers even went so far as to shoot in the actual Palestinian locations! At the then-remarkable length of 70 minutes, the film virtually breezes through Christ's tenure on Earth, taking care to present most of the highlights and, naturally, devoting a good deal of the running-time – about 35%, in fact – to his Passion and Crucifixion (though, curiously enough, completely omitting the Resurrection - more on this later)! With this in mind, there is no real plot progression to speak of as a quote from one of the four Gospels merely sets up the current scene; even so, there are a couple of surprising blunders along the way: we are told that Christ was capable of working miracles before presenting the one which is recorded as having been His first (at the Wedding of Cana) and, again, an episode involving a woman applying an ointment to Jesus' feet and wiping it off with her hair is shown twice (the second depiction is an extended scene which also displays Judas' growing disenchantment with his Master but surely the two could have been combined!); likewise, the fact that Jesus indiscriminately raises a man from the dead before the famous revivification of his friend Lazarus diminishes the desired effect of the latter moment! As I said, the last third of the film involves the episodes in Christ's life which are commemorated at this particular time of year; even if, once more, they are presented in streamlined fashioned – thus lacking in perspective – the violence inflicted upon Jesus is quite realistically done (though, needless to say, nowhere near the quasi-exploitative detail exhibited in Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE Christ [2004]). I will be checking out another Silent film on the subject – the obscure Italian production CHRISTUS (1916) – but it is almost a given that the best early version of it will remain Cecil B. De Mille's much more elaborate (and genuinely impressive) THE KING OF KINGS (1927).

P.S. Apparently, this film was re-released in 1916, retitled simply Jesus OF NAZARETH and addressing the glaring Resurrection issue by attaching to it footage lifted from the aforementioned CHRISTUS (which, obviously enough, featured completely different actors)! For what it is worth, this alternate version can be easily viewed in its entirety (albeit in ten successive segments) on "You Tube"...

Like many early films, it is a document. and to expect more is real strange. because the risk to compare with the films of our times or with the expectations of modern viewer are not reasonable things. it is a film about life and passion of Our Lord. correct, in few aspects admirable, against anachronism or tableaux but the message is clear. convincing. and powerfull. and this is the basic motif for see it. with indulgency. and admiration , because it was easy to make a film in Egypt and Palestina in 1912. so, one of films deserving to see. for discover the early cinema. for the meeting with a well known message in a clear form.

Director Sidney Olcott did not have a stunning career. If anything it was mediocre at best. But on this effort he played above his head, perhaps not even realizing it. "From the Manger to the Cross" is a beautiful film, rich in substance and well acted as well.

The story is well known and Olcott details all of Christ's shining biblical moments in a series of scenes that overcomes many setbacks of the early 1910's. Of particular note is the way he uses a large cast to still convey the emotions present during a particular scene. Christ's admittance to his disciples that his days on earth are numbered come to mind here. On location shooting, no easy task for its day considering the entire thing was done in Egypt and Palestine, would definitely be another.

Even with these tools, the film may have fallen flat were it not for Robert Henderson-Bland's portrayal of Jesus. When the most crucial aspects of the Messiah's personality are the things he said, how can a silent film succeed in showing his substance? Answer: facial expressions and body language. And Bland, without the as yet invented close-up, shines in showing Christ as a man of wisdom, gentleness, and courage. Bland's Jesus is still among the finest to ever grace a screen and we're closing in on a century of film following it. Robert Vignola's Judas also deserves a mention as well.

It also bares mentioning that Timothy Howard's organ score, added in 1994 upon the film's home release, is a beautiful addition. In 1998 "From the Manger to the Cross" was given the highest honor a film can receive: it was added to the National Film Registry, an accolade it well deserves. For now and all time it should be recognized not only as America's first feature film but as a testament to what can be accomplished in the name of art and love when all of the pieces fall into the right place at the right time. Olcott and Henderson-Bland forever have a much deserved home in film history's hall of fame.

The nutshell: required viewing for directing, acting, technological achievement, and artistic beauty...8/10.

While this pioneering effort does have some shortcomings that would now be easy to point out, it also has several strengths that are quite commendable, given that it was one of the earliest full-length movies to be produced. While mostly a straightforward rendering of the life of Jesus Christ, it has a number of visual effects that, while not flashy, are generally effective. The decision to film it in or near the original locations of the story, while introducing some occasional anachronisms, works in general, and gives it a more appropriate feel than a studio backdrop would have.

The adaptation by Gene Gauntier, the actress who also appears as Jesus' mother Mary, does a pretty good job of covering a selection of events from Jesus' life. It does clearly assume a pretty good familiarity with the New Testament writings, as in several scenes the point of the action is otherwise obscured. Even then, though, Robert Henderson-Bland's low-key rendering of Jesus usually communicates a general image of gentleness and wisdom, which in many cases is more significant than the specific teachings.

The whole picture is shot in the old 'tableau' format, which does, in particular, minimize the impact of Henderson-Bland's performance. But most audiences of its own era would almost certainly have found this a worthwhile and believable portrayal of the life of Christ, and even now it deserves some commendation for its positive qualities.

Sidney Olcott's curious life of Christ was staple fare for 50s schoolkids under the guise of the terrible voiceover version distributed by Rev. Brian Hessian - this was the version I first saw and although the quality of the film, all its anachorisms aside, shone through, I didn't think the marriage of modernish narration to silent splendour worked at all.

I later saw a tinted copy on video with a lovely musical accompaniment and was struck by the touching portrayal of Robert Henderson-Bland as Jesus. Some of the camera tricks are justly famous, the boy and the cross probably more so than any other, but this very early feature film is one of the best I have seen so far.