From the Manger to the Cross

From the Manger to the Cross (1912) directed by Sidney Olcott is a great film from the early days of cinema history. Apart from the old ways of film making, it is actually a very focused depiction of the life of Jesus and still entertaining despite it being one of cinema's earliest films.

It is a classic account of the life of Jesus Christ, based on the books of the New Testament: After Jesus' birth is foretold to his parents, he is born in Bethlehem, and is visited by shepherds and wise men. After a stay in Egypt to avoid King Herod, his family settles in Nazareth. After years of preparation, Jesus gathers together a group of disciples, and then begins to speak publicly and to perform miracles, inspiring hope in many of his listeners, but also arousing some dangerous opposition.

Highly recommended for film enthusiasts and fans of cinema history.

This movie is not the first feature picture. That distinction appears to go to an Australian film, NED KELLY AND HIS GANG from about 1906. Others, particularly the Italians, had made a few films of more than a couple of reels before FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS came out. Nonetheless, this movie is historically very important as the first American feature..... and much of it was shot on location in Egypt and what was then Palestine. It was an enormous undertaking in its time and deserves our respect.

But, does that mean it is worth seeing? Well, if you are fascinated by the history of the film, yes. If you are unfamiliar with silent film techniques, then no, almost certainly not.

This film is shot as a series of tableaux. In the films of D.W. Griffith and others of his line, the titles explain the picture. In tableaux, the pictures illuminate the text of the titles, like an illustrated edition of a novel. Given the average American's familiarity with the subject of this movie -- the life and death of Jesus Christ -- and the use of quotes from the New Testament as titles, this is precisely the effect of FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS: an exciting one, for people who never got to travel further than downstate. To a modern audience, however, it will seem static, as this style of moviemaking went out of style by about 1920.

Second, there are the anachronisms. Cities are shown in their modern guises and if Jesus never saw the walls of Nazareth reared by the Crusaders, so much the worse for the moviegoer. If the nose of the Sphinx was battered off some time between 700 and 1000 AD, someone viewing this picture would never know it, given that Jesus, Joseph and Mary are shown sitting in front of the Sphinx and a pyramid to illustrate the Egyptian exile.

So there are problems with this movie that make it something not to be recommended to the average, or even above-average moviegoer. However, if you love films for their own sake, give it a look.

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.

An account of the life of Jesus Christ, based on the books of the New Testament: After Jesus' birth is foretold to his parents, he is born in Bethlehem, and is visited by shepherds and wise men. After a stay in Egypt to avoid King Herod, his family settles in Nazareth. After years of preparation, Jesus gathers together a group of disciples, and then begins to speak publicly and to perform miracles, inspiring hope in many of his listeners, but also arousing some dangerous opposition.

I see some people have poo-pooed this film, saying it was not very innovative (the camera never moves, making it more of a stage play). And that may be so. Also, it is certainly true they hardly took advantage of filming in Palestine... why travel so far for so little? Robert Osborne and the National Film Preservation Foundation consider this film to be the most important silent film to deal with the life of Christ. In 1998, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. I think it has value because it happens to be so straight in its telling. Although the Gospels do not change, the way we read them does, and this really captured the sentiment of the time. We can look back 100 years on and see how we have changed... not much, as it turns out. And the reason for the "not much" is because of films like this that have really cemented the imagery.

From the Manger to the Cross (1912)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Early Warner Bros. film is the typical telling of Jesus, as the title says, from the manger to the cross. This is a really boring, dull and pointless telling of the story but I guess the studio wanted to make a feature and stretched everything to the limit. The film uses quotes from the New Testament but this gets tiresome very quickly as well. The film was shot on location all around the world and from a historic standpoint, this here is interesting but the rest of the film isn't.

Life and Passion of Christ, The (1903)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Decent telling of the story of Jesus from his birth up to the resurrection. This early French feature is full of wonderful imagination and the use of color is a real added bonus. The visual are all very nice and the set decoration is among the best I've seen in any silent film of its era. The biggest problem is that the feature runs just over 40-minutes and it seems like a bunch of short films edited together. There's really no consistent storytelling but instead just various segments from the Bible.