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"...

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.

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.

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.

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.