The Greatest Story Ever Told

Rating:
Summary: Reverant, but dull.
Review: Two Jesus film epics in one decade? I can't believe it! 1965's "The Greatest Story Ever Told" followed 1961's "King Of King's" with a charismatic performance by Max von Sydow. The film has less of the historical backdrop and plot augmentations as it's predecessor, and seems to aspire towards a more pious adherence to the Gospels (a couple reviews disagreed with that assessment, which surprised me). The shots are more beautiful in my opinion, but I'm not a film major so don't take my word for it. The film seems to lack passion though. It just doesn't move me. The cameos are excessive. Hollywood emphasises stars over acting. What's new? I personally prefer "King Of Kings" over this, but I think they're about equal in terms of quality. You be the judge.

Rating:
Summary: A Reappraisal: Better Than I Remember
Review: The Greatest Story Ever Told can be difficult to approach. It is long, dated and controversial, and it deals with that most sensitive of topics, the life of Jesus. When I first saw this film more than 20 years ago I confess I wrote it off as another Hollywood epic flop which attempted to capitalize on the dramatic biblical material for commercial reasons. Now having taken in the film again recently I can happily say that I was mostly wrong. This film has many merits.

First, Hollywood legend George Stevens (Gunga Din, Shane, Diary of Anne Frank) made the film with a reverent attitude toward Jesus and the Bible. The film lacks the immediacy of Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth or the power of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, but upon my reviewing of the film I was surprised how sincerely Stevens approached the Christian material. I was impressed that this was no mere intellectual or commercial enterprise. Despite this being the last of the biblical epics to be commericially released from Hollywood, this film is indeed about faith. Some have found the film somewhat ambivalent in its attitude toward the religious material, but there is no doubting Steven's genuine expression of faith.

Second, Loyal Griggs' cinematography is often breathtaking. The Holy Land gets the same glorious treatment as David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, but in this film the landscape is put to religious purpose with beautiful effect. Some have found the locations in the American Southwest to be distracting, but I find them to be more dramatic and spiritually evocative than most of the films coming from the Bible lands. The Colorado River is far more imposing than that actual Jordan as a setting for John the Baptist's work, but what is lost in escaping the more mundane historical locale is more than made up for in the dramatic and spiritually evocative Southwest landscape. Quite simply, the landscape in this film is more beautiful than any other biblical epic. Many of the interior scenes are dramatically side lit, like a late Renaissance Italian Master painting, with many technically staged scenes beautifully shot in the style of the time (the last suppor with a candle light halo behind Jesus, the trials of Jesus before beefy Pilate (Telly Salvalas in red and leather), the woman caught in adultry dressed in striking red). The movie still looks surprisingly good, even if we have grown to see the once daring look of Technicolor as dated and unnatural.

Third, Alfred Newman's quite modern score effectively alternates between late Romantic poignancy and modern, even minimalist, insights. Stevens also wisely allows long silences to speak for themselves, as though the film goer were witnessing the events with the same sense of wonder and lack of a score as the witnesses in the film.

Fourth, there are many fine performances by Hollywood legends in unusual roles. Claude Rains as Herod the Great and Jose Ferrer as Herod Antipas are particularly strong, and Charlton Heston almost steals the show as John the Baptist in a powerful performance, which, despite a few heavy-handed scenes, is far more compelling than his work as Moses or Ben Hur.

So why has the film received such controversial notices, both at the time of its original release in 1965 and from viewers today?

The film has a strangely modern feel and attitude toward Jesus. Max von Sydow as the Christ is at times oracular and powerful, but at other times fails to connect with the viewer or appeal to the viewer's sympathies. Perhaps it is baggage from von Sydow's persona as the existential hero of Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal that distracts; I confess I keep trying to reconcile the images of Bergman's masterpiece, which is powerfully anti-catholic, with this more reverent von Sydow. Perhaps it is the omission of certain supernatural elements from the biblical text which are rather obviously avoided in Stevens' film, like omitting the voice and dove from heaven at Jesus' baptism or the refusal to look the rising Lazarus in the face. The latter event is shown not through a close up of the risen dead man but through the incredulous responses of the witnesses, leading the viewer to suspect that Stevens may view the "miracle" as a subjective interpretation of the witnesses rather than a historical fact. Nonetheless, the sincerity of Stevens' faithful attitude toward the subject is rescued as the witnesses proclaim the coming of the Messiah (to the sounds of Handel's Hallelujah chorus, no less!). But even this last bit of Hollywood kitsch comes off well in the film. In the final analysis, I believe that that the modernism of the film is one of style and not of philosophy, and that Stevens meant to tell the supernatural story in a language which would be readily understood by modern hearers.

The movie is long: 195 minutes, or 3 hours and 15 minutes. Many readers have complained of this fact, but I see it as a virtue. Stevens simply refuses to hurry. There is a magisterial pace to the production which bored me 25 years ago but which I find appropriate and reverent now. In fact, given the scope of the events in the film, I almost feel that we see too little of Jesus' three years of ministry, leaving us too little opportunity to be taken by his message and personality. Enough said: This is not a movie for someone who is looking for two hours of entertainment. It is a serious film with a serious approach to a sacred subject matter. Approach it this way or you will simply waste your time.

Some critisize the scores of Hollywood stars as a distraction. But while a few castings fail, like John Wayne as a Centurian, they seldom distract, and many are outstanding. The stars are one of the great attractions to this film, not for their star power but for the surprising depth of their performances.

The film also takes licenses with the biblical text. For those of us who hold the text sacred, authoritative and cannonical, this presents some problems. Sometimes the supernatural is avoided (see Jesus' baptism above), sometimes the chronology or setting are altered (Jesus is approached by the first disciples in Judea, rather than calling them in Galilee), and sometimes the biblical text is merely restated with additional dialogue to fit the needs of a scene. At times the quality of the screen writing compares laughably with the familiar Bible verses which precede or follow it, but generally the changes do little to alter the fundamental meaning of the texts. Though it is disconcerting to hear biblical quotes out of context or set them side by side with a screen play, none of the quotes struck me as fundamentally untrue or unbiblical. While it is dangerous business to use scripture without strict adherence to the biblical text and context, the film is little different than some of the looser paraphrase Bibles which are popular today. One could hardly expect to treat the subject of Jesus Christ in the modern medium of film based solely on the literary approaches of the Gospel writers, even though they were inspired. Film is quite simply a different medium. The changes do distract me and it is far safer to make every effort to stay strictly within the biblical text when approaching Jesus on film, but the variations in this film are minor and, upon 25 years further reflection, cannot be said to be wholesale affronts to the Biblical message.

In the end, Jesus does rise from the dead, with much lightening and purple-clouded drama. The supernatural is affirmed. Von Sydow plays the God-Man after all, rather than Bergman's existentialist Black Knight. In the end, the film is a commendable picture of the life of Jesus, but it needs to be understood in context. First, it is sincere. Second, it is beautiful in the best way that studio Hollywood knew how to make it. Third, despite its modern look and feel, in the end it is an expression of faith, despite some minor licenses taken with the biblical text. The film is worth seeing if you keep in mind that it is a document of mid-20th Century American film making and mid-20th Century American Christianity. Though it looks and feels modern, there is a genuine faith behind the film. It will not wow post-Evangelical Christians either with its power or with its relationship to the Bible, but the film does not threaten either. It is not to be seen merely for entertainment. It is too long and too serious for that. But George Stevens' last film now appears to be one of his best. He believed sincerly in this film, and contemporary viewers may as well.

Rating:
Summary: Christ In A Very Potent Form- (George Stevens is director)
Review:
I have watched George Steven's film numerous times- and will continue to. Considering the subject matter- that shouldn't come as a surprise.

This film flopped on initial release. Some said it was because of the waning interest in the biblical epics. Some claimed it was because of hollywood's finest stars in momentary parts- that it became too distracting. I personally think it was because it was a quiet film for its time. Stevens' tried to get inside what Christ must have 'felt'. I don't think anyone at the time could or would grasp or understand that approach.

Max Von Sydow is brilliant as Christ. You cannot come away from his initial meeting with John the Baptist (Heston), his dealing with the demon on the mountain ( Donald Plesance), his saving of Mary Magdelaine or his raising of Lazurus, without sensing how a 'Son of God' must have felt amongst the 'barbarians'. He is magnificant in relaying how lonely Christ ultimately must have felt. It's a credit to Sydow's acting, his delivery of the word- and the atmosphere generated by Stevens.

This is a flawed but still an immensley spiritual film. It touches on the life of Christ (based on the Fulton Oursler book), and it paints a poignant portrait primarily of his adult years and his time with the Apostles.

It personally affected me in that it really spoke of how, no matter what was demonstarated, it was never enough. It painted the ultimate example that if we don't cherish what we see, feel, hear and know rings with a real truth, we're doomed to a life of continual doubt and denial.

There are many familiar faces (even for the young that may only barely know them).Heston, Portier, Ferrer, Winters, Savalas, John Wayne as a Roman Soldier- David McCallum as Judas...

This is a feeler. If you watch, you may learn. If you open your eyes... you may sense and hear.

Most of all, you will come away thinking, wondering and feeling something spiritual. And that's always a good basis for personal growth, regardless of religious leanings.



Rating:
Summary: ron
Review: Did anybody On this film actually read the bible or any of the gospel before doing this film. I understand taking leave of the truth with a lot of other subjects. But this is the life of our Lord and savior. Shame on the makers of this film.

Rating:
Summary: Not reliable/distracting for all but small children
Review: I watched this one with my five year old son, assuring him all the time that this was a movie, that the actor playing Jesus is not Jesus, and that yes, he talks funny. He still enjoyed it, and I did, too, in parts: the reaction of the crowd to the raising of Lazarus was brilliant. But, I'm sorry to say, a Jesus who looks like he's had massive Botox injections in his lower lip and who sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger is a long way from the Jesus we know from the Church's Holy Scripture and holy icons.

I don't buy the assessment of reviewers who speak of Max von Sydow's 'quiet dignity' as Jesus: speaking to the women of Jerusalem while carrying the cross, von Sydow looked and sounded absolutely maniacal. In much of the film, Scripture is uttered out of context, in the wrong place, or by the wrong person. Judas is given an excuse for his treachery by the presence of the Devil character, who also whips up the crowd before Pilate. In short, it's OK for young children, as long as you watch it with them, but don't count on it as Gospel or even a good interpretation of it.

Rating:
Summary: Superb Retelling Of The Life Of Jesus Of Nazareth
Review: There have been many film versions over the years of the life of Christ and in particular of the Crucifixion most notably in the recent "The Passion of the Christ", however for me this beautifully wrought version is my favourite and is a high point of my Easter viewing every year. Rather harshly criticised over the years for everything from the use of numerous big name Hollywood performers in the smaller roles right through to the slow pace and lack of "action", "The Greatest Story Ever Told", traces the life of Jesus (Max von Sydow), from his birth in a humble stable in Bethlehem through to his execution and resurrection in a sensitive, thoughtful and non judgemental way. As a tribute to a man of simplicity the production as a whole despite its epic size and length still manages to keep an intimate quality to it and definately lacks alot of the "splashy" qualities so often found in other biblical epics of this time. Even the muted colour tones used throughout the film somehow seem totally appropriate and its a real tribute to veteran director George Stevens that he did not here go down the conventional path of so many screen epics. Because of its huge cost (25 million dollars) and its eventual box office failure "The Greatest Story Ever Told", has been long regarded as the film that literally ended the winning streak of the legendary George Stevens. I feel time has redeemed this film and its true qualities are now hopefully better appreciated. Boasting some very fine acting performances, a beautiful musical score courtesy of Alfred Newman, and superb locations substituting for the Holy Land , this effort has alot to offer if you are prepared to enjoy its quieter moments dispersed in between the more noteworthy events in the life of Jesus.

Planned as a big screen epic as far back as 1954 and having passed through the talented hands of such individuals as Otto Preminger, "The Greatest Story Ever Told", finally only made it into cinemas in 1965. Director George Stevens made this very much a personal effort and went through numerous rewrites and sought approval from the Vatican itself in regard to the writing before going ahead with the actual filming. Obviously such a massive story as the life of Christ would be hard to properly condense into one film effort so what we have are a number of episodes in the life of Jesus which at least show the amazing effect that he had on even the simplest of people he came into contact with. During the course of the film we are treated to his poignant birth in the stable and his flight into Egypt to escape the wrath of King Herod (Claude Rains). We see his contact with the wild caveman-like believer John the Baptist (Charlton Heston) and his moving rescue of the prostitute Mary Magdalene (Joanna Dunham) from the crowd ready to stone her. We experience first hand the miracle of the healing powers of Jesus in two moving instances where he restores the ability to walk to the cripple Uriah (Sal Mineo) , and returns sight to the blind man Old Aram (Ed Wynn). There are interesting flourishes along the way namely in the inclusion of a character called the "Dark Hermit"(Donald Pleasence) who in actual fact represents the Devil and who turns up at various intervals to discredit the work of Jesus. The scenes toward the end of the film obviously are the most well known and moving parts of the life of Jesus and George Stevens here goes to great detail in depicting the last supper, the betrayal by Judas, Peter's denial of Jesus three times and of course the crucifixion, in a detailed and non sensational manner. While the crucifixtion lacks the brutal reality of those scenes in "The Passion of the Christ", it is still most effective here. Christ's rising from the dead to begin a new existence in heaven is also a powerful piece of film making that provides this story with an obviously uplifting climax.

Of course the main target for critics of "The Greatest Story Ever Told", has to be what many people have referred to as the "Hollywood Boulevard",casting of so many celebrities of the time in the supporting roles. Never for one moment however do I feel this to be to the detriment of the overraul story. All the actors appearing here were seasoned professionals who's talents most often outshined their supposed celebrity. They manage to create some great moments in often relatively short screen time. Dorothy McGuire as The Virgin Mary is perfect casting as the caring mother of Jesus and indeed there are a number of wonderfully etched female roles in this story including Carrol Baker as Veronica, the before mentioned Joanna Dunham as a arresting Mary Magdalene and Shelley Winters in an unnamed role as a village servant. The apostles are also beautifully portrayed from the traitorous Judas (David McCallum) to the loyal John (John Considine) and most vividly in the work of Michael Anderson Jr as James and Roddy McDowell as the reformed Matthew. For me one of the most profoundly moving moments occurs when Jesus restores the ability to walk to the cripple Uriah (Sal Mineo). Once again this talented young actor manages to make something truly inspiring out of a 10 minute role and his wonderment at being able to walk truly shows the real message that this film is trying to convey. Max von Sydow of course as Jesus carries the brunt of the screen time in this film and his quiet dignified manner suits the modest character of Jesus perfectly. Criticised for casting a Swedish actor in the role George Stevens however really made an inspired choice here and even von Sydow's limited English at this time of his career actually aids the many slowly constructed scenes depicted. The surroundings of this story of course are most important and the stark and barren sites in Utah chosen by George Stevens to stand in for the Holy Land are also inspired choices. The use of muted and subdued colours in the cinematography courtesy of Loyal Griggs, even for the interior scenes in Herod's palace also remove a bit of the "Hollywood Epic", feel to the film.

Nominated for 5 1965 Academy Awards "The Greatest Story Ever Told", lost out partly because of its lack of financial success however we today can look at the film removed from the glare of its first controversial release. It truly is an inspired piece of filmmaking that shows great reverance for its subject matter. Certainly it has a slow pace but I certainly do not feel this is a failing as it simply takes time to show episodes in the life of Jesus that could never be rushed to be told effectively. Inspired performances and with a timeless message to pass on, this truly is one of the greatest stories ever told. Treat yourself soon to a viewing of this George Stevens classic you wont regret the time spent viewing it.

Rating:
Summary: It was just okay.
Review: The end of the film has modern commentary that the director wanted to make a film of Jesus without commentary or additions but that's exactly what he did. For example, with the "adulterous woman," Jesus never said "You've judged her correctly; she has sinned." He only writes on the ground and says whomever has not sinned to stone her first. Is this significant? Could be. Remember that they only brought the woman, where was the man with whom she was allegedly caught? God's Law requires that TWO witnesses be presented and that BOTH adulterers be stoned. Were there two witnesses? Where was the man? Something to think about.

Those kinds of "little things" happened througout the movie and bothered me as a believer. Why not just stick to the original text?! The modern film The Gospel of John, I'd recommend instead.

Rating:
Summary: Utterly brilliant--a true classic!
Review: "The Greatest Story Ever Told," George Stevens' epic film version of the story of Jesus Christ, was the first Biblical film I remember watching as a child, and it remains one of my favorites today. Stevens began work on this movie because he wanted "simply to do the story of Jesus," and he along with his cast and crew have treated the story with great reverence and respect. Max von Sydow turns in a brilliant performance as Jesus. And von Sydow is backed by an all-star cast which includes Charlton Heston, Van Heflin, Jose Ferrer, Roddy McDowall, David McCallum, Sal Mineo, Dorothy McGuire, Telly Savalas and many others. The story of Jesus Christ is indeed the "greatest story ever told," and this film is a glorious rendering of that story.