Jeffrey Hunter's casting as Jesus in this Bronston epic led some to dub the film as I was a Teenage Jesus but he's fine - as fine as you can be playing Jesus, it's a thankless role in many ways, you can't be too controversial or show anything other than serenity or pain.
He certainly looks the part, with his beard and blue eyes, and conveys a degree of intensity. He's certainly more authentic seeming than the very American Robert Ryan as John the Baptist and Harry Guardino as Barabbas. The film doesn't seem to have done too much for his career (playing Jesus didn't really help Jim Cazaviel, Chris Sarandon, or Max Von Sydow either - its not as though casting directors go "great, you can play another prophet).
He certainly looks the part, with his beard and blue eyes, and conveys a degree of intensity. He's certainly more authentic seeming than the very American Robert Ryan as John the Baptist and Harry Guardino as Barabbas. The film doesn't seem to have done too much for his career (playing Jesus didn't really help Jim Cazaviel, Chris Sarandon, or Max Von Sydow either - its not as though casting directors go "great, you can play another prophet).
It's been ages since I saw a Jesus movie when I watched this and I was struck (a) what a good yarn the Jesus story is (at its most basic), especially the events around the Crucifixion and (b) how history repeats itself. Time and time again we have societies oppressed by an occupier which throw up Messiahs, who soon attract disciples through a combination of their message and sense of certainty. People who are totally sure about something will always attract followers - Alan Jones, Che Guevara, the guy who prompted the Tai Ping Rebellion. They will always attract hostility, too, and be seen as a threat(which, to be honest, they are).
The film splits into two narrative strands, which touch occasionally and intertwine at the end. One of them is the Jesus strand, where he spouts various parables (in a sort of "greatest hits" way), collects disciples, does the Sermon on the Mount (done as a sort of Q and A session, which actually works very well- although you get the impression it would have been a bit nosier with people talking over the top of each other), heals people.
The main problem with this section is the eternal one - the "softly softly" approach on Jesus; also his disciples are not that well drawn either, even the usual standbys like Peter and Judas (played by none other than Rip Torn - though I wouldn't have known it unless I had read it, he's hard to recognise), so when both betray their leader it doesn't have the emotional impact it might had their been a little more character development.
The main problem with this section is the eternal one - the "softly softly" approach on Jesus; also his disciples are not that well drawn either, even the usual standbys like Peter and Judas (played by none other than Rip Torn - though I wouldn't have known it unless I had read it, he's hard to recognise), so when both betray their leader it doesn't have the emotional impact it might had their been a little more character development.
More compelling is the second story strand, which involves the Roman occupation of Judea and concerns Jewish resistance leader Barabbas who wants to use Jesus' followers for Jewish independence (an idea which works well), the local king Herod (Frank Thring doing his Thring thing with aplomb), and a Roman centurion (another Aussie, Ron Randell) who has served a long time in Judea and is greatly affected by Jesus (he turns out to be the soldier who says "surely this was the son of God") - this is easily the most interesting character, because he takes a real emotional journey, and Randell gives the best performance. Salome is a kind of spoilt Lolita-like teen, a concept which works and Hurd Hatfield totally gets the slightly-dissatisfied-public-servant "air" of Pontius Pilate.
There is some Bronston spectacle - the opening sequence where Pompey enters Jerusalem is quite stunning, the Sermon of the Mount is full of extras, the final battle from Barabbas' troops. But it doesn't particularly need it.
The film may have been more effective as a spectacle if it focused more on Barabbas and the Centurion and making Jesus more of a supporting character. Or else making it about Jesus and making it more intimate. As a result it sort of falls between two stools. But its still quite a good movie, with a moving finale. Watching it, I couldn't help think: it would be terrific to do a Rome-type series set during this period.
The film may have been more effective as a spectacle if it focused more on Barabbas and the Centurion and making Jesus more of a supporting character. Or else making it about Jesus and making it more intimate. As a result it sort of falls between two stools. But its still quite a good movie, with a moving finale. Watching it, I couldn't help think: it would be terrific to do a Rome-type series set during this period.
No comments:
Post a Comment