KING OF KINGS
ADDED ATTRACTION
KING OF KINGS (1927)
Unlike the Old Testament, four of the books of the New Testament tell basically the same story - with variations. As previously mentioned, three of the gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke are sufficiently close that they are known as synoptic gospels and are thought to come from either some common source (called "Q" by scholars for the German word "Quelle" or source). The fourth Gospel - that of John - seems rather different.
None the less there is a cast of characters that appear:
On the opposite side as it were are:
Other CHaracter that appear
Opposition to Christian historical accounts
Although the New Testament's account of the Sanhedrin's involvement in Jesus' crucifixion is detailed, the factual accuracy is disputed. Some scholars believe that these passages present a caricature of the Pharisees and were not written during Jesus' lifetime but rather some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE - a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the messiah. Also, this was a time Christians sought most new converts from among the gentiles - thus adding to the likelihood that the New Testament's account would be more sympathetic to Romans than to the Jews. Furthermore, it was only after 70 that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism.
Some claim that the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, although it was predominantly made up of Sadducees at the time. This does agree with the New Testament where the Sanhedrin's leadership - Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducees. The Gospels also consistently make a distinction between the Pharisees and "the elders," "the teachers of the law," and "the rulers of the people"
The opposition continues by saying that in order for the Christian leaders of the time to present Christianity as the legitimate heir to the Hebrew Scriptures, they had to devalue Rabbinic Judaism. In addition to the New Testament, other Christian writings relate that the Apostles Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul were all brought before the Sanhedrin for the blasphemous crime (from the Jewish perspective) of spreading their Gospel. However, the Gospels exist, and do give an account of events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, although most scholars consider them to have been penned after the Temple was destroyed (however, see Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew for views on earlier historical dating). Those scholars may believe them to have been based on earlier sources, rather than giving a first-person account; though the Gospels are not entirely dismissed, they are presumed to be biased rather than factual. However, Streeter and others of the Tuebingen school hold that Christian NT writings which discuss the Sanhedrin actually may date much earlier than previously thought, so supporters claim that the NT accounts quite possibly are more accurate that thought heretofore.
Watch the various characters and see how they change over different films, What characteristics are emphasized?
KING OF KINGS
This is a film which might be called a "conversion" film. The film's focus is a centurion named Lucius (Longus, Longinus). Traditionally it is his spear which stabs Christ and becomes the "Spear of Longinus" or the "Spear of Destiny".
The story revolves largely around the ways in which Christ have an effect on him. In this sence the film is close to Ben Hur and Tthe Robe, but the central focus on actual biblical events keeps it from slipping completely into that catehgory.
The film also has a narrator (Uncredited Orson Welles) who deliberately (and who knows for what reason, mispronounces "apostle" as written (that is with the "t" pronounced.
This is a "Harmonized" version using all four gosples plus the hisorian Josephus
What is the contempory setting of the film?
In what ways does the film make links to the world of the time that the film is made?
What is Christ like?
How is his personality "phrased" in the film?
After the Film
Nature of Jesus in Film
Gentle man of peace
Humanism upgrated over divinity
Confrontational scenes deleted.
Called a "rebel with a cause" Restoration of people of Israel in spiritual sense, not economic or political
Does the film feel moe like secular humanism than religion? Or perhaps to glorify American Way of Life? (not very religious in many ways delaing with belief and faith.
One person wrote that auburn hair blue eyed Jeffrey Hunter (Christ) is the all American boy who goes to see his Irish mother (Siobhan McKenna - a famous Irish actress) Also missing are the pre-birth aspects of the story (annumciation, etc.). Some miracles - mostly those rather personal ones are shown while major ones (feeding the multitides with 2 fish and fiv loaves of bread, walking on water, stilling the storm) are reported and not shown.
Contrasted with Jesus Barabbas (Jesus is a name given to him but believed to be in later days). This is the contract between a violent messiah and a non violent one (with same given name)
Current setting in 1960:
What does the film do about responsibility of Jews? The critical statement about this occurred before 1965 Vatican Council II which pronounced Jews as God's people.The film allows the use of Rabbi with Jesus.
Filmic informations:
Makes use of newer archaeological material in costuming etc.
Use of shadows in Jesus' healing and at the end when shadow makes cross with fishnets.
Use of huge cast of extras. Battles, sermon on the mount (centerpiece of film). Red as color of power - white of victims (also purity and innocence) Crucified images: Herod when dies, John the Baptist in cell, final scene
Tendency to use POV shots even from cross . Alternation of shots of sheep and Jewish peasants to equate. Implication of Nazi Germany?