Greatest Story Ever Told | Max von Sydow, Michael Anderson Jr.

Greatest Story Ever Told | Max von Sydow, Michael Anderson Jr. | Majestic, beautiful, but alas a Protestant life of Jesus

vhs video:

Greatest Story Eve...

	Greatest Story Ever Told Max von Sydow, Michael Anderson Jr. MGM (Video & DVD), 1993 average customer review:based on 93 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

A Reappraisal: Better Than I Remember

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.

for more information click here

Majestic, beautiful, but alas a Protestant life of Jesus

George Stevens has produced a sumptuous, heroic life of Christ for the big screen, but he takes too many liberties with Jesus' words, inserting statements like "salvation comes by faith alone" into His mouth. Of course Christ never said any such thing. In fact the only place in Scripture where the words "faith alone" occur is in James 2 and there only to *reject* the notion that man is saved by faith alone. Viewers seeking a more faithful depiction of the life of Christ are better off with "Jesus of Nazareth".

Side bar: The then-unknown Max Van Sydow plays a short-haired, pencil-thin-mustached Jesus. Festoon him with a beret, and he'd look like a saxophonist in a jazz quintet. The first thing my nine-year-old said during the opening scene was "Whoa! He's got real-l-l-ly short hair!"

Side bar 2: And why does Jesus never smile in this movie? I can't recall seeing so much as a grin in a single frame.

for more information click here

Reverant, but dull.

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.

for more information click here

One of the Most Miscast Stories Ever Filmed

I'm honestly wondering if many of those folks who gave this 5-star rave reviews saw the same film as I have, several times...

First, you need to separate the subject matter from the film. Just becauise the film is about the life of Jesus doesn't automatically make it an untouchable masterpiece of cinema.
While I definitely give Stevens his props -- there are some truly magnificently-done scenes here, and the film as a whole remains watchable -- the attempt to, it seems, put most of Hollywood in the film willy-nilly almost sunk the whole thing. In addition, certain elements of Christ's life one would consider key are completely glossed over.

Von Sydow (who incidentally, may be the only actor to have played both Jesus and Satan, not to mention an exorcist) tries; he really does. He makes an interesting Christ, certainly far more believable than Jeffrey Hunter's blue-eyed, always immaculately-groomed version in King of Kings. His acting ranges from OK to incredible, and he's on-screen for almost the entire film. He brings a definite sincerity and warmth to the role, even if the scipt gets a bit too heavy-handed at times, but in the final analysis, his peformance alone isn't enough to sustain the whole movie.

The rest of the cast is split between just OK or just plain wrong/bad. Dorothy Macquire as Mary was... well, an unexpected choice, but she actually fared far better than many others. The actress who played Mary Magdeline was completely mediocre;in this film, maybe Claudia Cardinale would've been the best choice.
Claude Rains could've phoned in his part. Sidney Poiter,Roddy M, Martin Landau and even Sal MIneo were surprisingly effective.
But some of the other casting was just strange or ill-conceived.
Watch the film objectively and see if you don't agree with some of this:

Both Heston and Ferrer (and even Pleasance) were WAY over the top, and not in a good way at all. Telly Savalas looked like he was bored, and delivered his lines appropriately. The Barabbas scene was flatter than a surfboard. Victor Buono tried too hard to be slimy. Angela Lansbury is a great actress, but was completely wasted here. Van Heflin was trying too hard. Ed Wynn as Isiah and Shelly Winters as a healed person? Huh? And of course, the crown jewel; John Wayne as the Roman officer supervising the crucifixion. His one line brings the definition of "wooden" to dizzying new heights.
They're only some; there are scores more of miscasts. And yes, while many of them are indeed little more than cameos, they all add up to derail the film from what it could've been. As it stands, you actually find yourself laughing at some of the performances. A sincere effort, but too ambitious overall.

for more information click here