Post by drystyx on Jun 21, 2021 1:16:40 GMT
Thanks to the clever reporting and insight of our night stalker, I edited it from "50" to "60". I wonder if he's reporting this to Simon Oakland? No big deal. Simon Oakland will just tell him he's crazy.
I made a post about Jungle Fighters of 1961, which I said I flip flop back and forth from number 1 and 2 on my all time list. This is one that I flip flop from about number 10 or 11. And the film I flip flop with Jungle Fighters for number 1 is the de Mille classic THE KING OF KINGS, so we're speaking about super classics here.
This one is very much like de Mille's version, only part of the evolution process.
First, about the story. It's about this cat named Jesus, who was the son of God. Maybe you heard of him. Anyway, if you haven't, you can read the book or see the film, or both.
Actually, I feel confident enough to say that nothing could be a spoiler in this case.
Jeff Hunter plays Jesus. Robert Ryan plays John the Baptist in one of his two biggest films ever. The other one is GOD'S LITTLE ACRE. And that says a lot, because he was in many outstanding films.
Royal Dano gives Peter a quality of humility that we rarely see for Peter in films. Hurd Hatfield (tempted to name him "Hurd Hatfile Who", since he is not what you would call a big name actor) gives a very credible performance as a bored Pilate who parlays with a sort of heroic centurion played by Ron Randell, who isn't exactly a tote board name, either.
Pilate is interesting in this film, because the real Pilate obviously wanted to crucify Barabbas. And that's pretty much the politics of the story behind Jesus that gave Pilate his motivation. He didn't think much about Jesus. He just assumed the crowd was going to let him go, and Jesus would go on being a hippie. Big deal.
But Pilate definitely wanted to see Barabbas suffer a horrible extermination. When his politics on this failed, that is what he washed his hands of, or so he thought, but he wasn't acquainted with the divine Nature of what Jesus was doing.
The centurion played by Randell is an added character, and comes closest actually to a Bible character who was a simple Hebrew instead of a Roman, Nicodemius. For film purposes, the banter with Pilate was necessary to show motivation, and to not make the story of Jesus too expository. It's a common writing "trick".
Now, let me explain the "evolution" of the story. Through History, over the course of twenty centuries, the New Testament story remains intact, but popular opinion causes some variation. The spirit that drugs human brains in Nature makes them want certain things to be different.
In the case of "King of Kings", it's the character of Judas that people hate to believe in. As Jack Nicholson would tell them, "they can't handle the truth!"
The original character of Judas was one of disgust, of a devil. But people want to believe he was a motivated, caring soul. In 1927, de Mille made him much softer than he is in the Bible, with some noble intent. In 1961, director Nicholas Ray takes it even further and makes Judas even more noble, with even his betrayal of Jesus being some necessary.
And I'm sure most of you already know that SUPERSTAR practically makes Judas a hero. That's how the story has evolved into the most ridiculous bit of hatefulness imaginable.
The 1961 version has much going for it, enough to rate as a great classic. It goes as far as a sane person would go in defending the demon possessed Judas, though, and that was goiing too far. Judas was not a noble cause person. He was as cruel and sadistic as today's terrorists. That's historical.
This isn't as classic as de Mille's version, but it gives much insight, and does very well to show the motivations of people like Herod and Pilate. Does Jesus get crucified at the end? If so, does he rise again? I won't spoil it.
10/10
I made a post about Jungle Fighters of 1961, which I said I flip flop back and forth from number 1 and 2 on my all time list. This is one that I flip flop from about number 10 or 11. And the film I flip flop with Jungle Fighters for number 1 is the de Mille classic THE KING OF KINGS, so we're speaking about super classics here.
This one is very much like de Mille's version, only part of the evolution process.
First, about the story. It's about this cat named Jesus, who was the son of God. Maybe you heard of him. Anyway, if you haven't, you can read the book or see the film, or both.
Actually, I feel confident enough to say that nothing could be a spoiler in this case.
Jeff Hunter plays Jesus. Robert Ryan plays John the Baptist in one of his two biggest films ever. The other one is GOD'S LITTLE ACRE. And that says a lot, because he was in many outstanding films.
Royal Dano gives Peter a quality of humility that we rarely see for Peter in films. Hurd Hatfield (tempted to name him "Hurd Hatfile Who", since he is not what you would call a big name actor) gives a very credible performance as a bored Pilate who parlays with a sort of heroic centurion played by Ron Randell, who isn't exactly a tote board name, either.
Pilate is interesting in this film, because the real Pilate obviously wanted to crucify Barabbas. And that's pretty much the politics of the story behind Jesus that gave Pilate his motivation. He didn't think much about Jesus. He just assumed the crowd was going to let him go, and Jesus would go on being a hippie. Big deal.
But Pilate definitely wanted to see Barabbas suffer a horrible extermination. When his politics on this failed, that is what he washed his hands of, or so he thought, but he wasn't acquainted with the divine Nature of what Jesus was doing.
The centurion played by Randell is an added character, and comes closest actually to a Bible character who was a simple Hebrew instead of a Roman, Nicodemius. For film purposes, the banter with Pilate was necessary to show motivation, and to not make the story of Jesus too expository. It's a common writing "trick".
Now, let me explain the "evolution" of the story. Through History, over the course of twenty centuries, the New Testament story remains intact, but popular opinion causes some variation. The spirit that drugs human brains in Nature makes them want certain things to be different.
In the case of "King of Kings", it's the character of Judas that people hate to believe in. As Jack Nicholson would tell them, "they can't handle the truth!"
The original character of Judas was one of disgust, of a devil. But people want to believe he was a motivated, caring soul. In 1927, de Mille made him much softer than he is in the Bible, with some noble intent. In 1961, director Nicholas Ray takes it even further and makes Judas even more noble, with even his betrayal of Jesus being some necessary.
And I'm sure most of you already know that SUPERSTAR practically makes Judas a hero. That's how the story has evolved into the most ridiculous bit of hatefulness imaginable.
The 1961 version has much going for it, enough to rate as a great classic. It goes as far as a sane person would go in defending the demon possessed Judas, though, and that was goiing too far. Judas was not a noble cause person. He was as cruel and sadistic as today's terrorists. That's historical.
This isn't as classic as de Mille's version, but it gives much insight, and does very well to show the motivations of people like Herod and Pilate. Does Jesus get crucified at the end? If so, does he rise again? I won't spoil it.
10/10
