"The Greatest Story Ever Told" was one of two Hollywood epics from the sixties about the life of Christ, the other being "King of Kings" from 1961. The story is, of course, one of the most familiar ever told, although there are one or two curious discrepancies from the Biblical account. The identification of Mary Magdalene with the anonymous "woman taken in adultery" may be based upon Christian tradition, if not upon the Gospels, but there is no such tradition which makes James the Just the brother of St Matthew, and none which identifies Lazarus with the "rich young man" who was unwilling to sell all he had and give the money to the poor. In this version there is no mention of Herod executing John the Baptist to fulfil a promise made to Salome; Herod makes that decision on his own account.
Work began on the script as early as 1958, but the shooting was not completed until 1963 and the finished film was not released until 1965. In the interim the original studio, 20th Century Fox, had withdrawn from the project after discovering that director George Stevens had managed to spend over $2 million without shooting any footage being shot; the film was then taken up by United Artists. Those seven years had seen a remarkable rise and fall of the epic genre. In 1958, the year in which "Ben-Hur" had proved such a huge financial and critical success, the future of the Biblical-Classical epic seemed assured. By 1965, following the failures of "Cleopatra" and "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the genre seemed moribund. The times they were a-changing, and a massive Christian epic no longer seemed in keeping with those times. When "The Greatest Story..." was released, its critical reception was mixed and commercially it was a failure. It was frequently criticised for being overlong and slow-moving.
Similar criticisms were made about other epics from the period, including "King of Kings" which was mocked as "I Was a Teenage Jesus". Today, however, we can see the strengths of something like "King of Kings". Yes, it departs from the Biblical account of Christ's life, perhaps even more than "The Greatest Story..." does, but it does so in order to produce a coherent narrative and to place the Gospel story in its political and historical context. With "The Greatest Story...", I'm afraid, many of the criticisms made of it still seem justified. Stevens's original cut weighed in at a massive 4 hours 20 minutes and might have been titled "The Longest Story Ever Told". I have never seen this version, and would have little wish to do so; the 3 hour 17 minute version shown in British cinemas is quite long enough for me. (The version finally released in America had been cut down to a more manageable 2 hours 17 minutes). It is not only long, it is also long-winded, telling its story at excessive length and at a glacial pace.
Another criticism sometimes made is that the film is excessively reverential. At first sight, this criticism seems difficult to understand; surely a film about the life of Christ, a story which Christians regard as lying at the heart of their faith, needs to be reverent. There is, however, a difference between reverence and solemnity, a difference which Stevens and his scriptwriters do not appear to have appreciated. It certainly was not appreciated by Max von Sydow in the role of Jesus. Stevens apparently took the decision to cast von Sydow, a Swedish actor who had not previously appeared in any English-language movies, because he did not want audiences to be distracted by the secular associations which any established Hollywood star would bring with him.
This, however, proved a mistake. Christian doctrine tells us that Christ was wholly God and wholly man. Von Sydow gives us a Christ who barely seems human at all. He is not someone one could ever imaging weeping, or laughing, a feeling any human emotion. Even when he drives the money-changers out of the temple his demeanour does not show the anger implied by his actions. His main function appears to be to deliver portentous, oracular statements in a sonorous but emotionless voice, while all the time keeping a stony face. Wholly God and wholly megaphone. As one hostile critic wrote: "God is unlucky in The Greatest Story Ever Told. His only begotten son turns out to be a bore". Jeffrey Hunter was far better in "King of Kings".
The excessive solemnity is also shown by the loud and intrusive musical score. At such profound moments as the Raising of Lazarus or the Resurrection the very nature of what is happening should be enough in itself to create a sense of awe. We do not need the choirs supernal belting out Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" at full volume to tell us "Look! Something special is happening!"
There are better things about the film. The photography is often good, although there was some criticism at the time of the decision to film on location in the American West rather than Israel. There are some decent performances, from Charlton Heston as John the Baptist, José Ferrer as Herod Antipas and even Telly Savalas as a thuggish Pontius Pilate. Overall, however, I think that "The Greatest Story Ever Told" must rank as a failure.
According to one legend, Stevens was dissatisfied with the way in which John Wayne, playing the centurion, was delivering his only line, "Truly this man was the Son of God". "No, no, Mr Wayne! Say it with awe!"
"Aww, truly this man was the Son of God".
The story is doubtless apocryphal, but for me it sums up what is wrong with the film. Not enough genuine awe. Too much "aww". 5/10
Work began on the script as early as 1958, but the shooting was not completed until 1963 and the finished film was not released until 1965. In the interim the original studio, 20th Century Fox, had withdrawn from the project after discovering that director George Stevens had managed to spend over $2 million without shooting any footage being shot; the film was then taken up by United Artists. Those seven years had seen a remarkable rise and fall of the epic genre. In 1958, the year in which "Ben-Hur" had proved such a huge financial and critical success, the future of the Biblical-Classical epic seemed assured. By 1965, following the failures of "Cleopatra" and "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the genre seemed moribund. The times they were a-changing, and a massive Christian epic no longer seemed in keeping with those times. When "The Greatest Story..." was released, its critical reception was mixed and commercially it was a failure. It was frequently criticised for being overlong and slow-moving.
Similar criticisms were made about other epics from the period, including "King of Kings" which was mocked as "I Was a Teenage Jesus". Today, however, we can see the strengths of something like "King of Kings". Yes, it departs from the Biblical account of Christ's life, perhaps even more than "The Greatest Story..." does, but it does so in order to produce a coherent narrative and to place the Gospel story in its political and historical context. With "The Greatest Story...", I'm afraid, many of the criticisms made of it still seem justified. Stevens's original cut weighed in at a massive 4 hours 20 minutes and might have been titled "The Longest Story Ever Told". I have never seen this version, and would have little wish to do so; the 3 hour 17 minute version shown in British cinemas is quite long enough for me. (The version finally released in America had been cut down to a more manageable 2 hours 17 minutes). It is not only long, it is also long-winded, telling its story at excessive length and at a glacial pace.
Another criticism sometimes made is that the film is excessively reverential. At first sight, this criticism seems difficult to understand; surely a film about the life of Christ, a story which Christians regard as lying at the heart of their faith, needs to be reverent. There is, however, a difference between reverence and solemnity, a difference which Stevens and his scriptwriters do not appear to have appreciated. It certainly was not appreciated by Max von Sydow in the role of Jesus. Stevens apparently took the decision to cast von Sydow, a Swedish actor who had not previously appeared in any English-language movies, because he did not want audiences to be distracted by the secular associations which any established Hollywood star would bring with him.
This, however, proved a mistake. Christian doctrine tells us that Christ was wholly God and wholly man. Von Sydow gives us a Christ who barely seems human at all. He is not someone one could ever imaging weeping, or laughing, a feeling any human emotion. Even when he drives the money-changers out of the temple his demeanour does not show the anger implied by his actions. His main function appears to be to deliver portentous, oracular statements in a sonorous but emotionless voice, while all the time keeping a stony face. Wholly God and wholly megaphone. As one hostile critic wrote: "God is unlucky in The Greatest Story Ever Told. His only begotten son turns out to be a bore". Jeffrey Hunter was far better in "King of Kings".
The excessive solemnity is also shown by the loud and intrusive musical score. At such profound moments as the Raising of Lazarus or the Resurrection the very nature of what is happening should be enough in itself to create a sense of awe. We do not need the choirs supernal belting out Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" at full volume to tell us "Look! Something special is happening!"
There are better things about the film. The photography is often good, although there was some criticism at the time of the decision to film on location in the American West rather than Israel. There are some decent performances, from Charlton Heston as John the Baptist, José Ferrer as Herod Antipas and even Telly Savalas as a thuggish Pontius Pilate. Overall, however, I think that "The Greatest Story Ever Told" must rank as a failure.
According to one legend, Stevens was dissatisfied with the way in which John Wayne, playing the centurion, was delivering his only line, "Truly this man was the Son of God". "No, no, Mr Wayne! Say it with awe!"
"Aww, truly this man was the Son of God".
The story is doubtless apocryphal, but for me it sums up what is wrong with the film. Not enough genuine awe. Too much "aww". 5/10