Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Ronald Epstein, Feb 10, 2003.
Sorry for the typo. It's all in stereo.
In the Ultra Panavision section of the Widescreem museum - http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup5.htm , Marty says: "Mutiny on the Bounty would also have the distinction of being the last Ultra Panavision 70 film to be shown using anamorphic prints and the full 2.76:1 screen ratio."
It would be interesting to know details of the charcter Richard Johnson played in the film, before his part was cut out. His only appearance remaining in the film is at 155.30 mins where he can clearly be seen in front of a crowd when Jesus pauses to look or speak to him. He has a wealthy and imposing appearance quite unlike the other people in the crowd and clearly the scene is meant to mean something.
The lack of grain in the DVD transfer of King Of Kings could be attributed to the high-fidelity of Technirama. The Criterion of Spartacus lacks grain, does it not? The Paramount region 2 edition of Zulu was pretty much grain-free. Super Panavision films like Lawrence and My Fair Lady also look 'grain-free'. In actuality, it may just be that the grain structure on King Of Kings was very, very fine. RAH has already championed this transfer, but it would be interesting to hear a detailed commentary from Mr Harris. Maybe in the next Digital Bits column. Gordy
I saw this one day after school a few days after its opening at the EGYPTIAN. I liked it then, I really like it now. I am going to buy several copies to give as guifts. This effort was deserving much better packaging.
Thanks, Randy. I have to agree with him about the added title cards. Kind of silly...
I would reccomend King of Kings to fans of epic historical adventures, even if they aren't interested in religion. I think it should be said that, if nothing else, Jesus Christ exists as a literary/motion picture character. People enjoy watching Hamlet, Tarzan, James Bond, etc portrayed through the years by different actors so I think it should be interesting for people to watch the "character" of Jesus with the same type of fascination since he has been a major character in many grand productions over the years. Having said all of that, I think this film works because of Jeffrey Hunter (the first Star Trek captain, btw). He *is* Jesus to many of us, I think. I think the idea of Jesus is that he's a perfect man. So I think to have Jesus be startingly good looking is a good idea. Hunter is passionate (sermon on the mount is very uplifting) and he never gets upset or acts mean. I think filmakers run into a problem when they attempt a more realistic Jesus Christ. I think this was the main problem with Martin Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ. From a thematic standpoint, Jesus is just too out of character. It's a really simple story, and it's campy at times, but it works because the central character works. I think it's very effective when the camera closes in on Hunters calm face and bright blue eyes, and the great score (think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)swells around you. I for one, am in reverence.
Watching this movie, I was surprised how much of it really isn't about Jesus at all. It's a full hour into the movie before Jesus is an adult and beginning his ministry. And almost all of the other characters and their stories are fictional to the extent that we know about them. Pilate's wife being the daughter of the emperor Tiberius? As I said, fictional characters play a lot in this movie. I do think Jeffrey Hunter is very credible, even with auburn hair and blue eyes. There is some speculation that Mary was raped as a young girl by a Roman soldier, perhaps as she lay unconscious, and this might account for her understanding of a virginal pregnancy, and also Jesus's fair complexion. (Joseph was not Jesus's father, in any case). I don't mean to start a religious debate, but I did find this theory about Mary worthwhile. It's just a theory, obviously.
Jesus' "fair complexion" is something created by western European artists who envisioned a savior who looked like they do. That historical mis-representation continues in films like this one (not being critical of the film...just pointing out that the pictures of a white-skinned/blue-eyed Jesus that you see hanging in religeous shops and in movies is a mythical representation, not a historically accurate one). -dave
Of course, there is no "historical" look to Jesus at all. The gospels were not biographies, but religous tracts meant to convert, written decades after the crucifixion. The gospels actually came after the letters of Paul. It's just as plausible that Jesus was fair than any other choice.
yes...we've had it wrong all these years...he was actually a blue-eyed *blonde*
The 1962 Mutiny on the Bounty in the works? Cool.
QUOTE]Johnson played the part of a Judean aristocrat who is compelled to follow Jesus. The film was already too long so his part ended up on the cutting room floor. This info is from the book DIVINE IMAGES: A HISTORY OF JESUS ON THE SCREEN by Roy Kinnard and Tim Davis. [/quote] According to other sources Richard Johnson played the character of David, not a follower of Jesus, but a financial supporter of Barabbas and a dissatisfied Judean aristocrat. After it was decided to write him out, some of Johnson's scenes with Barabbas had to be rewritten and reshot with Rip Torn's Judas. Apparently the character is retained in the novelisation of the film.
"I don't mean to start a religious debate, but I did find this theory about Mary worthwhile. It's just a theory, obviously." Since this "theory" has nothing to do with the movie, why is it even mentioned at all? You have to admit that for those of us who would have a few choice things to say about such a "theory", since it is deeply offensive to millions of practicing Christians, are hamstrung by the fact that if we did, we'd end up causing the thread to be closed.
Re: "... since it is deeply offensive to millions of practicing Christians" What about the millions of practicing athiests? Are their "feelings" not to be taken into account when the idea of virgins giving birth is ludicrous to them? Or are their "feelings" of no concern because they don't buy into the accepted dogma? Not trying to be controversial, just playing the devil's advocate and getting a level playing field.