| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
From the Manger to the Cross
From the Manger to the Cross is the first full-length feature film about the life of Christ, made in 1912. Simply because of this fact, it is an important landmark in cinematic history. Earlier films focused on certain scenes from Christ's life (such as The Life and Passion of Christ, made in 1905), but this was the first cinematic experience to place it in a narrative structure, telling a complete story instead of merely depicting selected scenes. In addition, it was also the first American feature film, and it utilized lighting techniques and special effects (such as Jesus walking on water) that would be very influential for later filmmakers. Indeed, there is no denying that From the Manger to the Cross is an important film. There is also no denying that it has not aged well. Though this film was the first American feature to have a chronological narrative that told a complete story, the art of the camera had clearly not yet been perfected. All of the reading cards contain verses from one of the four Gospels, which set the scene that we will see next. In those scenes, the camera never moves, but simply watches the proceedings from the distance of full-shots, from which we can see the entire bodies of all of the included characters. We never follow anyone; people merely walk on and off of camera. We are never given any close-ups or reaction shots. These scenes exist in single takes, and they are only broken by the reading cards, which shuffle us along to the next scene. For most of the movie, the screen is crowded, and we never get a close-up of anyone's face, and there is absolutely no character development given. Characters simply exist to look divine or threatening, depending on their role. Christ himself seems based on the stereotypical characterization of him in most traditional churches--divine and stale. It is therefore difficult to discuss the acting--everyone is so far away and out of focus, we can't tell how effective the performances are. Because of the simplicity of its technique and its limited storytelling abilities, the film never comes to life, and it lacks the excitement and power of the Gospels from which it is based. There are also problems with the pacing. Because the film jumps from scene to scene in Jesus' life without filling in much of the details of the story with additional dialogue or explanation, From the Manger to the Cross seems more like Highlights from the Life of Christ or, even worse, Jesus for Dummies. So bare-boned is the plot that unless we have an extensive understanding of Christ's life, then we will be lost as to what's happening on screen. Why are the Pharisees threatened by Christ? Why is Rome? What did Christ teach at the temple? What was the significance of the Lord's Supper? None of this is explained. In the words of Roger Ebert (and I realize that I quote him a lot, but hey—he is Roger Ebert), “Great movies remain themselves over the generations; they retain a serene sense of their own identity. Lesser movies are captives of their time. They get dated and lose their original focus and power.” This concept applies to From the Manger to the Cross, a film that is in the latter category. I understand that most people in 1912 were probably more familiar with the life of Christ than the average viewer today. Therefore, they didn't need his life explained to them, and this film was simply a way for them to see a visual representation of his life. This is all well and good, but modern viewers will probably prefer a film with more meat on its bones, and while the reading card structure was revolutionary at the time, today they are only monotonous. Besides, I'm willing to be that in 1912, the film still lacked depth to the average moviegoer; people were simply so amazed to see Jesus walking around in front of them that they probably didn't not notice. Still, there are moments of power here that cannot be denied. The scene in which the woman washes Christ's feet at the home of the Pharisees packs some power, as it shows the tender nature of Christ towards sinners. Miracles, such as the raising of Lazarus and the healing of the blind man, are also charming in their simplicity. The film's use of special effects are also worthy of mention: The moment in which Jesus walks across the scene has no payoff and looks silly today, but we cannot deny that it must have seemed spectacular to audience members of 1912. Also note the lighting of the film, and the sharp lighting contrast between the villains (who have darker lighting) and Christ (who is shown in brighter lights). Here, for the first time in cinematic history, actors aren't simply placed in front of the camera, but filmmaking techniques are being employed behind the camera in order to tell the story. Such techniques would go on to influence early directors such as D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille, who would later make their own superior film versions of Christ's life. These
bright spots should be interesting for film historians, and From
the Cross to the Manger is a film that they should certainly
see. It has recently been added for the National Film Registry
list, a position that it deserves for its contribution to cinematic
techniques that other filmmakers later perfected. Nevertheless,
today it seems outdated, bland, and, as far as definitive versions
of Christ's life goes, pretty forgettable.
A Warner Brothers Production.
Directed by Sidney Olcott. Written by Gene Gauntier, from the
Gospels. No M.P.A.A. rating (fine for kids, except for a quick,
semi-brutal scourging scene). Running time: 71 minutes. Original
United States theatrical release date: October 17, 1912. Silent,
with English reading cards. Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com |
||
