Die größte Geschichte aller Zeiten

On 9/18/00 I received a letter from George Stevens, Jr., replying to my earlier letter to him encouraging his support of his father's four-hour, "uncut," version of "The Greatest Story Ever Told" preparing for dvd. I had suggested in my letter that the original version was undoubtedly his father's artistic vision and thus was the one worthy of preservation for dvd.

Stevens, Jr. responded, in part, " . . . the dvd of 'The Greatest Story Even Told' is underway and MGM-UA has found the original negative of the four-hour version of the film.

There has been a good deal of confusion about the 'official' version of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told.' In recent years I became satisfied that the 3 hour and 20 minute version was the one that my father considered his picture. That came as a result of conversations with Toni Vellani, who worked with my father and has since passed on, and others.

My father, according to Toni, rushed the film for its first two premieres and immediately, at his own initiative, started trimming it to the 3:15 version. He was pleased with this cut. . . .

There was a later shorter version that my father authorized UA to make in an effort to recoup some money -- and that version which ran under 3 hours is of no value at all.

Frankly, I will be interested to see what the additional 40 minutes represents in the long version because, over the years, I've been familiar with the version that runs approximately 3:15. . . ."

This generous explanation from Mr. Stevens, Jr. certainly reveals the intracacies of the purely artistic process as balanced with the business aspect. It also makes one aware that the assumption that the "cut" version was not the preference or the adequate representation of the director, may be inaccurate. In any event at this point, the four-hour dvd version of "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is most eagerly awaited.

When first released George Stevens's version of the Gospel was dismissed as too long, too reverential, too soon after the sound version of The King of Kings was released, and too many stars in the cast taking one's attention from the story.

Too some degree that is true, but being a stargazer myself I'll never find fault with a film for that. And who knew in 1965 that we would get The Last Temptation of Christ and the Passion of the Christ in our future. George Stevens's film is looking pretty good now.

No doubt about the presence of a whole lot of movie names helped bring in the bucks. But with one glaring exception you do pay attention to the roles, not who's playing them. Some parts are pretty substantial. Charlton Heston as John the Baptist has the longest amount of screen time other than Von Sydow. Also given a large amount of time is Jose Ferrer as Herod Antipas, Telly Savalas as Pontius Pilate, Dorothy McGuire as the Virgin Mary and Donald Pleasance as the Prince of Darkness.

The personification of the Devil is something Mel Gibson borrowed for his film. Personally I think Donald Pleasance is quite a bit better than what Gibson did.

Other stars had smaller roles. Sidney Poitier played a silent part as Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus with his cross on the way to Calvary. You could not have gotten away with an all white cast in a film like this by 1965. A whole group of players from previous Stevens films got some bit parts and more like Van Heflin, Shelley Winters, Sal Mineo, and Ed Wynn.

One star Joseph Schildkraut had the rare distinction of playing in both Cecil B. DeMille's silent King of Kings and this film. Schildkraut played Judas for DeMille and is seen as Nicodemus here. This was Schildkraut's last film. An interesting double distinction for a man who came from a prominent Jewish theatrical family.

One big glaring error though. Stevens should never have cast John Wayne as the Roman Centurion who supervising the crucifixion. Wayne is seen in passing through out the journey to Calvary, but with no dialog. At the moment of Jesus's death with the drama unfolding it was just wrong to have that recognizable a voice utter, "truly that man was the son of God." Instead of concentrating on the story the audience gets distracted and in the theaters the whispers went up with 'ooh, that's John Wayne.'

Arizona served as the location for ancient Judea. Unlike DeMille in The Ten Commandments, Stevens concentrated on the beauty of the location as opposed to filling the screen with people. It got filled enough with the story. You might recognize the Grand Canyon as the backdrop for the sermon on the mount scene. Of course Handel's Messiah is almost obligatory for these films and it's done well here.

One scene that you will not forget comes at the end of the first act, the raising of Lazarus who is played by Michael Tolan. His sisters, Mary and Martha, are played by Ina Balin and Janet Margolin. They had shown Jesus and the disciples hospitality earlier. When Lazarus is taken ill, Mary and Margaret, go after Jesus to bring him back. It is too late, Lazarus has died and he's in his tomb. Or so everyone thinks. The sparse dialog, the photography, and the background music are so well done at this point the most hard hearted nonbeliever will pause.

Of course most of the name players in The Greatest Story Ever Told are no longer with us so the cameos don't mean as much today. It is probably better in that an audience of today can concentrate on the story without even the most minimal interference of recognition. And they can concentrate on the story without either alternate realities as in The Last Temptation of Christ or all the gore and violence of Mel Gibson's epic. Definitely worth a look by today's contemporary audience.

As someone who had read the Bible and knows what goes where, I am easily critical of too-Liberal Biblical movies, which is usually the case....except for the last 40-some years when hardly any films were made on this subject at all.

My point is that this film gets toasted a lot, even by Christians, and I think unfairly. Yes, I became a bit annoyed the first few viewings when I would hear Jesus' speeches way out of order, or a few other things that really weren't 100 percent on the mark....or it just simply dragged.

However, after a long absence and my first look at this on the ultra widescreen (2.75:1) DVD, I was impressed. For instance, the scene with the Last Supper shows everyone at the table, which is impossible to do in a formatted-to-TV mode. There are other similar panoramic shots that are very impressive. gave me a new appreciate of the work director George Stevens did here. Of course, he was one of the best in his profession so it's no surprise this is nicely filmed.

Upon that recent viewing, I was please that none of Jesus' quotes are inaccurate and I have never had a problem with Max Von Sydow's portrayal of Christ. He had a penetrating eyes and spoke his lines with authority. Why he, too, gets bashed by a few people is unfair. He was just fine.

It's a sanitized message, nothing that "preachy" to turn off the unchurched, but I do think it was a bit too slow to go three hours and 20 minutes. In this case, lopping off 15-30 minutes might have helped. It's still worth viewing, no matter what your "religious" views.

One of films real special. For cast, off course, but, more important, for a fist of performances. Charlton Heston,Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas are the good examples. Sure, the provocation is the option for Max von Sydow for the role of The Savior. It is not easy to say if the choice was a happy one, but his work is so special than you see it as reasonable choice. The scenes of the death and resurrection of Lazarus are, for me, the axis to remind this film. Like the cinematography andthe opportunity to see Grand Canyon in different perspective.A generous film and good alternative, today, to Zeffirelli and Gibson films about Christ. Because it remains a sort of exploration , honest, wise and precise of the great story root of our civilisation.

An often under-rated attempt at the life of Christ, George Stevens' modestly titled epic was long, beautifully photographed and more than a little deferential to our saviour but it managed to keep my interest. Most of the film's critics believe the incessant cameos ruin it - though I think the brash, mainly American contingent make quite an accurate portrayal of humanity opposite serene Swede Max von Sydow. And it is to Him the film belongs. His first english-language film & one he admits isn't a masterpiece is notable for a performance from a man who played Jesus as a man and not as a God. Whatever, he was so good he almost converted this hardened atheist.