La vie du Christ

This 1906 film is an epic for its time, although nowadays it will seem stunted. Bear in mind that 1906 was very very early in the film era. From that time there are few films of note. "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) from Georges Melies and "The Great Train Robbery" (1903) from Edwin Porter are the exceptions. A little later William S Hart made "Ben Hur" (1907) and D.W.Griffith made "In Old California" (1910), but it wasn't until "Birth of a Nation" (1915) that we have something of similar scope.

The film is a series of brief plays, with a single camera recording the action from medium to long shots. If you didn't know the story it would be hard to follow, but who doesn't know the story?

The film will be of interest to film scholars as an early epic. Otherwise there isn't much to recommend it. That being said, for 1906 it is very impressive.

You have to give this film credit for having been made in 1906, and it seems to me it was one of the earliest epics, predating D.W. Griffith by almost a decade in big productions. Director Alice Guy-Blaché had beautiful sets crafted, a very large cast, and delivered some nice special effects via double exposures. By far the most impressive shot is when the dead Christ rises from the sepulcher, done apparently by slowly dropping the camera on the superimposed image, with an effect that is ethereal and miraculous. The indoor stage scenes feature pretty arches and action over a wide area (and depth of field), and the outdoor scenes of Christ carrying the cross include a panning shot.

Unfortunately, despite all of these notable achievements, the film was not very interesting to me. With a single exception, the entire story is told with long shots, which severely limits the actors and feeling the emotions of the moment. It's as if we're in the 30th row at the theater and looking at a stage play, one with no dialogue or intertitle equivalents, and a static view. The selected 25 scenes from Christ's life are introduced and rather dryly marched past us one by one, each taking about a minute. And even worse, the chosen scenes miss the most profound and moving aspects of Christ's teachings, e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, his advocating pacifism and nonviolence, his views on forgiveness, loving one's enemies, and fighting for the poor. This is the meat of the story of Christ, and instead we're given the bare bones of events, which seems to me to be missing the point entirely. This would have been much better had some of that been included, but instead it takes the safe, dogmatic path, which is where I was most disappointed. Guy-Blaché was not simply the first woman director, she was an innovative pioneer, so for film historians it wouldn't be a bad idea to check this one out though.

While this film will look extremely primitive to viewers today, for 1906 it was absolutely amazing. The life of Christ is told in a very archaic form, though the production values (for 1906) are shockingly good and quite expensive. It must have taken a lot of work to produce the film--with so many costumes, sets and live animals. When compared to the average film of the day, this is an incredibly complex film. And, at 33 minutes, it's a very, very long movie for the day. And, compared to the wonderful film of the director's countryman, Georges Méliès, the backgrounds were MUCH higher quality and construction--not just painted curtains. I was particularly impressed with Jesus' rising to Heaven near the end--very impressively done.

The biggest shortcoming, and I don't blame the director (Alice Guy) is the format. Instead of a typical narrative they would have used decades later, slides appear that tell what the next portion of Christ's life is and then you see some actors replicate the scene very briefly. It's tough going today, but it had to absolutely wow audiences at the time it was made.

For film historians, this is a must-see. Most non-film historians could probably pass on this one.

It is exactly the title. It's a French film from Gaumont. It's the Passion Play. The production is pretty large. It's shot like a play. There are no close-ups. It's entirely medium shots framing the entire production. The camera rarely moves except the oscillation from presumably the constant cranking. There is one scene where the camera actually panned across. It was exhilarating. There are a couple of rudimentary in-camera effects done in the editing. At the end of the day, this is an interesting early film that satisfied the need for Christian films. The production is grand for its time. It is a well-made blockbuster of its day.

We're at 1906 now and once again in France for another of Alice Guy's works. Here, she's trying to depict the life of Jesus Christ from birth to resurrection after death. So the thing is divided into segments throughout his life. The camera is stationary for each segment with the exception of when it goes on location on some hills when it moves from one part of a terrain to another. There are also some neat dissolves involving angels, dreams, and the last scene. There were no intertitle cards but if you know the story of Jesus you should have no trouble understanding what's going on even though there's nothing that I would consider violent being depicted considering what happens during the narrative. This was mostly interesting stuff to watch so on that note, I recommend The Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ for anyone interested in movie history.