Barabbas

Pontius Pilate asks the people of Jerusalem whom they want freed, Jesus Of Nazareth or Barrabas?, the former has been tagged as a King of the Jewish people, the latter a thief and a murderer, they choose Barrabas.

This is a pure work of fiction based around the 1950 Pär Lagerkvist novel of the same name. It has basically taken a passage in the New Testament and extended it to ask what became of the man who was freed instead of Christ? We open of course with the people choosing Barrabas, and the subsequent Crucifixion of Christ that is now scripture legend. This event doesn't at first seem to bother Barrabas, but as the story progresses it becomes clear that he himself has his own cross to bear. We follow him as he witnesses a barbaric stoning of someone close to him, this turns him bitter and a return to a life of crime is his only response. Once again arrested, he is sent to work in the sulphur mines, here he ages fast and hangs on desperately to his life and sanity. He forms a friendship with a fellow inmate and after both men get sent to gladiator school, he finds that the faith surrounding Christ looms large and bright in his life story.

Richard Fleischer directs, producer is Dino De Laurentus, Anthony Quinn takes the role of Barrabas, and Jack Palance and Ernest Borgnine add weight to the acting roll call. There is some very good work to be sampled here, Quinn manages to put a bit of sincerity into the lead role; for as Barrabas' perspective alters, Quinn convinces with a nice show of depth. Palance is decently nasty as Torvald, and although Ernest Borgnine is wasted as Lucius, he does however leave a very decent impression due to a good show of acting restraint. There are some lovely shots here as well, particularly around the sulphur mines sequences, whilst both the sets and costumes are suitably on the money.

Barrabas is a film that is rarely mentioned when talk of biblical epics arises, and the small amount of user comments here suggests it's largely forgotten. That's a shame because it holds up considerably better than the likes of The Robe. 7/10

How incredibly appropriate if not downright eerie that the sun should turn on a full eclipse during the filming of BARABBAS that was captured by the Technirama 70 cameras for the crucifixion scene.

Arguably the "forgotten epic" when talk of the 60's blockbusters brings inevitably mention of BEN HUR, KING OF KINGS, FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, SPARTACUS, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, GENGHIS KHAN, CLEOPATRA, SODOM AND GOMORRAH, etc. Many see in this film an individual depth and emotion, lacking in other such works. Quinn in fact brings (despite the poetic license taken with historical confirmation) to Barabbas, a portrayal of a man tortured by his past, his reason to still be alive and his destiny. From the claustrophobic escape from the sulphur mines to his gladiatorial deeds in the arena, Barrabas is a driven man of open-ended religious conviction. He embraces Christianity but does he understand it? He saw Christ die in his place and lived his life to find out why!

Palance whose face has been his career, was the ONLY choice as Torvald the head gladiator who lives only to kill! It was one of his best ever roles.

I saw this film in London at its premiere in 1962. It received luke-warm critical reception at the time but had a successful run in the West End of some six months or so. Has had far less screening on television and cable than other epics of its ilk which is a pity as it had a lot to offer the discriminating viewer.

In one of the first scenes Barabbas steps out of his dark prison cell to find the peculiar glinting figure of the man who's going to take his place on the cross and rubbing his eyes says he's not used to the light.

So here we have both facets that make this interesting. It is, more so than Ben Hur and perhaps even Spartacus, less grand in the cinematic brushstroke but more troubled and honestly so about the spiritual picture it paints, more human.

It starts with what we know as a spiritual narrative, Pilates' trial of Jesus, but approaches it in the historic light. It follows only the last legs of that narrative from the crucifixion on but does so through Barabbas' questioning eyes. We assume divinity because it's that story but the body could have been stolen, the eclipse natural; it all might just be a story about god.

The spiritual question that looms is why doesn't god make himself plain? If this is a spiritual narrative as the newly devout insist throughout, why is it so hard to discern its truth?

Barabbas finds it hard to believe so returns to his banditry which opens up a cycle of sinking deeper into a life of meaningless toil and punishment, seen most clearly in the sulphur mines where each subsequent year the slaves are lowered to a deeper level as their eyes become accustomed to the dark, again eyes tied to light.

It isn't so just for him of course, Christians suffer next to him so what difference does it make, faith or god?

There's a scene where a Christian lectures gladiators that their pagan gods are fictions that will be sure to amuse modern viewers. But this was the powerful reality of early Christianity, the only time it truly mattered. Christians could point to a specific time and place where god appeared as part of history, I can only imagine the invigorating urgency. It had all become clear, linear. They did joyfully expect to see his return within their lifetime.

There is something powerful to be gleaned here; life isn't any better for the believers than Barabbas, the whole difference has nothing to do with the material facts, it's all about the light in which you choose to see. The tragic irony is that when Barabbas chooses to believe it is only out of guilt, a madness that is the fire he sets to things (this is during Nero's fire) that is his belief that the anticipated return would be fiery like this.

So forget that it's a religious spectacle we watch during Lent and carries that form, this is more erudite than usual and deserves to be seen next to Stromboli about the difficulties of faith.

I've often wondered at times from a literary as well as religious point of view what happens to some of the peripheral cast of characters in the Scripture. I'm sure that's a question that more than a few have pondered on, whether they are believers or not.

Case in point is Barabbas. All we know about him is that he was the guy that the mob shouted for when offered a choice between pardoning him or Jesus of Nazareth. Some tradition has him as a common bandit, others have him as a rebel against Rome.

As played by Anthony Quinn, Barabbas is a troubled soul. As the message of Jesus of Nazareth spreads, Barabbas is unsure of what his role is. He's realized he's been a participant in something historic to say the least. But people treat him differently. The early Christians view him with some resentment. To Pontius Pilate, played by Arthur Kennedy, Barabbas is still a no good bandit. Of course Barabbas gets himself arrested again and begins his odyssey.

The movie is an adaption of a novel by Swedish Pulitzer Prize Winning writer Par Lagerkvist and a Swedish film adaption had already been filmed prior to this international cast epic. Might be interesting to view it side by side with this one. I'm sure the Swedish film didn't have half the budget this one did.

The movie fuzzes certain issues as films of this type generally do. Pacifism is a tenet of the early Christian faith of those hiding in the catacombs. Turning the other cheek is a big thing. But Anthony Quinn isn't a Christian so his modus operandi isn't exactly turning the other cheek.

Some top flight professionals are in this cast. The aforementioned Arthur Kennedy as Pilate, Silvana Mangano as Barabbas's girl friend who becomes an early convert, Vittorio Gassman as Sahek who is Barabbas's martyred Christian friend and most of all Jack Palance in a scene stealing performance as the top gladiator in Rome. You should watch this film for him alone.

The message the film tries to convey is that Barabbas in and of himself wasn't important. Jesus's life and death were pre-ordained and it could have been Barabbas or any of hundreds of others who could have been where he was.

But the way certain folks enter into biblical stories does give writers a whole lot of license to construct wholly fictional lives around them. This is as good a film as any for that purpose.

Fascinating because it is based on a Nobel Prize winning novel and the film's most popular slice is the gladiator segment, which I am told was never a part of the novel! That's Hollywood. It is also the sequence that presents the arch villain of Hollywood, Jack Palance at his evil best.

I have not read the novel and I have not seen the earlier Swedish film by director Alf Sjoberg--both are great works, I believe.

What is great about Fleischer's "Barabbas"? The casting is accidentally superb--Yul Brynner was to play the Quinn part initially. And this is arguably Quinn's best work. So is the case of Sylvano Mangano, again the most memorable work of hers. Jack Palance, Arthur Kennedy and Ernest Borgnine are fascinating. Ms Mangano's brother plays the cameo of Jesus.

For the religious, the eclipse during the crucifiction of Christ was real, not a studio trick. At the same time one needs to know that director Fleischer had planned it in advance. It was not a "miracle" at all.

Starting from the amazing low-angle opening shot of the film, the film has very creditable photography. The cinematographer is Aldo Tonti who gave us the lovely images in Fellini's classic "Night of Cabiria" (1957).

For me, "Barabbas" is the best Biblical and the best sword-and-sandals work Hollywood and Cinecitta ever made. A miracle by itself, not just the mere work of a great novelist! A great subject to meditate on--darkness versus light, thanks to the author of the Nobel-Prize winning novel.