In His Steps

"In His Steps," is based on the 1896 novel of the same name by Charles M. Sheldon. I have not read the book, although I certainly intend to after seeing this film, so I cannot say how faithfully it follows.

The premise of the film is the inspiration of the origination of the popular modern day question, "What would Jesus do?" It follows a group of Christians, including an aspiring actress and a newspaper publisher as the main characters that accept their pastor's challenge to seek a deeper relationship with Christ, and ask themselves, "Is there more to Christianity than faithfully attending church and being a good person?" I would be giving nothing away in the film by telling of this group's discoveries to the faithful few that already know, but I want to ensure my review is not omitted due to "spoilers."

Concerning film quality, it's not bad for 1964, and although I do not know this for fact, I would venture to say that it was funded and produced by a church group, because I just can't see Hollywood doing it, given the depth of the subject matter.

"In His Steps," falls short of a perfect rating because I felt there could have been much more depth to the characters, and how their renewed commitment to Christ affected their lives and those around them (the film's run time is only 1 hour and 13 minutes). Also, while it did not affect my rating, I feel the story presented in the film desperately needs to be updated to present day, but the message is still there, powerful and true.

The film's key verse: "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in his steps." 1 Peter 2:21.

I was disappointed with this film. The acting was stilted at best, but my real beef concerns the content.

While it loosely followed the book of the same title, it was not true to the book in several ways. Most important is that it didn't once use the phrase "What would Jesus do?". The book uses this phrase as a practical way to follow in Jesus steps. The film was just a nice story without any real practical application. It changed the impetus from following in His steps to "getting religion". I believe the book's intentions were to spur Christians on to developing a closer Spiritual walk with their Savior. The film seems to miss the point.

3 Observations on this genuinely humble, low-budget 1964 movie: first, the three small-town leads being aspiring actress Rachel Paige (Cheryl Lee Morrison), newspaper editor Ed Norman (Harry Elders) and Pastor Maxwell (Russ Reed) are especially under-stated, well-written performances. It is evident why Rachel and Ed choose not to postpone decisions regarding eternity until later after the opening scene in church. Their decisions to spiritually grow and mature into true believers are in sharp contrast to some relatives and co-workers who aren't giving any thought to the reality that their sins need to be forgiven. Second, the location shooting captures a tangible feel for the local community in which the stories play out. This enhances the movie. Third, the low-key subtle acting not only conveys Rachel and Ed's decision to clear their lives of the debt of guilt before Jesus Christ and receive forgiveness by faith in His finished work of redemption at the Cross of Calvary; but, also their determination to share this Good News with others in need of a new life with the Savior that honors Him.