All right then! One of the most important things for any movie is its budget versus its box office. In other words, how much did it cost to make and was that amount recouped, or, as would be highly expected, seriously exceeded on its release? Let’s see.
(For handiness’ and laziness’ sake I’m referring to each movie by a single letter. See if you can guess which is which!)
G: Budget 21 million, Box office 15 million. (Naturally these are estimates, and if they’re wrong blame Wiki…)
K: Budget 5 mill, Box office 13 million.
Now on the face of it it would seem that K made less than G, but on the other hand, taken as a percentage of its final costs, K came close to tripling its budget, so definitely made money, whereas G failed to even make its budget, coming in with a definite, and quite substantial loss, almost twenty-five percent in fact. So on pure figures for its return, and indeed on its initial budget too, K did better, costing less to make and earning more in the long run. Though both movies were considered commercial failures, one failed at a cheaper rate than the other. So
King of Kings wins this easily.
Scores
G 3/10
K: 8/10 (It wasn’t a blockbuster success, which is why I’ve given it a less than perfect score)
Next up, length of movie. Now, this can be a good or a bad thing. Long movies can pack more story in, or they can just get boring and feel long-drawn out. But when you’re dealing with a Biblical movie I think you really work with the maxim “the longer the better”, as long as there’s enough there to keep your interest. Though G dragged in places, overall it was relatively well-paced and didn’t seem too overlong. It’s certainly longer than K. Here are the stats.
G: 240 mins (original) down to an eventual 137 mins for the US release, with the one I watched being a total of 200 minutes.
K: 168 minutes
There’s no contest. Though K filled its brief well for its overall shorter length - longer than the eventual US release though - the original cut of G has over fifty minutes on it, so it’s a clear winner for G.
G: 9/10 (Only awarded less than top score due to the different lengths, and the fact that it dragged a little in places)
K: 6/10
In terms of being “first to the post”, ie the first major Biblical film to hit the screens since the thirties, and therefore essentially the first “real” movie about Jesus, George Stevens’ faffing about and eternal procrastination, along with his perfectionist nature and a ballooning budget that saw his original backers walk away from the deal allowed his rival to get in a full four years before his film saw the light of day, so it’s not even close.
G: Released 1965 - 4/10
K: Released 1961 - 9/10 (Again, not top score because it was not the first EVER movie about Jesus, but close)
And now we come to the main man, as it were. The face-off between the stars, the top men who played what was not a title role but really was, the two actors who brought Jesus to the big screen. In K, we had Jeffrey Hunter. I only know him as the original Captain Pike from the pilot episode of the original
Star Trek, the man who turned down the recurring role to pursue a “proper” movie career. I hated him in
Star Trek but I must say he did this role proud. With a warm, gentle smile and a humbleness seldom seen among actors he may not have been the ideal choice for Jesus, but he sure was better than Ian Gillan in
Jesus Christ Superstar the stage production, a decade later (shudder!) and I think he did really well.
Max von Sydow was more or less unknown to US audiences and fans outside of Sweden, or those who followed the films of Bergman, so for him to take on such a major role must have been a hell of a challenge. Interesting that in the other movie I saw him in recently,
The Seventh Seal, he was a knight doubting the existence of God, who says at one point to Death “Why can’t I kill God within me?” and then a mere six years later he’s playing the son of that very God. But he plays the role well, his slight Scandinavian accent adding to the, if you like, foreigness of Jesus and making him less the all-American blue-eyed boy that could be seen at times in Hunter’s character. Probably not as charismatic as his rival, von Sydow exuded for me more a sense of friendliness, calm and love than did Hunter, but even so it’s hard to choose between them.
I think in the end, von Sydow had more to prove, being an “unknown” to most cinema-goers at the time, so I’ll shade it slightly on his side, and award him the higher score, though there’s not that much in it really.
G: Jesus portrayal by M. von Sydow 9/10
K: Jesus portrayal by J. Hunter 8/10
Then we come to Judas. This isn’t even close. As related in the synopses of the movies above, the far stronger character is the one in K, where Judas is seen as a rebel, a freedom fighter and has a good, if slightly skewed, reason for betraying Jesus. The part is also better played by Rip Torn, though we know what a great and accomplished actor David McCallum is; he just had a really weak role to work with, and through most of the movie looks unhappy, and so he should be. His Judas could have been so much more, but he’s left playing a cardboard cut-out.
G: Judas role (This does not reflect on how the character was played, but how he was written, as it would be unfair to blame an actor for simply carrying out the role he was asked to play) 2/10
K: Judas role 9/10
Music score: Again, there’s little to choose here. Both Miklos Rosza’s Oscar-nominated music and that of Alfred Newman are stirring, grandiose pieces of music that make your heart swell and at times, in certain scenes, bring the odd tear to the eye. I can’t choose between these so I’m going to call this a dead heat and award the very same to both.
G: Score by Alfred Newman 9/10
K: Score by Mkilos Rosza 9/10
Awards/Nominations: From what I’ve read, though both movies were commercial flops, G was nominated for awards but I can’t find anything about K. Five awards in total, whether it won them or not I’m not sure, but even the nominations have to allow G to knock K flat on its back and perform a, at least temporary, victory dance on its body.
G: Awards (5, or at least nominations for 5) 8/10
K: Awards, none 0/10
Some other characters in brief, compared. Herod in K I found more evil, though cartoonishly evil, whereas in G he was more coldly evil and sort of like a snake, quietly evil as opposed to loudly evil, Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter as opposed to Dafoe’s Green Goblin. It sort of depends on what you’re looking for in a villain I guess, but for me I actually preferred Frank Thring’s portrayal of the evil king of Judea as opposed to Jose Ferrer’s version. It’s hard to choose: one was evil on a megalomaniacal scale, which was quite satisfying if a little one-dimensional, and was clearly harbouring ungentlemanly and unfatherly affection for his stepdaughter, Salome (
King of Kings) while she was only alluded to in
TGSET and the link between her demanding the head of John the Baptist and Herod’s decision to put him to death was made much muddier and not at all clear. Hmm. Because I like cartoon villains, and because he played the part so well, I’m going to go for Thring in
King of Kings, but as I say, it’s close, almost too close to call. I
am calling it, though.
G: Herod Antipas portrayal (Jose Ferrer) 8/10
K: Herod Antipas portrayal (Frank Thring) 9/10
Yeah, I know I said in brief, and that was hardly brief, but you know me. Anyway, there’s one or two other main characters I want to look at, but in brief (and I mean it this time) here are some lesser ones.
Mary, mother of God. The version in K bugged the hell out of me with her eternal beatific smile that became almost that of an idiot and just made me want to punch her in the face (sorry), while the one in G was much more restrained and to be fair, hardly in the movie at all. But for her less-than-angelic portrayal Dorothy McGuire takes it for me.
G: Mary, Mother of God portrayal (Dorothy McGuire) 7/10
K: Mary, Mother of God portrayal (Siobhan McKenna) 4/10
Mary Magdalene. Surprisingly (or perhaps not; her time on film had not yet come) in both movies she’s almost anonymous. Yes we see the famous stoning scene in both, but after that, other than being seen washng Jesus’s feet in one movie and being the one to go to the tomb after three days in both, we see little of her, so there’s not an awful lot to choose from. I’ll have to take it from her performance in the stoning scene, and in this case I’m giving it to Carmen Sevilla in K.
G: Mary Magdalene (Joanna Dunham) 5/10
K: Mary Magdalene (Carmen Sevilla) 7/10
Barabbas. Well like Judas, and as mentioned in the section on him, there’s no contest. In G there
is no role for Barabbas, apart from the traditional one at the end, when he is allowed go free for Passover in place of Jesus, while in K there’s quite a little backstory built up around him, allowing him his own identity and role in the movie, and also giving a proper and understandable reason for Judas’s eventual betrayal of Jesus.
King of Kings wins this by a country mile.
G: Role of Barabbas 1/10
K: Role of Barabbas 8/10
Pilate. Though he’s central to the story of Jesus - he is, after all, infamously remembered as the man who sentenced the Saviour to death - there’s very little real substance to the role played by him by Telly "Kojak” Savalas in G, and I for one couldn’t stop expecting him to pat Herod’s cheek and say “Good boy! You do what you're told, nobody will get hoyt, capische?” Sorry but that’s just me, who only knew him from that role on TV. But even apart from that he puts in what I consider to be a poor performance, while the lesser-known (to me) Hurd Hatfield makes a much better fist of it, projecting the true persona of a man who is somewhere he does not want to be, is there because the local king couldn’t keep order and also knows or suspects that he is being punished by being sent to this remote outpost, far from the empire and any chance of advancement. It doesn’t help that his wife is sympathetic to the message of Jesus. Also it comes across in G that Savalas is only there because he’s a big-name star, and not because he’s best suited for the role. In fact I think he completely fluffs it. I think Hatfield plays Pilate best, so I award the high score to him.
G: Portrayal of Pontius Pilate (Telly Savalas) 4/10
K: Portrayal of Pontius Pilate (Hurd Hatfield) 8/10
And one more character whose portrayal makes the difference between the two films is John the Baptist. Central to the first half of the movie, he bestrides both like a colossus, but in G he’s played by the walking ego, Charlton Heston, who tends to bring more of the macho, self-confident and arrogant posturing to the character than does Robert Ryan in K. His take on John is far more humble, a tough, principled and godly man who knows he is just marking time on this planet, waiting for the arrival of the one whose coming he heralds. Heston makes it more about Heston, Ryan makes it more about John, and has rightly been cited as the best John the Baptist you will see in film, so he easily gets the nod.
G: John the Baptist (Charlton Heston) 5/10
K: John the Baptist (Robert Ryan) 8/10
Actually, that’s not it. There’s one more character I forgot to include. Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name! Yeah, it’s the Devil. The only real role Satan plays of course in the story is when Jesus is out in the desert and he’s being tempted by the Evil One, but in G he’s personified by a strange dark hermit Jesus meets, played by the wonderfully evil Donald Pleasance, while in K he’s nothing more than a disembodied voice, the actor not even credited. So the best Devil has to be the one from G, hands (or talons) down.
G: The Devil (Donald Pleasance as “the dark hermit”) 9/10
K: The Devil (uncredited, voice only) 3/10
This just leaves us really with two last sticking points. Both have already been mentioned but here I’m going to go into them in some more detail. The first is the handling of the miracles Jesus performs. In K they’re almost alluded to, with shadows on walls, notes in despatches and the like, while in G they’re made much more of. The best is where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, which isn’t even mentioned in K, but Stevens gives it the full Hollywood treatment and you really feel impressed, awed and even a little frightened at times. Similarly, his curing of the lame is carried out in a very personal way, one-to-one as it were, and the blind man who he makes see is arranged beautifully. Jesus, urged by the sceptical people of Nazareth, who find it hard to credit that the carpenter’s son is in fact the son of God, to cure an old blind man and prove his divinity, refuses. But later he comes back and cures him in private.
It’s a lovely cameo, showing how although he would not be tempted into performing for the crowd, Jesus was still not prepared to let the old blind man suffer for his own principles. In the corner, away from the crowds where nobody can see, he performs a miracle and the old man has his sight back.I feel the miracles are given better weight by Stevens and his way works much better. I guess Ray could have claimed he had not the time for his movie as his rival director had, but the miracles are still in his movie, just not handled so well. Therefore it’s no contest, and G wins this round by a knockout.
G: Portrayal of miracles 10/10 (This first ever top score is awarded due mostly to the awe-inspiring scenes outside the tomb of Lazarus)
K: Portrayal of miracles 5/10
Finally, perhaps one of the most crucial scenes in the film, either of them, the crucifixion of Jesus. While nobody wanted to, or was expecting to see a Mel Gibson-style gorefest, the way K handled it was much more up close and personal, and gives you a real feeling of being involved. You can hear the nails being hammered in, watch the almost workmanlike industry as the Romans bustle here and there, this just another day, another execution for them. You see Jesus’s cross being raised, and hear him talking to the two thieves on either side of him. In G, much of the actual crucifixion, the attaching to the cross and its raising, are viewed from far down the hill, so it’s too impersonal and could really be anyone getting crucified. After a short time the camera does go back up the hill, but it’s grimly unsatisfying and almost seems an afterthought on the part of the director. Badly handled I think, and so K gets the nod here, without question.
G: Crucifixion scene 4/10
K: Crucifixion scene 8/10
Before I total up the score and see who the winner is, there are a few more points I want to raise. Firstly, for such a long and epic film, the opening titles to G are pedestrian and very small, and don’t evoke the kind of drama and majesty that those of its sister movie do, despite the stirring music. The ending too, seems a little rushed, odd considering how long the film is. These two disappointments earn G an automatic deduction of 20 from whatever score it ends up getting.
Secondly, K has a narrator, and it’s Orson Welles. I’m not sure whether I prefer this sort of movie with or without a storyteller, as everyone should already be familiar with the plot anyway, but for securing the services of such a star and using him well I’ll add an extra 10 points to its score.
K also gains an extra 5 points for being the first film in cinematic history to show the face of Jesus onscreen.
And so, the tally. After everything has been added up, here are how the initial scores stand:
The Greatest Story Ever Told: 97
King of Kings: 109
Now for the adjustments: G loses 20 for boring titles, opening and closing, as above, which brings its already losing score down to 77. With 10 points added for Orson Welles and another 5 for getting to the post first as above, K gets a total additional 15 points, bringing its final score to a whopping 124!
So, 124 plays 77. Bit of a knockout there for the King! Even without the adjustments K had it over G by a good 12 points. Now, with the adjustments taken into account, there’s a gap of 47!
And so, with a final score of 124, ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the winner of the contest, the victor of the
Battle of the Classic Christs, the first movie to show the face of Jesus on celluloid, give a big hand to
The undisputed heavyweight champion of classic Jesus movies! (Well, of these two, anyway!)