User reviews

From the Manger to the Cross (1912) directed by Sidney Olcott is a great film from the early days of cinema history. Apart from the old ways of film making, it is actually a very focused depiction of the life of Jesus and still entertaining despite it being one of cinema's earliest films.

It is a classic account of the life of Jesus Christ, based on the books of the New Testament: After Jesus' birth is foretold to his parents, he is born in Bethlehem, and is visited by shepherds and wise men. After a stay in Egypt to avoid King Herod, his family settles in Nazareth. After years of preparation, Jesus gathers together a group of disciples, and then begins to speak publicly and to perform miracles, inspiring hope in many of his listeners, but also arousing some dangerous opposition.

Highly recommended for film enthusiasts and fans of cinema history.

This movie is not the first feature picture. That distinction appears to go to an Australian film, NED KELLY AND HIS GANG from about 1906. Others, particularly the Italians, had made a few films of more than a couple of reels before FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS came out. Nonetheless, this movie is historically very important as the first American feature..... and much of it was shot on location in Egypt and what was then Palestine. It was an enormous undertaking in its time and deserves our respect.

But, does that mean it is worth seeing? Well, if you are fascinated by the history of the film, yes. If you are unfamiliar with silent film techniques, then no, almost certainly not.

This film is shot as a series of tableaux. In the films of D.W. Griffith and others of his line, the titles explain the picture. In tableaux, the pictures illuminate the text of the titles, like an illustrated edition of a novel. Given the average American's familiarity with the subject of this movie -- the life and death of Jesus Christ -- and the use of quotes from the New Testament as titles, this is precisely the effect of FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS: an exciting one, for people who never got to travel further than downstate. To a modern audience, however, it will seem static, as this style of moviemaking went out of style by about 1920.

Second, there are the anachronisms. Cities are shown in their modern guises and if Jesus never saw the walls of Nazareth reared by the Crusaders, so much the worse for the moviegoer. If the nose of the Sphinx was battered off some time between 700 and 1000 AD, someone viewing this picture would never know it, given that Jesus, Joseph and Mary are shown sitting in front of the Sphinx and a pyramid to illustrate the Egyptian exile.

So there are problems with this movie that make it something not to be recommended to the average, or even above-average moviegoer. However, if you love films for their own sake, give it a look.

An account of the life of Jesus Christ, based on the books of the New Testament: After Jesus' birth is foretold to his parents, he is born in Bethlehem, and is visited by shepherds and wise men. After a stay in Egypt to avoid King Herod, his family settles in Nazareth. After years of preparation, Jesus gathers together a group of disciples, and then begins to speak publicly and to perform miracles, inspiring hope in many of his listeners, but also arousing some dangerous opposition.

I see some people have poo-pooed this film, saying it was not very innovative (the camera never moves, making it more of a stage play). And that may be so. Also, it is certainly true they hardly took advantage of filming in Palestine... why travel so far for so little? Robert Osborne and the National Film Preservation Foundation consider this film to be the most important silent film to deal with the life of Christ. In 1998, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. I think it has value because it happens to be so straight in its telling. Although the Gospels do not change, the way we read them does, and this really captured the sentiment of the time. We can look back 100 years on and see how we have changed... not much, as it turns out. And the reason for the "not much" is because of films like this that have really cemented the imagery.

While this pioneering effort does have some shortcomings that would now be easy to point out, it also has several strengths that are quite commendable, given that it was one of the earliest full-length movies to be produced. While mostly a straightforward rendering of the life of Jesus Christ, it has a number of visual effects that, while not flashy, are generally effective. The decision to film it in or near the original locations of the story, while introducing some occasional anachronisms, works in general, and gives it a more appropriate feel than a studio backdrop would have.

The adaptation by Gene Gauntier, the actress who also appears as Jesus' mother Mary, does a pretty good job of covering a selection of events from Jesus' life. It does clearly assume a pretty good familiarity with the New Testament writings, as in several scenes the point of the action is otherwise obscured. Even then, though, Robert Henderson-Bland's low-key rendering of Jesus usually communicates a general image of gentleness and wisdom, which in many cases is more significant than the specific teachings.

The whole picture is shot in the old 'tableau' format, which does, in particular, minimize the impact of Henderson-Bland's performance. But most audiences of its own era would almost certainly have found this a worthwhile and believable portrayal of the life of Christ, and even now it deserves some commendation for its positive qualities.

This inaugurates a handful of Good Friday-related films that I will be watching all through this week. It is perhaps the first major effort on celluloid about the life of Christ but, being virtually a century old, cinematic technique was obviously still very primitive then; though the static camera-work makes the whole feel more like a succession of religious tableaux than a film, framing is generally pretty crammed and sometimes even offers admirable depth for its era. While obviously recounting events which would be familiar to most viewers, this aims for absolute authenticity: not only is the entire script composed of direct (albeit stilted) quotes from the Scriptures but the film-makers even went so far as to shoot in the actual Palestinian locations! At the then-remarkable length of 70 minutes, the film virtually breezes through Christ's tenure on Earth, taking care to present most of the highlights and, naturally, devoting a good deal of the running-time – about 35%, in fact – to his Passion and Crucifixion (though, curiously enough, completely omitting the Resurrection - more on this later)! With this in mind, there is no real plot progression to speak of as a quote from one of the four Gospels merely sets up the current scene; even so, there are a couple of surprising blunders along the way: we are told that Christ was capable of working miracles before presenting the one which is recorded as having been His first (at the Wedding of Cana) and, again, an episode involving a woman applying an ointment to Jesus' feet and wiping it off with her hair is shown twice (the second depiction is an extended scene which also displays Judas' growing disenchantment with his Master but surely the two could have been combined!); likewise, the fact that Jesus indiscriminately raises a man from the dead before the famous revivification of his friend Lazarus diminishes the desired effect of the latter moment! As I said, the last third of the film involves the episodes in Christ's life which are commemorated at this particular time of year; even if, once more, they are presented in streamlined fashioned – thus lacking in perspective – the violence inflicted upon Jesus is quite realistically done (though, needless to say, nowhere near the quasi-exploitative detail exhibited in Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE Christ [2004]). I will be checking out another Silent film on the subject – the obscure Italian production CHRISTUS (1916) – but it is almost a given that the best early version of it will remain Cecil B. De Mille's much more elaborate (and genuinely impressive) THE KING OF KINGS (1927).

P.S. Apparently, this film was re-released in 1916, retitled simply Jesus OF NAZARETH and addressing the glaring Resurrection issue by attaching to it footage lifted from the aforementioned CHRISTUS (which, obviously enough, featured completely different actors)! For what it is worth, this alternate version can be easily viewed in its entirety (albeit in ten successive segments) on "You Tube"...

"From the Manger to the Cross" is noteworthy for being an early feature-length film. Otherwise, it's a static passion play. Read the Bible if you want some craft or entertainment. Even the 1903 Pathé "The Life and Passion of Christ" was better made (and almost as long). The film is stagy; the camera is stationary, the continuity is in the tableau style. There's nothing special about the acting. Although it was filmed on location in Egypt and Palestine, director Sidney Olcott and cinematographer George K. Hollister lacked the knowledge to take much advantage of it. There's the Sphinx and the Pyramids, but that's about it. Some interesting short films had already been made by 1912, but it'd be a few years before DeMille, Griffith, Tourneur and others made worthwhile American feature-length films.

Sidney Olcott certainly got around for Kalem in the 1910s. Having made a number of films for the studio in Ireland, he then travelled to the Holy Land to make this feature-length recreation of the life of Jesus. It was a huge hit in 1912, but looks very stagey compared to the work of other filmmakers of the era. The heavy use of lines from the bible to introduce each scene to come also feels unduly cumbersome.

Director Sidney Olcott did not have a stunning career. If anything it was mediocre at best. But on this effort he played above his head, perhaps not even realizing it. "From the Manger to the Cross" is a beautiful film, rich in substance and well acted as well.

The story is well known and Olcott details all of Christ's shining biblical moments in a series of scenes that overcomes many setbacks of the early 1910's. Of particular note is the way he uses a large cast to still convey the emotions present during a particular scene. Christ's admittance to his disciples that his days on earth are numbered come to mind here. On location shooting, no easy task for its day considering the entire thing was done in Egypt and Palestine, would definitely be another.

Even with these tools, the film may have fallen flat were it not for Robert Henderson-Bland's portrayal of Jesus. When the most crucial aspects of the Messiah's personality are the things he said, how can a silent film succeed in showing his substance? Answer: facial expressions and body language. And Bland, without the as yet invented close-up, shines in showing Christ as a man of wisdom, gentleness, and courage. Bland's Jesus is still among the finest to ever grace a screen and we're closing in on a century of film following it. Robert Vignola's Judas also deserves a mention as well.

It also bares mentioning that Timothy Howard's organ score, added in 1994 upon the film's home release, is a beautiful addition. In 1998 "From the Manger to the Cross" was given the highest honor a film can receive: it was added to the National Film Registry, an accolade it well deserves. For now and all time it should be recognized not only as America's first feature film but as a testament to what can be accomplished in the name of art and love when all of the pieces fall into the right place at the right time. Olcott and Henderson-Bland forever have a much deserved home in film history's hall of fame.

The nutshell: required viewing for directing, acting, technological achievement, and artistic beauty...8/10.

(Flash Review)

This is literally the telling of the life of Jesus with every title cards a verse from the Bible. This being 1912, the quality and lighting are below average for the time and without many close up shots (normal for the time) it made it harder tell in detail what the actors were doing in most of the scenes. Most likely the first story of Jesus put to film, it is historical if nothing else.

Sidney Olcott's curious life of Christ was staple fare for 50s schoolkids under the guise of the terrible voiceover version distributed by Rev. Brian Hessian - this was the version I first saw and although the quality of the film, all its anachorisms aside, shone through, I didn't think the marriage of modernish narration to silent splendour worked at all.

I later saw a tinted copy on video with a lovely musical accompaniment and was struck by the touching portrayal of Robert Henderson-Bland as Jesus. Some of the camera tricks are justly famous, the boy and the cross probably more so than any other, but this very early feature film is one of the best I have seen so far.

Like many early films, it is a document. and to expect more is real strange. because the risk to compare with the films of our times or with the expectations of modern viewer are not reasonable things. it is a film about life and passion of Our Lord. correct, in few aspects admirable, against anachronism or tableaux but the message is clear. convincing. and powerfull. and this is the basic motif for see it. with indulgency. and admiration , because it was easy to make a film in Egypt and Palestina in 1912. so, one of films deserving to see. for discover the early cinema. for the meeting with a well known message in a clear form.

It is interesting to note that with all the attention paid to Mel Gibson's PASSION OF THE CHRIST a few years back, this film version was made over 100 years ago (started in 1902 and finished in 1905). THE LIFE AND PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST was produced in France as a series of 31 tableaux and utilizes the famous Pathe' hand stenciled color process. Anyone familiar with the story of Jesus will easily follow it while those who aren't won't have any real difficulty.

There are no gospel quotations here only title cards which preface each segment and some of the most remarkable sketched and painted scenery ever seen which are based on the drawings of Gustave Dore'. The sets and costumes are equally impressive. The performances are not performances but actors striking a series of poses (especially Jesus) which is fitting for a series of tableaux. The condition of the film is truly remarkable. I have never seen a film of this vintage look this good. A remarkable find and a welcome addition to the ever growing list of silent films available on home video.

The second title on this disc, FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS, has already been out on VHS as part of Kino's FIRST AMERICAN FEATURES series. It's main asset is that it was filmed on location in the Middle East. Originally made by the Kalem company in 1912 it was reissued and retitled with an overabundance of Biblical quotes by Vitagraph in the late teens.

A sincere and fairly restrained look at the life of Christ (although the Crucifixion scene is quite realistic), it tells its story simply with an animated segment at the very end. While it didn't leave me with a sense of wonder like the first film did, it is likely to have more appeal to those who are just starting out with silent film. It is also of historical significance as one of the earliest surviving American features. Both titles have excellent organ scores by Timothy Howard and are ideal for anyone interested in silent cinema or the life of Jesus. Experience a PASSION that's over a century old and still going strong...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

From the Manger to the Cross (1912)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Early Warner Bros. film is the typical telling of Jesus, as the title says, from the manger to the cross. This is a really boring, dull and pointless telling of the story but I guess the studio wanted to make a feature and stretched everything to the limit. The film uses quotes from the New Testament but this gets tiresome very quickly as well. The film was shot on location all around the world and from a historic standpoint, this here is interesting but the rest of the film isn't.

Life and Passion of Christ, The (1903)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Decent telling of the story of Jesus from his birth up to the resurrection. This early French feature is full of wonderful imagination and the use of color is a real added bonus. The visual are all very nice and the set decoration is among the best I've seen in any silent film of its era. The biggest problem is that the feature runs just over 40-minutes and it seems like a bunch of short films edited together. There's really no consistent storytelling but instead just various segments from the Bible.