Pontius Pilate (1962)

It's time for my first exclusive review on my blog! Interestingly this isn't a movie from old Hollywood but rather a French/Italian co-production of the Pontius Pilate done in the Italian Sword and Sandal mold....

Pontius Pilate (1962)

Plot Summary

I don't think a real big summary is required for this but suffice it to say this movie is a bit sprawling. There are subplots dealing with Pilate trying to arrest an influential money lender who's devaluing the Roman currency and this lender's daughter is arrested only to have her slowly seduce Pilate in order to secure her father's freedom. There's also a subplot about the building of an aqueduct and the San Hedron's opposition to it. Last but not least there's the plot concerning Jesus.



So how is this movie? Well as I alluded to, there just wasn't a real focus to it. The movie was apparently written by 7 people so it's already plagued with too many cooks trying to create a great story. It's clear they were trying to go epic in scope in the Cecil B. DeMille vein but it doesn't work because the movie goes all over the place and is a little confusing at times. The marrying of the political and religious issues is a good idea in concept but often leads to muddled execution except for one scene when Pilate enters Jerusalem and the people protest the Roman eagles placed on the Holy Temple. Pilate orders his troops to disperse the people at the very least or kill them if they have to. The tension of the scene with all the people trying to protect their religious way of life in the face of the symbol of the pagan Romans. The situation is finally diffused when Nicodemus, the only member of the San Hedron and therefore the only Jew who is a friend of Pilate convinces the latter to put down the eagles as it would be viewed as an act of generosity rather than weakness.

That scene is without a doubt the strongest scene in the entire film which is a bit of a shame as there were some very good actors in this flick. Jean Marais played Pilate while the great British actor Basil Rathbone played the San Hedron leader Calaphas. Rathbone was very good in his role as a protector of his faith and one who is trying to work with the Roman authorities without sacrificing their religious beliefs. Marais plays Pilate very stiffly but the way the role is written doesn't leave too much room for him to be anything other than a stern yet somewhat fair representative of Rome. Tehre is one brief moment when his wife and children come to live with him and he shows great affection to his children but that's about it. Everything else is pretty rote and by the book.

While the mingling of the religious and political aspects of Pilate's time in the Holy Land makes for a somewhat muddled film it's still very watchable and quite compelling even if the material is well known. As I said this movie had the feel of the sword and sandal type flicks and that's borne out with the scenes dealing with Barrabas. Barrabas is depicted herein as a bald headed brute of a man who will do things violently for the cause as he sees fit. So those scenes often lend that air to it. It doesn't help that he's played so much like a heavy that he's pushing around blind people etc etc.

Unfortunately the last third of the movie falls apart and takes a *** star rating and drops it to a **. That's unfortunately where we get to the Jesus portion of the story and it really puts the film down. First of all the director (Irving Rapper who was best known for a series of tear jerkers starring Bette Davis in the '40s) decided that Jesus shouldn't be scene head on so every time you saw him it would be over the shoulder from behind. Jesus' dialogue is also limited to the sermons from the Bible. Not once did they have Jesus speak when confronted by Calaphas or Pilate. I think they were going for the idea that Jesus should be presented in a divine manner but in a movie where things were presented from a realistic "amongst the people" milieu it becomes jarring.

You then have the fact that John Drew Barrymore portrayed both Jesus AND Judas and boy howdy did his portrayal of Judas every exemplify the worst of scenery chewing. There's a scene where he meets with Calaphas and the elders of the San Hedron to bring down Jesus and his performance is just jaw droppingly bad what with his eyes bugging out, over exaggerated facial expressions and moving around so dramatically you'd think he was in a silent movie. This also brings up the point that everything turns lopsided once we get to the Betrayal of Jesus in that Calaphas who was given a well balanced and nuanced portrayal suddenly now wants to see Jesus crucified and the populace of Jerusalem want to see Jesus suffer. The switch is so sudden and reeks of "well it happened in the Bible and we just have to change the way these characters are portrayed". It's a problem that I think would be hard to overcome for just about any scriptwriter/director and because there were so many writers on the screenplay it feels like they kinda wrote themselves so far into a corner that they just threw up their hands. Last but not least the crucifixion isn't seen from close up but rather from the perspective of Pilate and the Romans which means the tearing of the curtain and the blackening of the sky etc etc gives off a disaster movie vibe! Thankfully it's limited to about 3 minutes of screentime.

Again, I think the movie did have some good to it but the last third did no favors. I do think it's worth seeing if you somehow run across it.

** out of *****