strange light

He doesn't have to. His appearance says it all.
This film is a "Tale of the Christ", remember?

In earlier films up to the fifties, I think, it was a problem to show Jesus Christ. For Protestants it was forbidden to make or look upon any visual representations of the biblical figures, and even Catholics had problems with the 'holiest' of them, like God and Jesus. So when Jesus entered a picture, we experience him only indirectly.
When in the sixties Jesus was finally represented in his own movies (by Jeffrey Hunter or Max von Sydow), for some this was still an unholy act.




"When there is no more room in the oven,
the Bread will walk the earth."

Having read the novel and seen both film versions several times, I have to say that I do not believe that the Christ visited Miriam and Tirzah in prison. My reasons:
1.) Miriam and Tirzah do not hear of the Christ until Esther tells them of Him while they are in the Valley of the Lepers.
2.) Miriam and Tirzah do not meet the Christ until, in the novel, on Palm Sunday; in both movie versions, during the Way of the Cross.
3.) Mother and daughter are healed of their leporsy either on Palm Sunday (the novel) or on the day of the Crucifixion (the movies). If the Christ had visited them in the cell, why didn't He heal them of the disease then?
The novel shows one scene with Miriam and Tirzah in prison, listening to the calls to prayer from the Temple and praying on their own, waiting for their deliverence form prison. I believe the scene referred to is an attempt to show the two in prison, to show what happened to them during the years that Judah was in Rome. The lighting effect was probably unintentional, considering the harsh lighting needed for film at that time. The fear on their faces can be ascribed to their life in prison. Think about it: innocently locked in prison without a trial, the sounds of insane prisoners and the screams of the tortured all around them, never knowing what would happen to them next. I think anyone would react with fear at the slightest noise.

Although it was a custom in Hollywood to only show the Christ from the back, it was not due to any religious custom or tenet. It was merely to give a sense of religious aura to the scenes. Although Protestant beliefs were often against theatre, the Catholic church has used theatre as a teaching tool for over a thousand years. In passion plays, music dramas, and English cycle plays Christ was portrayed by an actor and there was no complaint from the Church. Rather, it was supported. D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance", made in 1916, showed Christ from the front. More importantly, Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 "The King of Kings," (which was "The Passion of the Christ" of its day) not only showed Christ from the front, but also has close ups of His facial expressions. While showing Christ only from the back was a convention, it was not universally followed, nor supported by, at least, the Roman Catholic church. (I am both a Catholic and a theatre teacher. I could give you more examples and even dates to support my argument, but they don't belong here.)

Sorry to ramble on so.
Spin