What a gloriously stupid movie (And I mean that as a compliment!)

First of all it's true that I am not a Christian but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't accept a film with a Christian message - if it was only well done. "Ben-Hur" is one of my all time favourites inspite of its Christian message because it is a stunning film with believabel and complex characters, beautiful cinematography, powerful music and a strong storyline relying more on people and their conflicts than on religious themes altough they are a part of the film. But "The Robe" is an awful film that lacks the careful direction of William Wyler and the subtelty "Ben-Hur" certainly has: The costumes are costumes, the sets are clearly sets on soundstages, Richard Burton overacts, Victor Mature doesn't act at all and the story is once again "Bad Roman becomes Good Christian" - "Quo Vadis" being another example of it. While "Ben-Hur" handles the religious motives rather cautiously, "The Robe" promotes them blatantly. William Wyler is reported to have said that he wanted to make a film that would appeal to people of all denominations and he certainly has because his film works on several levels - as an adveture story, a love story, a political drama and some sort of a "Passionsspiel" (like in Oberammergau). "The Robe" doesn't have these different levels and it lacks the overwhlming impact "Ben-Hur" has because it is hard to get emotionally involved with these cardboard villains and Christians.

Yet the fault doesn't lie within the story itself but in the awful script and in the unskillful handlig of it. When I watched the film I had the impression that it was following too closely along the storyline of a bad novel and I decided to have a look at the book it is based on. But I found the book to be by far superior to the film. The book has everything the film lacks: complex characters with believable conflicts, a carefully researched historical setting and a subtle way of interweaving religious themes.

The novel, for example, focuses on the relationship between Marcellus and his Greek slave and the changes it undergoes in the course of the events. The film misses this great opportunity by letting Demetrius run away from his master after half an hour which clearly contradicts Demetrius' character as Douglas envisioned it. The novel allows the reader to draw his own conclusion what and who Christ was and why people are attracted to Christianity while the film feels the need to impose it on the viewer. Douglas makes Demetrius keep the robe because he admires Christ for his courage and his charisma, only much later he learns about his teachings and becomes a follower. In Koster's film he understands that Christ is the son of good the very first time he sees him. Marcellus' conviction too takes a very long time in the novel and is much more convincing than in the film. You may object now that a film necessarily has to come straighter to the point than a book and therefore has to condense the story but here it doen't work in favour of the film.

A film should convey stories and messages by its specific means: visually not orally. In this film people tend to verbalize their feelings and believes, they do not simply act according to them, they do not show their changed believes by their deeds - or at least not without explaining it to the audience. And the few times no explanation is given, you have the beautiful but rather impertinent music telling you exactly what to feel.
That's what makes the film preachy for me - not its promotion of an idealistic concept. And I really wouldn't go so far as to name this film nobody would remember if it wasn't for the introduction of Cinemascope in the same sentence with the Declaration of Indepence that marks a great achievement in the history of Human Rights. The Declaration of Independence was an unprecedented document that embodied ideas rather new in its time and it has become the basis for a working democracy. Words were followed by deeds. That is much more than can be said for this badly done film providing superficial entertainment.

So your comparison with "Triumph des Willens" is rather weak: The bad philosophy got the good film, the good philosophy got the bad bad one. Villains are always more interesting and Riefenstahl probably was a more inventive direcot than Koster - the conventionally done "Robe" proves it.