MovieChat Forums > The Robe (1953) Discussion > Impact of the robe to storyline

Impact of the robe to storyline

posted 17 years ago by thirdeblue
21 replies | jump to latest

Watched a VHS copy my parents own of this a few weeks ago and am still laughing about it weeks later. The plot hinges on the character of Marcellus Gallio being stricken or cursed by the robe of Jesus. Despite the absurdity of the event in what was an otherwise non-religious movie up to that point, wouldn't this be somewhere between blasphemous and silly?

Furthermore, I was sitting there scratching my head thinking WTF? when the slave suddenly converts to Christianity on the spot by simply seeing this dude (who we know is Jesus). Does anyone really buy that? Would it have killed the filmmakers to have had the slave at least HEAR what the man had to say?

I thought the pacing was interminable and ultimately could never bring myself to finishing it, but seriously...these 180 degree spins by the characters part-way through the movie seem cheap, unjustified, arbitrary, and hilarious.

We would not tolerate such idiocies in modern film, why allow it to pass in something from 1953?

"Religion is all bunk." --Thomas Edison

[–] austendw 17 years ago

Alright already.

Call me Ishmael...

[–] gaelicguy 17 years ago

Thank you, D. Maybe once he no longer lives with the parents, he'll get it. Till then...

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

[–] austendw 17 years ago

Hi, J. You OK? I don't think "The Robe" is above criticism by any means, but I mean, really...

Call me Ishmael...

[–] gaelicguy 17 years ago

I'm well, thanks, D. As to your observation, no pun intended, but.. "Amen."

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

[–] emailtom 17 years ago

"We would not tolerate such idiocies in modern film, why allow it to pass in something from 1953?"

You are right, this movie is full of "idiocies" and should not be tolerated. We need some of the intelligence of modern films with a lot of mother f--- this and mother f--- that and a few "duh huh hhheeey duuude...jjjust awesome duuude." And we need some intelligent actors like such brainiacs of today as Will Ferrell and Rosie O'Donnell in the leads. Great thinking. You should have been a producer/director.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mercury4 17 years ago

Exactly. He was mesmerized by his presence. It first happened during the Palm Sunday scene. Jesus is riding into Jerusalem on the donkey and he passes Demetrius and looks at him.

[–] thirdeblue 14 years ago

I realize that. You know that. The audience knows that. But you know what? Demetrius doesn't know that. He does not know the guy was...at all. He just saw this guy and started following. The only way you can buy this unwarranted conversion is to have the audience pour their preconceived ideas into the character.

A Christian might think to himself or herself, "Of course I would follow Jesus on the spot if ever given a chance!" That is easy to say if you've spent a lifetime following Jesus in spirit instead of on foot.

The Robe is not a time-travel movie where a 21rst century Christian is transported back to 1rst century Jerusalem and happens upon Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Demetrius was just a slave who knew absolutely nothing about Jesus: not his name, not his message, not he followers, nothing.

Demetrius' conversion is baffling in this regard. At least have him hear the message and think, "Yeah. I'll follow that dude."

But who am I to argue? I find the entire concept of a Roman soldier being zapped (hexed? cursed? bewitched?) by the robe of Christ as silly, it kind of negates the concept of free will.

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

I think it's reasonable to accept that Demetrius followed Him initially because of "the look" and, also, because of the excitement of the event of the entrance into Jerusalem. Curiosity -- why are all these other people following this man? Between that moment and the crucifixion there was plenty of time for Demetrius to have heard Jesus' words repeated by His followers and perhaps from Jesus himself . . . to go from "following" to "a follower".

[–] vinidici 14 years ago

I've always taken the Centurion's "wacking out" at the touch of the Robe to be psychological, not miraculous. The biblical narrative says the Centurion remarked, "Surely, this man was the Son of God." I can see where one's mental and emotional health might be impaired after taking part in executing someone they know to be innocent, let alone of Divine Nature.

Agreed that the conversion of Demetrius is silly on the face of it, unless, as another poster suggests, he'd learned more about Jesus of Nazareth between the scenes in the movie. Does the novel flesh this out anymore than the movie, anyone?

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Not in my case, but I know of conversions which have taken place much more quickly than that of Demetrius. Notable is Malcom Muggeridge, who converted from the world's foremost spokesman for atheism (bitter international wit, leftist, and editor of "Punch") to a devout and very conservative Catholic -- virtually over-night. And he didn't have the benefit of actually seeing the Christ when He was personally present on earth, or any of His disciples.

[–] vinidici 14 years ago

Muggeridge must have known something of biblical doctrine and principles, though, so he had many years for the seed to germinate in his heart; in the case of Demetrius, however and for all we know, he "converts" knowing nothing at all about Christianity (which, at that point, hadn't yet been instituted until Pentecost nearly two monts later).

Apart from partially agreeing with the OP, my other nit-pick is that there were no Gentile converts to Christianity for at least several years after Pentecost, except in the case of Gentiles who had already been proselytized to Judaism. Demetrius and Marcellus wouldn't have been extended the Gospel invitation until after the events depicted in Acts, chapters 10 & 11 (the conversion of Cornelius).

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 14 years ago

Actually

there were no Gentile converts to Christianity for at least several years after Pentecost

Is a common misconception in my view, we know for example Many Gentiles where touched by Jesus personally in the Gospels.

Acts 10 and 11 deal with ending a problem where the Church was only reaching out to Jews, but personally I believe there where Gentiles even at Pentecost.

When the chips are down... these "Civilized" people... will Eat each Other

[–] vinidici 14 years ago

Actually

"there were no Gentile converts to Christianity for at least several years after Pentecost"

Is a common misconception in my view, we know for example Many Gentiles where touched by Jesus personally in the Gospels.

I'm aware several examples such as you probably have in mind, and those of us who hold "common misconceptions" believe that those Gentiles who encountered Jesus during his ministry would later be baptized and added to the church, but the evidence in Acts 10 & 11 suggests that such additions to the church would follow the conversion of Cornelius.

Acts 10 and 11 deal with ending a problem where the Church was only reaching out to Gentiles, but personally i believe there where Gentiles even at Pentecost.

I'm of the belief that the miraculous occurrence (described in the second chapter of Acts) of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit fell on the Twelve only, as their participation with Peter in the subsequent events of that day indicate. But even if you include the 120 as recipients of the Holy Spirit, there is no evidence any of them were other than Jewish disciples who had known Jesus during his lifetime. As for the audience of the sermon Peter uttered in Acts 2, they are described as Jews both local and from abroad, who had come to Jerusalem to partake in the ceremonies and festivities of the Jewish Pentecost holy day.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 13 years ago

And Regardless, I still believe Acts 10 and 11 occurred before the end of Tiberius's reign.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] angelosdaughter 11 years ago

The centurion whose servant Jesus cured was a Roman/Gentile.

"..sure you won't change your mind? Why, is there something wrong with the one I have?"

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

. . . and let's remember "The Robe" is a fiction -- about what "may" or "could" have happened.

[–] Angela-35 14 years ago

I agree The Robe is very funny. Unintentionally. There are some scenes that make me howl with laughter. But, I think it's also moving. And about Marcellus being cursed by the robe? That didn't happen. It was all Marcellus imagining the robe had special powers. So that particular silliness wasn't part of the movie. It was simply the guilt driven imaginations of one character, but he was wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUuZzs3Jb0&feature=related

Around 5:20 in this clip, Demetrius says that it wasn't the robe at all that did anything to Marcellus.

IMDB: The Land Where the Man With One Working Brain Cell is King

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

"There are some scenes that make me howl with laughter."

Hmmm . . . For me, it generally takes a Marx brothers' or Laurel and Hardy picture to make me howl with laughter, but "The Robe"? . . .

[–] vinidici 14 years ago

I don't know that I could "howl with laughter" at any movie with a biblical setting, either, but I agree with the rest of his post. Caligula briefly possessed the Robe and was unable to resurrect his murdered human guinea pig with it. The other poster is correct in reminding everyone that the film itself admits there's no miraculous power in the Robe, per se. It's more like a sentimental relic. As for Marcellus and his convulsions upon contact with the Robe, I've already commented above.