MovieChat Forums > The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Discussion > What were they afraid of?

What were they afraid of?

posted 15 years ago by mercury4
8 replies | jump to latest

I noticed that they try a little bit to show that Pontius Pilate wasn't really the bad guy. But it was like they held off too much. It was like they were afraid. All the portrayals that show Pilate as the villain that wants Jesus dead are inaccurate and stupid. Pilate's back was to the wall. Caiaphas was the real villain that wanted Jesus dead. Everyone knows that. In Cecil B. Demille's King of Kings he accurately told the story from the gospels. Caiaphas was the real villain. In Greatest Story Ever Told they show him as the villain and show Pilate a little more sympathetic, but you don't even hear the conversation between him and his wife. It's only hinted that his wife doesn't want him to have anything to do with it. After Jesus is condemned, you see Pilate washing his hands and he's wondering to himself how he will be seen in history. Pilate did not want Jesus dead. All the movies they try to say the Romans wanted to kill Jesus because he would start a revolt are ridiculous. Jesus preached for everyone to love their enemies. Why would the Romans be afraid of a revolt? Caiaphas and the others wanted Jesus dead and screamed for him to be crucified. They said, "Let his blood be on us and our children."

[–] life4all 15 years ago

Why would the Romans be afraid of a revolt?

Well I think men like Barabbas sought to make use of Jesus as a catalyst to revolution. There had been many rebellions and thousands of crucifixions. It was ongoing and Tiberius wanted the Jews to assimilate for "peace and taxes". 70AD marked the ultimate Jewish rebellion.

[–] mercury4 15 years ago

Yes, but Jesus was saying "Love your enemies." Doesn't that mean he's telling the Jews to love the Romans? The Romans did not want Jesus dead. Pilate found "no cause in him."

[–] angmc43 15 years ago

It doesn't matter if Jesus preached peace, he would have been used as symbol for insurrection.
Judea was a boiling pot for the Romans. The slightest trouble would have blown order sky-high. In a way, Ciaphas thought the same thing. Besides being pissed by Jesus' revision of jewish laws & convention (a point omitted from many films), he wanted to protect his people. Previous revolts led to horrible reprecussions to the Jews. Both him and Pilate had to douse any spark before it became a fire.
Another point is the director himself. George Stevens experienced the Nazi death camp Dachau. In making this film, he wanted to steer away from anything that might be anti-semetic. Like KING OF KINGS '61, GSET features some major references of the Holocaust (streets scattered with dead Jews, burning towns), and it also makes sure Ciaphas' anti-Jesus campaign doesn't speak for all Judea. The Sanhedrin trial has Nicodemus (Joseph Schildkraut, who had graduated from playing 'bad' jews- DeMille's Judas- to 'good' ones- Otto Frank) condemning the gathering as some kangaroo court. Only the Dark Hermit declares the 'crucify him!'/'We have no king but Caesar!' protests in the crowd, some who scream for Jesus' release.

[–] mercury4 15 years ago

I can tell they were trying not to make it look like it was the fault of the Jews. But it was nowhere near as bad as King of Kings. That movie was just ridiculous. DeMille's King of Kings was way better and way more accurate. DeMille told the story just the way it was. Caiphas was the villain and Pilate was shown not to blame for Christ to be crucified. I noticed Donald Pleasence was the one yelling. Again, that was thrown in there to get the people off the hook. In reality, it was Caiphas and the crowd screaming for the Jesus to be crucified. Pilate had him chastised. He came back scourged almost to death and that still wasn't good enough. I'm glad Mel Gibson told the story the same way as DeMille. I hate when movies cop out. DeMille's movie and Gibson's movies are the gospel truth. The Greatest Story Ever Told holds off and 1961 King of Kings is BS.

Thanks angmc43 for answering my question. It was antisemitism they were afraid of. I don't agree with movies copping out though. I hope a movie about the Bataan Death March never gets released. It might create anti Japanese feelings.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] morgana-31 15 years ago

But the fact remains: Pontius Pilate sent a man he believed, and openly confessed, to be innocent of any and all crimes to die in the most painful manner the Romans had available to them.

Good point. Pilate was a very weak man.

Love is never having to say you're sober.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jbuckets 10 years ago

ALL pro-Allied WWII movies set in the Pacific e.g., Back to Bataan (1945), portray the Japanese military in a less-than-favorable light (which nonetheless still doesn't make FDR's creation of Japanese internment camps in the US morally correct).

Also, NO movie - including DeMille's or Gibson's - is "the gospel truth" especially since none portray fully - physically or evoke emotionally/ spiritually - every single paragraph of any of the 4 Gospels.

That's because only the authors of the four Gospels were divinely-inspired to correctly tell Jesus' written story and not any modern-day directors - IMHO.

As for those engaging in anti-semitism itself, they forget that Jesus was Jewish, too....

You're gonna need a bigger boat.