The Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ (1906)

Truly Dreadful Film

Memorable, crazy movie

A Disappointing Continuation

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

This silent film from 1906 is one of the earliest films about Jesus Christ (although it isn't THE FIRST, which would be "The Passion Play" from 1903), whose possibly the most well known figure of all mankind.Whether you're particularly religious or not matter, because any work of cinema this old is at least somewhat interesting, and it's amazing seeing how well made this film is when you consider the fact that it was made 110 years ago! There's actual extras, sets, and multiple sequences, rather than just being a couple seconds of a man drinking a glass of water. It's probably the highest scale film of the 1900's (other than "A Trip to the Moon" and "The Great Train Robbery", two more popular and, somewhat, superior films), and it is really amazing how successful they were able to tell this story.The film is also pretty dramatic and emotional for its time, showing how cruel the death of Christ really was (but it doesn't go nearly as in depth as, say, "The Passion of Christ").Anybody with a strong interest of the history of silent and classic cinema should really take a look, because it truly is amazing.

"La vie du Christ" is a black-and-white silent film from almost 100 years ago. At 33 minutes, it is definitely very long for that era, but the first female filmmaker Alice Guy certainly explored her possibilities here. Unfortunately, for somebody like me, who is only vaguely familiar with the details of the story of Jesus Christ, this was not a good watch. More intertitles may have helped for sure, but we only see them to describe the different locations where this film takes place. This movie drags a bit and is not among the best from the era or among the best from what Alice Guy has done. And looking at what some of the biggest names of the silent films came up with only 10 years later, this film looks really bad in comparison. Actually, it does not look better than some of the stuff from the really early years, the 19th century. Thumbs down and only worth the watch for people with a huge interest in religious movies.

While this film will look extremely primitive to viewers today, for 1906 it was absolutely amazing. The life of Christ is told in a very archaic form, though the production values (for 1906) are shockingly good and quite expensive. It must have taken a lot of work to produce the film--with so many costumes, sets and live animals. When compared to the average film of the day, this is an incredibly complex film. And, at 33 minutes, it's a very, very long movie for the day. And, compared to the wonderful film of the director's countryman, Georges Méliès, the backgrounds were MUCH higher quality and construction--not just painted curtains. I was particularly impressed with Jesus' rising to Heaven near the end--very impressively done.The biggest shortcoming, and I don't blame the director (Alice Guy) is the format. Instead of a typical narrative they would have used decades later, slides appear that tell what the next portion of Christ's life is and then you see some actors replicate the scene very briefly. It's tough going today, but it had to absolutely wow audiences at the time it was made.For film historians, this is a must-see. Most non-film historians could probably pass on this one.

Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ, The (1906) *** (out of 4) This ambitious French film is often overlooked when people discuss epics but you pretty much have to consider this one considering most movies of this era were running under nine-minutes but this one here lasts a whopping thirty-three. The movie tells the story of Christ in twenty-one different "chapters" and it's quite an ambitious little film even if the end results really aren't as good as one would have hoped. I think film buffs will certainly find this thing to be of interest but I think those who enjoy religious movies will also find this thing curious. I think the biggest problem is that the movie is extremely uneven because of the style the story is told. We will get a title card telling us what the chapter is called and then we'll see the images. Some of these chapters (like caring the cross) will run upwards of a minute but there are some (Jesus Sleeping) that only last a few seconds. I'm really not sure why some of the sequences here were included at all when some of the bigger parts (Judas) are left a little short. Another minor problem is that Guy never moves the camera in the movie, which takes away from some of the dramatic moments. Even though this was a few years away from Griffith, folks like Porter were doing a better job with the camera than what's on display here. One key sequence where this is noticeable is when they talk about Jesus and his pain of being on the cross yet the camera is so far back that you can never see his face, which is clearly what we were suppose to be looking at. What does work are many of the costumes and the art design isn't too bad either. I think there were a few effective moments including the Resurrection as well as the sequence where the cross becomes too much and Jesus falls to the floor. While the film is certainly creaky in spots there's no denying that at the same time it's highly impressive just for the effort.