Watch The Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ For Free

Very well executed

People are voting emotionally.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Blistering performances.

This 33 minute take on the life and passion of Christ by Alice Guy came out 3 years after the 45 minute film on the same subject by Lucien Nonguet and Ferdinand Zecca. It is not stencil coloured and the quality of the video I saw is slightly worse than the other one. However, it is, in my opinion, a better paced than the other one (although each scene is noticeably shorter due to the overall shorter length) and a bit better and more realistically acted. There are differences between the two films in scenes chosen to be filmed. This film also has a bit more in depth look into the Via Dolorosa, reminiscent of the Stations of the Cross in church. It does not share as much of the trick photography, special effects or camera panning as the 1903 film but it is completely satisfactory as is for something out of 1906! One thing I noticed is that in the scene at Golgotha instead of two other large crosses that historically were on either side of Christ's cross with villains crucified, in the film there are two small crosses with no one on them - seems just for the decoration.Overall, I think the two films, although different in details details, are on par and both are definitely worth watching, if not for the story for some people, than definitely for brilliant filmmaking of the very beginning of the 20th century. It is also interesting to note that even a century ago (and much more so in the middle ages) people invested huge time and effort into religious works of art. This is particularly true for the architecturally beautiful and artistically rich medieval cathedrals and churches, wonderful ornamented hand-written and hand-bound books (which were mostly bibles before book-printing came along), paintings and frescoes that were mostly on religious subjects before the age of Renaissance. I guess the story of the Tower of Babylon was still taken seriously and art was dedicated to and for the glory of God. And so, interestingly, huge efforts were also put in those very early films on religious subjects, being so much longer in length than almost any other film of the time.

This 1906 film is an epic for its time, although nowadays it will seem stunted. Bear in mind that 1906 was very very early in the film era. From that time there are few films of note. "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) from Georges Melies and "The Great Train Robbery" (1903) from Edwin Porter are the exceptions. A little later William S Hart made "Ben Hur" (1907) and D.W.Griffith made "In Old California" (1910), but it wasn't until "Birth of a Nation" (1915) that we have something of similar scope.The film is a series of brief plays, with a single camera recording the action from medium to long shots. If you didn't know the story it would be hard to follow, but who doesn't know the story?The film will be of interest to film scholars as an early epic. Otherwise there isn't much to recommend it. That being said, for 1906 it is very impressive.

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.

i embraced the opportunity to watch this early Pathé film with both arms wide open. The story of Christ is told here in 22 sequences. At that time this was an expensive project. There are maybe two basic camera moves through the whole movie and for that time this movie has SPECIAL EFFECTS! yes indeed, some of the things are "colored" (the star for example) but the people who did the effects did an incredible job if you ask me. We can't even imagine what it took to create FX at that time! If a movie from 1906 can hold someone's attention from 2000 than you can be sure this is a strong film! Of course, in every scene there are things that were meant to be serious, but now just seem hilarious (talking about over-acting!). Recommended for all real film addicts, since there were people sleeping in the audience...