This obscure film of the life of Christ seems fairly decent for the time it came out since before the 1960's no one represented Jesus openly and realistically, Robert Wilson's portrayal of Christ wasn't that bad even though at times he did seem melancholic. The interesting thing about Wilson is that he along with Danny Quinn(son of legend Anthony Quinn) are the only two actors to portray as Jesus in more than one movie.Lee J.Cobb's performance was well enough to give this picture a dramatic run thru since he retells the events that happened along with Andrew.Perhaps this is the only movie other than 'I Beheld his Glory' that shows a passive a naive Jesus. Robert Powell's Jesus in Jesus of Nazareth was nearly as good as Robert Wilson's Christ.
Add a Review
-
mtr011815 March 2007
-
mark.waltz18 April 2022Those expecting a "King of Kings" or a "Greatest Story Ever Told" will find the later, but more of a psychological aspect than the physical. For a film obviously made for church audiences, it is surprisingly details in regards to the political aspects of the goings-on of the early A. D. not enough and life under the rule of Herod, the puppet king for emperor Tiberius. The story is told through a conversation between a zealot played by the great Lee J. Cobb and Apostle Judas Iscariot (James Griffith) with hopes that they can use the presence of Jesus (Robert Wilson) in an effort to begin a rebellion against Roman rule. Between the lengthy conversation is the story of Jesus's rise to acclaim, the fury it causes those in power, and of course, all of the details that lead to his crucifixion and resurrection.
The major problem with this film is the passionless performance of Wilson as Jesus, rather sad considering the necessity for passion for someone t0 be playing the role of a lifetime. Griffith is fascinating as Judass, obviously conflicted, and at one point, something he tells Cobb about the rebel Barbaras, later repeated by Cobb about Judas word for word. Judas seems compelled by something Beyond his control as if has one moment he believes completely in every word that Jesus says and all of a sudden is forced by a divine intervention to change his feelings, as if his betrayal was a necessity to fulfill the destiny that Jesus would find at Calvary and afterwards on Easter Sunday.
You can't expect a big colorful epic from an independent filmmaker on the scale of what they were doing at MGM or 20th Century Fox, so this looks along the lines of sword and sandals films of the 60's. But for a straightforward version of the life of the Christ, it is well done outside the casting of its subject, with realistic sets and costumes and intense, dramatic music. This obviously takes its influence mainly from the scriptures, so the audience can't accuse it of being fictitious. Only the dialog is expanded from the source for dramatic impact, yet is mostly faithful to the gospels, not adding any unnecessary dramatics that don't belong, so the film stays on the straight and narrow rather than becoming exploitive. -
ulicknormanowen15 December 2020One more take on the Gospels , without the cinemascope and the usual hollywoodian lore,a la "greatest story ever told" ;the prologue sets the tone:it's the parable of the sower and the seeds everybody who attended Sunday school knows.
The most interesting side is the time given over to the Zealots : Judas Iscariot is some kind of go-between with Jesus and his twelve ;he's given a political role -which Franco Zephirelli would use again in his own "Jesus from Nazareth"(1976); he sees Jesus as a rebel who could lead a revolt against the Roman occupants ; he has him arrested to urge the Jews to start a riot to free him;oddly he is present (and injured) in Pilate's passover grace scene :"shall I free Jesus or Barabba?"
All that concerns Jesus is edifying ,it's the merciful Lord ;all the episodes included are well known,although the adulteress ' case is passed over in silence.
On the other hand, Mary Magdelene is subject to cliché :she was not the woman who washed the Lord's feet ; the Gospels tell us that Jesus saved her from "seven devils who possessed her" (in "the king of kings "(1927) Cecile B De Mille's depiction was accurate.) -
tom_amity2 February 2004It is an irritation to read reviews of films about the life of Christ, whether on IMDb or anywhere else: most of the reviewers are ignoring everything distinctive about the film, focusing on an opportunity to deliver clever put-downs of "biblical extravaganzas." Or they're getting this film mixed up in their minds with other films on the same theme (e.g., one IMDb reviewer compliments the film for never showing Christ's face, showing that he has it confused with Ben Hur). A few realize the merits of Day of Triumph: its take on Judas is a very interesting one indeed, and the parts of Judas, Nicator and Zadok are not only brilliantly acted but brilliantly written. This film's Pontius Pilate is rather interesting too, in fact this is the second-best Pilate I have seen (after Telly Savalas in The Greatest Story Ever Told); he actually talks and acts like the racist colonial administrator Pilate was: "Sabbaths! Passovers! These Jews waste more time on one god than we do on a hundred!", he exclaims after being told that the Jewish priests want to talk to him but refuse to pollute themselves by entering a pagan's house during a holy time, so he has to come to the door to see them instead!). Exactly as in the case of Greatest Story Ever Told, there are some deftly dramatic and original touches; and also as in that case, there are loads of clichés to excite the derisive hoots of folk who are all set up to trash a "biblical spectacular". Yes, I too found the Jesus of this film rather bland and conventional, but (despite some of the comments posted on this site) Judas was certainly not "melodramatic". Indeed, I wish we could have a film combining this Judas with Max von Sydow's earthy Jesus. Altogother, an uneven film--but then, villains are always easier to make interesting than heroes are.
-
critic-229 March 1999"Day of Triumph", a low-budget, church-sponsored film about the life of Christ, was the first Technicolor, English-speaking sound film in which one actually saw and heard an actor playing Jesus Christ (whose face was never shown in such films as "Ben-Hur" or "The Robe".) Once shown on TV annually, it now seems even worse than ever. Filmed on cheesy-looking sets, "Day of Triumph" features unknown Robert Wilson as a Jesus who looks like somebody made up for a small town religious pageant. His performance is completely forgettable and makes Jeffrey Hunter in "King of Kings" look like Laurence Olivier (not that Hunter was bad at all in "King of Kings"; in fact he was quite good; he just wasn't an Olivier).
Noted actor Lee J.Cobb, who gets more screen time than anyone as Zarok, confidant of Judas, and a sort of well-meaning high priest, makes a heroic effort under the circumstances, demonstrating how a great actor can bring class to a religious film that looks and sounds like a cheap B-movie. Judas is played like a villain in a silent melodrama (his "I have sinned!" after his realization that Christ is to be crucified takes first prize for melodramatic overacting) and everyone else is just plain bland. One wonders what director Irving Pichel could have been thinking. -
aaronhusar15 February 2017An amazing movie that conveys a lot of Bible truth. Robert Wilson was the Bruce Marchiano of the 50s. This is a movie about perspective that follows how different characters viewed Jesus and how He impacted their lives. The Virginian's Lee J Cobb gave this movie a wild West feel more or less. The introduction is amazing, you know Jesus is talking to you staring with "Listen" and ending with "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." I also love how this movie fleshes out Dismas, the thief on the cross. The first two scenes with Dismas are funny, the third is a powerful portrayal of God's grace. Judas is portrayed as a schemer trying to manipulate Jesus. All the main and supporting characters really stand out.
-
cartjos28 December 2019The first time I saw this was about 17 years ago, then a year later it was on again. Since then nothing. Growing up in the 60's it was fun to pick out many actors that I had seen on other shows, some from Superman. The thing I remember most though is that the two times I have seen this the ending brought tears to my eyes.
-
whimsical528 October 2007I had the pleasure of attending a seminar this weekend given by the producer's son, Father Jim Friedrich. The seminar was "Jesus in the Movies." This film was blacklisted in the 1950s, so it was not widely seen. It is quite true to the scriptures. Christ looks "older" than 33, in fact,t he whole film has a very 1950s feel to it. But it is quite enjoyable. There is an especially wonderful scene between Mary Magdalene and her servant. Lee J Cobb and Mike Connors give very good performances. In the opening scene, the first word is said by Jesus, "Listen." It is powerful and compelling. This film is not easy to find, but worth looking for.
-
Kirpianuscus30 June 2020At the firat sigh, a comfortable film. Because you know the story, because Robert Wilson has experience of his role in some other films, because , after so many adaptations of the Gospels, nothing can be new in 2020, from a movie made in 1954. But , it has few great virtues. The first is honesty. It is a profound honest film, not looking for easy solutions or to impress but for rebirth the faith and consolidate it. It is well acted, too,giving a real realistic Pilate of Pont, an interesting webb frame for well known events . It is provocative in the sense of remind the pieces defining the faith and the illusion to controll the other. And it has an inspired intro. So, just beautiful.