MovieChat Forums > King of Kings (1961) Discussion > Jeffrey Hunter v. Jim Caviezel

Jeffrey Hunter v. Jim Caviezel

posted 18 years ago by thepenticost
39 replies | jump to latest

Hi everyone!

I just loved this film. Even though I have not seen it in more than 20 years, I still viividly remember this moving film and especially the powerful performance of Jeffrey Hunter.

Jim Caviezel also did an outstanding job portraying our Lord in The Passion of the Christ. I asked my mother among the two films, which did she like better and she said King of Kings. But I can't draw a comparison or chose one over the other because, even though both films greatly depict the life of Jesus exceptionally well, I think they depict them at different times - the Passion focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus' life whereas King of Kings gives a more detailed depiction of his entire life.

So I really can't say which one is better. But I can say is that I love them both and very dearly and I think they both have their own strengths that make them their own.

How about you - who do you think is the best Jesus - Jeffrey Hunter or Jim Caviezel and why?

BTW - if anyone knows where I can find King of Kings on DVD, I'd certainly appreciate it....

[–] shawnw007 18 years ago

I think they were both equally good. Insofar as appearance, however, I think that's purely subjective. I think Jeffrey Hunter was the most handsome Jesus, but there's been too much historical speculation involving the phisicality of Jesus Christ. Theologians have expressed a somewhat darker, almost Egyptian-looking man, so to cast the blue-eyed Jeffrey Hunter as the Son of Man didn't fare favorably among too many people (myself included).

Appearance-wise, Jim Caviezel was a better choice IMHO. Although he, too, is of the Anglo race, Mel Gibson stated that he chose this actor moreso because of the ambiguous nature of his heritage. Jim has a more "ethnic" look, which would provide a more fair depiction of what Christ might have looked like. :)

[–] horatiohornblower 18 years ago

Jeffrey Hunter, because of the way he spoke as Jesus, imho is the best portrayel of Jesus on film, ever. Ive never payed much attention to the looks of the actors in that role, for the above mentioned reason--people will subjectify it. However, even Jim Cavaziel(sp?) was also blue-eyed, so what difference does that make? It shouldnt make any, really, but I admit I had a silly smile when they focused on both Caveziel & Hunters blue eyes as well in different scenes, hehe. Still, Hunter being so comfortable with the role, combined with Nicholas Ray at the top of his game, Rozsa's stunningly beautiful soundtrack, and an amazing supporting cast, are the reasons that King of Kings remains so popular to this day!

I think Cavaziel did a great job in Passion, and have admired his acting since viewing the amazing film "The Thin Red Line." Yet there were times in Passion where his use of the languages did not come across as natural, as if the rhythm he used as he spoke was merely memorization, not heartfelt. Not often, but it is noticeable a few times.

I think some other productions beyond the two films mentioned here were excellent as well, but the actors cast as Jesus seemed almost overwhelmed by the character they were playing. In fact, on the occasions that this subject has come up (who was the 'best Jesus' on film) most people do not remember the names of the actors. That even goes for Caveziel, which suprised me, because I absolutely LOVED his work in The Thin Red Line, and thought others would have noticed that performance, yet some have already forgotten his last name.

But Jeffrey Hunter? He delivered a performance that was beyond realistic: it was NATURAL. His speech and body language was heart-felt and rhythmic throughout....he flowed, and the music and tone of the film is in perfect sync with him throughout as well. For me, and many others I have spoken to, Hunter remains the actor who best showed us Christ as the enigmatic figure. He just 'ooozes' off the screen with the wisdom, appeal, and emotion of Jesus Christ.

[–] Professional_Tourist 12 years ago

But Jeffrey Hunter? He delivered a performance that was beyond realistic: it was NATURAL. His speech and body language was heart-felt and rhythmic throughout....he flowed, and the music and tone of the film is in perfect sync with him throughout as well.

We have the great Agnes Moorehead to thank for the effectiveness of Hunter's spoken performance. She coached him on his dialog at the request of director Nicholas Ray.

[–] Melrosemiss 8 years ago

Jim Caviezel's eyes were edited to brown for The Passion of the Christ, and his nose was edited to be less Romany, which ia what his heritage is. I think both movies were excellent and a wonderful depiction for their eras. Poor Jeffrey Hunter. He died too young. IMHO another superb Jesus is Ted Neely in Jesus Christ, Superstar. Powerful performance and he has an almost beatific look about him. When, as Jesus, he destroyed the temple, it was really hard to believe he is only 5' 2" tall, or thereabouts.

I would imagine that handsome actors without any real, specific apparent heritage were chosen because we are so accustomed to seeing an Anglicised Jesus in most paintings. No one really knows what he looked like, at least not anyone alive today, and I feel tha actors are chosen for their general appeal to masses.

Both movies are superb and The Passion may have seemed plodding at times since it was in Aramaic, a language with which I doubt many of us are familiar.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 15 years ago

They both sucked apearence wise cause thier both White.

http://www.InfoWars.com/
There's a War on for you Mind!!!!!!!

[–] slinter 15 years ago

Well, Jesus was not Black, nor Oriental, et al. He was of the Middle-Eastern Semetic stock, and we know exactly what these people look like. If you find someone who is someowhat darker, and has an "ethnic" look, what's the problem? Anthony Quinn was half Irish, yet played Jews, Arabs, Greeks, you name it. The "race" of the actor is less important, unless taken to some kind of PC extreme.

[–] liscarkat (16530) 2 years ago

Jesus was supposed to have been a Hebrew. Hebrews are Caucasian, and can be blonde and blue-eyed. There is no reason to assume Jesus was dark and swarthy. No one knows what he looked like.

[–] chrismcreynolds 17 years ago

I would never even try to compare actors from these periods to one another. So much has changed in terms of what is expected of the actors and how they are directed. Also consider the film techniques and differences in every aspect of the style of the film from shooting to final cut (edits).

They are each doing great jobs for their directors. The film "Jesus of Nazareth" might be the best of them all, with its straddling of the styles from 1961 to 2004 (and it was shot roughly in the middle time wise too so...).

[–] spocktom 17 years ago

Each film and actor have their merits. I love both films.
How to get "king of Kings" on DVD...look here:
http://www.amazon.com/King-Kings-Ws-Sub-Dol/dp/B00007K020

[–] babybooboo 17 years ago

It's difficult to compare, but for me, Jeffrey Hunter was more natural in the part.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pjglynndoora 17 years ago

Both actors were good, but I think that Robert Powell rules when it comes to playing Jesus.

[–] pastorjwallen 17 years ago

Big Amen to that. Robert Powell, to me, is the definitive Jesus of Nazareth. Again, I know that Jesus wasn't a blue eyed, Caucasian, British born man, but the portrayal, what's behind the eyes, that is what makes Powell just so incredible in my personal opinion, as well as the Jesus of Nazareth mini series from 1980ish.

However, here we're discussing Caviezel vs. Hunter. Overall, I'd have to say Hunter. There's just more, I guess you could say, "dirt" in his portrayal. I like the earthiness in his role as Jesus.

J.

[–] skydvr38 16 years ago

I'd have to say jeffrey Hunter. I watched this film last night...and sadly, its an uneven film glossing over the miracles (most are referred to and not shown) and condensing many of Jesus' speeches into one that is supposed to be the sermon on the mount
It is here in the sermon scene that jeffrey Hunter shines.
As a kid, we watched King of Kings every Easter (a family tradtion)...now I realize it could have been better. Maybe a bigger budget.
Still, in a film I'd rate three out of five, Jeffery Hunter was extremely good. he outshined anything or anyvbody else in the film.

[–] taibunsuu-1 16 years ago

Because of the film technology and lighting abilities in the 70s, it was very handy to have a light-eyed Jesus to be able to film the eyes, which were crucial to the actor's ability to play his character.

Eyes are difficult to film as the socket is always shaded.

Peace,

-- Do you have any tobacco?

[–] chcruz-1 16 years ago

Jeffery Hunter, hands down.

[–] Tess-tastic 10 years ago

I agree 100%, for me, Robert Powell is the definitive Jesus.

[–] David Harrison 16 years ago

I prefer Hunter, because he was working with a Jew (Samuel Bronston) rather than an anti-Semite (Gibson). Much better taste.

[–] hellsoutlaw 16 years ago

neither one...the best actor to portray Christ was Robert Powell in the television adaptation, Jesus of Nazareth. absolutely splendid in every way shape and form. but if I had to pick, it would be Mr. Hunter. but only because it takes me back to my childhood when I would stay up until midnight on Good Friday with my Mother to watch it on the late show. %Robert Powell actually uplifts your faith and makes you believe even stronger in the simplistic, but miraculous life, of Christ.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Comitatenses 16 years ago

The best "Jesus" I've seen is in the 1925 version of Ben-Hur - he's nothing more than an albino hand & (at one point) a beam of light...

But seriously, I liked both Hunter & Cavizel in their respective films.

[–] Niki_Catalina 15 years ago

I liked both Hunter & Cavizel in both their respective films.

Let us not forget H.B. Warner as Jesus, The Christ in "The King of Kings", (1927.)

I wish everyone a Blessed Easter Sunday!

"When people run in circles its a very very - Mad World"

[–] angelosdaughter 15 years ago

Jeffrey Hunter was just not believable as Jesus. His coloring was all wrong, his face was too good looking, and he certainly does not resemble a first-century Semitic Jewish man.Hunter's portrayal was wooden, and the obvious wig was awful. I think this version of "King of Kings' is sometimes referred to as "I was a teenaged Jesus". I much prefer Robert Powell (although he, too, is the wrong ethnicity and complexion) or Jim Caviezel; at least in his case there was an attempt to make him look Middle-Eastern, and his interpretation was very realistic. Another actor I liked in the role was Max van Sydow in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". He had a good, but not a handsome face and he did not look like the classical images of Jesus, but he was very effective in the role.
Some of the portrayals of Jesus by reenactors on National Georgraphic and History Channel documentaries show Jesus closer to the way he probably looked. As for realism, See Pier Paolo Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St. Matthew", in which the world and time of Christ are depicted in a manner more true to period and place. It is free of spectacle; the villages/towns are dry, and dusty, and the Lord and His disciples are potrayed and look like people of that time and place in dress, physical appearance (more olive-skinned dark-eyed and not so sparkling clean, with clothing more in keeping with that of itinerant preachers), etc.