Document View

Hall discusses in detail how the sales pitch for a Biblical epic is framed, a task made even more difficult by the attempt to seem less commercial. He uses "The Greatest Story Ever Told" as a case study for the sales pitch.

The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) was one of the last of the postwar Hollywood cycle of Biblical and ancient-world epics which began with Samson and Delilah (1949) and ended with The Bible - in the Beginning ... (1966). It was produced by director George Stevens for his own company, filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 under licence to Cinerama, Inc. for initial roadshow exhibition in its worldwide chain of Cinerama theatres, and released through United Artists (UA), which also provided production finance. The film was UA's most expensive picture of the decade, at a final negative cost of some $21 million, and its single biggest commercial failure of the period, with theatrical rentals amounting to a fraction of the investment. It was also the most expensive picture filmed on the American continent to that date and the second most expensive made anywhere, its cost exceeded only by that of 20th Century-Fox's Cleopatra (1963).

This article endeavours to provide an insight into the difficulties of marketing a film which appeared late in the generic cycle to which it belongs, resulting in self-conscious efforts to differentiate it from its predecessors. Moreover, the Biblical epic is, as a genre, somewhat problematic in its relationship to standard categories of commercial exploitation. The 'sacredness' of the film's subject matter- the life of Christ - led Stevens and his company to reach for the apogee in prestige pictures, emphasising seriousness and dignity rather than the spectacle and excess characteristic of the traditional epic. This ambition proved eventually to be both his and the film's downfall.1

Pre-production publicity

Stevens' idea from the first was to make The Greatest Story Ever Told unlike any other Biblical epic, a task made especially difficult because, at the same time (1960) his production was announced in the trade press, a second large-scale film version of the life of Christ was about to begin shooting in Spain. Samuel Bronston's independent production King of Kings (eventually released by MGM in 1961) was compared directly with Stevens' in the film press because both, for the first time in any major film since Cecil B. De Mille's 1927 version, were to show Christ's face on screen,2 Stevens strongly dissociated himself from the Bronston film, stressing the importance of reverence and research to producing the 'definitive' version. He told Time magazine: 'if this race to produce pictures about Jesus continues it can only result in a dis-service to the entertainment industry and, because of its lack of responsibility in dealing with the life of Jesus, prove objectionable to the public and religious organisations'.3

Though it was inspired by Fulton Oursler's book of the same title, Stevens insisted that The Greatest Story Ever Told would not 'be based on an existing literary concept or imagery, and it will not reflect patterns of imagery we are familiar with ... If there's anything that frightens me, it's the sense of remake. You must get as close to the moment of interpretation as possible.'4 In a private publicity meeting with his own company, Stevens declared to his assembled colleagues that 'this is no ordinary venture - this concept has not been done before ... We must attempt to explain the inscrutible [sic] ManGod'.5

However, with pre-production already underway in late 1961, and casting for some principal roles already made public, the film's backer, 20th Century-- Fox, abruptly withdrew. This decision was partly dictated by the huge loss the studio had made in the previous fiscal year, and its current problems in financing Cleopatra. With Bronston's Christ picture now completed and ready for release, the Fox board clearly felt it could invest no more than the $2.3 million already spent on The Greatest Story Ever Told and scrapped the project.6 Stevens eventually found a new home for the project with United Artists. The budget for the picture was set at $7.4 million (half the cost of MGM's 1959 remake of Ben-Hur); unusually, UA agreed to finance all budget overages itself, without threat of penalties for Stevens.7 As Tino Balio suggests, this highly favourable arrangement for the director was probably due to the prestige attached to his name and his strong commercial track record. He had won three Academy Awards in the previous decade: two as Best Director, for A Place in the Sun (1951) and Giant (1956), and the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award for 1953. Both Shane (1952) and Giant had been major hits. In Balio's words, UA 'bet on the man'.8

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

One of the most controversial aspects of The Greatest Story Ever Told was (and remains) Stevens'. approach to the casting of the picture. He devised the concept of a 'gallery of great artists ... who specifically fit the roles'.9 He wanted 'to get the best possible actors for every part, and this means most of the stars acting today'.10 Hence arose the film's 'all-star' cast, whose most frequently ridiculed member, John Wayne (playing the Centurion at the Crucifixion), was the first to be announced, followed by Sidne Poitier (as Simon of Cyrene), both announcements appearing in the trade press with lavish two-page pictorial spreads.11 Stevens should want to make the biggest names in the industry want to be identified with our picture-stars, costume designers, various artists. Top world-wide artists should offer their talents toward the making of our picture.'12 This optimistic hope was apparently realised, as publicist Maxwell Hamilton reported that 'Hardly a day passes that I don't get a call from a professional actor or actress seeking an extra's role in TGSET'.13 The policy was also extended to contributors from the other arts, as poet Carl Sandburg was signed, again with much fanfare, to work on the screenplay.

In making his choice for the principal role of Christ, Stevens was able to profit from the experience of Samuel Bronston on King of Kings, whose casting of the American actor Jeffrey Hunter had resulted in the mocking rechristening by critics of that film as I Was a Teenage Jesus. Rather than cast a name well-known to the (American) public, Stevens chose a Swedish actor who had come to critical prominence through his work with Ingmar Bergman in such films as The Seventh Seal (1957) and Winter Light (1962), but whose fame had not filtered down to the English-speaking commercial mainstream. Max von Sydow had apparently also been considered by King of Kings director Nicholas Ray for the role of Christ in the Bronston film.14 Stevens chose von Sydow for `the air of mystery' he would have for the American public; he sought to preserve this by keeping von Sydow's offscreen personality as ill-defined as possible, and by withholding from publication all shots of the actor out of character.15

The company was to regret the casting of at least one star who did not meet its requirement of public probity. In Stevens' eyes, Carroll Baker (who played Veronica) sullied her reputation before his picture's release by starring in such lewd melodramas as The Carpetbaggers (1963), in which she appeared semi-naked, and by discussing her liberal attitudes to sex and nudity in the press.16 In discussions of premiere arrangements for the film, and its final editing, the following comments were recorded: 'Could you get rid of Carroll Baker? She's cheapened herself so much of late, I doubt if she adds any value, instead she might detract.' 'We should keep Carroll Baker out of our discussions and publicity as much as possible.' 'Don't use her at all/'17

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Production costs and statistics

Pre-production on The Greatest Story Ever Told officially began on 11 July 1961 (two months before Fox's cancellation notice), and the shooting of photographic tests (for lighting conditions and so forth) began on 20 June 1962. Actual shooting did not begin until 29 October 1962, a month later than planned.18 Principal photography was scheduled to last for a total of 121 days, or 20 weeks. The unit actually remained on location, in Arizona, Nevada and Utah, until 5 June 1963 (32 weeks), and returned after a month's break caused by bad weather, including both sandstorms and snowstorms, the worst to hit Nevada in 50 years. Shooting of studio sets and interiors at Desilu Studios, Culver City, accounted for a further nine weeks, from 6 June to 31 July 1963. This partly overlapped with the second location period, as several units filmed simultaneously, on the instructions of UA to finish the picture as quickly as possible. While Stevens directed one main unit on location, and Richard Talmadge and William Hale handled second unit work, David Lean and Jean Negulesco were hired, at union minimum rates, to direct studio interiors for an additional five and seven days, respectively.19 Charlton Heston, cast as John the Baptist, also directed a studio scene in Stevens' absence, when the director was preoccupied with shooting on another soundstage.20

In addition to the full production crew who remained on the payroll for the whole period of shooting, there were 1,200 Navajo Indians acting as extras, whose accommodation, food and transport, medical bills, and so forth, all had to be paid by the company. National Guardsmen were used for the Roman soldiers, and their expenses also had to be met. One scene, of Christ's entry into Jerusalem, involved the use of 1,000 extras and the film's single largest set, the Gates of Jerusalem.21 A Saturday Evening Post article noted that Stevens lacked 'any sense of urgency' and commented on the extravagance of the production:

Forty-seven major sets were built, including nine that cost more than $100,000 each. Complete villages of tents, trailers, and prefab bungalows were located at location sites in Nevada and Utah. Aides of Stevens recruited enough animals to make up a Who's Zoo. The search for four while donkeys - one for Christ to ride and three stand-ins - alone took six months.22

By the completion of photography, the film's budget, like its shooting schedule, had doubled. It was to continue to rise during the protracted postproduction period. Editing, scoring and sound recording would drag on for an interminable 18 months, right up until a matter of days before the world premiere in February 1965, and would not finish there.23 Stevens' pace as an editor was notoriously slow, due to his habit of shooting coverage from multiple angles and his indecision in selecting which takes to use.24 Heston noted in his diary entry for 8 November 1962:

I did very little work today; George is intent on exploring in full all details of this scene before moving on to the next. I can't argue with that, of course, but ... it does make things go slowly.25

On 3 November 1963, week 63 of production, total costs were officially $18,025,811.88. The final negative cost (not including distribution, advertising and print expenses) eventually came to some $21 million.

Both Stevens' company and UA adopted an official policy not to discuss the rising costs. It was felt that public knowledge of the inordinate costs of recent pictures such as Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) and Cleopatra had damaged their commercial potential because audiences had received false and unreasonable expectations of their `production value'. An article in the Los Angeles Times identified the flaunting of costs as an unhealthy trend: Curiosity about what kind of movie resulted from an expenditure of $40 million can keep Cleopatra running indefinitely. So, in this isolated instance, cost of production... must be considered a major box-office stimulant.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

On the other hand, a psychological factor might offset this plus value. Does the ticket buyer enter the theater expecting not merely fair value for his admission price, but $40 million worth of entertainment? And, not receiving something beyond what his imagination can conceive, isn't his reaction likely to be expressed in disappointing word-of-mouth? ... If the budget boast is offered for the purpose of justifying terms to exhibitors, that's one thing; keep it within the trade, But let's drop production costs as an instrument of publicity to the publiC.26

Stevens had emphasised repeatedly to his staff since starting the project that The Greatest Story Ever Told was not to be a 'spectacle' film, and that `whatever the figure, when the final cost is in, it is a certainty that it will never be offered for public information as a gauge for the quality of the film'.27

Stevens expressed particular concern to UA head Arthur Krim over hyperbole published in the trade press to the effect that the film was the most expensive ever made in the US.28 Stevens wanted to avoid what he called `the ballyhoo approach', feeling that the theme of the picture would make such an approach particularly vulgar. Thus Krim, when interviewed subsequently on the subject of the film, declined to discuss its cost or specific box-office expectations, explaining:

It is our intention to keep this picture out of the context of dollars ... In our opinion it will be viewed by more people throughout the world and for a longer period of time than has been true of any picture yet made. It will make a massive contribution to our company over the next five years.29

In a memo to all publicity staff, UA's chief publicist Ann del Valle insisted that 'all operations must rest on the platform that The Greatest Story Ever Told will be an extraordinary film, so superior in itself that staggering production and cost statistics are of no consequence, and therefore to be avoided'. She cited a review of Barabbas (1961) in a Christian publication as the kind of adverse comment the company wished particularly to avoid:

Such monster films as these seem to turn a director into a general rather than a skilled interpreter of a story; and publicity departments go berserk in listing how many costumes were worn, towers built, extras used and checks written, hoping again to convince the potential audiences that quantity is a substitute for quality,30

Publicity strategies: precedents and policy

In deciding on an appropriate policy for publicising The Greatest Story Ever Told, Stevens' company sought to differentiate the picture from the majority of Biblical epics which had preceded it. An example of the kind of hyperbolic approach the company wanted to avoid is the 'three-way' exploitation strategy recommended by Paramount for the general release of The Sign of the Cross in 1933. The studio divided the ticket-buying public for the film in this way:

1. The masses ... who are not enthusiastically interested in religious themes or educational value. Sell them spectacle, the drama, the excitement and thrills. Here is sock drama and sex suggestion they understand and will buy. These elements, then, dominate your newspaper publicity, advertising, lobby and exploitation.

2. Church-goers! Here the appeal is tremendous. Reach this class thru the clergy, thru sermons, thru direct mail, This phase of your campaign is quiet. It is out of the newspapers and away from the mass public.

3. Schools. Educational interest here. The Los Angeles Board of Education has already ASKED for a complete set of production stills on The Sign of the Cross. De Mille's great spectacles are always historically accurate. Contact the schools in the same direct, out-of-- the-newspapers fashion as you do the churches.

DON'T MIX YOUR ISSUES! REMEMBER: DRAMA AND THUNDER AND SEX FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC... RELIGIOUS APPEAL FOR THE CHURCHES... EDUCATIONAL INTEREST FOR THE SCHOOLS! HAMMER EACH APPROACH!31

While Stevens rejected the crudely populist appeal of Paramount's first strategy, his company sought to develop and extend the second and third strategies.

A second 'model', more desirable for publicising The Greatest Story, was nearer to hand in De Mille's The Ten Commandments (1956). The AMPAS files on Stevens' film contain extensive notes on the publicity policy devised by De Mille's company for this picture, and it is clear that many of the principles and methods used to publicise this film were taken over and adapted for The Greatest Story's.32

A document entitled 'Handling of The Ten Commandments' is included in Ann del Valle's publicity folder in the AMPAS Greatest Story files (del Valle worked as a publicist on both films, hence would have direct access to such information).33 It reveals that all publicity was directly approved by De Mille himself. There was no national advertising campaign for the picture with the exception of religious periodicals, and this was not placed until about three months after the initial openings. Advertising money instead was spent on newspapers at the local level as the film opened in each. area. Rather than use commercial publications De Mille's company organised national direct mailing schemes:

to all drama editors, all religious editors, all columnists, both entertainment and opinion, editorial writers of the general press; similar areas of the radio and television; church and school publications; all key personnel of all church councils; all divisions on the diocesan level relating to education, propagation of the faith, social or service groups ... etc.

It was on this plan that the campaign of The Greatest Story was to be based.

In the notes prepared for an early, pre-production publicity meeting, Stevens had drawn up a list of 19 'Points for Consideration', which were to characterise all future references to the film in publicity matters.34 They included the following:

The proper presentation of this concept to all the publics: public must consider it a privilege to buy tickets to our picture. We must educate the public to the realization that this is not just another Biblical picture ...

* The lost market. These are the people from roughly twenty-five years and up. We must go after them in a special campaign. Must be reached through specialized procedures ...

* The objective of creating an atmosphere during production to coincide with the intent, challenge of the production, at the same time exuding the spirit of good theatre ...

* Editorials in key papers - Life Magazine, etc. Start at the top and let it filter down. Get top man to say our project is good. (Pope John, Vatican paper, Dept. Stores like Macy's, Broadway, etc. to take ads regarding our picture, etc, etc.) Also - Rev. Dan M. Potter, Director of Protestant Council in New York, He should come out with statement. Something constructive from these people: Legion of Decency, Rabbinical Association, Buddhist groups, etc. - all these groups must be apprised of our picture and made aware of what we are doing ... 35

* Work for commendation of intent. Heads of State, Industry, Women's Clubs - all organizations in our culture - appeal to their self-interest - what we are doing is to their benefit. Get list of all organized religions - get list of their religious papers. Write these journals re our project ...

* House Organs - e.g. General Motors... Chevrolet, etc. Get list of these organs ...

* Policy. No endorsements of commercials by players in TGSET ...

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

* Consider stipulations in players' contract to prevent article arrangements which might reflect unhelpfully on the picture ...

* We must try to influence opinion makers wherever they may be. (Kennedy, Stevenson, etc). Must reach top men. (United Nations -- Dag Hammersjold, Ralph Bunche, etc.) Langston Hughes (Negro poet) ...

A pamphlet of documentation was provided at this meeting, containing excerpts from Stevens' interviews concerning the picture. Forty-one items were included, among them the director's claim that there was a need for 'a very new look at a very old story'. Stevens wanted to avoid an emphasis on spectacle or production values for their own sake: 'the thing that we want to interest our audience in is the ideas expressed in the film. The play is the thing.' To this end, the story of the picture was to be 'told simply, without embellishments'; Stevens felt that The Greatest Story Ever Told must have a point of view accepted favourably by those religions outside 'the Judeo-Christian tenets', including those in India and Pakistan and 'behind the Iron Curtain'. He wanted to make 'a definitive film' that would still be exhibited in `the 2000th year of the birth of Christ'. This ambitious aim was based on Stevens' recognition that films are 'becoming more international and less specifically national'.

Stevens wanted 'in approximately a three-- hour period [to] present the distillation, the essence of what Jesus said and the meaning of his life to mankind'. He referred to the commercial isation of Christ and general public ignorance about the true life and times of Jesus: `Santa Claus is better known than Jesus'. Stevens aimed to present 'the fullest explanation of the Judaic-Christian tradition and the real closeness in religions of Christians and Jews'. He stressed the importance of the knowledge imparted by movies: 'This is the era of the "think" picture'.

A further document, on the matter of gaining news story space in publications, was headed `Policy Making'.36 Among its stipulations were the following: []he primary thought should be kept in mind at all times that it is the production we are selling. Not just a production but one of the great milestones in motion picture making. This point of view will be maintained throughout. No one member of the cast will be singled out at any time to dominate....

At all times, our approach will be that this production will last not just this year or next year, but for many, many years to come, and will be pointed to as the great, definitive story of Jesus Christ ... the most distinguished production of all time.

The religious community

Among the most important sectors of the population the film had to reach were the various members of the broad Christian community. Ann del Valle noted that 'people must read and hear about it through the channels which do not normally cover motion pictures - editorial, art, church, education, etc. 37 This meant direct mailing to religious associations, church memberships, ministers, and so forth, invitations to visit the set during production, and solicitation of their interest and support, on a personal basis as well as by the company in its corporate capacity.

This, however, had to be handled discreetly and sensitively in order not to seem 'exploitative'. Del Valle noted that 'there is a feeling frequently stated by persons in these areas, that too often film companies seek to "use" goodwill organisations, the clergy and church press for free publicity'.38 Ina document headed 'Handling of All People Who Come to Us', del Valle stressed that:

everyone who visits the set or studio should go away feeling that it has been an exciting and wonderful experience .... We should never put ourselves in the position that any distinguished visitor or any organizational group can say that we used them to publicize the film -rather, with our help but their initiation, they should be brought to do it.39

Letters and notes from numerous churchmen and women who visited the production unit on location are enclosed in the film's publicity files. They indicate that these visits began even before the start of principal photography. One letter, concerning the visit of a Pastor and Mrs Schroeder and party, informed the company that `it might mean something to you to know that you are not alone .., [we] believe a higher person is behind YOU,.40 Other visitors to the set included the Canon to the Ordinary, Diocese of Northern California, and representatives of the National Council, Protestant Episcopal Church; the American Bible Society; the Department of Religion, University of Southern California; the Department of the Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary; the Hebrew Union College; and President Sarvepalli Radhaknishnan of India with a party of 25.(41)

Good wishes were possibly less important to the picture's commercial welfare than positive action, especially recommendations from ministers to see and support the film, and offers to purchase blocks of tickets at theatres showing the film. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Los Angeles, promised to 'take the house' for a minimum of ten nights in its opening weeks. The Church had '34 stakes in Southern California, each comprising five to nine churches with from 400 to 8000 people in each stake', and had 'filled the house 18 times' for The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm (1962) and How the West Was Won (1962).42

The company's own personnel contributed to the effort. Executive producer Frank Davis gave speeches on the film to the First Baptist Church (September 1963), and at a seminar organised by the American Bible Society and the Whittier Council of Churches (October 1963). Ann del Valle recounted an incident on set which testified to the reverent and pious tone sustained by the unit throughout production:

When the giving of the Lord's Prayer was filmed ... all heads were bared, some of the men fell to their knees. There was awe, reverence, a real communion, in their faces. Ernest Haas, one of the great still photographers of today, turned his camera from the scene being recorded by the motion picture cameras to photograph the extraordinary response to it by the men not directly involved with the camera and the sound.

When placing advertising for the picture in church-related periodicals, del Valle considered that only full-page advertisements were appropriate. Display exhibits were placed in the windows of branches of the American Bible Society and in churches. Shortly before the film's opening, a luncheon was held in Chicago for representatives of all Christian and Jewish groups.44 Following pre-release previews in New York and Los Angeles to which religious leaders were invited, letters were received from various religious organisations, almost all praising the film and promising to recommend it. They included letters from `Operation Moral Upgrade', American Baptist Communications, the American Bible Society and the Southern Baptist Convention. There were, however, one or two notes resisting the company's invitations. A letter was received from the Office of Billy Graham, declining an offer to see the film at a screening during its release. The Rev. Forrest L. Knapp, General Secretary of the Council of Churches (Massachusetts), responded to an offer to attend the Chicago luncheon with: '[W]e don't want to be commercial with biblical films ... there has been a lot of criticism about these pictures and I cannot attend .45

Promotional activities and merchandising

Publicity during production focussed on still images taken on set. As noted earlier, the company wished to avoid excessive publicity surrounding the figure and private life of Max von Sydow, so a policy was agreed of limiting photographs of him to a few representative images in character. Stills of scenes from the film itself were also held back as much as possible until the picture was ready for release, with the exception of a single emblematic scene.46 It was reported in the trade press that `except for the picture itself the photography in George Stevens' The Greatest Story Ever Told will constitute "the single greatest selling tool".'47

One of its biggest promotional 'breaks' was a 16-page colour photographic layout in Life magazine by photographer Eliot Elisofon, the material for which was also to be made available in book form. In addition there were photo layouts in Look, This Week, Good Housekeeping, Parents, Glamour, Redbook, Boy Scout, and Seventeen,48 However, Stevens' insistence on strict control over what photographs were taken and released, with no stills to be taken except by one official unit photographer and any 'star' photographers (such as Karsh or Cartier-Bresson) who might be invited on set, led to a dispute with the International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries over the union's insistence that the film employ three still photographers on the shoot, as per its minimum requirements.49

With the film nearing completion of production, publicist Maxwell Hamilton, in a memo entitled 'Postproduction and pre-release promotional activities', set out 19 areas in which promotions could be effected.s They included:

* Publications, including a souvenir programme brochure; a book on the making of the film; a reprint of the original Oursler novel; school study guides and children's books; a compilation of scholarly research materials; a biography of Stevens; and the screenplay of the film.

* A travelling exhibition of props, costumes and photographs from the film, arranged by the Smithsonian Institute, to tour museums in key cities;51 other exhibits produced for use in department stores, churches, Sunday schools and other schools; and a stand at the New York World's Fair.

* Audio-visual aids, such as film strips, slide presentations and models.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

* A thirty-minute colour documentary on the making of the film, for showing on network television at Easter 1964, and subsequent distribution to clubs, schools and churches, and as an extended theatrical trailer.

* TV and radio promotions, including news programme reports, taped interviews and appearances by stars of the film (Sal Mineo and Michael Anderson, Jr. were specifically named as actors 'appealing to younger film-goers').

* Pressbooks for exhibitors, containing suggestions for local promotions and advertising.

* Previews, especially for 'religious leaders, educators, leading industrialists, government officials, psychologists, youth leaders, boy and girl scout officials, and others concerned with juvenile problems'.

* Gifts for the press and religious leaders, including `tasteful mementoes' of the film.

* Testimonial dinners and awards honoring Stevens.

* Commercial tie-ups.

Of the last-named Hamilton noted: 'This is an area requiring the greatest of delicacy, and ordinarily is something which might not seem possible in a film with a subject matter as sacred as ours

Between 15 January 1962 and 30 June 1965, publicity costs for the film totalled $3,124,300.(52) These costs included: the short film documentary and TV featurette; special photography; American Airlines promotion and public visits; publicity staff salaries and expenses; advance newspaper advertising; music promotion; souvenir books, exhibits, special exploitation and publicity; advertisements for newspapers and trade press; stills, publicity kits and materials; roadshow theatre; premiere expenses; a press junket; and a photo tour and personal appearance tour by Charlton Heston.

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Exhibition policy and post-production publicity

The world premiere of The Greatest Story Ever Told was set for 15 February 1965, at the Warner Cinerama theatre, New York. The choice of theatre (which held 1,504 seats) and the scaling of ticket prices for the subsequent public run (from $2.50 to $5.00) were matters carefully weighed by Stevens' company, and decided with reference to the price scales charged in New York for other major roadshow pictures. UA's publicist wrote to Stevens with information concerning theatre capacities and price scales.53 The Greatest Story Ever Told almost matched the most expensive prices hitherto charged for top seats (for Cleopatra and My Fair Lady [1964]), but offered a considerable reduction on the lowest-- price matinee seats, presumably as a concession to the family trade. Although most runs were to involve 10 weekly performances, as per the pattern for roadshow exhibition established by Around the World in Eighty Days (1956), Stevens authorised special extra matinees for Easter morning and Good Friday. Such extra shows, he felt, 'would be an incident of note all around [the] country'.54

The charity world premiere, attended by President and Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, sold tickets at a special price of $100 each, as a benefit for the United Nations Association and the Eleanor Roosevelt Memorial Foundation, the national co-chairman of which was UA's co-chairman, Robert S. Benjamin. The West Coast premiere followed two nights later. Each new opening in each successive city (there were 29 US openings in the first three months of the oadshow release, all in 70mm) was to be regarded as another premiere, with photo displays, 'press cocktail parties, a gathering of ... important opinionmaking leaders in the community, with a separate youth function (with soft drinks) using exhibits of the display boards and personalities from the picture, when available, in attendance, including Mr Stevens'.55 The tone of such premieres, said Stevens, 'should be a little different - modest, less shrill. Very dignified.'

Stevens' company took particular care with 'the physical setup' of theatres in New York and throughout the country.56 It stipulated: `In all instances the image and projection of the picture comes first and must take precedence'. Theatres were instructed that the placing of advertising materials related to the film, such as decorations, stills, exhibits and cast lists, should not be hampered or artistically damaged by association with popcorn, candy or coke dispensers on counters. These counters, dispensers and machines should be minimised ... If not controlled, theatres have a tendency to push and promote candy and coke sales to an obnoxious point that seriously interferes with the complete enjoyment of a picture, particularly one as sensitive as The Greatest Story Ever Told.

Stevens further stipulated that, on premiere evenings when religious or political groups might be present in force, 'any feeling of candy counter objections [from members of these groups] should automatically close the counters'.

For party bookings early in the picture's run, the company targeted 'VIP groups [who] will give off community opinion', with 'lesser' groups left, where possible, until later in the season.57 Stevens considered word-of-mouth advertising to be most effective from the first 12 shows of a run; he ordered that sales should therefore concentrate on these nights. Blocks of tickets for nights in the first month's run were sold, for example, to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Junior Chamber of Commerce (Negro Group), and the Fuller Theological Seminars. Stevens instructed the film's publicists to consult with exhibitors to work out a plan for targeting interest groups, in particular racial minorities and noted that he wanted Martin Luther King to see the film. Ed Sullivan, the company's director of publicity and advertising, argued that they should 'Pursue foreign groups - go after Mexican and Negro communities'.58

Critical and public response

The first screening for the company of the still unfinished film was held on 21 August 1964. Ann del Valle again addressed the question of 'special interest groups', and their possible reactions to specific scenes, images and incidents in the film:

I keep weighing without firm conclusion the possible response of hyper-sensitive Negroes. The Negro prostitute among the others in the streets of Jerusalem is so much a part of the tapestry, that it had my complete acceptance. But along the Via Dolorosa, before the appearance of Simon of Cyrene, I felt a sense of jolt as the camera looked singly and firmly at a Negro in the mob. I mention this because I found myself making an explanation of the point being made by the close look. Simon's later action counter-balances, but still I had a feeling of the earlier look being too purposeful. From the standpoint of sensitivity in the Jewish area, the film so clearly states (Nicodemus says it in words) that the instigators of the persecution are a special interest group. To this is most clearly added at the sentencing that more than one variety of special interest can influence the cause of an event, including just the need to hate ...

I think that there will be some 'Christians' though who will be so determined to make the interpretation of Jesus' `Do not weep for me' to the women of Jerusalem into the accepted curse that nothing could divert them from it ... I think there may be pressures by some Jewish groups to remove this one line ...59

However, when the reviews came in, special interest groups were the least of the company's worries. Press comment on the film was not simply negative, but devastating. Charlton Heston's published diary records his own response to the reviewers' judgements: 'I've never so ill-estimated a critical reaction ... I'm less upset over their opinion than over my own inability to predict it'.60 One American magazine remarked that, 'The scale of The Greatest Story Ever Told was so stupendous, the pace so stupefying, that I felt not uplifted - but sandbagged!', and the New York Times reviewer noted of the all-star cast that, 'The most distractive [sic] nonsense is the popup of familiar faces in so-called cameo roles, jarring the illusion ...'.61 Other comment included the follow ing:

Wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat', says the Bible (Matthew 7:13). The latest to go in thereat is ProducerDirector George Stevens ... Three hours and 41 minutes of impeccable boredom ... .62

If to devout Christians the life of the Saviour is the greatest story ever told ... the latest attempt to do so ... is, not to mince words, a disaster ... If the subject matter weren't sacred in origin, we would be responding to the picture in the most charitable way possible by laughing at it from start to finish; this Christian mercy being denied us, we can only sit and suddenly marvel at the energy with which, for nearly four hours, the note of serene vulgarity is triumphantly maintained.63

On 20 February 1965, Stevens summoned his editors and music scorers, all of whom had been kept on payroll even after the premiere, to a projection room in Los Angeles to announce: 'The two gala premieres here and in New York have served as excellent previews. The general reaction is that the film runs too long. We will go through the picture scene by scene with the purpose of paring it without in any way emasculating it.'64 The premiere running time had been 227 minutes, including overture, entr'acte and exit music. On 7 March, three weeks after its public debut, the newly revised running time stood at 199 minutes and 30 seconds, including additional music (this is the version currently available on home video). Forty-two complete prints had to be recalled for the cuts to be made and the sound rerecorded. For subsequent-run distribution in 35mm Panavision, the film was later cut again, first to 141 minutes (a version which sometimes plays on cable and satellite television), then to 127.(65)

To counteract negative critical and box-office responses, the company sought more favourable comment from notable public figures in the media, politics and the Church. Ann del Valle set about an intensive four-week programme of 'opinion-molding', to secure `endorsements from key figures, national and international', to 'arouse active efforts' on behalf of the film through public comment, radio, TV and denominational media, and to arrange integration of the film into teaching materials and programmes in schools.ss Quotations were solicited from those who had attended premieres, including among others Congressman James Roosevelt, executives Harold Mirisch and Richard D. Zanuck, producers Samuel Goldwyn, Frank Ross, Arthur Freed and Ross Hunter, directors Frank Capra, George Seaton and Norman Taurog, screenwriter Howard Koch, actors Gregory Peck and Eddie Albert, and other likely sources who had 'probably' seen the film, such as Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke.67 Stevens was informed by his publicists that 'for quite some time we have been trying to interest church leaders and others to rally in the course of the injustice that we feel we have received from various critics'.68

Not all the film's press had been negative. Various organisations responded with their support and thanks. Stevens was given the award of merit from the California State Federation of Women's Clubs. The Christian pressure group 'Operation Moral Upgrade' remarked in its bulletin that: The Greatest Story Ever Told is just that: it is the greatest, and a privilege to use; artistically, photographically, scenically, emotionally satisfying, and beautiful beyond belief ... Do not make a mistake and place this picture in the same category with former religious or historical spectacles It is four hours of pure theater, a rare experience.69

The Catholic National Legion of Decency had given the film its highest rating, A-1, and positive recommendation. Stevens' company sent out a letter to 493 parish priests recommended by the Chancery Office, citing the Legion's approval and enclosing guest tickets to see the film (favourable reactions are indicated by the file of thank-you letters and endorsements the company received in return).70 A leter was sent to 1,400 of its ministers by the Church Federation of Los Angeles, stating that: 'George Stevens has made one of the most un-Hollywoodish pictures ever to come out of Hollywood. It is a great work of art reverently done. Nothing is overdrawn or exaggerated and seeing it is more of a worship experience than entertainment.'71 A favourable review in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's daily newspaper, was headed 'The Gospel in Cinerama by George Stevens':

The picture should meet with the favor of the public to whom it presents a clear and effective vision of Gospel facts, giving it entertainment value with mass scenes, grandiose reconstruction of the scenery, elegant costumes, color, stereophonic sound and famous actors, but without the garishness of a De Mille ... The director kept intelligently to the dimensions of a popular film, composing a big illustrated album of stupendous colour pictures which have us all relive the most beautiful pages of the life of Christ in the best traditional iconography.72

Perhaps the most interesting 'positive' response is the transcription of a broadcast by the right-wing satirist Al Capp, who reviewed the film for the NBC radio show Monitor. The transcript was sent to Stevens by one of his company who claimed that Al said what many of us feel and said it so well that I wanted to be sure you were aware of it,.73 Capp refers to the 'adolescent act of arrogance' which made the film one of Harvard Lampoon's Worst Pictures of the Year:74

The favorite movie critics of Harvard students and of most undergraduates are those who tell them that Ingemar Bergmann's [sic] are just about the centuries [sic] greatest triumphs. Those critics never tell them just what IB films are about, but then who can? ... a bunch of critics who admire the qualities to be found in IB movies ... qualities such as obscurity and depravity ... will naturally detest a movie that goes to the other extreme ... a movie with clarity instead of obscurity, with decency substituted for depravity.

The Greatest Story Ever Told doesn't excite any new emotions. It does fill you with pity and awe ... with love and with faith ... with emotions so old they've been forgotten by the new moviemakers and by the new generation of half-- grown, half educated moviegoers.75

Finally, and most bizarrely, Stevens received a letter from the Association of State and Provincial Safety Coordinators, requesting a tie-in with their Moral Responsibility Program in Traffic Safety, It suggested Stevens reply to the negative reviews by saying 'Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do', said that everyone should see the film, and claimed that the Association had ideas 'to help fill the empty seats in the theatres ...'.76

Posterity

Stevens maintained that:

The motion picture has achieved a new dimension which is not physical like a wider screen.... The new dimension ... is that it plays forever. From an artistic standpoint this improvement is construed as the most important advancement yet made in motion pictures; from the commercial standpoint, it seems an almost unlimited earning capacity for the film.

I think a film is not destroyed as quickly as it was ... The films came and they went. They were moved right along. Now it's a customary thing if a film is of any consequence it's around for a year or a longer period of time, around for two years. And from where I sit and for my interest in films, that's a much more satisfactory situation. I'd rather make a film that would be around for fifty years or even two years than make five films that would be around for two weeks each.77

Early box-office results for the film were mixed. Grosses from the first 15 weeks and 27 engagements in the US and Canada showed that it was performing significantly less well than previous roadshow engagements over a similar period. The longest domestic engagement for The Greatest Story Ever Told, its New York premiere run, lasted the full fifteen weeks; the shortest ran only six, in Portland, Oregon. UA announced that for its subsequent domestic runs the film would be played off slowly over six or seven years, in limited engagements of two weeks rather than in general release.78

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

In its year-end review of 1965, Variety noted ominously of The Greatest Story that, 'No information was forthcoming from United Artists on the film, indicating that its business was disappointing'.79 The box-office sensations of that year were the musicals Mary Poppins (1964), My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music (1965): the last earning the first $20 million of its eventual $80 million haul, the largest rental take of any 1960s roadshow. It was released by Twentieth Century-Fox, the studio which had cancelled The Greatest Story Ever Told. UA had the consolation prize of Goldfinger (1964), its second largest hit to that date (after Around the World in Eighty Days), but scarcely the sacred epic the company had conceived as its magnum opus.

UA did not report its rentals for The Greatest Story to Variety until 1968, when the domestic gross was revealed as $6,310,298.(80) This figure has since been updated to $6,962,715, indicating minimal additional income from subsequent runs and reissues. Tino Balio indicates that total world theatrical revenues reached $12.1 million, and that as early as 1965 UA had written off 60 per cent of its investment. $5 million was clawed back two years later by its sale to network television, in a package deal which brought similar amounts for screenings of West Side Story (1961), It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963), and Tom Jones (1963).81

The Greatest Story Ever Told was perhaps unfortunate in following not only King of Kings into release but also Pier-Paolo Pasolini's fi Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1964), which, more accurately than Stevens' film, represented a version of the Christ story which rejected traditional epic hyperbole. The longer-term effects of the film's failure are observable in the virtual disappearance of the Biblical epic in the second half of the 1960s and thereafter, following a final entry in the genre, The Bible - In the Beginning .... in 1966. Subsequent attempts to film Biblical subjects have more often appeared as television specials or miniseries, such as Lew Grade's Anglo-Italian productions Moses the Lawgiver (1975) and Jesus of Nazareth (1977), or low-budget independent productions, such as the Genesis Project's Jesus (1979). Only King David (1985) and the controversial The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), both commercial failures, were Hollywood studio productions. The public statements of The Bible's director, John Huston, carry eerie echoes of Stevens' own previous comments: 'I am making The Bible because I think it can be a picture of rare beauty and fascination. I did not set out to make a spectacle. It bears little relation to any other Bible picture ever made. It's [sic] size and grandeur is [sic] only in keeping with the profoundly simple text of the Book of Genesis.82

Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%

Stevens, despite his professed attempts to ensure otherwise, was sucked into the very pomp and hyperbole from which he had wished to distance his picture. Many of the pronouncements he made about what he did not want to do are contradicted by the evidence of the production reports, the critical reception, and the film itself (or what remains of it).

The grandiosity and outsize scale, immense costs, vulgarity and pretentiousness often assumed to be characteristic of the Biblical epic are all as much in evidence in Stevens' film as they are in any of De Mille's (or, for that matter, Samuel Bronston's). Even Stevens' specifically stated intention to refrain from dependence on existing pictorial conventions and familiar imagery, is reneged upon: the Last Supper is staged and composed (with the aid of the attenuated screen shape of Ultra Panavision, aspect ratio 2.76: 1) much as Da Vinci had painted it. Choral arranger Ken Darby has also described his and composer Alfred Newman's horror at Stevens' insistence on interpolating both Handel's Messiah and Verdi's Requiem into Newman's otherwise original score.83

It is too easy to attribute the film's commercial and artistic failure merely to Stevens' egotism; his conviction that the film was to be a definitive masterpiece was shared by many of his colleagues, including United Artists executives. The contradictions of the film can be found in such details as the title's rhetorical superlative spoken sotto voce by a narrator over the opening sequence; the claimed pursuit of authenticity and the decision to shoot on location in Monument Valley rather than the Middle East; a desire for a fresh interpretation, and the dependence on a 'gallery of great artists' (John Wayne, Carl Sandburg, Da Vinci, Handel); the wish to avoid the crassness of empty spectacle, and the choice of 70mm Cinerama as screen format. It is difficult to represent these as logical creative strategies, yet over the five years of the film's preparation and production they seem to have been accepted as such by everyone involved.

Stevens himself referred (in the quotation at the head of this section) to the changed nature of film production, distribution, and exhibition in the 1960s as the conditions which allowed such an undertaking to be made. He would surely not have been permitted, encouraged or possibly even tempted under the 'classical' studio system to make such a film in the way that he eventually did. Though his slow pace and painstaking exactitude as a director were evident at least as early as 1939, when he pushed RKO's Gunga Din over budget and over schedule, it took the roadshow era of the 1960s for a business-oriented corporation to grant him the licence to take nearly three years and $21 million to shoot and edit a four-hour blockbuster, without any apparent restraint or discipline in his working methods. Only then could creative 'independence' and the conviction of an unlimited global audience give rein to such overweening ambition and monumental self-importance. Far from being a film for all time, it is as much a product of its age as Easy Rider (1969) or A Hard Day's Night (1964).84