Volume I: Narrative History

Chapter 5 (1912: An $8,000 Production

December 24, 1912 was the release date of Thanhouser's three-reel The Star of Bethlehem, the first three-reel picture since Lucile, and the first Thanhouser film of this length to be released on a single date. Florence LaBadie played Mary and James Cruze took the part of Joseph, while the large supporting cast included just about everyone in the Thanhouser studio. The director was Lawrence Marston. Bert Adler worked overtime and sent news releases to dozens of newspapers and magazines. An article appearing in The New York Dramatic Mirror, October 30th, nearly two months in advance of the film's release date, served to drum up attention:

ODD FACTS ABOUT "BETHLEHEM." The Thanhouser Company spent $8,000 on The Star of Bethlehem. Seven reels of negative were made, from which the final three were selected. One month was consumed in producing the picture. In the cast were 200 people, of whom 40 were principals. A special animal department handling sacred cows, asses and camels was organized for the production of the subject. There were special costume, property and scenic departments. A special force of electrical experts was engaged for light effects. The trick effects alone took over a week to produce.

Some of the largest scenes, such as the ones of battles, were taken by three cameras, posted at as many different angles. A committee of New Rochelle churchmen assisted the company officials in selecting from the seven reels of negative the best portions for the three releasing reels. Note The infant used was selected from 60 tots brought to the Thanhouser studio by New Rochelle mothers. At the time the infant was picked, the Thanhouser studio suggested a baby contest. Eleven automobiles were employed in transporting the players from the studio to the outside locations. Three of the machines were of the truck type, seating from 12 to 16 apiece.

In New Rochelle The Evening Standard in its issue of November 20th used the film as a foundation for a commentary on motion pictures and society:

Even those who witnessed the production of The Star of Bethlehem, which the Thanhouser Film Corporation regards as its crowning achievement, and receive such a highly favorable impression of the motion picture as an educational force, do not fully comprehend the time, expense and people required for its presentation. For this production 200 people were required, a month was consumed in its preparation, and $8,000 expended before the picture was run off yesterday afternoon.

It was a remarkable representation of historic events fraught with great interest to the Christian world. The characters, customs and dress of the large numbers of people acting the scenes were required to be carefully studied in order that the representation should be kept as close to the biblical narrative and tradition as possible. Probably only those charged with the supervision of a production of this magnitude realize the labor and painstaking care required. Few realize, also, the extent to which this form of entertainment and instruction, though in its infancy, has reached. Outside of the press it has become, doubtless, the greatest educational force, for good or ill, in existence.

The motion picture is instructing as well as entertaining, in which respect it differs from the stage, which enters the domain of instruction only in a slight degree. Like the newspaper, its mission is the daily dissemination of that which entertains and instructs. Both are great educational agencies, and the influence that each exerts depends upon the character and purpose of those responsible for their conduct. The character of motion pictures is undergoing a change. The standard is being raised. The newspaper has relegated the lecture platform to the past, and the motion picture, a more advanced form of kindergarten teaching, is to share with it, to a certain extent, the obligation of public instruction. It is an up-to-date improvement on the stereopticon of boyhood days.

There is no country too cold, none too hot, none too far away, no obstacles too insuperable for the motion picture man and his camera. The schools and even the churches are utilizing it for the wholesome entertainment and instruction of their charges. This has been brought about largely through wholesome censorship and a demand from parents and teachers for a higher class of production. It would be invidious in this connection to make comparisons, to say that the Thanhouser productions have been of comparatively high grade during the evolution of the motion picture, and it is said there has been no severer critic of reels offered for the approval than Mr. Thanhouser himself. That is why the patriotic New Rochellean always feels proud of the fact, whenever he sees a Thanhouser picture, that it is made in New Rochelle.

Motography found the film to be "magnificent in its settings," "impressively handled," and a "magnificent production." Other reviews were primarily in the same vein. Except one: W. Stephen Bush, one of the industry's leading writers, author of How to Put on the Passion Play and lecturer on the life of Christ, had a deep knowledge of the subject and certainly was a qualified observer. In The Moving Picture World, Bush commented:

In undertaking the film of a biblical subject the producer assumes a serious obligation. He becomes in a measure the trustee of the motion picture art. It is evident that more, far more than ordinary pains must be taken to rise to the demands of such a task. A director may be able to preside over the making of a routine release, but at the same time be wholly lacking in the requirements of the higher work. It is within the bounds of the possible that an average producer may produce something creditable in the filming of a sacred picture if he puts himself under expert guidance in all questions of history, atmosphere, costumes, manners, customs, etc. If he is willing and able to learn, his directing abilities may be of good use even on a purely biblical subject. Without such expert guidance however it is very clear that he is much like a ship without a rudder; he drifts but does not navigate and the chances are that he will strike the rocks of disaster with a more or less fearful impact.

The Thanhouser company has in the past shown much of that fine skill in details, which is the one certain hallmark of quality. In their Dickens productions they established a new record in the art of filming popular and classic fiction and left every rival far behind.

In this three-reel production I have been able to discover but few and faint traces of the old skill. I fully realize that some latitude must be allowed to the producer of a sacred historical picture - if you succeed the limit in creating a true atmosphere and keeping within the limits of the probable, he is doing all that can under ordinary circumstances be expected of him. I do not think that the producers in this instance have succeeded in either respect. The settings have not been well chosen. This applies both to interior and exterior settings. A modern clothes rack looks out of place in the cottage of Joseph and Mary. Nothing could be more marked than the difference between our architecture and that of the East. It was therefore unwise to obtrude a particularly modern style of building in so many scenes.

There were two guides which should have saved the producer from at least every glaring error: one was the plain text of the Bible and the other was Christian tradition as it may be found pictured in the paintings of the masters. Every Christian painter has conceived the angel Gabriel as the messenger of cheer and consolation. To show Gabriel clad in armor and weaponed with a sword is contrary to both tradition and common sense. A glance at any picture of the Annunciation should have prevented such a mistake. The plain text of the Bible makes the angel charged with heavenly summons enter Mary's home; in these pictures the angel appears to Mary on the way from the wedding and in the presence of Joseph.

The character of Herod is misconceived and poorly acted. Aside from the historic fact that Herod was a broken old man at the time of the birth of Christ, while the pictures portray him as a man in his prime, it is entirely incorrect to show Herod listening to the wise men in full view and presence of his court. The text of Matthew expressly states that Herod spoke to the wise men privately. The producer had a wrong idea about the significance of the census ordered by Rome. Why Herod should be distressed upon receiving notice of a census proposed by the Roman authorities is not at all clear.

Defects of this nature are most disturbing, but they are not the only nor even the worst defects. There is too much melodrama. A constant succession of prayerful and devotional poses and attitudes on the part of the actors is entirely wrong. Piety and devotion do not show themselves that way in real life. Joseph and Mary were human beings and not incarnations of cheap chromos. To be sure their conduct was characterized by a signal dignity, but it was a natural, not a stilted and forced dignity.

Great liberties were taken by the director with the quotations from the text of Matthew and Luke. The words of Mary, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord," etc. were spoken in her home in Nazareth in response to the sweet and solemn greeting of Gabriel, while in the picture they are uttered in the manger of Bethlehem apropos of nothing at all in particular. The angel who brought the glad tidings to the shepherds was a lay figure with its eyes averted from the shepherds.

Here and there, notably in the scenes at the court of Herod, some managerial skill was displayed in the handling of the crowds, the photography was good and the costumes were on the whole fairly acceptable, but this must constitute the fullest measure of praise which can be conscientiously given to this production. The producer who essays the filming of a big subject in the present state of the cinematographic art must come to the task with complete equipment and with capable directors and capable experts. He must expect to have his productions compared with the best that has been achieved up to the present one. There must be no step backward.

If Bert Adler smarted from Bush's attack, he did not show it, for The Star of Bethlehem was promoted as no Thanhouser film had ever been before. Here was not only a great film, publicity notices stated, but one that had a timeless value. And, sure enough, for several Easters and Christmases afterward The Star of Bethlehem was billed as appropriate for the season.