The Wandering Jew is a figure from a mediaeval legend who was said to have mocked Jesus on the way to His Crucifixion. As a punishment he was cursed with an unwanted immortality and doomed to walk the Earth until the Second Coming.
A silent film on the subject of the Wandering Jew was made in Britain in 1923, of which this is a remake. Both films had the same director, Maurice Elvey. In this version the Jew is Mathathias, a wealthy citizen of Jerusalem, who is living in adultery with another man's wife. His mistress is seriously ill, and Mathathias believes that Jesus is the only man who can save her. He meets Jesus on the way to Calvary and begs Him to heal the woman. Jesus replies that the woman will be healed if she returns to her husband, provoking Mathathias to utter the fateful curse. When the woman dies, he tries to commit suicide by stabbing himself, but fails when the knife breaks.
The film does not follow all of Mathathias's wanderings through the centuries, but concentrates upon three episodes, one during the Crusades, one in mediaeval Sicily and one in 16th century Seville. He has repented of his sins and is a now a good man, a wise and much-loved doctor who will treat the poor without fee. He is doomed, however, never to find happiness, and his goodness does not spare him from the attentions of the the Spanish Inquisition, which has begun a campaign of anti-Jewish persecutions. Mathathias is given the chance to save himself by denying Judaism and proclaiming his allegiance to Catholicism, but he refuses, saying that if Christ were to return to Earth He would not recognise the Church as His own.
The film was made in 1933, shortly after Hitler's rise to power, and was one of two British films from 1933 and 1934 which used historical incidents of persecution of the Jews as a way of commenting on Nazi anti-Semitism. The other was "Jew Suss" which also starred Conrad Veidt, a German actor who had fled Germany after the Nazis came to power. The American-made "The House of Rothschild" from around the same period had a similar agenda; all three films were later remade by the Nazis but with the central message reversed so that they became examples of anti-Semitic propaganda.
In common with "The Wandering Jew" has some features common to many early talkies, notably a stagey and exaggerated style of acting, although some might think that this is not altogether inappropriate in a film based upon an old legend rather than modern-day realities. After ninety years it is starting to show its age; the quality of the soundtrack on the version which I recently saw on British television was not always good. My difficulties in understanding were worsened by the fact that Veidt spoke English with a heavy foreign accent. (His difficulties with the language had doomed an attempt to break into the American cinema in the late twenties). The Crusader and Sicilian scenes are not very interesting, but the film improves during the final scenes in Seville. Despite his poor English, Veidt is able to invest his character with a dignity and nobility which contrasts sharply with the baseness and cruelty of those who persecute him and his people. The film becomes a condemnation of bigotry and intolerance and a plea for reason, humanity and justice. 7/10.
A silent film on the subject of the Wandering Jew was made in Britain in 1923, of which this is a remake. Both films had the same director, Maurice Elvey. In this version the Jew is Mathathias, a wealthy citizen of Jerusalem, who is living in adultery with another man's wife. His mistress is seriously ill, and Mathathias believes that Jesus is the only man who can save her. He meets Jesus on the way to Calvary and begs Him to heal the woman. Jesus replies that the woman will be healed if she returns to her husband, provoking Mathathias to utter the fateful curse. When the woman dies, he tries to commit suicide by stabbing himself, but fails when the knife breaks.
The film does not follow all of Mathathias's wanderings through the centuries, but concentrates upon three episodes, one during the Crusades, one in mediaeval Sicily and one in 16th century Seville. He has repented of his sins and is a now a good man, a wise and much-loved doctor who will treat the poor without fee. He is doomed, however, never to find happiness, and his goodness does not spare him from the attentions of the the Spanish Inquisition, which has begun a campaign of anti-Jewish persecutions. Mathathias is given the chance to save himself by denying Judaism and proclaiming his allegiance to Catholicism, but he refuses, saying that if Christ were to return to Earth He would not recognise the Church as His own.
The film was made in 1933, shortly after Hitler's rise to power, and was one of two British films from 1933 and 1934 which used historical incidents of persecution of the Jews as a way of commenting on Nazi anti-Semitism. The other was "Jew Suss" which also starred Conrad Veidt, a German actor who had fled Germany after the Nazis came to power. The American-made "The House of Rothschild" from around the same period had a similar agenda; all three films were later remade by the Nazis but with the central message reversed so that they became examples of anti-Semitic propaganda.
In common with "The Wandering Jew" has some features common to many early talkies, notably a stagey and exaggerated style of acting, although some might think that this is not altogether inappropriate in a film based upon an old legend rather than modern-day realities. After ninety years it is starting to show its age; the quality of the soundtrack on the version which I recently saw on British television was not always good. My difficulties in understanding were worsened by the fact that Veidt spoke English with a heavy foreign accent. (His difficulties with the language had doomed an attempt to break into the American cinema in the late twenties). The Crusader and Sicilian scenes are not very interesting, but the film improves during the final scenes in Seville. Despite his poor English, Veidt is able to invest his character with a dignity and nobility which contrasts sharply with the baseness and cruelty of those who persecute him and his people. The film becomes a condemnation of bigotry and intolerance and a plea for reason, humanity and justice. 7/10.