Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Cecil De Mille is Sorry for ‘king of Kings’ Production, He Tells Ochs

March 20, 1928
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date
Advertisement

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

“Jews who participated in filming of the ‘King of Kings’ are a disgrace to their people,” stated Adolph S. Ochs, publisher and owner of the New York Times, to a representative of the California Jewish Review in an interview given before he left for the East. Mr. Ochs further stated that Cecil De Mille, producer of the picture, informed him that he was very sorry that he undertook the filming of the crucifixion story.

“I have withheld comments on this much-discussed topic,” said Mr. Ochs “untill I had the opportunity to hear from Mr. De Mille personally about his reactions to the nation-wide protests against his production and his plans to check the inevitable consequences.

“I am exceedingly grieved that the picture was ever made. There is no excuse whatsoever for the Jews, actors, rabbis or laymen who have had a hand in this production. The Jews who participated in the filming of this picture are a disgrace to their nation. It was the height of folly to ever attempt producing on the screen the story of Christ. It is historically false. The ‘New Testament,’ the only source of the story of Christ, with its scores of contradictions and variations, should not have been used as material for a picture which serves to awaken racial hatred and animosity.

“From my conversation with C. B. De Mille, I learned that he is sorry to have been the prducer of this picture ‘I am a half-Jew,’ he told me, and should not be accused of having intentionally created a danger to the Jewish people.’

“But,” continued Mr. Ochs, “the publicity and advertising which the photoplay is gaining through the uproar of protests and denunciations has done a great deal towards furthering the effects and fame of this evil. We must protest, indeed, but let us do it in a quiet manner. If we cannot effect a withdrawal of the picture we should insist upon a distinct introductory note, explaining that the incident was an internal quarrel amongst the then existing sects of the Jews.”

Recommended from JTA

Advertisement