Schildkraut Explains Why He Acted Caiphas in King of Kings Film

Did not Attach Significance to Role; Debts Incurred for Yiddish Theater Led Him to Movies (Jewish Dialy Bulletin)

Rudolph Schildkraut, well known Jewish actor who played the role of Caiphas in the Cecil de Mille production "King of Kings," a picturization of the crucifixion story and who has been severety criticized in many Jewish circles for agreeing to play this role in the picture which is considered dangerous because of its tendency to stir up religious and racial prejudece, offered an explanation in an interview given at his home in Hollywood to a representative of the "California Jewish Voice," Jewish weekly published here.

"I personally do not believe that motion pictures generally leave any impression on the audience," Mr. Schildkraut said. "In my opinion the best motion picture can be compared to the cheapest novel:One is interested only as long as one reads the pages and when the covers are closed, the impression disappears like smoke. I do not believe that my roles on this screen have any artistic value. I do it only because I am well paid for it. It is work I receive payament. That is all."

When asked by the interviewer whether he did not stop to think in playing the role of Caiphas that by his characterization he furnished the enemies of the Jewish people with a poisonous weapon, Schildkraut Stated:

One does not stop to think in the movies. Everything has been thought out for you in advance. All that one has to do is to make-up as prescribed-Morever, Caiphas was one who was installed in the office of high priest by the Romans and it is self-evident that he had to serve the interests of the Romans. At the end of the picture Caiphas admits that he, as an individual, bears the responsibility for the crucifixion. I can tell you that the scene in the present version at the end was the middle of the play in the original version. There were many more scenes which brought out clearly the idea that Caiphas takes the responsibility for the crucifixion upon the himself. It was further shown that the thought of his responsibility plagues him so much that he loses his mind. They found it necessary, however, to eliminate these scenes. What could I do then?"

When told by the interviewer that the Jewish press severely criticizes him for this role, Mr. Schildkraut said. "What! Do they think they are right? Who is responsible for my leaving the Jewish stage of theater? I have given up my time and my money, I was sunk in debt all of my yearing in the motion pictures I paid the debts which I incurred for my Yiddish theatre in New York. The few weeks during which my Bronx theatre was functioning cost me $18,500. To think that in the city of New York there were not 300 persons to spend an evening in an artistic Yiddish theatre. Now they are angry. I did not want to be in debt. I accepted the offer to paly in the motion pictures. Here I receive a considerable salary and I saw an opportunity to pay my debts. I assure you, hoever, that if I had to play the same role of Caiphas on the stage I would have weighed and meansured each word and not only my part but the entire paly. Then it would have been a great qestion whether I would act as the ‘King of Kings’ was written."

The inteveiewer writes that Mr. Schildkraut then remained silent for a while. He breathed heavily and beads of perspiration stood on his broad forehead. Looking off into space he siad: "There is only one role in my career in the motion pictures of which I am proud. I refer to my role in the picure ‘His People.’ This role was dear to me and I am ready to defend it. But the role in the ‘King of Kings’ or the other roles which I acted before or aiter are not worth Speaking about. While I was acting my role in the ‘King of Kings’ I did not think about it. Nor do I think about it now. One good recollection I have from this role and that is that which the money I received for this work I paid my debts incurred in my attempt to build a temple of art for New York Jews," Mr.Schildkraut declared.

Commentign on the explanation of Mr. Schildkraut, the "Califonia Jewish Voice" adds: "This is the explanation and justification of Mr. Schildkraut. We do not know what mpression this explanation will make upone others; it does not satisfy us. We beieve that it can satisfy no one. It is forst of all not true that motion pictures leace no impression. Montion pictures, just as cheap novels, make a deep impression indeed and the trouble is that they exercise an influence just no those who are least enlightened and who are are, more than anyone else, ruled by feeling."

The newspaper then fomulates an accusation against certain rabbis who, it is alleged, acted as advisors to the producers of the film.