User Reviews

It's hard to really understand this film unless you turn on the optional commentary track. It begins with an old Jewish man struggling as he walks. You learn, through the use of a double-exposure, that the man witnessed Christ being led to the crucifixion and refused him water. Now, he's cursed to wander through eternity--and there is no let up to his misery. He sees what he's done repeatedly, is attacked by Satan and the elements conspire against him--all in repayment for his sin.

While the set appears very crudely done (almost quaint), this is the norm for 1904--and that is why it all appears very stagy. But, it makes nice use of the double-exposure and is decent for its time.

I wondered, however, if this was film was perhaps based on some folk tale (I've never heard of it). So I checked and found the story began sometime around the 13th century and the man was cursed to do this until Christ's second coming. Perhaps this story was created to explain the displaced Jewish people (who had no homeland for almost 1900 years) or was in some way antisemitic--I have no idea. But here in the States, it's a story I would assume very, very few would recognize.

It is interesting that the Catholic -- but pro-Dreyfus -- Méliès would make this allegorical film about a symbolic Jew, played by Méliès himself, wandering throughout the ages, plagued for eternity by his complicity in the death of Christ. On the surface, the film isn't anti-Semitic so much as it is illustrative of a tenet in the Catholic faith going back to the Medieval period, still very much in force at the end of the 19th century. This dogma did led to widespread persecution of Jews in Europe. The Roman Church has officially abandoned this policy in the 21st century, but in 1904, Méliès' Jew appears doomed to wander forever through his personal hell, with the spirit world beyond as resigned to keeping him on his feet as society itself, though in this case society is absent. Méliès deals with a social phenomenon as a sacred one, creating a cognitive dissonance in modern viewers. Nevertheless, the lightning storm in the ruin is impressively achieved through matting and some rapid editing on the matte, a rare effect in a Méliès title.

Here is Georges Melies doing his thing, dredging up the mythical figure of the Wandering Jew, who supposedly refused to give Christ a drink of water as he went to his death. He is forced to wander eternally with the guilt of his actions weighing on him. Of course, his being a Jew throws in the anti-Semitic element. He is damned and, of course, it's the old, "Jews killed Christ" thing that allowed people to treat others with hatred and foist death on their populace.

"The Wandering Jew", or "the Eternal Jew", is a legend dating back to medieval Christianity, about a Jew who is condemned to wander the Earth until the Second Coming, for the offense of taunting or some other indiscretion (refusing water to Christ is the reason given in this film) towards Jesus as he bares the cross. It's interesting here that an angel and Satan share the duties of forcing the Jew to continue his wandering, as he tries to rest throughout the picture's three tableaux.

Other IMDb reviewers have mentioned the possible anti-Semitism of this story, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it was often used, especially given that anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe for centuries. Georges Méliès, the maker of this filmed version, however, had made a politically daring stand in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jew and contemporary of Méliès, who was convicted of treason on bogus charges, with his 11-part serial "The Dreyfus Affair" (L'affaire Dreyfus) (1899), which was banned in France. Moreover, the Wandering Jew has been a source for several movies since, including three 1933 versions, two of which were produced by self-identified Jewish studios and another starring the anti-Nazi Conrad Veidt. So, it would seem that this legend might've been used both in defense and as harm of Jews.

I would guess, however, that Méliès didn't give any thought to how this narrative might be interpreted to represent an entire people, and he likely saw it as just another of his, albeit few, dramatic pictures. In that respect, it's well-done little film for 1904. The superimposed images of Christ and the angel and the storm effects at the end were tricks that Méliès had been using for years (since 1897 or 1898), but they remain appreciated highlights here.

To the modern eye, this is obviously a trick film made with double exposure; and Melies, in his role as the Wandering Jew, is quite over the top as he wanders through a field of hard stones, having dreams and visions of Christ on his way to Calvary, the devil tormenting him and of the Mother of God. To a Frenchman of the era, who quite probably saw this film at a fairground -- a prime audience for Melies in this era -- it is simply and purely a movie of faith --- and a certain amount of anti-Semitism, too.

Still, for the time frame it is quite a beautiful, what with Melies ' carefully painted backgrounds lending a three-dimensional air to the film. And for those of us who love Melies' work under any circumstances, it is a temptation to go back to the Europa Film Archives website and look at it again right now.

Le juif errant (1904)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

aka The Wandering Jew

This here isn't your typical trick film from the French master as it's clear Melies wanted to make a religious picture and boy does he hit a home run. We see an elderly Jewish man having to walk throughout eternity for his role in the death of Christ. As the man walks we see Christ being led to his death as back in real time the old man is haunted by the Devil and eventually visited by an angel. I've seen well over a hundred films from Melies and it's clear the man made just about every type of movie imaginable but I was still shocked to see this one. As with a select few of his films, Melies used a narrator to help explain what was going on in terms of story and this narration was a nice touch as it actually helps the story move along (it's also important to remember that title cards weren't being used yet). I really thought the images contained some striking and surreal moments and especially the one where the old man sees Jesus heading towards the cross. Another powerful sequence is when he runs into the Devil who nearly beats him to death. The "message" of the film is quite loud and clear but it's never overly preachy and one can't help but be impressed by the storytelling.

Apparently this short, three-scene Méliès film is based on a little known myth about a Jewish man forced to wander throughout eternity for refusing Christ water before his crucifixion. It also appears to be the second surviving religious picture by this director (since "Christ Walking on the Water" from 1899 is considered lost). However, I'm not sure why Méliès chose to adapt this particular story, since it doesn't appear to be very well known. With that said, the result is utterly beautiful with some extremely convincing special effects and gorgeous sets. While there's little plot, Méliès as always adds his own little touches, such as the superimposed vision sequence, the angel, etc.

If you're familiar with the director's work, anyone with only half a set of smarts would guess that he takes the role of the Jew. This leaves the role of Satan to be played by somebody else, strange considering the devil was a character Méliès played in almost all of his films. It was odd to see Satan in this movie have little bat wings and be dressed differently. Despite Méliès's overplaying in his part as the Wandering Jew, the visual look of this film and the message makes it a must-see for anyone who's a fan of Méliès's work or of these old movies in general.