have witness the flop of his last few contemporary dramatic picture and cecil b. demille make a pledge to the public that from now on he would only make epic . true to his word and he strive to make each successive picture more stupendous than the last . he have make some very effective shoestring epic in the poverty stricken early 30 and but by 1935 the bad of the depression be over and demille could at last be reunite with the big budget . while demille have prove on sign of the cross ( 1932 ) and cleopatra ( 1934 ) that he could make a big picture without mass of extra or impressive set and he certainly know how to make the most of those asset when he do have them . it be in the crusade that we see the development of the style of presentation that he employ for all his subsequent epic . rather than bombard u with the colossal and he like to gradually reveal the vastness of a place by slowly and smoothly pull the camera back . during these move he usually have an extra or two move horizontally across the frame at a similar pace to the camera and give the manoeuvre extra grace and momentum . then there be the battle scene and tense and frenzied creation of anne bauchen superb edit . these be similar to the one in cleopatra and but far more effective and not because of the high production value and but because the shot be hold for long and their sequencing be well time . and while demille clearly love the massive crowd shot and he have enough sense to shrink the space and simplify the setting when it come to key dialogue scene . compare to the busy outdoor location many of the interior be quite plain and which help to focus u entirely on the actor and their expression and their word . the transition to these dramatic moment be often very smooth and with the drop of a tent flap or simply a change of angle to frame the actor against a bare wall . demille be an expert in turn the spectacle on and off and a it be and accord to the demand of the narrative . give the above and it a pity that and like most demille picture of this era and the crusade be dramatically rather weak . the dialogue be bland and and most of the character be lazily write stereotype . in the early scene and there seem to have be this attempt to cram in as many olde englande accessory a possible and with a cheeky minstrel and a burly blacksmith and the king and his court all hang out together . mind you and there be at least a fairly decent character arc in that king richard be portray a a kind of medieval cad who join the crusade for ulterior motif and but be eventually humble by his experience . it also a refreshingly mature approach to make saladin an honourable foe and although there be of course still the obligatory moustachioed villain in the form of some anachronistic minor king ( play by joseph schildkraut and naturally ) . after have suffer henry wilcoxon wooden turn a mark anthony in cleopatra and it a major disappointment to see him again in a leading role . you might wonder why demille so persistently cast amateur like wilcoxon and until you realise he select player primarily for their physicality and their talent be of secondary concern . in this light it make sense for wilcoxon and with his prominent brow and broad shoulder and to play a king . and although joseph schildkraut be and a it happen and a very good actor and demille repeatedly cast him a these juda figure because of his thin face and pierce eye . but this be demille . script and cast will always play second fiddle to the director showmanship . despite all the baloney and anachronism and his visual style be on top form here . the crusade be like a stained glass window in a church . it will not reach u on an emotional and human level and but it be full of grace and majesty . yes and demille be often call a victorian moralist and but in his presentation and imagery he be practically medieval . and we should forgive him and because he do it so well .