The Celluloid Madonna

The Celluloid Madonna: From Scripture to Screen

Catherine O'Brien

Paperback: 224 pages

Publisher: Columbia University Press (13 Dec 2011)

Language English

ISBN: 978-0231161654

It's been a while since there was a new film out on Bible Films so I was really pleased to hear that Catherine O'Brien's "Celluloid Madonna" has finally been published. (I heard about it several years ago, but had lost touch with how things had been progressing.

I'm incredibly chuffed as well by the fact that this blog is mentioned in the Acknowledgements. This doesn't happen often to me so I hope you won't mind too much if I, rather egocentrically, quote what was written. Page viii says:

Matt Page's Bible Films Blog at http://www.biblefilms.blogspot.com/ has been discovered as a superb the source of news and film criticism

I've not had a great deal of time/energy at the moment and so I've made rather poor progress so far. What I can say however is that it talks about a few films that I am yet to see - mainly those that are Mary Hagiopics from primarily Catholic countries as well as a good deal of information about Mary that I was not fully aware of. I'm really hoping to forge some time soon to finish the rest of it off soon and then hopefully I'll be able to review it.

More Films on the Star of Bethlehem

Back in 2008 I posted an article about The Star of Bethlehem on DVD. Whilst most of the post was about the release of the 1912 silent nativity film, I also mentioned 4 other films with the same title: a 1956 British TV movie; a 2007 documentary about the star itself and its potential origins; and two German films from 1921 and 1954, which both had the original title Der Stern von Bethlehem. Most of these were listed in my 2006 survey of films about the nativity (which could really do with an update).

Recently however I've become aware of a number of other films on the subject. The only one I have seen (and reviewed) is the 2008 BBC documentary, also called The Star of Bethlehem. This it turns out is an entirely different film from the 2007 one above. Whereas the BBC documentary took in a number of different perspectives, the 2007 film was a look at a specific theory about the star developed by legal professor Rick Larson. The film has an official website and Peter Chattaway reviewed its release on DVD in 2009, as did Christianity Today.

The next film to add to the list is the Italian film La Stella dei Re (pictured) which was made in 2006, though IMDb lists it as 2007. It seems to have been made by/for Italy's RAI, who have made some significant Bible films in their time and it appears to have been released on DVD in Italy. I can find this DVD cover which contains numerous bits of useful information, but no links for where to buy it (though I only carried out a short search). It also played on broadcast TV over Christmas. I should point out however that the title's literal translation is "The Star of Kings".

There are also a couple of Spanish films that a helpful reader passed on to me (as well as the above title): La Estrella de Belen (Star of Bethlehem) from 1998, and Los Reyes Magos (The Magi-Kings) from 2003.

Reconciling the Nativity Accounts

A number of people have commented (both on this site and, in particular, at the end of my rejesus review) about the way that BBC1's recent The Nativity showed the magi arriving at the stable very shortly after the birth and the appearance of the shepherds. Whilst this is the most popular view (taking the nation as a whole) the majority of these comments considered this depiction to be incorrect. So seeing as today is the day traditionally associated with the arrival of the magi, I thought it would be a good time to tackle this particular question.

To start with I want to define three possible interpretations, and, despite what some might say, they are definitely interpretations.

What I'll call the popular view is the one that the average person on the street might describe, particularly (though certainly not exclusively) if they were not given the time to look at the texts or think it through. Essentially this pictures the shepherds and the magi arriving in the stable in the same evening - the night Jesus was born.

The traditional church view (which is something of a simplification) is that the shepherds arrived on Christmas evening, but that the magi didn't make it until Epiphany twelve days later.

The modern church view (and again this is just a name, though I deliberately use "modern" rather than "contemporary") is that Luke's shepherds arrived at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth but then Mary and Joseph stayed on in Jerusalem for a while. Eventually, when the census had passed and the inns had cleared a bit, they moved into a house and were visited by the magi some time (perhaps up to two years) later.

Those have objected to Jordan's portrayal of the popular view have, it seems, tended to come from either the traditional church view, but, in the main from the modern church view. Indeed this was a view I first heard when I was a child and it wasn't until 2001 when I heard any serious alternative interpretation.

It does make good sense. Luke's shepherds clearly visit on the night of the birth ("this day" v11, "with haste" v16) and, to modern eyes at least, there does seem to have been a change of scene by the time the magi arrive. Whether this change occurs within 12 days, or 2 years is seemingly less critical so the two church views are actually fairly closely linked.

The basis for the modern church interpretation rests on three critical points:

1 - Matthew (in English translations) uses "house" whereas Luke (again, in English translations) says there was "no room in the inn" and that the baby was laid "in a manger".

2 - Herod orders the deaths of not just the newborn babies, but also all infants two and under. This suggests either that there was some doubt in Herod's mind as to Jesus' precise age, or that the events were happening some time later (say one year) and Herod wanted to be certain that the child wouldn't escape simply because his soldiers couldn't tell the difference between a one year old and a two year old.

3 - The use of "child" in Matt 2:10 opposed to Luke's "baby" (2:16).

(There are potentially other supporting evidence such as the appearance of the star and travelling time, time consorting with Herod and so on, but these, even in the English translations, don't really present any difficulty to one side or give much support to the other).

In my opinion none of these create too much a problem. I'll take them in reverse order.

3 - Even in English the meaning of the word "baby" is a subset of the potential meanings for the word "child". Indeed Luke himself, in verse 17, switches to using "child" (paidiou).

2 - It doesn't take much to see that the logic of this point suggests that a cautious/paranoid Herod might command death to the twos and under even if he knew that Jesus was much younger. How big a margin of error would a paranoid, violent king want to ensure the threat to his power was removed?

1 - So this is really where the weight behind the interpretations lies, but, as is often the case, it comes down to our understanding of the culture and the Greek words used. And here we start to see both the popular view of the birth in the stable with everyone arriving together, and the two church views converge.

The first point is that neither gospel writer mentions a stable. You can see that even in the English.

Secondly the word translated "inn" (katalyma) covers a range of meanings. In the NT it occurs three times here and in Mark and Luke's accounts of the Last Supper (Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11) all of which could be translated "inn", but in the latter two cases it's usually translated "guest room". Outside the New Testament it is more usual to find it translated "guest room", and conversely when Luke wants to talk about what we would call an inn, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, he uses an other word entirely.

Thirdly, these varying translations of the Greek are bolstered by what we know about houses in those days and in that place. Rather than our prim and proper houses with neat, tidy and clean living rooms, things in first century Palestine were rather different. The houses often used to have two areas, an area where the animals lived, and an area where the humans slept. The advantage of this was that not only did you give your animals somewhere safer and warmer to sleep, but they also gave a bit of heat to your house in the middle of the night.

It's not hard to draw up a scenario, then, which joins all this together. Mary went with Joseph to his home town. As it was Joseph's ancestral home it's likely that they would be expecting to stay in their relatives house, as would generally be the case today. But when they arrive they find that the guest room is already taken (perhaps with other relatives harbouring the same idea) and so they bed down with the animals. This would be far more normal to them than it is to us today, after all they let their farm-type animals sleep in their houses. It's the modern equivalent of going to see some relatives and sleeping on the sofa bed in the lounge. In the middle of all this the baby came.

Of course whilst that means that the BBC don't necessarily lose points for having everyone arrive together, you could argue that they lose them instead for resorting to having the birth in the stable as per tradition, particularly as their 2001 documentary Son of God made this precise point. I think that would be churlish though, apart from the fact that it would probably alienate much of the general public, the film gives a massive nod in this direction by having Joseph go first to his relatives only to be rejected because of his pregnant not-yet wife.

So whilst I'm hoping that one day there will be a film which shows the scenario I've described above I don't think this was the project to do it, and the way that they did it broke new ground in a way that will make it easier for future versions of the nativity story to build upon.

All this does of course raises the question of whether this was what actually happened, or merely what Matthew and/or Luke had in mind when they wrote/edited it, but that would be another long post in itself.

Lastly, Sacrificium Laudis gives a more detailed and more informed perspective on what I've written above. Feel free to suggest any other relevant links in the comments.

Review: The Nativity (BBC1)

I think I’ll always remember the Christmas of 1981. My little brother had been born just a couple of weeks before and landed his first acting role, as baby Jesus in our church’s re-enactment of the first Christmas. This year has provided another similarly unforgettable moment when my daughter Nina performed in her first school nativity play.

Given how many people have taken part in a nativity play, it seems strange that professional actors so rarely get the chance. The 2006 film The Nativity Story was the first time an English language film on the subject had been cinemas since 1914. Television has proved a more popular medium with a couple of US TV movies from the 1970s and 2007’s Liverpool Nativity among them. Nevertheless, a decent, recent, historical attempt at explaining the origins of our culture’s most widely celebrated seasonal festival is long overdue.

Whilst The Nativity isn’t flawless it certainly goes a long way to addressing the imbalance. Tony Jordan’s script skilfully blends together the two differing accounts from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, weaving in scientific theory and cultural exposition with great ease without ever being ruled by them. Take for example the trouble that Mary and Joseph have finding accommodation in Bethlehem despite it being the town his family is from. It somehow manages to answer queries such as this, whilst simultaneously nodding to some of the now cherished traditions that have grown up around the text.

The biggest problem with the programme is that while Jordan’s experience in writing a soap opera gives it a realistic ordinariness, things occasionally feel a little bit twee. This is primarily the case in the opening episode where Joseph and Mary spend a little too long during their betrothal party starring gooily into one another’s eyes. That said, it certainly improves thereafter.

This may in part be due to the actors. Andrew Buchan’s turn as Joseph is overall very good, but I only bought into his character once Mary had revealed she was pregnant. From there he undergoes an emotional journey which mirrors his physical journey, drawn towards his destiny step by step, one small act of goodness at a time. In contrast Mary (Tatiana Maslany) spends most of the series trying to formulate exactly what it is that she is involved in, only for all the pieces to drop into place once Jesus is born.

If the first episode is the weakest, then the last is certainly the strongest. It’s here we see Jordan pulling together the film’s three main threads into a quite moving finale. Wisely Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is excluded which means that the story’s climax is Jesus’ birth and the arrival of the shepherds and the magi. Jordan has talked about this being a “love story” (a genre of which I must say I’m not hugely appreciative) but making this aspect of the story culminate at the same time as the more important story does underlines the latter’s importance. God’s son has come to Earth.

At its heart The Nativity is a very human take on the story. When Gabriel appears to Mary it’s very low-key. There’s no dazzling light, indeed as he appears to Mary outside, and during the night, it leaves open the slight possibilities that this might not be an angel at all or that she may only be dreaming. Joseph’s encounter is stripped down even further. Gabriel remains off-screen, so we only hear about what has happened because Joseph tells us next morning. This is, for me, is actually one of the best and most inventive parts of the series, holding very closely to the biblical text, and yet offering a very fresh interpretation of it that seems very plausible in such a sceptical age.

The human emphasis on the story is apparent in other ways. The only parts of the gospel accounts to be excluded are the announcement of John’s birth, the encounters with Simeon and Anna, and the songs of Mary and Zechariah. Then there’s the birth scene itself which breaks from certain traditions in order to deliver a fairly realistic portrayal of the child’s birth. Of all the attempts to depict the moment that Christ came into the world this is definitely the most plausible. And added into this mix are the back stories of the Magi and one of the shepherds.

Overall, I think this is probably my favourite portrayal of these events on film. Whilst it doesn’t quite match up to the best aspects of The Nativity Story, it certainly stays well above that film’s worst. The Nativity Story never quite knew what it wanted to be. This production is much more sure footed, and, as a result it’s more consistent. Jordan and director Coky Giedroyc are content to take their time over the first few episodes to build their characters, setting up very effective cliff hangers at the end of each episode in an attempt to pull the audience back the following night. Those who take the bait will find it well worth the wait.

Part 1 of The Nativity airs tonight at 7pm on BBC1, with parts 2-4 showing from Tuesday to Thursday at the same time

Trailer for BBC1's The Nativity

Mark Goodacre has the news that a trailer for BBC1's The Nativity has gone online at YouTube. The trailer is definitely going for that traditional family feel, and Jordan's soap-operaexpertise is very much to the fore in the snippets of the confrontation between Mary and Joseph. I have to say I really like what I've seen of the annunciation. The Angel Gabriel is really quite unremarkable and naturalistic, which should prevent the programme dating as others that have gone for a more supernatural angle have in the past. This even makes Pasolini's young girl look a little showy. It will be interesting to see whether that opens the door for any of the characters, not to mention the audience, to view this event sceptically.

There's also a piece on this in print edition of the Christmas Edition of The Radio Times with a brief capsule review of each episode available online.

Jim Davila has linked to an article on the programme in yesterday's The Independent. It's by Gerard Gilbert, who was actually an extra in The Jesus Film (1979), and he goes on to discuss a few of the well-known Jesus films, including this witty line on The Passion of the Christ: "At least the actors spoke in subtitled Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, so we didn't have to listen to English being turned into a dead language, as it is in most Jesus films."

Lastly, there a small website on the film courtesy of the Church Media Network.

The Nativity: Broadcasting Dates

Mark Goodacre has the news that Red Planet's website finally has the broadcasting times and dates for the BBC's The Nativity. The four episodes will be screened on BBC1 from Monday 20th to Thursday 23rd December 2010, starting at 7pm. Each episode will be half an hour.

There doesn't seem to be anything new on the BBC's website. Even the Christmas highlights page on the Religion homepage doesn't mention it.

I did come across an article by Peter Graystone of the Church Army who saw the film at a press preview screening in October. He talks about some of the details of the programme, and is incredibly positive about it. Here's a quicjk excerpt:

It is not just moving, it is funny (very), believable (totally), sexy (yes!), tense and profoundly full of the grace of God. And the awe of God too - the writer Tony Jordan has worked a miracle.

I'm hoping to get in touch with someone regarding this film soon, but I've barely had a chance over the last fortnight to try and contact the relevant person.

More on The Nativity (BBC)

The BBC have just released their press pack for next month's The Nativity. There are still no dates for the broadcasts, although in the interview for the press pack writer Tony Jordan says it will play in prime time the week before Christmas. There are also interviews with Tatiana Maslany (Mary) and Andrew Buchan (Joseph), as well as Al Weaver who plays Thomas the Shepherd.

I've written a piece previewing this production for rejesus.co.uk and there was a brief mention of it in Monday's Daily Telegraph. Christianity.org.uk has a couple of extra photos, including one of Peter Capaldi.

News on BBC's The Nativity

Mark Goodacre has just unearthed news of a new BBC drama called The Nativity which will (presumably) be going out this Christmas. I'm a little surprised not to have heard anything about this before. Mark links to a BBC press release from April which was quickly picked up by both The Telegraph and The Guardian and, of course, the BBC's own website.

Top billing seems to be going to The Thick of it/In the Loop's Peter Capaldi who will play one of the wise men (Balthazar). Quite how much screen time Capaldi will get remains to be seen. The programme, which will be shown in four parts, will "focus on the love story between Mary and Joseph and their 'emotional turmoil' over her pregnancy".¹ I can't help but think that, come the broadcast, I might find myself hoping that the wise men will get sufficiently lost to enable Balthazar to really lose it. But in all seriousness a more restrained performance is probably what he needs right now.

Other actors include Art Malik as Nicolaus, Andrew Buchan as Joseph, Tatiana Maslany as Mary, and Vincent Regan as Herod. I've long been a fan of Malik's and thought he would be well suited to a role in a Jesus film. 2010 has obviously been his year for that: he also features in this year's Ben Hur. Buchan was good value in Cranford and I suspect he'll be a good, if a little traditional, Joseph. I thought Maslany and Regan were both new to me, but Maslany provided a voice in Eastern Promises and Regan has good epic-film form having had smaller parts in Troy, 300, Jeremiah, Clash of the Titans and Joan of Arc/The Messenger.

The Nativity has been written by former Eastenders writer Tony Jordan. Three years ago Jordan revealed, in an interview with The Guardian that he'd been working on the script for two years, which means that it's been a five year project for him. Stark contrast with Mike Rich who penned the script for The Nativity Story in just 6 weeks (although had researched it for a year before hand)². Jordan's Red Planet Pictures are producing and there are a few pictures showing there on their page on the programme.The first photograph here appeals to me more than the second. The blue dress gives a strong nod to tradition, but a weaker nod to historical probability. I think I prefer the grittier approach to the material as found in the earlier parts of The Nativity Story. Mind you all that had evaporated by the time baby Jesus arrived so it's not a fair comparison, and this is just a publicity shot, so I'll withold judgement until I've actually seen it, particularly given so many of the other quotations surrounding the film seem so positive.

All in all it seems that this film will be something of a prequel to the BBC's The Passion (2008). Certainly more in that direction that The Liverpool Nativity from 2007. Hopefully I'll be able to find out a bit more about this over the next few weeks. Roll on Christmas.

Stone to Appear in Sweet Baby Jesus

Photo by Siebbi, used under a Creative Commons Licence

Sweet Baby Jesus, the modernised nativity story starring Pixie Lott, has been adding to its cast list, according to deadline.com. Sharon Stone is set to play the Mary-character's mother. It also appears that Sam Rockwell has been replaced in the role of Joseph by Adrien Brody. Bette Midler will play the innkeeper.

Latest on Sweet Baby Jesus

Photo by jaimelondonboy, used under a Creative Commons Licence

Back in 2008 I posted about the film Sweet Baby Jesus that was lining up Britney Spears to play a 'modern day' Virgin Mary. I've heard precious little about this film since then until today when Jeffrey Overstreet linked to an article at Deadline London.

It appears that Spears has been replaced by Pixie Lott (pictured), one of the gazillion identikit, young, blond, sort-of-musician sort-of-actress, types whom I'm no longer able to distinguish from one another. The Deadline piece though focuses more on the announcement that Joseph will be played by Sam Rockwell (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Iron Man 2). Filming is due to take place in Bethlehem, Maryland in August under the direction of Peter Hewitt. Bette Midler and Kim Cattrall are also lined up to star.

Empire and Variety also have the story, with the latter adding that the film will actually be set in the seventies.

Little Baby Jesus of Flandr

It's not often that graduation projects earn a mention in Variety, but they have a whole article on Belgian director Gust Van den Berghe's short Little Baby Jesus of Flandr. The reason is that Van den Berghe's film "is in Cannes with a slot in the Directors' Fortnight". There are quite a few reviews for the film up already including Screen Daily, Indiewire and The Hollywood Reporter.

The film is apparently based on a 1924 play by Felix Timmermans. The Hollywood Reporter' summarises the plot well:

...three drunken beggars go caroling to earn some money and in the woods come across what one, Suskewiet (Jelle Palmaerts), is convinced is the birth of the baby Jesus. In the touching scene, the beggars leave the poor but happy family the only gifts/possession they have: scraps of food, money and "for when the kid grows up," some cigarettes.

Later the three fall out and one of them ultimately "sells his soul to the devil in exchange for material wealth".

The film has rightly been lauded for not only employing actors with Down's Syndrome, but giving them "something other to play than token handicapped characters".

The trailer is available to view online, but I suspect the opportunities to see the film itself will be fairly limited.

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the tip off.

Bale in Mary the Mother of Jesus

I've started re-watching the Jesus-as-a-grown-up section of Mary the Mother of Jesus and thought I'd write down a few notes.

Locating the transition from Jesus' life as a child to adulthood turned out to be harder than you might expect. Sometimes DVD makers fail to do the most obvious things, and for some reason no-one seems to have thought that it might be a good idea to start a new DVD chapter when we jump from Jesus as a 12 year old to him as an adult.

When we do encounter him as an adult he's 30 (as in Luke) and working as a carpenter. After a shot or two with him banging about bits of wood, there's a phony scene of him dealing with a customer who can't afford the service he has just provided. Jesus just smiles. "Pay me when you can". It's not that I struggle to accept that Jesus may have been compassionate with his customers, or even that he let some of them delay payment that gets me. No it's the sense that this customer's failure to mention his financial situation until after the work was done would be received in such a wet-blanket fashion. And the filmmakers deciding that of all his years working as a carpenter, this would be the moment to show as if to force the point "hey look Jesus is so compassionate".

Like Jesus (1999) this initial focus on Jesus as a carpenter is quickly overshadowed by the death of Joseph. Before he dies Joseph croaks to Mary "Jesus: everything he is, you've made him". Whilst the Yoda-esque sentence construction, and Joseph giving Mary all the credit for how Jesus has shaped up are just about forgiveable, Mary's silence and refusal to share the credit is not. I imagine this dialogue was conceived to highlight May's all-round wonderfulness, but it just makes her appear arrogant and uncaring. Not only is Joseph's statement the rising of a last desperate cry of a man fearing his imminent death - which surely calls for reassurance - but it's utterly unrealistic to imagine that a parent could have been with his son for 30 years and had yet no influence whatsoever on his son (no matter who the son in question was).

Both films also explore the idea that Joseph's death acts as a trigger for the start of Jesus' ministry. Further, both films contend that Mary's advice is pivotal in helping Jesus realise this. The films were released at more or less exactly the same time so it's unlikely this is the result of copying. That said, the way this film does this is particularly galling: Mary conveniently decides to let Jesus know that he actually has a cousin and fills Jesus in as to his behaviour at the River Jordan. Jesus replies that the reason he went to the temple aged 12 was because he heard God tell him to, and now, through Mary's words he has heard God speak again.

So Jesus, along with Mary, goes in search of his cousin, and after hearing his message Jesus decided to take the plunge, but bizarrely Mary then wades into the water to share in the moment. It's a strange moment not because it could not have happened - mother and son being baptised together is eminently reasonable - but because, again, it rings false. The gospels bracket off Jesus' baptism as in some way exceptional. Here Mary is brought, unwarranted, into that bracket, and in a way that is laboured and awkward.

Having only made it as far as 10 minutes through I'm going to have to stop, at least for now, partly because it's late and partly because it's already all got a bit too much. Jesus and Mary have just been discussing his plans for saving the world. "
Those stories you used to tell" he says, as if incapable of original thought, "that's how I'll teach them..."

Mary Mother of Jesus for £2

Just flicking through the latest sale at Play.com and it turns out they have Mary Mother of Jesus for just £1.99 (including delivery!) It's been at least 6 years since I saw that film, during which time star Christian (geddit?) Bale has gone from strength to strength, but as I remember it, it's pretty awful.

I'd be interested to revisit it though, if only to see what Bale does with his part. As far as I recall he's actually only third in terms of amount of dialogue / screen time. The film's main focus is on Mary and just under half the film focusses, therefore, on Jesus' birth (starring Melinda Kinnaman as a young Mary), which obviously excludes Bale. The larger part of the film stars Pernilla August as Mary so Bale is more of a character in her story than vice versa. As I say, it's been a while since I saw this, so that may all be wrong; as may my distant memory that Kinnaman's section was passable (also featuring David Threlfall as Joseph), but August's part was very poor.

There's also one other interesting point of trivia in relation to this film: the same year that this film was released (1999), Pernilla August also starred in another film where she played a young virgin who somehow manages to conceive a son who is expected to be some kind of messiah. That film is somewhat better known, even if it's no more highly regarded - Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace.

The Nativity Story Revisited

It's had been 3 years since I last saw The Nativity Story, indeed, after the hours spent discussing the build up to the film I had only seen it once in its entirety. So this year I decided I really should watch it again in the run up to Christmas.

After such a long gap I was pleased to see that the film was still largely as I had remembered it. The opening scenes were still striking in their portrayal of 1st century peasant life, the latter section moved far more towards Christmas card piety. The wise men were still irritating and the weak dialogue was still exacerbated by the slightly suspect use of middle-eastern accents. This time around though I even noticed that even in the school scene the children use this exaggerated accents ("steeel small voice").

There were a few other things I noticed this time that didn't really ring true however. Firstly, the arrival of the tax collectors in one of the early scenes seemed a bit showy. Not only were there a fairly large number of soldiers to carry out what is essentially an administrative duty (albeit one that might cause some trouble, but they all came complete with several standards and so forth. I suppose this may all be in keeping with how these things were generally done, but it didn't really ring true for me.

But what really stood out this time was once these tax collecting soldiers had actually begun to collect money. The people cue up to offer their excuses and we see the soldiers take a man's daughter as payment. It's a fairly disturbing scene for a PG-rated film. It creates tension, and as the girl is the same age as our heroine we begin to fear for Mary. Thankfully though her father is also unable to pay his full amount, he does at least have a donkey who the soldiers can take instead.

On seeing this Joseph, who we have already witnessed eyeing Mary up steps in and secretly pays off the soldiers to win back the family's goat. Its function is to establish Joseph as a good man. The thing is that I can't help wondering why Joseph redeems the donkey and not the daughter. It could be argued that he wants to impress Mary, but in all other matters he is happy to do his bidding through her parents. Or that he were trying to impress her father, except that he swears Mary to silence. Surely the actions of a good man with some means would be to save the other girl? This would also impress Mary (who is probably her friend and most certainly knows her), and if he wanted to help Mary's family he can always bring his offer of marriage and dowry forward a little.

The other two things that stood out for me this time around were more positive. The first concerns the census. Herod, aware of Micah's prophecy, states that he plans to use this to try and smoke out any potential messiah. What struck me is that we only know about the census because Herod tells us about it. There's no arrival of soldiers, or a messenger of any sort, so whilst it's natural to assume that this thing has the backing of the empire, it is an assumption, and this time around there was something about the way that Ciarin Hinds delivered the line that made me suspect that it might have been his fabrication.

If true this would be an interesting take on this problematic census. The census is recorded only in Luke, but according to non-biblical sources it did not occur until 6AD - at least 10 years after the most likely date for Jesus' birth. Is the film suggesting that Herod invented the census hence why Luke mentions it but the external evidence fails to corroborate it?

Finally, I also noticed the scene where Mary washes Joseph's bleeding feet. This obviously anticipates Mary's son washing his disciples' feet as an adult. It's a nice detail, particularly as it is one of the few things that Mary actually chooses to do. For most of the film she is acted upon - passive rather than active.

On Finding Christmas Clips

It's that time of year again when people ask me about finding nativity clips for Christmas meetings and services etc. It's actually quite difficult to find something that fits people's requirements, particularly if you are part of a young images conscious church like mine, because there simply isn't that much to choose from.

As a general rule, the earlier Jesus films used to include the nativity - although DeMille's The King of Kings is a notable exception, and this seems to run up as far as Monty Python's Life of Brian in 1979. Most of these films, however, would feel a little dated to most congregations. The one possible exception here is Jesus of Nazareth from 1977, but in fact the nativity scene for this production is almosy an hour and a half.

This leads me on to another grouping of potential nativity videos - those films that look solely at this story. In this category we, of course, have The Nativity Story. This is modern and reasonable enough to show - indeed when it was released we did a special screening with our church - but it too is an hour and a half - too long for a clip in a service. The same is also true of Godard's Hail Mary, though I suspect that the nudity in this film would put it beyond reach for most churches also. One useful option for summarising longer films is to show one of the trailers, although this works better when the story / film isn't so well known to begin with.

Modern films about Jesus have tended to avoid the events of the first Christmas. On the one hand as audiences get more secular there's a greater interest in the teaching and example of Jesus, but not so much in the incarnation, with it's sceptic unfriendly virgin birth. Interestingly on the other hand there is also less interest in the incarnation - the salvific impact of which tends to be underplayed in protestantism - in favour of a greater emphasis on Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Two notable exceptions here are the Miracle Maker and Jesus (1999). Both these films tell the story via a flashback which gets around the narrative awkwardness of starting a story with Jesus as a baby and then having to jump to his life as an adult. In theory these could work - and The Miracle Maker is leading the field for a clip for our Christingle service on Sunday - but because they are flashbacks they can only give a very limited angle of things, or at least they choose to.

Speaking of The Miracle Maker, a third area to look at it children's cartoons. There are a number of options here, but for British audiences there is a further problem - American accents. It may seem churlish to cite this, but it is a barrier for many congregations. I'm reassured by the fact that I know many North Americans find it equally unhelpful when Jesus iflms employ very British accents. But this and lower production values do for productions such as Charlton Heston's Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible. I've yet to make it all the way through The New Testament Stories: A King is Born, but my hopes aren't high.

A fourth area is what Barnes Tatum might call the alternative trajectory - those films which take a somewhat alternative take on the story. This could include films who look primarily at the life of one of Jesus' parents such as Mary the Mother of Jesus, or Joseph of Nazareth, or even a camel as in The Fourth King. But it also includes modernisations such as Jezile (Son of Man) and The King. Mary is too long, Joseph might be more suitable. I might have a closer look at that one today. Jezile would be a little tooabas a clip, though it is a very powerful retelling of the nativity, particuarly the slaughter of the innocents. The King, though, will suit some settings, and as it's three ten minute films which runs into one, it works well for a congregational setting. The whoel point of The Fourth King is that he never (knowingly) gets to Jesus, but serves him anyway, but this obviously discounts this from most church contexts. And whilst Liverpool Nativity works well enough as live TV, I'm not sure how well it works in other contexts.

All of which leaves us with YouTube. There are a couple of interesting takes, but there is so much poor quality material out there that wading through it all would take a lifetime. This five minute telling is well thought of, but I must admit I've never made it all the way through. I do like this 30 second take though which won a contest run last year by the Churches Advertising Network.

So all in all, there's not much to chose from, but a few possibilites. I hope this helps anyone trying to do a similar thing.

On a related note, last year I wrote a piece looking at 6 nativity films for The Reader magazine which is now available to view online (page 17). I looked at Hail Mary, The King, Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Nazareth, The Nativity Story and The Fourth King

The Beginning of the End

Peter Mackie has sent me a copy of this delightful short film about the Christmas story that he made with his two daughters Rachel and Joanna. Peter was keen to stress that it's not a professional film and so in that spirit I'd like to make a few brief observations.

The Beginning of the End is Luke's version of the Christmas story told in claymation. The obvious point of comparison here is The Miracle Maker especially as this film is very accessible for children. But whereas the Christmas scenes from The Miracle Maker feature both the shepherds and the wise men, here only the shepherds appear.

The other difference from The Miracle Maker is that The Beginning of the End is wordless apart from the (original) songs which narrates the story as it unfolds on the screen. The song is a little uneven but has a strong chorus which brings the film nicely to an uplifting and memorable climax.

The animation is clearly claymation proper (as in the modelling done with modelling clay rather than puppets), and whilst Nick Park and co. make it look effortless, it's surely one of the trickiest of all media to work in. Given that The Beginning of the End was made by a 13 year old, and 11 year old and their dad it's an impressive achievement.

As you might expect, some parts work better than others, but the interaction between Mary and Joseph conveys a real tenderness, which must have been difficult to pull off. It also give us angels that not only sing of their good news, but who dance as well. This is something of a new angle, largely unexplored in film so far. It gives us heaven's viewpoint on the events on earth - this isn't just heavenly messengers fulfilling their duty, but real joy in what is unfolding before them.

The film is available to buy on DVD, with proceeds going to the Barnabas Fund. To get a copy contact Peter Mackie through his website.

My Nativity! Review Online

Jesus may only feature as plastc doll, but some of you may be interested to know taht my review of Nativity! is up at rejesus.co.uk. The word count always means that I have to be briefer than I would (at times) prefer, but I don't think I left much of substance out. I wanted to say somewhere that the film was hugely unrealistic - perhaps made most obvious by the costumes in the finished play - and that the ending could have been better if [spoiler] Ashley Jensen's return was without her boss cos she' decided to leave her job to be with her again[/spoiler]. Oh and that I liked the way it redeemed the teacher from the other school - a nice touch. I also thought it was interesting how they allowed all the children to play the lead roles, albeit briefly - an intersting way of allowing people to engage with the pivotal characters plus a very post-modernist angle on how we each identify with a shape Mary and Joseph in our own way.

I wouldn't widely recommend the film, but if you don't mind a bit of sentimental cinema in the run up to Christmas then this is worth a go.

Saint Mary and Jesus the Spirit of God on Google Video

Peter Chattaway's blog has been quiet recently whilst he's been at VIFF, but he has popped up at Arts and Faith with a few interesting bits and pieces. Two items that caught my eye in particular were regarding two 'Islamic' Jesus films coming up on Google Video. I've had a copy of Saint Mary, for a while, but it's nice that there's a subtitled version available to view for free. There's also Mesih/Massiah/Jesus the Spirit of God. I couldn't find the video Peter refers to, but it looks like the whole film is available on YouTube. No subtitles for that one unfortunately. Hopefully I'll get a chance to watch these soon.

Nina and the Children's Bible Synoptic Problem

So my 3 year old, Nina, and I were reading the nativity story from one of her children's Bibles the other day. As I was reading out the closing words "Joseph made a bed for him to lie on and..." she interrupts me. "No Daddy, it was Mary who made Jesus' bed". Nina has a good memory for these types of things, so I suspected she was reclling the story from one of her other children's Bibles. So I checked her Candle Bible for Todddlers, and sure enough, it climaxes the scene with "and Mary made him a bed from the straw". I must admit I felt a little gush of pride at my three year old spotting the small differences in the broadly similar accounts of the same story. She's a smart kid.

Mary News on Cast and DirectorFoley Returns to (the) Madonna

Foley directing Dustin Hoffman in Confidence, © Lionsgate

The Hollywood Reporter has more details on Mary, Mother of the Christ. Joining Al Pacino (Herod), Camilla Belle (Mary) and Peter O'Toole (Symeon) will be Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado (Joseph) and Julia Ormond. It also names James Foley (pictured above) as director. Foley has a number of well known films behind him including Madonna vehicle Who's That Girl? and the excellent Glengarry Glen Ross. Filming is due to start in October.

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the tip off. Whilst I'm talking about Mr Chattaway, I should also congratulate him for winning the award for Best Column of 2008 at the Fellowship of Christian Newspapers (North America) - for his film column for BC Christian News.