Echoes of the Bible in Tokyo Story

Tokyo Story (1953) is perhaps the most celebrated film of Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu. As the film is set in, and was the product of, Japanese culture it's clearly not based on the Bible, and where religion features in the film it's Shintoism that is being considered rather than Christianity. Nevertheless, as I watched it last night I was struck by a couple of echoes of scripture that I wanted to discuss briefly.

The story, such as it is, revolves around an elderly couple who travel to Tokyo to catch up with some of their family. They had 5 children, their daughter Kyoko still lives with them in Onomichi; their other daughter, Shige, has married and lives in Tokyo; Koichi, now a doctor, is also in Tokyo with his wife and 2 children; Keiso lives in closer-to-home Osaka; and lastly Shoji died during the war leaving his widow, Noriko, alone.

Once in Tokyo they are confronted with their children's disinterest - only Noriko goes out of her way to make their time in Tokyo special. Having been shunted off to the highly unsuitable Atami, they decide to return home. On the way the mother is taken ill, so then stop with their son in Osaka before continuing back a day or two later. Shortly after the mother dies, but even then she is treated with a degree of indifference.It's fairly clear that the film is not particular intended to evoke stories from the Bible. The fact that is does so for some viewers is merely a coincidence based on the universality of this story and those we find in scripture. Such is the nature of good art: the perspective the viewer brings to it is significant, and it enables him/her to reflect on that perspective and what has formed it. It can shed new light on an issue, and in this case, not expecting such a dialogue can catch a viewer unaware helping them view a story from an unexpected angle.

I found myself constantly mulling over two stories from the Bible as Tokyo Story meandered towards its climax, both of which relate to the way that Noriko the daughter-in-law plays the role of a true daughter in contrast to her husband's siblings.

The first of which is the story of Ruth. Whilst Noriko's father-in-law is still alive, her husband has been killed, and both her and her in-laws clearly have a great love for each other. There is particular devotion between the two women which is touchingly portrayed. The Bible is very upfront about the devotion Naomi and Ruth show for each other, but, as a result, it leaves little room for the subtler nuances we find here.The other story that came to mind was that of the Good Samaritan. The parable is so well known to most churchgoers that it requires serious reworking to restore its original punch. The recent Oscar winner Crash did this very well. Here the comparisons are much less low key, but the same emphasis is present - those who treat you well are not necessarily those you might expect. Noriko acts an example for us all.

I loved the subtlety and humility with which this film explored it subject. In honesty I struggled to stay awake, and briefly nodded off at least once, but, as I'm getting older I find that the quality of a film rarely correlates to my ability to keep my eyes open. Indeed, often the fact that a film doesn't rely on fuelling my adrenaline, but offers me a more honest and realistic exploration of life is a mark of its quality itself.

Roger Ebert's review is, as always worth checking out, and there are a couple of other reviews of it at The Guardian as well.

Sins of Jezebel (1953)

1953 was perhaps the year that more hokey Bible films got made than any other. Sure there was The Robe (although some would say that was evidence enough), but it also saw the release of Salome, Slaves of Babylon, Queen of Sheba and Sins of Jezebel. The Robe aside, it's immediately obvious that these other films revolve around an exotic leading lady. As is so typical of the genre, it's difficult to work out whether the film is really about sex or saintliness.

Anyone hoping that Sins of Jezebel was about the former rather than the latter will come away very much disappointed. The film never lives up to the tacky allure of its title. True, leading lady Paulette Goddard was the girl who had stolen Charlie Chaplin's heart, but that was twenty years before this film's release. By the time Jezebel was playing in cinemas the girl was now very much a middle aged woman whose career was fading rapidly.

For an actress who was so closely associated with Chaplin's iconic figure 'The Tramp', and co-star in his best known film, The Great Dictator, Jezebel marked a new low. Whilst she's supposedly at the centre of a love triangle, neither of her leading men look particularly interested. Furthermore, the film is so pious that Goddard has little more to do than deliver the cheesy dialogue in the hope that someone might notice her flutter her eyelids.The film itself seems like a halfway house between a Sunday school film and a DeMillean biblical epic. At times it seems like a lost episode of The Living Bible series: it's awfully preachy, features lamentably wooden acting and tea-towel grade costumes. Elijah marches on and his whole manner is reminiscent of that particular series' portrayals of Old Testament heroes.

In other places, though, it borrows from Samson and Delilah. I've already mentioned the love triangle, but the extremes with which the plot goes to to make this happen and the way jealously becomes the motivating factor for the femme fatale's actions, which then spurs the plot on is straight out of the 1949 classic. There's much earnest grabbing of arms and starring deep into one another's eyes, and the nagging sense that even if the Bible didn't exist, substantially the same film could still have been made.

But there's also an interesting relationship between this film and a later DeMille film, which just seems a little too coincidental. The film opens with someone narrating the creation story from Genesis 1. As this progresses it becomes apparent that this opening shot is a close up on a painting, which the camera then pans across to illustrate the story. When the story has reached its climax the camera zooms out and a man in a suit and clerical robe steps into the frame to deliver a speech. He talks about the Ten Commandments, and Israel's idolatry, and as he does so he paces around, pausing momentarily by models of Moses's stone tablets or a model idol.Anyone familiar with DeMille's 1956 version of The Ten Commandments will recognise this sequence right away. That film starts with DeMille stepping out from behind a curtain to address the audience at length, and had initially been publicised by a ten minute trailer where DeMille strolled around his artefact-laden office.

This character soon gives way to the opening credits which after a brief establishing shot of Ahab's palace moves inside to focus on an angry Elijah. The film is keen throughout to underline the link between these two preachers. Not only are they linked by this sequence either side of the credits, but also in the film's closing moments. There the modern day preacher announces that "there will always be the voice of an Elijah ... and when he is done he shall pass on his mantle to another". As he turns to leave he picks up a walking stick which bears an uncanny resemblance to Elijah's staff.

The portrayal of Elijah is somewhat bombastic. There is little of the biblical character's humanity that is so skilfully illustrated in Kings. Indeed the entire sequence where he prays for his own death before hearing God speak afresh has been chopped. All this Elijah really does is stride on and off screen chastising his countrymen. It's hardly a surprise, then, that the film comes off like St. Paul's clanging bell - a one note production that is shiny on the outside but empty on the inside - it's as devoid of subtlety and comprehension of it's audience as its hero.The film's other main hero is Jehu, and by contrast his character's narrative arc is more interesting. Initially close to Ahab, he turns his back on his pious girlfriend for Jezebel, only to rebel against both her and Ahab towards the end of the film, and take a band of followers into the mountains. There, Jehu is anointed (by Elijah not Elisha as Kings has it), and returns to capture the city.

There are a handful of changes to the biblical narrative. Chief amongst them is Elijah's conflict with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, where the contest is ultimately about who can make it rain, rather than who can bring down fire from heaven. It also conflates Obadiah and Naboth which works well and gives the film it's most interesting character.

Overall, though, this is the only feature length version of this story that is available on DVD, and whilst it's not particularly well done, it's noteworthy for its apparent influence on DeMille's 1956 version of The Ten Commandments. There's a scene guide below. As there's a lot that extra-biblical so it's not that long.

Creation & Preacher's intro - (Gen 1 & 2)
Ahab prepares to marry Jezebel - (1 Kings 16:31)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
[Extra-Biblical Episode] - Ahab and Jezebel marry
Ahab builds Jezebel's temple - (1 Kings 16:32)
Elijah predicts a drought - (1 Kings 17:1)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Contest on Mount Carmel - (1 Kings 18:16-40)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
"Naboth" confronts Jehu - (1 Kings 18:13)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Naboth tried and killed - (1 kings 21:1-16)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Elijah confronts Ahab - (1 Kings 21:17-24)
Death of Ahab - (1 Kings 22:29-38)
Jehu Anointed - (2 Kings 9:1-13)
Jehu kils Jezebel - (2 Kings 9:30-37)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]

On set photos for Year One

Quint at Ain't it Cool has posted some pictures from the set of Year One. There's not much to go on really (except that there will be real camels), but it's interesting seeing this film progress.

There's also a fuller cast list up at IMDb, which includes characters named Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, Abraham and Isaac. So it's pretty much certain that this is a book of Genesis comedy, albeit from an unusual angle:

Jack Black - Zed
Michael Cera - Oh
Olivia Wilde - Princess Inanna
June Diane Raphael - Maya (as June Raphael)
David Cross - Cain
Juno Temple - Eema
Oliver Platt - High Priest
Christopher Mintz-Plasse - Isaac
Hank Azaria - Abraham
Gabriel Sunday - Seth
Vinnie Jones - TBA
Marshall Manesh - Slave Trader
Harold Ramis - Adam
Gia Carides - The Queen
Rhoda Griffis - Eve (rumored)
Eden Riegel - TBA
Rick Overton - Sodom Officer Rick
Paul Scheer - Bricklayer
Matthew Willig - Marlak (rumored)
Z. Ray Wakeman - Obidia
Ted Ferguson - Royal Acolyte
Chris Ranney - Merchant

LA Times on Jesus Spirit of God

Jeffrey Fleishman of the LA Times has written what I think is the longest article yet on the Iranian Jesus film Jesus Spirit of God (a.k.a. Mesih or The Messiah). There's also and accompanying video file and a brief entry by Fleishman at the LA Times Blog.

There are a few interesting comments on this one. Firstly, it's the first time I recall the actor playing Jesus, Ahmad Soleimani-Nia, being discussed at length. Apparently he's been in character for 7 years as director Nader Talebzadeh "never knows when he might shoot new sequences for the film".

Secondly, Talezadeh seems more evangelistic in this piece than previous articles have suggested. For example, the recent Breitbart article which quoted him as saying he wanted the film to "make a bridge between Christianity and Islam, to open the door for dialogue" and so on. Here, though, he claims to "pray for Christians" and says that "They've been misled. They will realize one day the true story."

Finally the soon to be released TV series of Jesus Spirit of God will apparently run to 1000 hours. That sounds like a long time, but, as Peter Chattaway notes, that's only as long as twenty-two 40-45 minute long episodes, or a series of West Wing if you will.

Biblical Studies Carnival XXIX

Photo by Tim Parkinson, used under a Creative Commons Licence

I've been enjoying all the DIY I've been doing over the bank holiday weekend so much* that I forgot about this month's Biblical Studies Carnival. Jim West has done a great job which had me clicking on to some of the highlighted posts far more than I usually do.

Tyler Williams will host next month's carnival, and you can read more details about these carnivals, at his Biblical Studies Carnival Homepage.

*This should be read with very heavy sarcasm indeed, though it's beginning to look we might get our new house finished soon. Now if only we could sell the old one...

Gresham Interview, Jesus' Son

My interview with C.S. Lewis's adopted son Douglas Gresham, who now works as a co-producer on the Narnia films franchise, is up at Ship of Fools. I should probably add that the phrase "sexing up Narnia" is nothing to do with me. That said, given the subsequent release of the film's new TV trailer which shows Caspian and Susan kissing (see FilmChat) although, I can't say I'm particularly unhappy with my editor's choice of words. Incidentally, (and it might be slightly inappropriate to mention this given that Narnia is a family film and Susan is meant to be a child), but given all the flirting and kissing Caspian and Susan are getting up to I can't help but wonder about th unintentional implications of the above shot of Susan handling Caspian's weapon. Put it another way, if this still was of two adults, and was discussed in a gender studies class, one reading of it's subtext would no doubt be very much to the fore.

Moving swiftly on, my new review of Jesus' Son is also up now over at rejesus.

Nattvardsgästerna (Winter Light)

One of Ingmar Bergman's lesser themes was children and family, be it the Jester's family in The Seventh Seal and Dr. Borg's reflections on his childhood in Wild Strawberries (my review though it's currently unavailable) to name but two. So it's somewhat ironic that his films present me with such a dilemma: on the one hand I love so many things about them, but at the same time being an exhausted newish parent means that whenever I watch them it's a very real struggle to stay awake .

Winter Light is not a Bible film, although two of it's stars later took leading roles in Bible films (Max von Sydow as Jesus in The Greatest Story Ever Told and Ingrid Thulin as Miriam in Moses the Lawgiver). Yet, in many ways, it's a meditation on Christ's suffering in the short time before his death, and various parts of scripture are quoted throughout, whether as part of liturgy, or just in the ensuing conversation. Its leading man is Tomas Ericsson, the pastor of a small church who wrestles with his doubts about God's perceived silence.

The film opens towards the end of the Sunday morning service, and proceeds in almost real time throughout the rest of the day. The service itself takes around ten minutes of the comparatively short runtime (75 mins), and quotes words from various parts of scripture - the last supper from the gospels, the priestly blessing from Numbers and so on. There's a deft comic touch to these opening scenes, provided primarily by Olof Thunberg's organist, whilst they simultaneously introduce themes of being distant from God, and going through the motions of religion even though faith has well and truly moved on.
Following the service two people seek and audience with Ericsson - his sexton, who must wait until later in the day, and Karin Persson, who is seeking to persuade her husband Jonas to open up about his struggles. On the surface, Jonas is primarily troubled by China's march towards the nuclear bomb, but the real issue is that he is deeply disturbed by the apparent absence of God - the very question which oppresses Ericsson so. Ericsson attempts some words of comfort, but ends up blurting out about his own lack of faith. Persson leaves, and, moments later, is discovered to have shot himself in the head.

Persson's sad demise is surrounded by Ericsson's discussion with Märta Lundberg. The two had been living together following his wife's death, but now their relationship lies in tatters. Lundberg's love for Ericsson remains, albeit in a somewhat distorted fashion, but he has realised that he still loves his wife. Thus Lundberg's failure to match up to her has left him despising her instead. Whilst their discussion appears to clear the air, there seems little hope that their relationship has any kind of future.One of the things I love about Bergman's films is their lighting, and the areas of brightness and shadow that so enliven his compositions. Of course this film's title specifically draws attention to the light. so it's no surprise to find one luscious shot after another. Even if Bergman's images didn't move I could still look at them for hours (provided, of course, that I managed to stay awake). Here the light almost seems to function as an extra character, such as when early on in the film the light through the window suddenly intensifies. There's a clarity about the outdoors in this film which contrasts with the darkness found inside the church. It's not that the great outdoors offers any greater sense of hope - indeed it is outside where Persson takes his own life - but it does seem to provide a sense of clarity which is absent from the murky atmosphere in the church.

Yet, as the film draws to a close, its only glimmer of hope comes from the possibility that in going through the motions of religious practice we might touch something deeper. When the sexton is finally given the chance to talk to his pastor in the vestry it is simply to offer his reflections on Christ's passion. As a man who has suffered much physical pain he cannot see how that was Jesus's greatest challenge. No, his mental torment as he was betrayed by his friends and faced with God's silence must have been the hardest part. Whilst outside the church is all but empty, the sexton's quiet observation, couched in everyday language rather than Bergman's more typical conversational philosophy, gives Ericsson the motivation to push on through and perform one more act act of worship.

It's not an easy film, then, nor one that could be said to be in any way uplifting, but at the same time it's clear that Bergman had not yet abandoned all hope, and he at least offers himself the possibility that hauling oneself off the tarmac one more time might bring a brighter, if still difficult, future.