Living Bible - Episodes 3 & 4 (UK version)

I'm currently working my way through the UK DVD release of The Living Bible. (My notes on part 1 are here along with a very useful comment from WitlessD on the series as a whole). One thing that puzzled me when I first came across the release in October is why the third episode is called "Thirty Pieces of Silver", as the title would seem to apply to Judas's betrayal towards the end of the story. As it turns our it does apply to that part of the story so I'm still mystified as to why that is. According to WitlessD's list it should be episode 18. Citations are in the usual manner.

Episode 3 - Thirty Pieces of Silver
Apocalyptic discourse - (Luke 21:5-19)
Passion prediction - (Mark 8:31-38)
Plot against Jesus - (Mark 14:1-2; John 11:45-53)
Anointing at Bethany - (John 12:1-8)
Judas agrees to Betray Jesus - (Mark 14:10-11)

Notes
The apocalyptic discourse is present, but, as with most portrayals of it, greatly abbreviated. However, here it particularly concentrates on the first part of Luke's discourse, notably the inclusion of the "governors and kings line from v12, which Matthew places much earlier (ch.10). This line is spoken several times by Anthony Hopkins in Peter and Paul, which draws attention to the possible manner in which Luke was using it here, namely to predict in part 1 of Luke-Acts the events that would happen in part 2 (and the possible reason why Theophilus was reading it).

After the Passion prediction, the story line reflects the first 11 verses of Mark, but expands it, by using the accounts from John, and even contradicts Mark in places. For example, the "Plot against Jesus" section occurs first in this sequence, but whereas Mark shows the Jewish leaders seeking to avoid arresting him during the Passover, the film has them choosing this time as he will be within their grasp in Jerusalem.

By contrast the final scene where Judas decides to betray Jesus is an amalgamation of Mark's description and John's motive. The internal dialogue of Judas here reveals his motive to be part disillusionment, but equally the chance to make up for wasting three years with Jesus by earning some money.

The "Anointing at Bethany" scene is one of those rare passages where Mark's original account bears almost as close a relation to John as the two other Synoptics despite a great deal of variation before all four accounts. The only common elements in all four stories other than Jesus's presence are the presence of a woman, that perfume was used and that there were some objections. The version here ignores Luke, the most different from the other three and uses a roughly equal number of details from each of the other three (although it included more vivid details from John than the other two).

The details of episode 4 – "Jesus and the Lepers" are as follows:

Episode 4 - Jesus and the Lepers
Leper Background - (Very loosely linked to Lev 14:1-57)
Jesus heals a single leper - (Mark 1:40-45)
Call down fire on Samaritans - (Luke 9:51-56, John 3:17)
Jesus heals 10 Lepers - (Luke 17:11-19)

Notes
Like Luke's gospel this episode includes both Jesus healing a single leper, and him healing 10 and like Luke's account, the only one who returns is a Samaritan. This ties in with Luke's theme of the gospel being received in all nations.

This episode also incorporates the rare (as far as Jesus films are concerned) incident where James and John offer to call down fire on a Samaritan town that refuses them. This incident, also from Luke, is often linked to James and John's nickname "the sons of thunder" and also comes straight after they have seen God perform miracles at their behest. They seem to have got carried away on this occasion. This story nicely offsets the pro-Samaritan slant of the later incident. However, in neither story do the Jews come out very well.

The Ten: First Reviews and a Release Date

David Wain's Ten Commandments spoof The Ten has been playing at Sundance Film Festival over the last couple of weeks, and the first few reviews are now in.

Fastest to the draw, as ever, are Variety where the reviewer is keen to stress the film's bad taste, (something, it seems, he generally enjoyed).

Only Christians with a very liberal sense of humor are likely to enjoy The Ten. Even lay viewers will need to be tolerant of gags as envelope-pushing as anything in Borat.

That said, The Ten doesn't go out of its way to blaspheme or otherwise poke fun at religion; it's simply that nothing is sacred, and the tastelessness is almost always funny first and nasty second -- which is more than can be said for most mainstream comedies.

The review also adds that Paul Rudd's character hosts the other sections, before starring in the final one himself. It also gives a fair bit of detail for each of the vignettes, which as they are on average less than 10 minutes each, may not leave much else for us to discover for ourselves (which some people like and some people don't). It's a common approach though. Scott Weinberg at Cinematical goes one further giving a one to ten rundown of each episode. He's less keen on the film overall, though.

Basically I'd call The Ten a "glass half full" experience. While some of the skits yield precisely zero in the laughs department (far as I'm concerned, anyway), a few of 'em hit me square in the funny bone and had me chuckling like a dork...Obviously not a mainstream-style comedy that'll appeal to a wide audience of braying knuckleheads (like, say, Meet the Fockers), The Ten feels a little like a "cult flick" waiting to happen.

Lastly, there are two reviews on the film at Ain't it Cool. The first includes a (blurred) picture of David Wain and some of the cast (including Rudd) and is fairly positive, but seems lukewarm in comparison with the second which actually uses the word "hilarious" four times in its single paragraph.

In other news, Yahoo has the news that THINKFilm has picked up the American distribution rights, and it looks likes this will reach cinemas this summer (2007).

Podcast: Greatest Story Ever Told

Having taken a month off from podcasting from Christmas, I'm back this month with some comments on George Stevens's The Greatest Story Ever Told.

This is the third Jesus Films Podcast I've done now. The other two, November's Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew - 1964), and October's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) are both still available to download.

Book Review "Jesus of Hollywood"

Scholarship on Jesus in Film has really come of age in the last ten years. 1997 saw the publication of two books which sought to examine the relationship between Jesus Christ and the cinema - Lloyd Baugh's "Imaging the Divine" and W. Barnes Tatum's "Jesus at the Movies". Two years later Stern, Jefford and Debona published "Savior on the Silver Screen" and in 2003 Richard Walsh added "Reading the Gospels in the Dark".

During that period, Adele Reinhartz's output has been fairly prolific, writing various chapters, articles and papers on the subject as well as teaching courses at the University of Ottawa. In a sense then, "Jesus of Hollywood", her own contribution to the field, is long overdue.

The challenge for a writer seeking to contribute to this, now significant, body of work is how to bring something fresh to it. The first three volumes mentioned above devoted each chapter to one or two of the major films and looked at each different interpretation in light of the four gospels. Walsh's book followed a similar format, but sought instead to look at each film in comparison to the single gospel it most resembled.

"Jesus of Hollywood" takes a completely different approach. Instead of looking at the subject film by film, the main body of the book looks at the gospels and the films character by character, giving a chapter to each. The strength of this method is that it allows Reinhartz to focus on the trends across the genre, as well as highlighting the differences between films on specific issues. For example, chapter 10 looks at the Pharisees, and the way that their portrayal on film could lead to accusations of anti-Semitism. Reinhartz concludes that "it would seem that the filmmakers themselves are not particularly interested in the historical Pharisees but only in the dramatic purposes which they can be put to".¹ However, she also notes how "Arcand’s identification of the Pharisees, and the Jewish opposition to Jesus, with the Catholic Church circumvents the potential anti-Semitism that is problematic in the Jesus movie genre".²

Each of these chapters starts with a brief introduction before looking at how that character / those characters are portrayed in the gospels, and then how that compares to their portrayal in the various biopics Reinhartz is concerned with. On occasions different aspects of the character(s) are looked at in series, in other chapters one or two films are analysed particularly closely. Any relevant historical points are either noted in the introduction or the chapter’s conclusion.

This main section is topped and tailed by two introductory chapters (which form part 1), and a brief Afterword. The opening section acts as a lens through which the reader views the rest of the book. It is here that Reinhartz raises doubts about the absolute historicity of the gospels, and how the biopics distort that further. In considering Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal she notes how "their very departures depend upon expectations audiences have developed on the basis of films such as DeMille’s The King of Kings and the epics of the 1950s and '60s".³

Another advantage of the chapters by characters approach is that it enables Reinhartz to pick and choose the films she wishes to discuss depending on their relevance to the topic in hand. This results in the more popular, but less interesting, films not being explored so much, whilst a number of lesser known films get far greater prominence in this work than they have elsewhere. So Reinhartz discusses the silent films Der Galiläer, INRI, and Christus (none of which I have ever seen), as well as more recent films such as Golgotha, Il Messia, and The Milky Way. "Jesus of Hollywood" also has the advantage of being written after the glut of Jesus film released either in the run up to the Millennium or very shortly thereafter. So it is the first work of it’s kind to consider The Miracle Maker, Roger Young’s Jesus and the Gospel of John. (Reinhartz also discusses The Passion of the Christ which the second edition of Tatum’s book also considered). There are a couple of surprise omissions. Discussion of Mary, the Mother of Jesus perhaps would have enhanced the chapter on Jesus’s mother. Likewise the evaluation of Joseph might have benefited from including Hail Mary.

The other major strength of "Jesus of Hollywood" is Reinhartz’s writing style. The lively, flowing prose, is complemented by its clarity all of which makes engaging reading. Reinhartz’s substantial use of quotes from many of the films is an excellent way of illustrating many of the points she seeks to make, as well as giving the reader a feel for films they are unfamiliar with. There is the occasional bit of unnecessary repetition (such as the observation about Jesus’s house in Young’s film)⁴, but this does not distract from the whole too greatly.

It is unlikely that this will be the last book published exploring Jesus in Film, particularly as new films about the life of Christ are being made all the time. But this book’s character based approach, as well as Reinhartz’s insightful but non-judgemental observations regarding anti-Semitism mean that this is a significant edition to the canon.

============

1 – p.211
2 – p.211
3 – p.39
4 – See p.94 and p.117

Last King of Scotland Review at rejesus

I'm going to be writing some film reviews for the website re:jesus who, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago have started a new blog.

I've been a fan of the main site for sometime. I guess I just like the clear and accessible way it is laid out, and the neutral stance they take in many of their pieces. I particulary like their "Faces of Jesus" series, as well as the way they have dealt with some of the more controversial films such as The Da Vinci Code (my review), and The Passion of the Christ (my review)

Anyway, my first review, on Last King of Scotland, went up on Monday, and I'll hopefully be contributing every week or so.

"Through a Screen Darkly" now available

Back in September I mentioned my friend Jeffrey Overstreet's (then) forthcoming book Through a Screen Darkly. Technically it's not meant to be available until the 5th February, but Amazon already have it in stock, and I have a number of friends who have their copies already.

I decided a while back, however, that I'm not going to review this book. In honesty, I'm just far too excited by it's publication to be able to give any kind of rational, objective critique. I first "met" Jeffrey back in 2002, and in the intervening period he has taught me an incredible amount about film criticism and has been a constant inspiration. He's also a thoroughly decent bloke. Articulate, and passionate, but willing to put his hands up on the rare occasion he makes a mistake. And the guy just has a great way with words, which is a tremendous advantage when you're writing a book.

Even though I'm not going to review the book, I will definitely be getting a copy very soon (and adding it to my wish list in the meantime - ooh, a quick plug for my brother's excellent free & independent wish list site GiftsList.co.uk), particularly as it's available in the UK as well.

Jeffrey also has an Amazon blog for the book. There are also a number of reviews out for "Through a Screen Darkly" already.

Color of the Cross - Review

Given the scores of Anglo-Saxons who have played Jesus, it is incredible to think that Color of the Cross is the first historical film where a black actor has portrayed history's most famous man. Even now, it has taken one man – Jean Claude La Marre – to do a huge amount of the work himself. La Marre wrote, produced and directed the film as well as playing its lead character. The publicity surrounding this film has all been about Jesus's skin color, and La Marre has been fairly vocal about his desire for the film to help the African-American community to see themselves in a new light.

What is unexpected about this film is the way it is also so Jewish. Films about Jesus have largely ignored his Jewish identity. There have, of course, been some token efforts, prayer shawls here, and Aramaic dialogue there, but this film certainly emphasises the Jewishness of Jesus more than any I can recall.

Take, for example, his name. In nearly every other New Testament movie he is called "Jesus" – the Germanised, Latinised version of the Greek translation of his Hebrew name Yeshua (a shortened version of Yehoshua). Here he is called "Yoshua". Other examples include frequent references to the Torah, rabbis and Seders. There are Jewish prayers spoken in Hebrew, and the Romans frequently spit the word "Jew" at those they have dominion over.

When the film comes to the Last Supper, it is placed in context as the footage of Yoshua and his disciples eating is intercut with footage of two other groups also sharing a Passover meal – Yoshua's family, a group of Jewish leaders. In the former, Yoshua's younger brother even asks the question reserved for the youngest person at the table as a way of involving the children in this important celebration. The camera dwells on the bitter herbs and other visual aspects of a traditional Jewish Passover meal.

The film also invests time dwelling on those around the margins of the biblical story. Yoshua's family also heavily features. Joseph is still alive and comforts his wife, teases his daughters and advises his sons, including James who is torn between his responsibilities at home and supporting his brother. Likewise Thaddeus, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas are far more prominent amongst the disciples here than they are in the gospels.

Conversely, the least likeable Jewish characters are Peter and Gamaliel. Gamaliel nails his colours to the mast early on. "I find him to be a very learned man…but he's black, and to say that he is the messiah, it is blasphemy." Peter, on the other hand, is not racist, simply irritating. He is always trying to be the purest and the best of Yoshua's disciples. A (self-appointed?) leader, unaware of the way Yoshua is demonstrating how the first shall be last and the last shall be first. At the same time he is proud, indignant, and arrogant and he is frequently complaining.

The central question of Color of the Cross is whether one of the main reasons that Jesus was executed was because he was black. This is not simply an incarnational film seeking to reinvent the story of Jesus for a specific people. (If so, all of the Jewish characters would be black. Instead, the other Jewish characters are predominantly played by white actors – wisely the major exception here is Judas). The advance publicity for the film claimed that Jesus really was black, based on the description in Revelation 1:14-15. Whilst this seems unlikely, the presence of Moses's "Cushite" wife amongst the people of Israel in their early days shows that it may have been at least possible for other races to have been assimilated into the Jewish people.

Ultimately, the film refuses to answer this crucial question. Early on in the film Mary asks Joseph, "Do you think they doing this to him because he is black?" and the camera zooms in to emphasise the question. But Joseph denies this. "No they're doing this because he's the messiah." Another early scene shows Caiaphas being put under pressure by a Roman official to make sure the peace is kept, and he agrees to hand any troublemakers over if necessary.

Other members of the Sanhedrin seem to be motivated more by the claims of blasphemy. For some, such as Gamaliel, the idea of a black Messiah is blasphemy. And when members of the Sanhedrin link their judgements to those of the crowd outside – race is clearly one of the issues that motivates them. Yet other Rabbis seem to be against Jesus more on purely religious grounds. Of course Joseph's response could simply be seen as him commenting on the bigger picture. Yoshua is dying because that is what he believes the messiah must do. Perhaps the motivation for Yoshua's death is irrelevant to his father.

The problem with some of this is that it can end up looking like the Jews themselves are racist. The Romans are largely absent in this film, in fact Pilate is neither mentioned nor even seen. Gamaliel's statement that Yoshua needed bringing in to protect him from the crowd implies that Jesus is at risk from a racially motivated lynch mob. Whilst the group of rabbis all take different views, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are deeply uncertain rather than strictly pro-Yoshua, and their (white) intellectual dithering is too weak-willed to offer any resistance against those who seek to harm him (a possible indictment on equally ambiguous white liberals today). Other members of the Sanhedrin seem to forget their Torah in their desire to see Yoshua crucified.

From a filmmaking point of view the results here are uneven. There are a number of interesting shots, particularly as the film draws to a close. There are also one or two interesting montages, such as the one depicting Yoshua washing his disciples' feet and the one following his death.

Moreover, the film has two particularly masterful moments. Firstly, Yoshua's prayers in Gethsemane are incredibly powerful. With the camera right in his face, LaMarre portrays such fear and desperation that it makes the scene uncomfortable viewing. The shot also evokes images from other films that depict black men awaiting a violent, racially motivated death.

The other is the cut from Yoshua's arrest straight to his crucifixion. It's unclear as to whether this is a reaction to the overly long trial sequence in The Passion of the Christ, or simply a way of emphasising the story's modern parallels. The crucifixion scene is brief, reflecting the disdain of Yoshua's persecutors. There is no calmly meditative dwelling on this man's death and the meaning of sacrifce. The execution is over in a minute. Yoshua is dispatched just like numerous other rebels at the same time. The dispassionate under-emphasis on his death is somewhat shocking.

The film is a let down in other areas, however. The acting is uneven, and the music is mediocre. Whilst the script certainly has points of interest, in other places it is weak. At times it is over earnest, for example when Jesus comments on the beautiful fur of a black sheep. In other places it is simply inane such as when Mary Magdalene reveals that she let Judas have sex with her in order to delay his betrayal, or when the Boy Yoshua reveals he is the Son of God. Worst of all is when the soldiers arrive in Gethsemane and Peter claims to be Yoshua even though Yosuha has already identified himself. And yes, he really does say "I'm Yoshua".

Such weaknesses mar, rather than completely dissolve, the film's points of interest, but thankfully a handful of strong scenes remain. It's certainly not destined to be a classic, but it's an utterly worthwhile project if only for being the first film to give African Americans a Jesus they can relate to.