Some Obscure Paul Films

Recently I've come across a number of lesser-known films about St. Paul so I thought I'd post a few bits and pieces about them here.

The first is Damascus (pictured above). It's a docudrama made in 2008 as part of a collaboration between Agape 4 Media (the team who distribute the Jesus film), Youth Arise and one or two others as part of the Pope's Year of St. Paul. It's shot in and around Damacus itself and uses actors from the region and at some point I should hopefully get around to reviewing it.

The next is Life of St. Paul (1949). According to the IMDb it starred DeForest Kelley, best known for his role as Dr "Bones" McCoy in Star Trek. Paul was played by Nelson Leigh who would reprise the role 8 years later in The Living Bible Series: Acts of the Apostles. Life of St. Paul was made the same year as The Pilgrimmage Play which also starred Leigh (as Jesus). Both films were made by the same director, John T. Coyle.

Then there is I Paul from 1980. IMDb contains a good synopsis of this one. It was essentially a soliloquy given by Fred J. Scollay as Paul delivers his final message from prison to Timothy using the words of the King James Bible. It's available on DVD in the States, but seemingly not in the UK, which is a shame given that this is the 400th anniversary of the KJV.

Dayamayudu appears to be a sequel to the Jesus film Dayasagar. It's about Peter and Paul and can be seen on YouTube in its entirety. (I assume given the advert that plays at the start and that its there in full that it's legitimate to watch it on YouTube). Sadly there are no subtitles.

Also online is Paul the Emissary which I've discussed in passing before and a long time ago at Arts and Faith. It's available through the producer's website TBN (you have to scroll down a bit as there are a number of other films you can view online including The Revolutionary.

Lastly, I posted a link on the Bible Films Facebook page to a piece on 1960's Paul of Tarsus. There's an article all about the 10 part series at Roobarb's Forum. According to Ian K McLachlan it still exists in its entirety in the BBC archives (as does 1956's Jesus of Nazareth. Another poster adds that there is a clip from the series in the Roger Delgado documentary on the Doctor Who Dalek War set. I'm not a great fan of Dr. Who these days, but I know a couple of readers of this site who are. Has anyone seen this documentary?

Whilst I'm mentioning the Facebook page, just a quick plug to encourage you to "like" it (which means all the news bits will appear in your News Feed) and to post your own links / opinions there. I really want the page to become much more communal and as so many of you know things that I don't it would be great to have your contributions direct.

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 4

The start of this episode is mainly concerned with the goings on in Rome. Claudius has defied the senate's expectations and found his voice, and wants the Jews driven out of Rome, whilst Herod Agrippa has now been appointed in charge in Judea. (There's some conflation here between the Herod in the first

Paul has made it as far as Antioch and there he meets a Greek physician called Luke and baptises him. At the same time Paul, Barnabas and Agabus discuss the coming famine in Jerusalem and Paul and Barnabas set off to gather a collection from the various churches for those in Jerusalem.

Priscilla (pictured) and Aquila leave Rome for Corinth whilst back in Jerusalem Peter is arrested by Herod. Whilst in prison he hears of James's execution prompting him to pray for his life. The scene showing his escape is quite effective. There's no angel, all we see is a bright light shining through the window in the middle of the night. But as he looks out through his open cell door he can see the streets of his city where previously there were only the walls of the prison. The somewhat comical scene of him being left locked outside the prayer meeting petitioning for his release is omitted however. We hear of Peter's escape as Herod is told. There's a brief reaction and then a cut to the next scene where we are introduced to Linus, a recent convert, destined to the the second pope.

The key moment in this episode is the council of Jerusalem, which is opened by Peter announcing that James is to be leader of the Jerusalem church. It's a rather low key affair
with Paul seemingly absent - he's shown in Corinth preaching and there meets Aquila for the first time. Aquila is a great character in this production in part due to Tony Vogel's warm portrayal, and partly due to the way that the script expands the references to Priscilla and Aquila's generosity and hospitality to make these central parts of their characters. That said it's very much Aquila who is to the fore here, which seems to contrast with the picture we get from the New Testament where, very unusually, Priscilla is names first on four of the six occasions their names appear together. Vogel is something of a Bible film regular also starring in The Day Christ Died, Jesus (1999) and Jesus of Nazareth, not to mention his appearance in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The three eat together and there's a passing reference to Paul's reception in Lystra and Philippi. It's somewhat surprising that the latter isn't shown. It's one of the more famous stories from the middle of Acts, and most other films about Acts show it. We're also not shown Paul's split from Barnabas which happens in between these other two incidents.

The second half of this episode is rather light on New Testament content, we see Paul preaching in an unnamed synagogue deftly summing up some of the places he has visited, and there's a scene of Priscilla and Aquila talking to three of the fictional characters in the story about how conversion can be quick or "a lingering slow sweet skill".

The episode ends however with Paul's return to, and arrest at, the temple. The episode ends on a bit of a cliff hanger in this respect. There's no mention of Paul sponsoring the ceremony of the 4 Jewish Christians, simply he and Luke appearing in the outer courts of the temple while his opponents round up the people they need to affect his arrest...

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 3

Saul may have been converted at the end of the last episode, but word has been a little slow getting around the Christian community, and even those who have heard are understandably sceptical. Leading the charge for the doubters is, of course, Thomas, who continues to be rather short in the joy department. In the meantime fear of Saul has driven the church further afield. The opening scene in episode three finds Peter (pictured) in Samaria, exorcising a man and scolding Simon the magician. The idea then comes to Peter that going around in threes isn't as effective as it might be, and so whilst Peter returns to Jerusalem, Philip is sent off to Gaza encountering the Ethiopian offical en route. Things are slightly different from Acts - the Ethiopian's chariot (a carriage really) overtakes Philip on the way. The scene is quite effective though and it's quite an interesting depiction of members of the early church coining fulfilment interpretation off the cuff. The baptism scene - shot from below - is one of the best so far, and it's the first time the emotional theme in the soundtrack fits rather than cheapening the moment.

Meanwhile Paul sees his companion on the road to Damascus killed by zealots and heads to Jerusalem to try and convince Peter and the others that he has been converted and to gain some instructions.

There's plenty going on in the Roman side of things. Caligula is continuing to be as mad a March, April and May hare, and the Jewish brother (Caleb) and sister (Sarah) are starting to fall in love with Romans. Caleb is falling for a Roman gladiator which doesn't really ring true, but it does bring some much needed sexual tension. Sarah is smitten by a prominent centurion who conveniently finds himself with access to Caligula, Claudius, Priscilla, Aquila and later on Paul. His experience watching Caligula order his army to collect shells on a French beach rather than invading Britain drives him to plot his emperor's assassination and it's not long until he and others carry out their plan and crown Claudius.

Peter then appears in Jaffa, and is called on to bring Tabitha back from the dead. There's a great scene of him and Thomas trying to remember what Jesus did in this kind of situation, and it's nice to see Thomas being the faith filled one rather than Peter. It all brings a nice angle to these events capturing the humanity of Peter which often seems absent in Acts. We also see him struggling with the fame that comes with his ministry.

The film's low budget (big name actors aside) is occasionally apparent, and it's here that it's most notable. We first meet Cornellius at the start of the episode in a sea side villa that looks suspiciously like the one in Capri Tiberius had retired to. Similarly Peter's vision is not shown, only his experience of it. Cornellius is converted and is baptised in a dirty looking rock pool by the lusciously blue sea.

Sarah's love (Julius Vallerius) is trying to buy her out of slavery and in so doing goes to Priscilla and Aquila for help (they have already helped him locate her). Aquila and Priscilla are two of the best characters in this production. Since not a lot is known about them from the New Testament, the scriptwriters have pretty much free reign in terms of how to use them and how to develop their characters, but there;s just enough in the pages of scripture to make their characters interesting. Not only is it through them that we see things such as the purge of the Jews from Rome, we also get to see them grow from a couple not really sure if they are Christians to people leading others to faith.

Peter's experiences in Joppa lead to another meeting of the church in Jerusalem where they try to come to a consensus on admission into the church and the relationship between them and mainstream Judaism. In the background here is Caligula's attempt to install a statue of himself of the Jewish temple. But the very next scene shows Caligula's assassination and the episode ends with the statue, which was still outside the temple, being toppled and destroyed in celebration of the news. Watching it today I couldn't help but think of a similar statue meeting a similar fate not to far away in Iraq. The fact that it's purely coincidental (unless this series was big in Iraq) is a useful reminder not to read too much into similar looking images.

Old Thoughts on Peter and Paul

Over the next few weeks there will be a number of posts on films based on Acts, mainly the two 80s TV programmes, A.D. (1985) and Peter and Paul (1981). I've now seen the first episode of the former, but writing up my thoughts on that will have to wait until I have a bit more time. So for now I thought I'd edit and post a few thoughts I wrote back in December 2004. Please be warned this is not he best, or most well informed, writing I have ever produced!

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

Watching Peter and Paul is rather like reading the book of Acts. Obviously that's the intention - although the film is much more than a simple reproduction of Luke's second great work - but it also reflects the way Acts starts off well, but peters out towards the end (pun most definitely intended).

Hopkins is, as you'd expect, great value and he produces a really good mix of Paul the hothead that comes through so clearly from his writings. At the same time he avoids playing Paul as the kind of vitriolic bigot that he's so often caricatured as today. This view always seems a bit out of context, and casts him as someone who would be unlikely to achieve what he did. Hopkins does this better than any of the other actors I've seen play Paul, although surprisingly he delivers Paul's most vitriolic line ("why don't they just go and castrate themselves?") coolly and calmly, as if he's talking about removing a slightly annoying toenail clipping.

What I liked most about the programme was the way the script made constant biblical references like little extracts from the prophets, Psalms or now-familiar Pauline Hebrew Bible was pretty staggering when we consider that for him it wasn't all in one convenient little volume, he didn't have a concordance, and he didn't have the luxury of being able to leave a gap and cut and paste the quote in later. He seems pretty steeped in the Old Testament - I imagine he would have had to have memorised large parts of it to be able to pull out all the passing references and connotations he does - and the film portrays this rather well.

Paul is also shown referring to Jesus' teaching and here I was less convinced, particularly as he doesn't really do this much in his letters. We know he was familiar with bits of it, but he doesn't seem to use it that often and I'm not sure he would have known bits verbatim in their canonical form as the film suggests, particularly as some of those bits probably hadn't found this form when Paul was writing. But it is interesting how that as Paul goes on he uses Jesus' words less and less and starts to use his own words more. Perhaps this is suggesting that Paul's teaching started to drift from the message of Jesus, but it could simply mean that as Paul went on he had more and more confidence in his own material.

There are however a few moments in the second half, which particularly focus on Paul, which let things down. Dramatically the shipwreck in Acts 27 is potentially an exciting scene, but all we get is reference to a storm that is coming followed by a cut to a scene of the shipmates arriving on the beach clinging on to bits of driftwood. Likewise, the legal drama is left to the scene with Festus and Agrippa. I do find this a bit tedious in Acts, but I couldn't help wondering how much better these scenes might have been is they had been made by someone with good experienced of making legal dramas.

That said, the real let down is the depiction of Peter. Early on he seems to have decided he couldn't lead people despite a great Pentecost preach and called James in to do it for him. Peter then feels unhappy about the situation but tends to moan about it rather than getting on with the business in hand. He and Paul get on well and he seems to inspire Paul at the start but then doesn't speak to him for 8 years, and then there is the Council of Jerusalem and the clash of Galatians 2, and they never speak again. After this Peter wanders around going to Babylon (rather bizarrely) and eventually re-tracing Paul's steps, and only returning to real, on-the-edge, preaching once Paul dies. By this time it's only a matter of weeks before he'll die too, and it just seems like a dithering old man desperately trying one last attempt to make something of himself.

This is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly Peter is played into a weak role. It's not Robert Foxworth's fault he can't match Hopkins, but the script for Peter is poor too. Key Petrine moments are erased completely - notably Peter's last main solo narrative with his vision and Cornellius. But later on we delve into fiction (or perhaps its less well known legend with the closing scenes) whilst ignoring more popular "legends" such as the Quo Vadis moment. Fatally ending on the weak Peter, means that the film ends really badly. Once Paul goes, so does any resemblance of interest.

The Bible: A History, Part 6

Having courted controversy with last week's look at Jesus Channel 4's The Bible: A History moved onto safer ground this week with a look at St. Paul. Not that it wasn't controversial in it's own way - it was - but a largely unknown historian's look at the man responsible for the spread of Christianity was always going to raise fewer eyebrows than Gerry Adams' take on the Prince of Peace.

The historian in question was Tom Holland a prize-winning author who has specialised in classical history. His controversial point was that far from being an authoritarian oppressor, he was actually the archetypal liberator. "Look to the make the world fairer today" Holland explained in a tantalising introduction "and you owe a debt of gratitude to Paul". It was a point repeated as the programme began to draw to a close. It is Paul who has been most influential on western thinking not Darwin, Marx or Freud.

The problem is that aside from this introduction and conclusion, the middle of the programme struggles to flesh out Holland's point. He makes passing reference in his opening statement to how the ancient Romans and Greeks saw inequality as a virtue, but didn't really demonstrate the point any further. This comes, I think, from the "all things to all men" nature of programmes such as these. Before it could get onto subtler issues like this, the programme needed to explain who Paul was where he came from etc.. It was the right choice, but it did leave Holland's key point a little a little lacking in weight.

That said, Holland did explore two of the areas where Paul's reputation is blackest - his comments on women and homosexuals. Personally I find the criticism Paul gets in these areas distinctly lacking in context. Ancient thinkers will always be from a different culture than our own, and thus when their values are held under such scrutiny hundreds or thousands of years later we are, of course, not going to agree with every word. But I agree with Holland that such statements as "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one" (Gal 3:28) were utterly revolutionary, and to criticise Paul for failing to see the full extent to which his line of thinking goes is to be gravely uninformed.

Holland does go on to tackle those two issues in particular, finding himself in a gay bar to explore Paul's attitude to homosexuality, before talking to a female New Testament lecturer about Paul's attitude to women.

Holland approaches these two issues differently. In the first case he argues that while Paul, like his culture, prohibited homosexuality, he was always very "flexible" in his thinking. He was always challenging his own prejudices, and this too is something he has passed onto the western world. "His aim is always to push against the limits of preconceptions in the name of equality and love" Holland explains. In other words, had he had the time to work these thoughts through, or had he been born into our culture, he probably would not have spoken out against homosexuality as he did.

In honesty, whilst it may be a fair point, it also overlooks a lot of key evidence. Far from being disapproved of in classical culture, sex between males was rife, though only in certain contexts, few, if any, of which bear any similarity to what we think of today when we talk about homosexuality. Secondly, quite what Paul is speaking against is never that clear - at least not once you get into the original Greek. Again, I guess this was a time issue, but it would have been nice to see a little more explanation of this point, given Channel 4's typical audience.

What's interesting is that the programme took a very different angle on the question of women's rights. Rather than re-applying the same arguments, which would not have been inappropriate, he talks to Paula Gooder who explains that some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul were probably not written by him, including 1 Timothy with it's rules telling women to learn in silence, and forbidding them to teach. It's the perspective I came around to a number of years ago. These statements seem just too greatly opposed to Paul's words (as above) and his actions, working with women teachers, greeting women apostles and so on. Personally I think both issues hang on the translation of hapax legomenon which seem to weigh against the thrust of Paul's words, actions and lines of thinking, but I digress.

Having explored Paul's conversion and his ideas about taking the gospel to the gentiles earlier in the programme, it ends by looking at his death, taking the view that Paul was killed in the Neronian persecution of the early 60s AD. There was no mention of alternative theories, but again this is probably because of time constraints. That said Holland did refer to a legend in which Paul's freshly severed head bounces three times forming a spring of water in each place it hit the ground.

It's hard to sum up my feeling about this episode. In many ways it was one of my favourites. I agreed with almost everything it said, which always leaves one well disposed towards something, and particularly appreciated Holland's attempt to rehabilitate Paul, by explaining his cultural context and the impact his thought has had on 21st century thought. At the same time there were a few extraneous moments (like the footage from Holland's visit to speaker's corner) which should have been cut in favour of fleshing out some of the more important arguments.

Next week, it's the final episode of the series when Robert Beckford takes a look at Revelation. Given Beckford's track record, not to mention his personal history, I have high expectations.

Paul of Tarsus and Jesus of Nazareth

NT Gateway's Mark Goodacre has been finding out some more information on the 1960 BBC TV series Paul of Tarsus. On Thursday he discussed the various bits of information he had gleaned from the associated novelisation. These included the book's ten chapter headings which, it's assumed, match up to the titles of the ten episodes. Interestingly, WitlessD left a comment on my earlier post which gave this and some additional information, from 2 different sources - the BFI Library and old copies of the Radio Times. Mark also describes the photos as the highlights of the book and notes how it relies more on Acts than on Paul's letters.

Mark's second post deals with his discovery that Paul of Tarsus was actually a sequel to a series called Jesus of Nazareth which aired in 1956. Various productions have gone by this name - in addition to Zeffirelli's famous 1977 TV series, there were silent film versions in 1916 (a theologically modified release of From the Manger to the Cross and 1928 as well as a Mexican version in 1942 - but this one was unknown to me. According to the IMDb it starred Tom Flemming in the lead role. Flemming went on to commentate on the 1972 Eurovision Song contest.

I'll not reproduce Mark's comments here, but would encourage those interested in these films to read his original posts for themselves.

I've also checked both Campbell and Pitts and Kinnard and Davis, and neither book mentions either series.

Troughton as Paul of Tarsus

Mark Goodacre has discovered details of an old BBC series called Paul of Tarsus (1960) which starred Patrick Troughton in the leading role. Troughton performed the role six years before he became the second Dr. Who in 1966.

Like Mark, I'd never heard of this film before. He quotes the brief entry in the BFI database ("A cycle of ten plays telling the story of the Acts of Christ's Apostles. BBC tx 1960/10/16 - 1960/12/18 (Sun)") and links to details of two episodes - To the Gentiles and The Feast of Pentecost - as well as the Cast List. The latter lists the writer, producer and director as Joy Harington, who, the following year, converted the production into a novel featuring pictures from the series. Mark's getting the book and will hopefully find out some more details. I'll echo his request for more information from anyone who knows more.

Atti Degli Apostoli (Acts of the Apostles)

When reading Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, it's easy to forget that the events it describes took 30 years to unfold. Aside from the prologue Luke's gospel spends 24 chapter on the events of just 3 years, and the immediacy of his writing style changes little between parts 1 and 2 of his story about Jesus and his followers.

Films about Acts have tended to reinforce the speed with which we perceive the events occurred. With 28 chapters to cram into just a few hours it's difficult to carve out the space to show time ebbing along.

Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli (1968), however, bucks the trend. Whilst including a great deal of the biblical material (only chapter 19 and 24 are completely omitted), it still manages to convey the slowness of the process which led to Paul's arrival in Rome.

Rossellini does this by utilising a number of different techniques, many of which pull against the epic film genre. Large crowd scenes are kept to a minimum, as are on-screen depictions of miracles (although there are examples of both, particularly at the start of the film). Acts' many sermons are delivered in a low key style rather than converted into the kind of rousing speech that is so typical of the epic. Further more, most of the apostles' evangelism consists of one on one conversations, or talks in front of small groups, perhaps in a remote synagogue. The production opposes the epic in other ways, for example, it usually underplays the hero's persecution and refuses to import romantic sub-plots.

There are a number of other ways in which the film creates this more leisurely pace. Firstly, Rossellini punctuates his action with moments where nothing is really happening. There is space in this film, often at the start or the end of a shot. In some ways these moments of space are unnecessary; but in other ways they are the very essence of the film.

There's a masterful shot at the start of the seventh episode¹ which starts with a close up of a deserted dust track. The shot ever so gradually widens as the camera pulls back, eventually incorporating Paul and Barnabas as they trek up the road to Pisidian. It's one of many examples of Rossellini's Pancinor zoom technique – the long shots which zoom in and out drawing attention to various parts of the scene but keeping them connected to the larger whole. Here it starts with the emptiness of a remote path and then locates Paul and Barnabas on it. The shot as a whole tells the story of a long quiet walk along a deserted road.

Prior to this point in the film the action has centred around a busy Jerusalem, with only brief forays into the outside world. But from here on in, Paul becomes the main protagonist, and he and his companions pursue a lonely course of action through the towns of Asia Minor. Even the council of Jerusalem occurs outside the actual city itself.

The second way in which this film implies a more protracted timescale is by stressing how isolated Paul and the other disciples are from each other, and how unaware they are of the impact they are having. When Paul meets a besotted Prisicilla and Aquilla he is stunned to discover that he, and his Lord, are already well known in Rome. As he nears the great city in the closing scenes, he is again taken aback to find he is known and admired by a sizeable Christian community.

The great strength of these scenes is how emotionally powerful they are given their apparent restraint and understated acting. Somehow the numerous subtleties of the performances and the way they are filmed add up to something quite moving. Another example of this is disciples' reunion at the council of Jerusalem. Before launching into the debate about gentile adherence to the law, Rossellini pauses to show Peter waiting for the other delegates. But rather than being absorbed with the business the council needs to attend to, it seems he's mainly looking forward to seeing his friends and brothers again.

The film's ultra-long takes are, in themselves, another way in which the film suggests the passage of time. Perhaps the majority of scenes in Atti are filmed in a single, extended, shot. There are of course exceptions, notably the food riot in Jerusalem where the montage is perhaps a formal way of underlining that this particular episode is fictional, but these only serve to remind us of the longer takes elsewhere.

Filming a scene in a single shot gives the cuts between these scenes extra significance. Within a shot the action occurs in real time. Once that continuity is broken the time that has passed whilst the camera has been turned off is unknown and potentially, therefore, represents an extended period.

Commentators have suggested a number of reasons why Rossellini relied so heavily on the long shot, (accompanied by the Pancinor zoom and the plan séquence). For some writers it was simply economy – long shots reduced the post production editing process to simply joining the scenes in the correct order, whilst also reducing the time and money spent altering lighting and make up for each scene. Other commentators, however, whilst perhaps accepting those particular advantages also see it as a way of giving the film more realistic aesthetic, and allowing the films to be more neutral.

By this stage in his life Rossellini was firmly into his historical period, producing films that he thought would "aim human beings in becoming more rational".² To this end he had reverted to making films for television where "the [critical] spirit of the individual is more accentuated".³ Rossellini's desire for historicity is apparent throughout the series. Almost the entire first episode consists of an enslaved scribe giving a Roman noble a tour of Jerusalem along with a social and historical commentary. Elsewhere the rise and fall of the various Caesars is introduced into the relevant part of the script.

There is also a great deal of the everyday in Atti. The apostles spend a great deal of time engaged in manual labour. Peter is shown dyeing, Paul weaving, Stephen serving food and so on. Often the disciples spread they gospel as they work, a theme that would reappear in Il Messia.

That said Rossellini's concern is not so much with a detailed recreation of the period as of the particular work in which he is adapting. This also apparent with his other historical works which are also adaptations of historical artefacts. So whilst the costumes and locations are fairly realistic, these areas are not attended to as rigorously as they are in many historical films today. The aim is to recreate (the feel of) the work rather than the events the work discusses.

This is one of the reasons why so many of the miraculous stories are not shown directly. This is simply a feature of Luke's work which Rossellini is seeking to recreate. Yet Rossellini relies on characters recounting supernatural occurrences more than Luke. Whilst this might appear to be an inconsistency, it only reflects the manner in which the story has been heard ever since.

There are two further reasons why Rossellini portrays the miracles in this manner. Firstly, describing the miracles is far more ambiguous than showing them. This allows the viewer to approach them from their own perspective, without forcing a particular opinion. Secondly, it recontextualises them. Set in a fresh context they once again become startling, like they were for their original audiences, liberated from the confines of familiarity.

This recontextualisation is also seen in some of the speeches made by the apostles. "In these films, characters boldly foreground their words, paradoxically, by delivering them in a flattened, often completely uninflected way... [focussing attention] on the ideas and historical forces at work".⁴

Another way in which the film may be seen to be at variance with the book is in its great respect for the Judaism of the period. The lengthy prologue places the narrative firmly in a broader context explaining, for example, that Christianity was only one of a number of Jewish sects. It is also keen to stress the Judaism of the early apostles. Prior to his conversion Saul is shown sitting in the Sanhedrin, and even after his trip to Damascus he retains his side curls.

There are also points where the film questions Paul's modus operandi of using the network of synagogues to promulgate his message. Is he taking advantage of the hospitality which he is shown? Do the Hebrews (as the film generally calls them) in that town have good reason not to abandon their faith for his?

Such questioning should not be seen as an outright criticism of Paul. Indeed his dedication and his genuineness come across very clearly. Perhaps the biggest slur against him is the irritating American drawl used to dub the film into English.

Fortunately, the visuals are so brilliantly memorable that they persist in the memory long after the poor dubbing has faded into obscurity. As with the book, the precise words used by the apostles may no longer be recoverable, but the impact of what they achieved endures.

1 - The version of the film I saw was the ten episode "catechical" version. There is also a 5 episode version of this film (where each section is just short of an hour) where this shot should occur at the beginning of episode 4.
2 – Brunette, Peter. "Roberto Rossellini", University of California Press (1996) p. 253
3 – Interview, Filmcritica, no 190 (Aug 1968), 351 – cited in Brunette
4 – Brunette, Peter. "Roberto Rossellini", University of California Press (1996) p. 262

Atti Degli Apostoli - Scene Analysis - Parts 9 and 10

This is part of an ongoing series on the Roberto Rossellini series Acts of the Apostles (Atti Degli Apostoli). As the film was recently shown at the BFI in 3 sections (episodes 1-4, 5-8 and 9-10) I'm copying that structure in my scene analyses of the various episodes.

Episode 9
Arrival in Philippi - (Acts 16:11-13a)
(Eph 6:12)
Exorcism of the Fortune Telling Girl - (Acts 16:16-22)
At Lydia's House - (Acts 16:13b-15)
Paul and Silas released - (Acts 16:22-24, 35-40)
Arrival at Athens - (Acts 17:14-17)
(1 Cor 13:1-7)
Paul preaches in Athens - (Acts 17:34)
Paul in Corinth - (Acts 18:1-11)
(Luke 6:20-28)

Episode 10
Paul sets off for Jerusalem - (Acts 20:22-38)
Paul arrives in Jerusalem - (Acts 21:17-26)
Paul arrested - (Acts 21:27-36; 22:24-30)
Paul transferred to Caesarea - (Acts 23:23-35, 26:32)
Paul before Festus and Herod - (Acts 25 & 26)
Paul arrives in Rome - (Acts 28:14-16)
Centurion Recaps the journey - (Acts 27:1-28:10)
(Rom 11:11-32)
(2 Tim 4)

Notes
Episode 9 deals with two of the most famous parts of Paul's missionary journeys - the events in Philippi and Athens. The screenplay again plays around with the chronology of the events. Here Paul meets the fortune telling girl before he meets Lydia, and his arrest is told retrospectively whilst he is at Lydia's house (where he has found refuge after a night in jail). No mention is made of the the jailer or the earthquake that effected his conversion. It's also interesting how the disturbance concerning Paul and Silas is shown. At first not much seems to happen, but then the two are ambushed whilst within their own tent. The Athens scenes are far more conventional.

There are a couple of particularly interesting moments in the dialogue. Firstly, this episode starts with a declaration that Caligula is now the new Roman emperor. Secondly, Paul encourages Lydia that she can do all he has done. This statement is made more plausible by the omission of the earthquake incident, but the radicalness of it within Paul's own time (and, arguably, his own practice) is easily lost to some of the modern audience.

Both episodes also contain numerous words which are familiar from Paul's own letters. Strangely, the script has Paul in Athens trying out his famous passage on love from 1 Cor 13. There are also citations from Eph 6:12, Luke 6:20-28, Rom 11:11-32, and 2 Tim 4. Remarkably, this last quotation also appears in the final episode of that other ten part Acts of the Apostles series from the Living Bible. Both productions quote the "I have fought the good fight" verse (2 Tim 4:8). Yet, 2 Timothy is book about which there is considerable dispute about whether it was actually written by Paul.

There are a number of other similarities between Atti and the Living Bible Series: Both cover the greatest proportion of Acts in their final two episodes, both go beyond the end of the book of Acts in order to round off the story of Paul, both show him dictating letters to his scribes whilst under house arrest.

One thing this pair of episodes did well was stress how isolated Paul was from everything else that was going on with "The Way", and how unaware he was of his growing reputation. So in episode 9 we are introduced to a young Priscilla and Aquilla who have already heard of Paul, and also bring him news that Christianity has reached Rome. When Paul asks how it got there, they have to confess that no-one really knows for sure, although there is a rumour it was brought by Peter. The final episode finds Paul being greeted by Roman Christians on the Appian way well before his arrival in the city itself. On both cases Paul is pleasantly surprised at the spread of the gospel aside from his own work.

I'll hopefully write a review for this series as a whole by the end of this week.

Atti Degli Apostoli - Scene Analysis - Parts 5 to 8

This is part of an ongoing series on the Roberto Rossellini series Acts of the Apostles (Atti Degli Apostoli). As the film was shown in 3 sections (episodes 1-4, 5-8 and 9-10) I'm copying that structure in my scene analyses of the various episodes.

Episode 5
Peter goes to Joppa – (Acts 9:43)
Cornellius and Peter – (Acts 10:1-48)
Peter Reports to the 12 – (Acts 11:1-18)
Paul and Barnabas return to Jerusalem - (Acts 11:29-30)

Episode 6
[Extra Biblical Episode – Riot due to Famine]
Death of James – (Acts 12:1-2)
Peter's Miraculous Escape Recounted – (Acts 12:3-11)
More of Jesus's Teaching – (John 14:16-19, 15:18-20)
The Disciples Scatter – (Acts 12:17, 24)
Paul and Barnabas Return to Antioch – (Acts 12:25)
Teaching In Antioch - (Acts 7:2-5, Rom 9:25/Hos 2:23)
Antioch Christians Fast – (Acts 13:1-2a, Matt 6:6, 16-18)
Paul and Barnabas Sent Out – (Acts 13:2-3)

Episode 7
From Antioch to Pisidian Antioch - (Acts 13:4-6, 13-14)
In Pisidian - (Acts 13:14-52, Ex 15:3-6, 1 Cor 15:20-25, Ps 22, Is 11:6, )
Return to Antioch - (Acts 14:21-28)
Judaisers arrive in Antioch – (Acts 15:1-2)
Paul on the Jews and Gentiles - (Eph 2:11-19)

Episode 8
Council of Jerusalem – (Acts 15:3-30)

Notes
As with the opening episodes these episodes continue to downplay the more dramatic events of the book of Acts. So here we're shown neither Peter's vision of the animals in the bed sheet, nor his escape from prison. That's not to say that the film denies them either. As with earlier examples of the supernatural, the events are reported and accepted by those that hear them.

The effects of this technique are three-fold. Firstly, it draws attention to those events precisely because it downplays them. When James is arrested the audience is expecting Peter's arrest to follow. But Rossellini catches us unawares, and in so doing makes those over familar with the story re-consider it. Secondly it puts these events where they belong in the realm of faith. The ambiguity Rossellini gives these scenes means that the viewer interacts with them and brings their own interpretation to the experience of watching the film. Finally, it means the story reaches the viewer as it has reached most of those who have heard it over the centuries - by hearing it from someone else, rather than seeing it. In the original story only Peter experiences these events. Even the first Christians have to decide whether they accept or reject his testimony.

One of the most striking scene of the whole film for me was when Peter decides to go to Joppa. Ironically, it stands out because actor Jacques Dumur underplays it. This lends a sense of mystery and conviction to the moment. He announces his decision and moves to implement it almost as if in a trance. It also stands out because the dangerous nature of the decision Peter makes is completely opposite to the self-preservation instinct that seems to be ensnaring the other disciples.

I looked at how the different film makers portrayed the visits of Paul to Jerusalem and concluded that "none of these films support the minority conservative chronology (that equates Gal. 1 with Acts 9, and Gal 2 with Acts 11)". In fact this is what this film appears to do. Whilst Paul's first meeting is not shown he has clearly visited Jerusalem to meet Christians there before the events of episode 6. The Council of Jerusalem in episode 7 is therefore his third visit to Jerusalem since his conversion.

In September last yearEpisode 7 devotes a significant amount of time to Paul and Barnabas' trip to Antioch in Pisidian. It's interesting that the film spends so long on this location as it is usually downplayed in favour of Paul's later journeys. Here it takes almost as much time as the Council of Jerusalem in episode 8. The events at Pisidian are very delicately balanced in terms of the Jewish - Christian debate. Paul is invited to speak, and whilst his oration is compelling, it feels a little bit forced and out of place, almost as if Paul has taken advantage of his hosts. The objections of the rabbi in the synagogue ("Can you say the wolf now lies down with the lamb?") seem very reasonable. The thrust of the narrative balances out these objections, but they are never convincingly defused.

The last of these episodes in almost entirely taken up with the Council of Jerusalem. Strangely this doesn't occur in Jerusalem itself, but somewhere in the countryside surrounding it, and outside. The film often locates the disciples close to nature and this is one such example. The discussions continue for a last time, and whilst James is set up to adjudicate, he clearly doesn't carry the authority or importance of Peter, John or Paul.

Atti Degli Apostoli - Scene Analysis - Parts 1 to 4

As I mentioned yesterday, I'm going to start my discussion of this film by analysing the different episodes (which I'll do over three posts) and then I'll finish by writing a review. I was unable to capture the individual titles of each episode. Gospel citations are as per my usual procedure.

Episode 1
[extra-biblical episode - Background to the story]
Recap of Crucifixion – (Mark 14:1-25)
The Disciples Gather - (Acts 1:13-14)
Recap of the Ascension - (Acts 1:3-12)
Recap of Death of Judas – (Acts 1:15-20, Matt 27:3-7)
Election of Matthias - (Acts 1:21-26)
Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost - (Acts 2:1-41)

(Episode 2)
Peter and John heal a Crippled Beggar – (Acts 3:1-10)
Peter Speaks to the Crowd - (Acts 3:11-26)
Peter and John Arrested - (Acts 4:1-14)
Caiaphas and Annas Decide to Release Peter and John - (Acts 4:15-22)
Disciples Pray - (Acts 4:23-31)
Jesus's Teaching Recalled - (John 15:18-21, Matt 10:29-31; Matt 18:20 / Thom 30)
Disciples Share Communion - (1 Cor 11:23-26)

Episode 3
Deaths of Ananias and Sapphira Recounted - (Acts 5:1-11)
Recap of Jesus giving Lord's prayer - (Matt 6:6-15)
Recap of the Woman at the Well - (John 4:1-42)
The Father's testimony about Jesus Recalled - (John 8:13-19)
[extra-biblical episode]
Peter and John Re-arrested - (Acts 5:21-41)
Recount of Jesus's Trial Before Sanhedrin - (Mark 14:53-64)
[extra-biblical episodes]
(Luke 10:3)
Appointment of the 7 Servants - (Acts 6:1-7)

Episode 4
Arrest, Trial and Death of Stephen - (Acts 6:8-8:1a, Mark 2:27))
Church is Persecuted - (Acts 8:1b-3, John 16:33)
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch - (Acts 8:26-38)
Saul Gets Permission to Capture Christians - (Acts 8:1b-3)
Conversion of Saul - (Acts 9:1-19, Acts 2:34-36)
Escape from Damascus - (Acts 9:20-25)

Notes
(The even numbered episodes are shown in brackets as the title cards were cut out to enable the two episodes to be "neatly" spliced together. It was generally obvious where one part finish and the next one started, but there is a certain amount of guess work involved. I should add that some releases of this film appear to have been in hour long segments anyway).

Roughly two thirds of the first episode is a conversation between two fictional characters who disappear from the story at the start of episode 2 never to be seen again. A Greek slave shows a Roman official around Jerusalem and gives him (and us) and detailed historical background to the city of Jerusalem and recent events. This is actually a common part of Rossellini's style, particularly during his historical film period. It's an unusual technique, but feels less forced than in many other films where the scriptwriter tries to shoehorn historical information into casual conversations. Whilst this technique is not particularly realistic it does enable the construction of a robust historical framework for the story that follows.

That said narration is very common technique in this production. The disciples frequently recount events from their time with Jesus. There are some particularly interesting touched here. John, for example, quotes Jesus fairly often, always using words from the gospel which took his name. We also hear Thomas reciting Jesus's saying "where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there also". This is the canonical version of this promise, which is also included, albeit slightly differently, in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 30). "Where there are two or one, I am with him".

Another notable example of this is in the first conversation we hear between the disciples based on Acts 1:15-26. Here the death of Judas is discussed, and interestingly the film tries to merge the divergent accounts of Matthew and Luke (Matt 27:3-7, Acts 1:15-20). Judas buys the field (as per Acts), but is credited as killing himself (as per Matthew).

There are also numerous examples when the disciples gather - something that occurs frequently in this version of the story. In particular, episode 2 features the disciples gathering after the events of Pentecost and the healing of the crippled beggar, and sharing communion for what appears to be the first time since Jesus's ascension. Jesus teaching is cited on several occasions, by various disciples. Much of episode 3 is similar.

Episode 4 opens with the arrest of Stephen who is seized not for being a Christian, or because of his superior debating skills, but because he is working on the Sabbath. His stoning is shown in a long shot with Stephen in the foreground, but his executioners included in the shot. In some ways the shot is detached from any particular point of view. Yet it also implicates us in the action and is most closely associated with the perspective of the other non-participant in the action - Saul (especially as we will increasingly share his perspective from this point in).

At the same time we are on the same level as Stephen, and distanced from his killers. There are so many ways this scene could have been shot, for example with heavy editing like the shower scene in Psycho that the choice of this realistic manner speaks volumes, particularly about the culpability of those who see but fails to act. Stephen's body is subsequently hung upside down from a tree.

The rest of this episode covers the resulting persecution of the Christians under Saul and his subsequent conversion. Saul's vision on the road to Damascus is filmed very ambiguously. There is a flash of lightning, a close up of Saul and then a shot of him being carried by his (former) cohorts. We see no vision and hear no voice. Whilst this could be seen as demythologising it actually only reflects the ambiguity of all three accounts found in Acts. The light is visible to all, but only Paul hears and understands the voice. Again Rossellini places his audience in the place of the neutral observer rather than the protagonist.

A similar approach was used for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The camera is not amongst the disciples at the crucial moment, but on the street surrounded by the general populace. There is a flash of darkness and then the disciples rush out. Their behaviour suggests a radical change, but the extent to which any tongues of fire would have been visible to a neutral observer is left to interpretation.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 9 and 10

OK, I did think I'd get this done by Friday, but time was not on my side and I only got halfway, so I decided to finish it and post it today and start discussion of Atti degli Apostoli later in the week. this is part of a series on the 10-part Acts of the Apostles episodes of The Living Bible (1957). The scene guide for these episodes is as follows:

Episode 9 - Witness Before a King
Intro - (Matt 5:10 cited)
Jerusalem riots against Paul - (Acts 22:18-24)
Paul avoids a flogging - (Acts 22:25-29)
Paul before the High Priest - (Acts 22:30-23:11)
Plot to Assassinate Paul - (Acts 23:12-24)
Paul before Felix - (Acts 24:1-27)
Paul, Festus and Agrippa - (Acts 25:13, 23-27; 26:9-30)
Summary - (Is 55:10-11)

Episode 10 - Triumphant
Paul in Rome - (Acts 28:16-22)
(Is 53:3-5 - quoted)
Paul Teaching in Rome - (Acts 28:23-31)
Extra-Biblical Episode
(Eph 6:10-17 - dictated)
(Col 3:1-3, 12-14 - read by Tychicus)
(Phil 3:7-14; 4:8 - dictated)
Extra-Biblical Episode
(2 Tim 1:8-12; 4:8 - recited by Paul in Prison)

Notes
There's a noticeable jump in the narrative between the end of episode 8 (Paul and Silas in Philippi - Acts 16) and the start of episode 9, where we find Paul caught in the middle of a riot in Jerusalem (Acts 22). This is made all the more obvious because the recap that starts most entries in the series recaps a story we've not yet been told. Sadly, it looks like some of the original episodes are missing. I say episodes because not only would you expect a series like this to have an even number of episodes, but also because up to this point the episodes have averaged 2 chapters per episode. Whilst Acts films often speed up towards the end it seems unlikely that one episode would cover 6 chapter in about 15 minutes. Alternatively, there could also be an episode or two missing between episodes 9 and 10 as there is another jump here. That said, the recap doesn't cover the episodes in Acts that are absent so it maybe just that they were left out.

Episode 9 covers the part of Acts where Paul is slapped whilst being disrespectful to the high priest. I tend to think of this as Paul being sarcastic, whereas in this version Paul seems genuinely surprised that he is addressing the high priest. Whilst this culture obviously didn't have the advantage of photography, and wasn't quite as obsessed with fame as we are, I would still have thought that Paul would have known who the high priest was, particularly if he was dressed accordingly. That said he could have been absent for so long from Jerusalem that he genuinely didn't know who the high priest was any more.

This episode contains the finest cut / edit of the whole series. Paul's journey from Caesarea is captured with a multiply overlaid dissolve. There are at least three aspects involved in it: the map, which the cut starts with; the face of Paul, also visible in the photo to the side; a group of horses pulling the chariot that Paul and some of his guard are situated in (not visible here; and, one of the wheels of the chariot spinning round. This piece of editing is a very efficient way of telling the story, and whilst overlaid maps are hardly startlingly original, here the various elements are woven together really well. It's a piece of film making well above the series par.

The final episode begins as Paul arrives in Rome, but the script has little interest in the end of Acts as much as moving onto an examination of Paul's letters. In fact the end of the book of Acts arrives less than 4 minutes into the episode.

Much of the rest of this episode consists of Paul dictating his letters, or them being read out by Paul's followers. The film does provide a few different ways of doing this. Paul's first piece of dictation is the end of Ephesians and we see him take his inspiration from the Roman soldier in front of him. The next section (from Colossians is read out by Tychicus in Colossae, as he delivers the letter on Paul's behalf. We then see Paul dictate part of Philippians to Aristarchus, and then an older Paul reciting the "fight the good fight" passage from the end of Timothy.

The use of scribes is one of a few nice historical touches in this episode. Tychicus is not the only bearer of Paul's letters, Philemon also makes a brief appearance, and is given three letters to deliver. The three might have been more significant had Tychicus seem to have been given Colossians. Some scholars suggest that Philemon was responsible not only for taking the letter which bears his name, but also the letter to the Colossians and the (lost?) letter to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16). I did notice one historical error (I'm sure there were plenty of others). Paul's scribes tend to write on a modern style table rather than on their laps as would have been far more likely.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 7 and 8

It's time for some more coverage of the Acts of the Apostles episodes of The Living Bible (1957). This will be the penultimate post about this ten part series, and I'll hopefully post the last one later this week before I go to see Roberto Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli on Sunday. Here is the scene guide for these episodes:

Episode 7 - Salvation and Christian Fellowship
Recap of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36, 41)
Judaisers arrive in Antioch (Acts 15:1-2)
Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:3-12)
Recap of Trip to Lystra (Acts 14:8-20)
James’s Speech (Acts 15:13-21)

Episode 8 - What Must I do to be Saved?
Paul and Timothy - (Acts 16:1-5, 2 Tim 1:5-6)
Troas and the Macedonian Man - (Acts 16:6-10)
Philippi and Lydia - (Acts 16:11-15; 26:12-18)
Paul and the Slave Girl - (Acts 16:16-19)
Paul and Silas in Prison - (Acts 16:20-34, Ps. 27:1-2)

Notes
Having gone off on a tangent in episode 6 we rejoin the main story in the run up to the Council of Jerusalem. As I noted in my post on portrayals of this council in film "the film appears to support aligning Gal 2:11-16 with events leading up to the council (Acts 15:1-2) rather than following it as the Galatian letter suggests". Initially, the council is a public affair, but halfway through proceedings move to a more private room enabling the script to also incorporate Gal 2:2.

In fact the whole of episode 6 takes a very positive approach to the whole council. The final decision is described as that of the majority rather than that of James as Acts describes. The letter that is sent out is then described as a "happy solution" and "wonderfully friendly and frank". Whilst this certainly captures the way the letter is written in Acts it skims over other issues that suggest the letter didn't solve all that Luke's account would have us believe.

Another interesting distinction is the way in which the commentary describes the Judaisers as rejecting salvation by faith. Being made in 1958 this series obviously pre-dates the new perspective on Paul, and whilst some people would still reject the work of Sanders et al. even they would have to concede that this idea is inferred rather than an inherent part of the text.

The other significant thing about the dating of this series relates to the summary at the end of this episode which notes that "religious and racial barriers were dealt a crushing blow... some day perhaps all barriers between men would topple under the irresistible power of the gospel and God's love". Obviously this pre-dates and, therefore, anticipates the civil rights movement of the following decade.

The eighth episode solely concerns Acts 16, beginning with Timothy joining Paul and Silas. It's noticeable that the scripts circumvents the dispute and separation of Paul from his previous travelling companion Barnabas that is found at the end of chapter 15. We are simply not told why Paul is now travelling with Silas rather than Barnabas. Timothy is introduced, and the narrator also mentions that it is often understood that Luke joined Paul at this point also - inferred from the narrator's switch from the third person to the first in the text. It's noticeable, however, that Luke is not shown on screen in this episode.

Following on from the recruitment of Timothy we witness Paul's vision of the Macedonian man. This is shot by focussing on Paul and his reaction rather than on the vision itself. Whilst this was no doubt a budgetary consideration it does capture the most important point about this vision, namely that it's significance lay in Paul's reaction to it. That said, we do hear the voice of the Macedonian man who, rather unimaginatively, repeats the words from Acts 16:9, "Come over to Macedonia and help us" three times. Lest the audience forgets what the man's message was, Paul repeats it for us again in explainning his vision to Silas.

The trope then move on to Philippi where they encounter Lydia and her friends, free the fortune telling girl, get thrown in prison, get freed by an earthquake and convert the jailer. But the story stops before it gets onto Paul citing his Roman citizenship to obtain a personal audience with the city's magistrates. These ares fairly dramatic episodes, but the producers wisely avoid letting the demonised girl ham it up. There is also a heavy emphasis on the strong performance of the jailer. His transformation from jaded captor to new convert is one of the series' finest pieces of acting, marred only by knowing the ending in advance and the script's lack of character development.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 5 and 6

Way back in November, I started reviewing the Acts of the Apostles episodes of The Living Bible (1957). It's a ten part series, but I'd only got as far as episode four. Now I'm gearing up to see Roberto Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli, so I'm trying to watch / re-watch some of Rossellini's films and finishing looking at this series, so here are some comments on episodes 5 and 6.

Episode 5 – God’s Care of His Own
The Church in Antioch (Acts 11:19-21)
Apostles send Barnabas to Anitoch (Acts 11:22-24)
Barnabas brings Paul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25-26)
Agabus prophecies famine (Acts 11:27-28)
Collection for Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30)
Death of James (Acts 12:1-2)
Peter’s Escape from Prison (Acts 12:3-17)
Herod punishes the guards (Acts 12:18-19)
Herod dies (Acts 12:19-23)
(Romans 8:35, 37-39)

Episode 6 - Every Christian a Missionary
Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36, 41)
Crippled Beggar Healed (Acts 3:1-26)
Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1-22)
Trial of Stephen (Acts 7:1-57)
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
Ananias and Saul (Acts 9:10-16)
Paul preaches in Damascus (Acts 9:20-22)
Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48)
Barnabas collects Paul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25-26)
Church in Antioch (Acts 11:19-30)
Paul and Barnabas sent out (Acts 13:1-3)
Great Commission (Acts 1:8)

Notes
These two episodes contrast quite strongly. The first continues the general trajectory of the first four episodes - dramatising the book of Acts in roughly the order it appears. Episode 6, however, is something of an excursus: it focuses on the issue of mission as presented in the book of Acts as a means towards convincing it's audience that they too should be missionary minded. Hence this episode is a whistle stop tour of the various episodes in which the apostles evangelise boldly. It's actually surprising how much of the book of Acts is covered in this one 15 minute episode.

Episode 6 ends with the words of Jesus accompanied by a close up of his face. Interestingly, the actor playing Jesus is Nelson Leigh, who played Jesus in the earlier Life of Jesus episodes of The Living Bible. Leigh must have been available as well. He stars in this series as St. Paul, which is strangely distracting. No wonder Paul says that our bodies will be transformed to "be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21). Perhaps the 5-6 year gap between the "Acts" and "Jesus" series finally rendered him too old to play Jesus: he would have been 52 at the time. That said HB Warner was the exact same age (52) when he played Jesus in The King of Kings.

Episode 5 ends with Paul and Barnabas going off to Jerusalem to deliver the gift from the church in Antioch, but despite the story relocating to Jerusalem, we never actually see Paul and Barnabas arrive. This lack of clarity reflects that of the biblical text whereby Paul and Barnabas are sent to deliver the gift to Jerusalem at the end of Acts 11, but are not heard of until the start of Acts 13 when they re-appear in Antioch. There are two major options. Either Saul and Barnabas's trip was a relatively short and low key affair, or that statement gives a brief advance headline which explains that which follows in more detail over the next few chapters.

It's a minor point, but Acts describes Herod's death as being in a public context, whereas the film shows this occurring in a private context. The death of Herod, which is described in fairly grisly terms, describes the event as being instantaneous, whereas the film merely narrates that Herod dies.

There are some additional points about these episodes in my post on Galatians vs Acts in Film.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 3 and 4

Yesterday I started looking at the Acts if the Apostles series made in 1958 by Broadman films, distributed recently as part of a Living Bible Collection. We now come to episodes 3 and 4 which I have already made some comments about in my Galatians vs. Acts post.

Acts: Episode 3 - Light From Heaven

1 Tim 1:15 cited
Stoning of Stephen - (Acts 7:54-8:1)
Saul Persecutes the church - (Acts 8:2-3)
Road to Damascus - (9:1-9*)
God speaks to Ananias - (Acts 9:10-16)
Paul is healed - (Acts 9:17-19)
1 Tim 1:15-17 cited

*This story is actually narrated three times in Acts, in chapter nine as part of the story, and in chapters 22 and 26 as narrated by Paul in two of his speeches. There are slight variations in these three tellings. In Acts 9 a light from heaven flashes around him, Paul falls to the ground and he hears a voice from heaven. The men with him hear the voice but cannot see anyone. Obviously, Paul later claims in his epistles that he did see Jesus. The account in Acts 22 is fairly similar. But in Acts 26, Paul and his men all fall to the ground and the words of Jesus are more extensive. The film combines these accounts, some of his followers drop to their knees, others remain standing, they cower from the light, such that they do not actually see Jesus, and no comment is made about what they actually hear. Finally Jesus's words reflect both those of chapters 9/22 and chapter 26.

Due to the production's low budget we don't see Jesus either. There is no shot from Paul's point of view unlike, say Paul the Emissary, we only see the light shining on him. In contrast, when Paul is healed by Ananias, we do experience Paul regaining his sight from his point of view. This shot is very reminiscent of the first shot of Jesus we experience in Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927).

It's also interesting that Paul's conversion is summed up at the end of the film as follows:

At long last he could know from personal experience the forgiveness of sin, and the meaning of salvation which comes through faith and an acceptance of Christ

This is very much pre- the new perspective of Paul ushered in by Sanders, and it has a very Reformed Church understanding of the differences between Judaism and Christianity.

Two, quick, final points. Firstly, the Stoning of Stephen is shown in greater detail here than in the previous episode. The series quite often re-cycles previous / extraneous material through flashbacks etc. Secondly, it is very noticeable here that "Jesus" speaks in King James version language, as opposed to the more every day language of the rest of the cast and the narrator.

Acts: Episode 4 - No Respecter of Persons

[Introduction]

Cornelius hears from God - (Acts 10:1-8)
Peter’s vision - (Acts 10:9-20)
Peter at the house of Cornelius - (Acts 10:21-48)
Peter Explains his Actions - (Acts 11:1-18)
Romans 10:12-13 cited

The introduction here paints a fairly broad context for this episode. "Gentiles who wanted to worship the true God of the Hebrew religion were tolerated in the synagogue, but hardly welcomed. A great gulf of pride and prejudice separated these gentile outsiders from the fellowship accorded to the Jewish race." (It's interesting given our society's obsession with "tolerance" how the word is played in it's original, and slightly negative light here. Technically, tolerance implies "putting up with". Interestingly the film mentions "pride and prejudice", a phrase that really became common currency after Jane Austen's novel where being described as "tolerable" is seen as an insult). I'm not sure how correct this opening quote really is, however.

An interesting comparison is made between Jonah and Peter on basis of their temporary residences in Joppa, and their wrestling with God's instructions. The film doesn't stress that both men are troubled by God's commands because they relate to Gentiles, but it's not hard for anyone who knows the two stories to make this extra jump.

The film is quite bold in its depiction of Peter's report back to the church in Acts 11. The narrator actually says that "some of the early church were guilty of racial prejudice" hence their attitude to the gentiles. This is quite a strong statement, but, it would be surprising if this was not amongst the motive of some of those that objected to gentiles entering the church. The church is the community of people who are being redeemed, and hence has always contained people with sinful attitudes in their lives.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 1 and 2

Back in September, I covered how the various film treatments of the book of Acts and the ministries of Peter and Paul depicted the dispute surrounding gentile admission to the church. There was one portrayal that was new to me at the time, which I'd been meaning to catch for a while - the Acts of the Apostles series from The Living Bible. This series was filmed in 1957, by a church based group, who also did various Old Testament Characters (incl. Elijah, Ruth and Gideon, and a series on Jesus. Anyway, I'm going to work my way through this series posting comments on a few episodes at a time along the way.

Acts of the Apostles Episode 1 – Endued with Power

Ascension recounted - (Acts 1:1-11)
Pentecost - (Acts 2:1-41)
Peter heals a beggar – (Acts 3:1-10)
Peter preaches to the onlookers – (Acts 3:11-26)
Peter, John and the Sanhedrin – (Acts 4:1-22)
Apostles heal many – (Acts 5:12-16)
Apostles Escape from Prison – (Acts 5:17-26)
Apostles before Sanhedrin – (Acts 5:27-42)
[Extra-biblical episode - Jewish Authorities persecute the early church]

As I've mentioned before, this is a very low budget series, and this opening episode makes that clear right from the off. Hence the ascension is not shown, merely recounted by the apostle John. This does have the benefit of leaving a difficult to visualise episode in the viewer's imagination, and focussing instead on the meaning of that event to the first Christians. Similarly, the tongues of fire arriving at Pentecost are kept off camera, yet referred to. What we see instead is the faces of the Parthians, Arabs etc. as they see what is occurring. This is typical, low budget stuff, but it was actually one of the most interesting treatments of this episode I can recall. Usually the effects look a bit hokey, and have to decide whether these "tongues" were an objective reality, as well as a subjective one. Furthermore, it places the focus on the crowd, who generally aren't really considered by these films.

Whilst the majority of the first five chapters of Acts are covered here, one incident is conspicuous by its absence - the deaths of Ananias and Saphira. This is a bit of a thorny episode causing problems for both those who claim that the cross soothed God's wrath, and those who consider there to be a more notable discrepancy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. Actually it's interesting that the text never states that it was God who kills them. Whilst in our culture this seems to be the most obvious reading, it is also possible that either this was just an incredible coincidence, or that they died through fear, or that someone else killed them. Whichever way you go, (early) Christianity doesn't come out of it looking too good.

Finally, on this episode, the film makes on significant addition. Following on from Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5, the Sanhedrin not only flog the apostles before them, but continue a campaign of persecution against them. Whilst Acts does place the blame for Stephen's death on the Sanhedrin, it suggests that it was this incident that initiated the violence against the church, rather than simply being part of an ongoing campaign. Flogging was very much a form of internal discipline, whilst Saul's later campaign (Acts 8) suggest that the earl church was now considered by some as outside of the acceptable bounds of Judaism. The script for this montage describes what is happening by saying "Physical pain became their test, and lashes of the whip their badges of honour". Nowadays, it's hard not to see this in the light of The Passion of the Christ.

Acts Episode 2 – A Faithful Witness

Deacons chosen – (Acts 6:1-7)
Stoning of Stephen – (Acts 7:54-8:1)
Persecution of early church – (Acts 8:2-3)
Philip in Samaria – (Acts 8:4-25)
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch – (Acts 8:26-40)

This episode covers in some depth events that are often excluded from films about the early church, which is mainly because many of these films focus on Peter, or Paul, rather than the other apostles who were also part of the early church. It's appropriate, then, that it starts with the choosing of the seven (Acts 6). It's interesting how these seven are initially selected to "wait on tables", but quickly graduate to bigger things (although this assumes it is this Philip, rather than the disciple found in the gospels).

Strangely, the narration to the film implies that there were a number of martyrs before Stephen, noting ominously how there were a growing number of widows because of the persecution. However, later on we see Stephen stoned, and there the narrator calls Stephen the first Christian martyr.

The other major incident here is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Here the Eunuch sits awkwardly in a Ben Hur style chariot (how many kinds were there) reading the scriptures whilst his driver takes a break. As the Ethiopian (who is not called a Eunuch in the film, presumably to save awkward questions from curious Sunday schoolers) reads the text before him, both he and Philip quote significantly more of Isaiah's suffering servant passage than Acts records.

Whilst it's likely that their discussion was longer than Acts records, this is also the reading back into Acts a later Christian association, notably with substitutionary atonement theology. It's interesting that, this is one of seven NT references to Isaiah 53 (Matt 8:17, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, John 12:38, Acts 8:32–33, Rom 10:16 and 1 Pet 2:22–24) yet the parts of that passage which support substitutionary atonement are notably absent here (and in the other six, except, possibly, the 1 Peter reference).

Finally, I always like to observe how New Testament films deals with baptism, and here it is full immersion baptism (with the Eunuch lowered backwards into the water as shown).