Scene Guide: The Passover Plot

Having reviewed The Passover Plot a couple of Mondays back, I thought it would be good to post a scene guide for the film. It's been a while since I did one of these (see all) so a reminder (for me if no-one else) of the reasoning behind my citations from the gospels.

[EBE - Text intro explaining political situation]
[EBE - Arrest of messianic/zealot preacher]
Jeremiah 33:15-16 cited
Teshua in the desert - Mark 1:12-13
Baptism of Yeshua - Mark 1:9-11
[EBE - Introduction to Pilate]
Healing of a blind man - Mark 8:22-25
Yeshua teaches - Mark 8:12, 11:22-24
Greatest Commandment - Mark 12:28-31
Beatitudes - Matt 5:3-12
Rejection at Nazareth - Mark 6:1-5
Yeshua recites the Shema - Deut 6:4
Are you the one? - Matt 11:2-6
Calling the disciples - Mark 3:13-19
[EBE - Romans in Zealot Meeting]
[EBE - Zealots and Yeshua's brothers]
Parable of the Sower - Mark 4:1-20]
Death of John - Mark 6:17-29
[EBE - Pilate and Herod]
Isaiah 53:7 cited
[EBE - Bartholomew's baby]
News of John's death - Mark 6:30-32
[EBE - The disciples complain]
[EBE - Jesus preaching]
Jesus fails to heal - Mark 6:5
[EBE - Yeshua meets the Zealots]
Isaiah 53:5 cited
[EBE - Yeshua Plans his Death]
[EBE - Pilate and Herod collude]
Triumphal entry - Mark 11:1-11
[EBE - Fire stars]
Cleansing the temple - Mark 11:15-19
[EBE - Temple uprising]
[EBE - Death of Bartholomew]
Last Supper - Mark 14:22-31
Gethsemane and Arrest - Mark 14:32-50
[EBE - Pilate and Herod collude]
Jewish hearing - Mark 14:53-65
Trial by Pilate - Mark 15:1-20
Crucifixion - Mark 15:22-39
"Burial" - Mark 15:40-47
The Empty Tomb - Mark 16:1-8
[EBE - Death of Jesus]

A Few Notes
The first that is noticeable from looking at this scene guide is how heavily the film uses the Gospel of Mark. Aside from a token nod to the Beatitudes, the extra-biblical episodes added to fill out the story and a few citations of the prophets, all the incidents in this film are found in Mark's gospel. Whilst this is highlighted by my policy of citing Mark even if the event occurs in all of the synoptic gospels, it's nevertheless fair to say that Millard Cohana and Patricia Knop's screenplay, which is presumably largely based on Schonfield's book, uses Mark the most.

There are a number of potential reasons for this. Firstly, close adherence to Mark gives Schonfield's work an air of authenticity. If Mark is the oldest gospel, then a supposedly subversive alternative version of the life of Jesus should probably look more like Mark than anything else. The film pre-supposes that at a very early stage there was a parting of the ways between its real history and the history told by traditional Christianity. Mark would be the most in touch with those traditions, and, from the film's perspective, the gospel least bent away from "what really happened". It's significant that the text at the end of the film stresses that Mark was written over 40 years after the events it portrays, and gives dates for the other gospels as Luke 85AD, Matthew 90AD and John 110/120AD.

Secondly, of all the gospels Mark is the one that is usually seen as portraying Jesus as a man of action. Certainly there are fewer words and those tend to consist of pithy sayings rather than long teaching discourses as found in Matthew and John in particular.

Thirdly, Mark's gospel does not so much include a resurrection as an empty tomb. The additional, and almost certainly forged, endings try to patch over this embarrassing omission (which may be deliberate or the result of damage to an early copy of the manuscript), but the genuine ending, in the form we now have it, only includes accounts of the empty tomb. (spoiler) The film also gives us an empty tomb - Jesus is woken up and taken away - but, as he dies shortly afterwards, no resurrection appearances. The film shows a single attempt to demonstrate this to someone not in on Yeshua's plot, but it fails.

Having said all that the film does not really portray a Marcan Jesus. Mark's Jesus may be a man of action, but his action is not so much a quest to be hailed as the messiah but as a healer and exorcist. There is only one "healing" in this film, and there's more about that below, and no exorcisms. I was struck in a recent read through of Mark quite how prominent the dealing with the demons aspect of Mark's gospel is. One of the things that is strange about the film is that Jesus does so very little. He's not a miracle worker, he's not a teacher and he doesn't rise from the dead. The film's alternative history fails to offer a compelling reason for why the Jesus story lived on and for why he didn't simply fall into the all-too-heavily populated category of failed Jewish messiahs. At least bar Kokhba minted his own coins. There's also relatively little talk of the Kingdom of God. This is Jesus' obsession in Mark, but is overshadowed by the film's emphasis on Jesus being the messiah. Indeed faced with Pilate's questioning Yeshua conspicuously does not even say "my kingdom is not of this world".

The one miracle that the film does portray is the healing of the blind man from Mark 8:22-25. It's this single miracle that persuades people to follow him and proclaim him the messiah. But the film suggests that Jesus does not perform a miracle at all. The blind man is in fact a fraud, seemingly pretending he is blind to make his appeal for money more compelling. Jesus sees through it and so spits in his face. The man momentarily gives himself away, and before he can cover it up, the disciples have declared a miracle and the crowd joins in. There are shades of "penny for an ex-leper" here. It's an intriguing reinterpretation of an odd text - after all, why does Jesus spit in the man's face - but if this was Jesus' sole miracle (and we later see him fail to bring Bartholomew back to life), it again raises the question of why anyone really found Jesus worth following.

There are two main asides from the time Jesus spends with his disciples. The first is the role of the zealot movement. They are seen as very prominent in Jerusalem and around, and there's an uneasy relationship between them and the followers of Jesus. In a key scene the two groups meet and Jesus lays out his agenda of peaceful revolution as opposed to violent overthrow. The result is a plan to have Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and then disappear to avoid capture by the Romans, reappearing in the temple shortly afterwards to re-take the city peacefully by sheer numbers alone. Recent situations in the Middle East at the moment come to mind as we have seen attempts at a similar peaceful movements result in varying degrees of success. There are certainly echoes of 1961's King of Kings whether intentional or not.

The other aside is the story from the perspective of the authorities. Donald Pleasance's role as Pilate is particularly to the fore, and its clear he is pulling all the strings, shown scheming with Herod, Caiaphas and his own soldiers. There's also a good deal of screen time given over to Caiaphas, reminiscent of BBC's The Passion. Caiaphas is hated by the zealots who mock him as corrupt, and pushed about by Pilate. Hugh Griffith's portrayal of Caiaphas taps into numerous aspects of the worst of Jewish stereotypes over the centuries and so its hard to sympathise with him. Yet, surprisingly, the body he convenes to hear Yeshua's case find "no cause" for a charge of blasphemy, and returns him to Pilate to see if he can get him under Roman law.

At the end of the film there is a lengthy note, the first part of which is as follows:

Yeshua of Nazareth died with his faith undimmed. Those who shared his faith were convinced that death could not hold him, and that he had gone to God until the day when the prophecies would finally be fulfilled.

Scene Guide for Friends and Heroes

Back in 2007 I wrote quite a bit about the animated TV series Friends and Heroes. I'm going to post some thoughts on series two and three shortly, but for now I wanted to relay a couple of useful resources I've been sent:

Story Order
Bible Order
Episode Order
Churches and Schools Lesson material
Stills from the series

I'm wishing I'd discovered these a little earlier. In particular, the story order one and the Bible order one are particularly useful when trying to find a clip to illustrate a given passage. The former lists incidents covered in the Bible alphabetically (giving details of the relevant episode) whereas the latter does the same only by the biblical order.

Caïn et Abel (Cain and Abel)

Henri Andréani, Pathé, France, 1911, 5 mins
I'm not going to be able to find stills for many of these silent films, so I'll use images from the Renaissance paintings instead. This is not entirely without merit. As I mentioned on Tuesday Judith Buchanan pointd out how these early Bible films will have been influenced, to some degree at least, by the paintings of the events they were portrying. This is Il Tintoretto from 1550-53. Thanks to Art and the Bible and Loving God Center for these.

The opening scene of Caïn et Abel is a cramped shot of Cain and Abel arguing and almost coming to blows but for the intervention of Adam and Eve. It's a shot that's significant in a number of ways. Firstly, because much of this film is shot in a closer proximity than was standard for the time. The film is heavily marked with Pathé touches. Both its general 'look' and the style of the angels and the manner of their appearance etc. are all very familiar from The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ. But whereas those films stood at a distance as if the viewer were sat watching the production in a theatre, here there are a number of mid-shots.

The claustrophobia nature of these shots, which may have been shockingly groundbreaking at the time, not only adds to the tension but expresses it in spatial terms. There's a real sense of cabin fever - these four people are the only humans in the world and they are starting to get on each other's nerves. The composition is interesting elsewhere as well, using foregrounding and backgrounding quite effectively.

The opening shot is also significant because it introduces Adam and Eve into a story from the Bible in which they are not really involved. They are, of course, present in the narrative's prologue and epilogue, but their absence during the story itself has caused some scholars to suggest that the story itself has been incorporated, into the "J" source. It's notable, for example, that Adam's line grows from Seth rather than Cain.

The third point of significance here is that all four memberd of the family are portrayed as cavemen, wearing animal skins - Eve looks like an archetype for Raquel Welch's One Million BC role for example - but also later we see Cain's murder weapon is a flint axe. For obvious reasons these four characters cannot really be located at a specific point in the accepted chronology, but [edit] Gen 3:20 describes God using animal skins to make clothes for Adam and Eve as they leave the Garden of Eden. (Thanks to Timothy D. Lee for reminding me of that one - see comments below). [/edit]

What's striking, though, is the contrast with the Bible's early descriptions of Adam and Eve's attire - "and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Gen 3:7). Here, however, dead animal has usurped dead fruit leaves, as Abel's animal sacrifice will prove superior to Cain's fruits of the ground.

Similarly, Cain is depicted as brutish, which is perhaps only to be expected, but also of low intelligence. Indeed, this is often used as a humourous device. And of course the timing is interesting given that the Cain and Abel story is currently doing the rounds in cinemas in Year One which is also a comedy.

So all in all, it's interesting to watch how the narrative unfolds from this opening. The intertitles for this print were in German: there are so few copies of films of this age that you have to make do with what you have. Some of them followed the practice of citing actual scriptures. Gen 4:4-5, Gen 4:10 and Gen 4:14 are all cited. There's a brief scene guide at the bottom.

God's rejection of Cain's sacrifice is shown by his sacrifice fire going out, whereas Abel's keeps on burning. IN contrast to the text of Genesis the murder takes place not in the field, but in the rock outcrop where the (attempted) sacrifices have just taken place. Cain goes and finds a flint axe and strikes Abel neither completely spontaneous, nor entirely premeditated.

As soon as Abel dies Cain is wracked with guilt. He covers the the body with stones, as if making an altar or a monument. There was something very Girardian about this. Girard's theory about sacrifice, which approach the subject via anthropology, talks about mimetic desire (the mechanism by which someone else having something makes another person want it), which is present to a degree here here in that the two sacrifices take place at the same time and in the same shot, though Cain wanted to make the sacrifice anyway. But more significantly it talks about how human sacrifice used to happen to heal discord within the community, and, crucially, how the graves (or the memory) of the murdered / sacrificed individual becomes sacred, and revered. I'm not sure I've explained that very well, but the manner in which the body was covered - far more elaborately than was stricly required to cover the body, grabbed my attention.

Of course God is not fooled, and an angel appears (accompanied by cardboard rays of light as in other Pathé films of the period, the line about Abel's blood crying out from the ground is given via intertitle and the body is revealed. Cain runs off, but then sees a vision of Abel's body, and then of the angel once more.

What's interesting about this is that Abel's appearance seems to be a demonstration of Cain's inner torment. I don't think Abel's body is meant to be physically present anymore than the dagger is physically present in Macbeth. This is the first time I have seen such psychologising in an early film - aside from that expressed in the faces of the actors. Does it also suggest that the angel he sees is also in his mind?

Lastly, there's quite a long shot at the end of the film of Cain dragging himself along the floor, through the narrow, muddy passageway between two rocks. It's fairly open to interpretation, but for me it symbolises both the journey he will undertake to Nod, and his now lowly status (he is dragging himself through the mud).

The scenes are as follows:

[Extra-biblical Episode - Cain and Abel argue]
Cain and Abel's sacrifices - (Gen 4:3-4)
Murder of Abel - (Gen 4:8b)
God confronts Cain - (Gen 4:9-14)
Cain flees to Nod - (Gen 4:15)

Campbell and Pitts only mention this film is passing (p.5) as part of their discussion of the 1910 film Cain and Abel by Gaumon. They also mention a third film on this story, also called Cain and Abel made in the US the same year (1911) by Vitagraph. The summary from the BFI archive, which formerly cited the film as 1909 is this:

The story of Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel and their parents, all dressed in skins, are standing around the camp fire. Cain argues with Abel but their mother, Eve, separates them and Adam sends him off (55). Cain and Abel both prepare to make sacrifices upon two stone altars. Abel sacrifices a lamb, which burns properly, but Cain's sacrifice of farm produce does not, and he throws it to the ground in disgust and envy. He makes threatening gestures towards Abel, who is praying at his sacrifice (129). Cain retreats a short distance and thinks about killing Abel, demonstrating how he will use his stone axe. Abel says a few words to him but when he turns his back Cain fells him with the axe, and covers his body with stone slabs (237). Cain is struck by lightning several times, and a shining ray appears from which an angel carrying a sword emerges. Cain cowers before the angel, who asks him what he has done. The angel points his sword at Cain, then causes the stones to fall from Abel's body. Cain rises and stumbles away (303). [Short section 297-298ft showing Cain rising to his feet, is repeated twice]. Cain clambers and stumbles over the rocks until he is stopped by a vision of Abel's body, which turns into the angel. The angel strikes Cain on the shoulder with his sword, and curses him, before disappearing (388). Cain crawls amongst the rocks, struggles through a wood, and falls to the ground (463). Blank. The end. (467ft. 35mm).

Jeremiah Notes on Scene Guide

I was a little pushed for time on Friday when I posted a scene guide for Jeremiah, so I postponed writing a few notes on it until today.

The first thing to say is that whilst the vast majority of the material is drawn from the book Jeremiah, there are a few places where the film draws on parts of 2 Kings to fill in the historical gaps.

It's also interesting to note that most of the material taken from Jeremiah, aside from the opening, is taken from chapters 20-30. There's not a single reference from chapters 40-49 (where Jeremiah is mainly cursing the other nations), and only one from 10-19 (Jer 16:1-4). This passage - where Jeremiah is told not to take a wife - and Jer 34:8-11 - where Mattaniah frees the slaves before reversing the decision some time later - are used to insert the film's only real extra-biblical sub-plot where Jeremiah falls in love. This is actually a fairly common device employed by The Bible Collection's films, and in some of the other cases the picture is severely derailed as a result. Here the filmmakers manage to keep it under control so it forms interesting speculation that highlights Jeremiah's sad and introspective character.

Working out this scene guide does give me more of a feel for just how jumbled the book's chronology is. Of course some of this is down to the filmmakers rather than the source material, but material from the siege of Jerusalem, for example, is really spread around in such a way as to make me wonder why. Is there a purpose to this ordering, or was this just not considered important or in any way useful?Overall I think the film does a great job of summarising Jeremiah and putting him in his historical context, and it manages to include most of the book's famous passages. One surprising omission, however, is the story of Jeremiah at the potter's house and the attached sayings (Jer 18:1–23). The film does include the vision of the upturned pot, and perhaps the writers thought that too many pot symbols might be confusing. Even so, I would have thought the potter's house passage would have been the one to be selected.

There are a few things I noticed about the call of Jeremiah. Firstly, the film enhances Jeremiah's call with elements from the call of Isaiah (Is 6). In the book of Jeremiah, there's no mention of a vision, and God touching Jeremiah's lips appears to be more of a metaphor than anything else. We're also not told where this call took place. In the film, however, Jeremiah also sees a vision, twice, and on both occasions it occurs in the temple. It's interesting that the second of these quotes part of Jer 5:14 "I have put my words in your mouth", but cuts off before the use of the word "fire". Instead this element is represented visually as part of Jeremiah's call.

There is actually a further part of Jeremiah's call - the vision of the almond tree, but I noticed that the interpretation of this vision alters some of the details of this vision. The text simply says that the sign means that God is "watching to see that my word is fulfilled". But the film expands this to say "as this tree is in a hurry to sprout, so God is in a hurry to carry out his work".

Lastly, I'm going to make a separate post another day to look at the way that the Jeremiah of this film prefigures Jesus, particularly the Jesus from the later film in the same series.

Jeremiah - Scene Guide

I've been working away on a scene guide for the Bible Collection's Jeremiah ever since I re-watched it a couple of months ago. Of all the scene guides that I have done to date, this has certainly been the most difficult to put together. Not only is Jeremiah the Bible's longest book (based on number of words), but it's chronology becomes increasingly unlinear the closer you look. Furthermore, an odd verse can carry a great deal of narrative weight, but trying to find it, even with the wonders of the internet, can be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As well as my guide that follows below, I would also like to recommend an excellent outline of this film by Neil MacQueen. MacQueen's outline gives timings and descriptions rather than verses like my own, so the two complement each other quite well.

Book of the Law Found - (2 Kings 22)
Jeremiah's ancestry - (Jer 1:1)
Josiah's Passover - (2 Kings 23:21-23)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Josiah enters Jerusalem]
Call of Jeremiah - (Jer 1:4-10)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Nebuchadnezzar crowned]
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's Girlfriend]
Prophecy of the Almond Tree - (Jer 1:11-12)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's first sacrifice]
Prophetic vision/2nd call - (Jer 4:22; 5:28-29, 14)
Jeremiah prophesies at the temple - (Jer 7:1-11)
Jeremiah beaten - (Jer 20:1-2)
Overturned pot - (Jer 1:13-19)
Jeremiah told not to take a wife - (Jer 16:1-4) (complains)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah meets Baruch]
Prophecy about fall of Jerusalem - (Jer 22:1-5)
King tears and burns the scroll. - (Jer 36:1–24)
Jermiah asks Baruch to re-write scroll - (Jer 36:28)
Babylon invades Jerusalem - (2 Kings 24:1-12)
Temple stripping & deportation - (2 Kings 24:13-17, Jer 27:19-20)
Jeremiah the ox-yoke and Hananiah - (Jer 27:1-28:17)
Jeremiah imprisoned in courtyard - (Jer 32:1-3; 36:31)
Jeremiah calls for surrender - (Jer 21:1-9)
Mattaniah frees the slaves - (Jer 34:8-10)
Jeremiah put in prison - (Jer 37:11–16)
Mattaniah unfrees the slaves - (Jer 34:11)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Judith killed]
Jeremiah's complaint - (Jer 20:7-9)
Jerusalem under siege - (Jer 52:1-6)
Mattaniah seeks God's word - (Jer 37:17-20)
Word against Jerusalem - (Jer 21:10)
Officials speak against Jeremiah - (Jer 38:4-5)
Promise of Return - (Jer 32:37-40)
Jeremiah calls again for surrender - (Jer 20:4, 38:17-20)
Jeremiah thrown in a cistern - (Jer 38:6)
Ebed Melech frees Jeremiah - (Jer 38:7:13; 39:15-18*)
Jeremiah confronts Mattaniah - (Jer 23:1-2, 38:17-21)
Jeremiah buys a field - (Jer 32:6-15)
Babylon capture Jerusalem - (Jer 39:1-3, 52:6-7)
Mattaniah captured fleeing - (Jer 39:4-5, 52:7-9)
Mattaniah's sons killed, blinded - (Jer 39:5-7, 52:10-11)
Jeremiah freed - (Jer 39:11-12)
Jerusalem destroyed - (Jer 39:8-10)
God promises to rebuild the temple and the people's hearts - (Jer 31)

Notes
I've chosed to call Jeremiah's primary royal opponent by his original name Mattaniah, rather than the name Zedekiah which was given to him by Nebuchadnezzar as this is what the film calls him throughout. Interestingly scripture mainly calls him Zedekiah.

I have a few more points that I'd like to make on this, but I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll return to this task next week.

Edit: This can now be found here.

The Passion - Part 4 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

The Passion has just reached its conclusion so it's time for me to blog my thoughts on the final episode. As with the previous three episodes I'm giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes. My overall review of this programme is here, though I hope to add some additional points now I have seen the whole series.

Joseph Asks for Jesus's Body - Mark 15:42-45
[EBE - Disciples Discuss Jesus's Death]
[EBE - Caiaphas Criticises Joseph's Decision]
Burial - Mark 15:46-47
[EBE - Holy Saturday - The Two Marys]
[EBE - Holy Saturday - Disciples Worry About What to do]
[EBE - Caiaphas's Wife Reassures him]
Soldiers at the Tomb - Matt 27:62-66
[EBE - Marys and the Disciples]
Magdalene at The Tomb - John 20:1
Caiaphas Told of the Empty Tomb - Matt 28:11
Mary, John and Peter Go to the Tomb - John 20:3-10
Jesus Appears to Mary - John 20:11-17
Mary Tells the Disciples - John 20:18
[EBE - Caiaphas and Joseph Argue]
Road to Emmaus - Luke 24:13-33
Jesus Appears in the Upper Room - Luke 24:36-49
[EBE - Pilate and his Wife Return Home]
[EBE - Caiaphas's Son is Born]
Jesus and Peter - John 21:15-19
I Will be with you Always - Matt 28:20

Spoilers follow:
I'd like to start by talking about the post-resurrection appearances, mainly because I've known about them for some time. I'd heard a good while back that this film was going to do something interesting with the resurrection, and I wondered then if it was going to use a different actor for the resurrected Jesus. My suspicions were confirmed at the première when Nigel Stafford-Clark accidentally let it slip that my hunch was correct. Fortunately, I managed to keep this all to myself, and settled for just giving it a passing mention in my review. But, suffice to say, I've been positively bursting to talk about it ever since.

What they did so well is keep the facts largely as they are. The gospels are nowhere more divergent than they are on the subject of Easter morning. Mark mentions some women, an angel and an empty tomb and precious little else (later additions aside). Matthew elaborates by having Jesus meet the woman and having a guard placed at the tomb. Luke omits Matthew's story about the seal, but adds the story about the Road to Emmaus, and an appearance to Peter, before bringing things to a climax with the resurrected Jesus appearing to all the disciples. Finally John gives an almost totally different account with Mary Magdalene alone finding the empty tomb, not seeing an angel, returning to tell Peter and John before she meets the risen Jesus for herself. We then two appearances to a room full of disciples and doubting Thomas, breakfast on the beach, restoration of Peter and a cryptic comment about John.

Of course many previous Jesus films omit the resurrection altogether, or give it a more spiritual interpretation, and even many of those that do include it skip by fairly quickly. Among those that do include it, a surprising number actually go on to show the one thing the gospels don't talk about - Jesus leaving the tomb. What we have here is the story as it is presented - albeit based on a harmonisation of the story - and not only that but it's one that seeks to offer not one, but several possible interpretations of what actually happened and leave the viewer to decide for themselves.The first such interpretation will be the one that pleases scholars such as Tom Wright. Wright holds that the failure to recognise the risen Jesus was because his resurrection body is a physical body, but one that is significantly different from his pre-resurrection body. This is the interpretation that I had been wondering if ever anyone would try.

But the other interpretation, that the filmmakers were keen to leave as a possibility was that actually Jesus wasn't resurrected. This is dealt with far more visually. Firstly the empty tomb, far from being somewhere that might require a gardener (John 20:16) is in the middle of the desert, and, at the crucial moment the soldiers leave their post. (Incidentally Matthew's account has the soldiers told to say that the body was stolen when they were asleep whereas here it occurs whilst they go off to buy food - a move that, in itself is open to various interpretations). Then we have the two appearances using the different actors which could be read to be fairly damning, and whilst Joseph Mawle eventually resumes the role these appearances are all shot from a particular character's point of view, rather than in a more objective setting.

A further interpretation is that the use of different actors is just to show the confusion in the disciples' minds and once they realise that Jesus has risen we see Joe Mawle back in more corporate settings. So there are at least three interpretations and I look forward to unearthing more over the next few days. Either way, it will be a talking point. Incidentally the two actors who appear here are listed in the credits as "Man at Tomb" and "Man on Road to Emmaus".There are a few other points to make. The final scenes are also very interesting, in particular the birth of a son to Caiaphas, and his evident relief and prayer of thanks. The point here is that Caiaphas, at least, seems to interpret this as confirmation of God's approval. He has done the right thing, his wife and child are safe and his line will continue. But other possibilities are possible. Perhaps it's just chance, or perhaps it is a reward from God for being a pawn in his master plan. What's interesting is the correlation between Caiaphas interpretation and those of viewers interpreting the rest of the story in accordance with their own beliefs. This also happens to a far lesser degree with Pilate whose house is beginning to take shape once more.

I also noticed a nice touch in one of the scenes between James and John. The portrayal of these two disciples has been one of the series' minor delights. John has for so long been played as a wet blanket, that it was great to see him acting more like he could be one of the sons of thunder. If I ever write up my Jesus Film Dream Team, Jamie Sives will be on it. Anyway, there's a nice irony at the point where a sceptical James tells warns his brother that if he carries on he's "going to get himself killed". Tradition has it that John was the only one of the disciples not to be martyred whereas James was one of the first to be killed..Following on from that, at the start of the episode John reports back on Jesus's death. It's interesting that this could be taken as the start of his traditional role as the disciple who wrote the fourth gospel. There's further intrigue, though, because John recalls Jesus's last words as "Your will is done" (variation on "it is accomplished" which appears only in John) whereas his last words were actually shown as being "I've loved you with all my heart". Whether this is intended to show John deliberately altering Jesus's words, or just that he didn't recall these things perfectly, or whether it was just a glitch in the production is, like much of this final episode, open very much to interpretation.

======

As with previous episodes a few others have blogged the final episode. Doug Chaplin at MetaCatholic continues his generally excellent coverage and Gerard O'Collins is the fourth author for Thinking Faith. I also came across Stephen Barton's Reformed Christian UK site which has also posted a few thoughts on all four parts (1, 2, 3 and 4). The BBC has also added an article on their portrayal of the crucifixion.

The Passion - Part 3 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

The Good Friday Episode of The Passion was also going to be the most critical. Moreover, this was the first episode I hadn't had the chance to watch in advance, which means I've not really had the chance to reflect on it before writing the comments below.

As with the previous two episodes I'm giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes. My overall review of this programme is here.

Last Supper - Mark 14:17
Washing Disciples' Feet - John 13:1-8
Love One Another - John 13:34-35
Peter's Denial Predicted - Mark 14:26-31
Judas's Betrayal Predicted - Mark 14:18:21
Teaching at the Last Supper - John 13:33,36; 14:15-20; 16:21-22; 17:7-9
A New Sacrament - Mark 14:22-25
Gethsemane I - Mark 14:32-34
[EBE - Judas and the Temple Guards]
[EBE - Caiaphas and his Wife]
[EBE - Pilate and his Wife]
Gethsemane II - Mark 14:35-42
Arrest - Mark 14:43-50
Pilate's Wife's Dream - Matt 27:19
Trial Before Caiaphas - Mark 14:53-64
Peter's Denial - Mark 14:66-73
[EBE - Jesus Put in a Cell]
Trial Before Pilate - Mark 15:1-5
[EBE - Pilate's Wife Pleads with him]
Barabbas Freed, - Mark 15:6-15a
Jesus is Condemned and Scourged - Mark 15:15b
[EBE - Disciples in Hiding I]
[EBE - Judas and Barabbas]
Via Dolorosa - Mark 15:20-22
Crown of Thorns - Mark 15:17
Judas Hangs Himself - Matt 27:1-5
[EBE - Caiaphas and Joseph]
Crucifixion - Mark 15:22-27
Priests Try to Change Jesus's Sign - John 19:20-22
The Two Thieves - Luke 23:39-42
Mary and John - John 19:26-27
Jesus's Death - Mark 15:34-37

Originally this show was to be stripped throughout Holy Week in 6 half hour episodes, and it was obvious that tonight's episode was originally intended to play on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. The dividing point was obviously just as Jesus was put in his cell. It'll be interesting to see how HBO broadcast this next Easter, as the natural scheduling dates, were it to be shown in 6 half hour episodes, would be:

Ep.1 - Palm Sunday - Triumphal Entry (1st half of our part 1)
Ep.2 - Holy Monday - Clearing of the Temple (2nd half of our part 1)
Ep.3 - Tue/Wed - More Teaching (Our part 2)
Ep.4 - Maundy Thursday - Last Supper / Gethsemane (1st half of our part3)
Ep.5 - Good Friday - Crucifixion (2nd half of our part 3)
Ep.6 - Easter Sunday - Resurrection (Our part 4)

Following on from that it's interesting to see how the different episodes can switch their emphases between the various gospels. Overall this production harmonises the gospel with the greatest emphasis on Mark and John. In tonight's two-parter it was interesting to see that the first half could have been taken almost entirely from John, but that the second part felt more like Mark, though unique elements from all three gospels were included.There were far fewer extra-biblical episodes tonight (only a quarter) and most of these were fairly brief. However, the ones which were given more time this evening were very impressive. The most interesting one was where Judas and a newly freed Barabbas end up in the same tavern but for very different reasons. It was quite unlike anything I've seen before in a Jesus Film. That's actually quite strange though because scenes where two characters who are unknowingly related to one another happen to be in the same place are very common in film in general. I guess this just shows how keen the film makers are to make this film more down to earth.

The other extra-biblical scene that was good was the one between Caiaphas and Joseph of Arimathea. I'd seen Joseph's lines in several places, but Caiaphas's retort was new to me and carried a real punch.

I also liked the scene with Judas and the Temple Guard. There's been a small amount in the press (mainly the Daily Mail) about how this film seeks to be more sympathetic to Judas. I have to say though that having now seen all of Judas' involvement, I don't think film has done much in that way that other Jesus films haven't done already. The idea of him being caught between two father figures was newish, and there was an interesting explanation as to why Judas took the money (the Temple Guard forced it on him to clear their own consciences clean), but there was no more sympathising with him than there was in King of Kings, Jesus Christ Superstar or Jesus of Nazareth. There was something in this scene that was reminiscent of Edmund and the White Witch's in 'The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe'.Likewise there was some talk about this version of Mary being less serene than previous incarnations. There was a scene in episode one between her and Jesus where this was in evidence, but I'd been expecting something more tonight. It never really materialise, although full credit to Penelope Wilton for here performance at the crucifixion. It was outstanding.

The other thing that has been in the papers was, of course, the position that Jesus was crucified in (as picked up by The Daily Telegraph). Having seen it, I didn't find it anything to get worked up about, but it did make me think about crucifixion in a new way. That said, it seemed strangely out of keeping with this production that Jesus got to hang onto his loincloth.

There was also some interesting camera shots. Michael Offer had described the way they were going to shoot the moment the cross was erected, but I couldn't quite see how it was going to be any different to King of Kings. It was.I should also mention Joe Mawle's performance here as Jesus. Both the crucifixion and the scene in Gethsemane were incredibly moving, and the subtler, arguably more difficult, scenes such as his two trials were played very well too. Likewise James Nesbitt really showed his pedigree in this episode as well getting the historical Pilate's petulance off to a tee.

Finally, there were various comments made about the shot of women showering Jesus with petals in Episode 1, and this scene is recalled by Jesus as he walks along those same streets in this episode in very different circumstances. I've been meaning to say that I think the petals shot is a reference to Last Temptation of Christ and the idea of Jesus flashing back to his triumphal entry on his way to the cross was, no doubt, commenting on a similar idea in The Passion of the Christ.

=====

There are also comments on this episode by Doug Chaplin at MetaCatholic, and Gemma Simmonds at Thinking Faith (how do they get them up so quickly?). I expect one from Michael Bird at Euangelion shortly.

The Passion - Part 2 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

Following on from yesterday's post on episode 1, I'll begin my thoughts on part 2 with my scene guide. Again, I'm giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes, those in normal brackets are where the characters themselves are citing other biblical passages, and I've used quotation marks for direct quotations from the script. It's proved quite hard to do as Frank Deasy rephrases familiar passages andMy overall review of this programme is here.

[EBE - Jesus and Magdalene]
[EBE - Caiaphas Questions Judas]
[EBE - Pilate Prepares for Guests]
[EBE - Pilate Sentences Barabbas]
Woes Against Pharisees - Matt 23:1-12
Teaching on Riches - Mark 10:23-25
Prediction of Fall of Temple - Mark 13:2
[EBE - Caiaphas Hears of Jesus' comment]
[EBE - The Syrian Prefect]
Jesus Predicts His Death - Mark 10:32-34
lost around 13 mins
(Is. 53:4-5)
Teaching on Discipleship - Mark 8:34-36
[EBE - Pilate and Claudia]
[EBE - Caiaphas and Wife]
[EBE - Jesus and Judas]
Plot to Kill Jesus - Mark 14:1-2
Jesus Anointed at Bethany - Mark 14:3-9
Sanhedrin Plots Against Jesus - John 11:45-53
Preparation for the Passover - Mark 14:12-16
[EBE - Caiaphas and Judas]

I'd heard someone say that each episode of The Passion was more gripping than the one before, and this is definitely so far. I'm not sure whether it's because episode 2 is only half an hour (rather than 60 minutes like part 1), but it seemed to fly by and there was definitely that sense of mild disappointment / frustration that we'll have to wait until Friday to see the next episode.

Whereas episode one sketched out the story's broader historical context, here the show starts to really develop it's major characters. So we see how threatened Pilate is by the the Syrian prefect en route to Rome; a bad report to Caesar is the last thing Pilate needs. Likewise we see Caiaphases predicament weighing on his mind as he constantly turns to his wife for reassurance. In fact both men's wives are given an important role in this production - arguably another plus point for it

On the downside, I did find Caiaphas's modernish scepticism a little suspect ("What look like miracles yes"). As far as I recall (and someone will no doubt pick me up on this) Caiaphas never really says anything like this. Everyone in the story seems to acknowledge that Jesus is doing some unusual things; those who reject him simply question whether his power comes from God or Satan. However, it's refreshing to hear Caiaphas specifically say that "Jesus isn't a bad man" he's just misguided.

Again there were some great lines, although the cryptic way which they reference scripture makes tying them down to a particular reference quite hard. So when Jesus says "all of you will be spared, I will be sacrificed", iut's hard to find a passage to link it to even though it evokes various passages. Likewise the line that has been with me all week (and that starts off the trailer) - "You'll witness a miracle, but not the one you expect" - sums up several little snippets even though we have no record of them being said together.

In yesterday's Times, Andrew Billen noted how The Passion "looks historically real but not historic: no one knows... that this will be the week that changes the West for ever". It's a great little summary and there were a couple of good examples of it yesterday. Not only the very offhand way in which Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem, but also the scene where Jesus predicts his death. Omitting the "get behind me Satan" line really allows the scene to open up, and focus on the reactions of the disciples. This is made all the more poignant by the way the scene starts with a wide shot which emphasises the seeming insignificance of this bunch of scruffy Galilleans.

Doug Chaplin (Metacatholic), Michael Kirwan (Thinking Faith) and Michael Bird (Euangelion) have also posted reviews on last night's episode - all of them beating me off the mark. Mark Goodacre also links to Simon Mayo's discussion of the programme, and is disappointed by viewing figures of 4.1 million for part one - a third of the audience for Dancing on Ice. Whilst it is disappointing that so many people would rather watch yet another celebrity dance programme than a quality historical, not to mention educational, drama I don't think that really reflects on The Passion in particular so much as the general state of audience viewing habits. Sad but true.

The Passion - Part 1 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

Having already written my review of this programme, I'm going to try and track each episode as it goes, giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes, those in normal brackets are where the characters themselves are citing other biblical passages, and I've used quotation marks for direct quotations from the script.

Disciples Find a Colt - Mark 11:1-6
[EBE - Murder in the Lower City]
(Zech. 9:9)
(Isaiah 43:2-4)
Follow me - Mark 1:15-17
[EBE - Pilate arrives in Jerusalem]
[EBE - A Dead Body in the Lower City]
Anything Good From Nazareth - John 1:46
"You'll Know God Like Never Before" - Matt 13:35
Triumphal Entry - Mark 11:7-10
[EBE - Caiaphas hears of Jesus]
Don't Worry About Tomorrow - Matt 6:31-34
Trust like a child - Mark 10:14-15
Jesus Visits the Temple - Mark 11:11
[EBE - Pilate and Claudia]
[EBE - Jesus and the Prostitutes]
[EBE - Jesus by the Pool]
Kingdom of God in our Hearts - Luke 17:21
[EBE - Pilate and Caiaphas]
The Law - Matt 5:17
Barabbas Murders - Mark 15:7
Clearing the Temple - Mark 11:15-18
[EBE - Caiaphas Hears of Jesus' Actions]
[EBE - Romans Go After Barabbas]
Question About Taxes - Mark 12:13-18
[EBE - Barabbas Arrested]
Good Shepherd - Matt 18:10-14
Question on Authority - Mark 11:27-28
Joy in Heaven Over Repentance - Luke 15:7,10
Not Come to Overthrow the Law - Matt 5:17
Greatest Commandment - Mark 12:28-34
Not to Judge but to Save - John 12:47
Children's Undestanding - Matt 11:25
Parable of the Wicked Tenants - Mark 12:1-12
[EBE - Caiaphas Told of Barabbas' Arrest]
Greatest Disciples - Mark 10:35-45, John 13:34-35
[EBE - Caiaphas and Joseph discuss Jesus]
Mary Questions Jesus - Mark 3:21
[EBE - Caiaphas Weighs his Options]
[EBE - Pilate Told of Barabbas' Arrest]
[EBE - The Two Marys]
[EBE - Jesus and Judas]

The thing that is immediately obvious from looking at the above, is just how much of the script is establishing the back story, even events such as Barabbas committing murder extrapolates a whole story from just a single remark. Much of this happens in order to fill in the blanks that would have been well known to the people at the time, but most viewers won't be aware of (including those in churches).

This film really is keen to improve Caiaphas's reputation. So the first time we see him he is being affectionate with his wife and children. Caiaphas is first and foremost a family man, whose closest confidant turns out to be his wife.It's also interesting how there are no miracles as of yet. In fact, in one added scene we see Jesus visit a pool in Jerusalem surrounded by the sick and dying. It suggest the pool that Jesus visits in John 5 to heal a lame man (Bethesda), but despite the multitude of people who Jesus could heal he opts to alleviate their suffering by way of reassurance, moping their brows and instructing the disciples to do likewise. The show's primary concern is to look at the story from an historical angle, so it's neither surprising nor controversial that there are no healings. However, the way that this scene evokes Bethesda is interesting. Jesus seems to only heal one person in John's account (despite the presence of many), here, instead of an impressive, yet isolated, healing we see a more widespread demonstration of compassion, but one that is seemingly not as powerful (for want of a better word).

Finally, the scene that caused most discussion at the première was from the scene between Jesus and his mother. Riazat Butt noted this when she covered the première for The Guardian. It was the line where Mary says to Jesus "You were in my belly before I knew it" that proved controversial, as it seems to suggest Mary didn't have a choice when in fact she did. At the time I was stunned by the criticism: it was a dramatic line, uttered amidst a tense confrontation not a carefully thought out statement about the incarnation. Having seen it twice since, I still don't really get it and, like those who answered the question, would not have thought of the line in those terms before it was raised by one of the audience members.Just wanted to add one unrelated point on The Passion that does contain something of a spoiler, so some of you might want to look away. Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph ran a piece of how this show will show Jesus crucified in an different pose from the traditional position. This is nothing new for Jesus films of course. Last Temptation of Christ (1988) and Jesus of Montreal (1989) both showed Jesus crucified in a foetal position (and naked to boot. Mawle has discussed wearing a loin cloth so I suspect this might not be the case in this film), and The Gospel of John (2003), showed Jesus with his legs nailed either side of the cross with his body hanging low. Jesus of Montreal (1989) even included some discussion and sketches on the issue. However, it does explain my earlier observation that there don't appear to be any photos of the crucifixion. The Telegraph's writer, Jonathan Wynne-Jones, did attempt to contact me on Friday, but after 6 phone calls and various emails we somehow failed to hook up. He did, however, speak to Mark Goodacre, who, it turns out was not hugely impressed with Wynne-Jones's final article. Now the Daily Mail has also run a piece on the story, although it seems to largely be a rehash of the Telegraph one.

The Telegraph does offer a positive review, however, along with The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Herald, Thinking Faith and The Scotsman.

Mark has also offered a quick round up of various bloggers including Michael Bird in Euangelion and Doug Chaplin from Metacatholic.

The Ten Commandments (2007)Scene Guide

I've been meaning to post this ever since I wrote my review of Promenade Pictures'The Ten Commandments (2007), so here it is. Readers may be interested to compare it with the Scene Guides for a couple of other Moses films, last year's live action TV mini series The Ten Commandments (part 1 and part 2), 1996's mini series Moses (part 1 and part 2). I've been meaning to post scene guides for Moses the Lawgiver (1975) since July, but have never quite got around to it. Anyway, on to the scene guide for this film.

Israel enslaved - (Ex 1:8-14)
Moses on the Nile - (Ex 1:22-2:10)
[extra-biblical episode - Opening credits]
[extra-biblical episode - Moses and Ramsees play]
Moses kills the Egyptian - (Ex 2:11-12)
Moses sent away - (Ex 2:15a)
Moses and Jethro's daughters - (Ex 2:15b-22)
Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Moses returns to Egypt - (Ex 4:27- 2:23)
Moses's first appearance before Pharaoh - (Ex 5:1-10; 7:8-13)
Bricks without Straw - (Ex 5:11-21)
Moses appeals to God - (Ex 5:22-6:9)
Water to Blood - (Ex 7:14-25)
Lice - (Ex 8:16-19)
Frogs - (Ex 8:1-15)
Flies - (Ex 8:20-32)
Murrain - (Ex 9:1-7)
Sores - (Ex 9:8-12)
Hail - (Ex 9:13-35)
Locusts - (Ex 10:1-20)
Darkness - (Ex 10:21-23)
Pharaoh appeals to Moses - (Ex 10:24-29)
Passover - (Ex 12:1-28)
Death of First Born - (Ex 12:29-30)
The Exodus - (Ex 12:31-39)
Pilars of cloud and fire - (Ex 13:20-14:4)
Pharaoh changes his mind - (Ex 14:5-14)
Parting of the Red Sea - (Ex 14:15-31)
Song of Moses - (Ex 15)
Water from Rock - (Ex 17:1-7)
Manna and Quails - (Ex 16:1-15)
Aaron and Miriam question Moses - (Num 12:1-8)
Moses on Sinai - (Ex 19:1-6)
Golden Calf - (Ex 32:1-6)
Ten Commandments - (Ex 20:1-17, 34:29)
Golden Calf - (Ex 32:15-)
Building Tabernacle - (Ex 36:1-38)
God changes his mind - (Ex 32:7-14, Num 14:10-35)
Death of Miriam - (Num 20:1)
Death of Aaron - (Num 20:22-29)
Moses tells joshua about his death - (Num 27:12-23)
Final Speech - (Deut 1:1-8)
Death of Moses - (Deut 34:1-12)

Notes
A quick look at that confirms one of the points I made about this in my review: this film crams an awful lot of the biblical material into it's 90 minute run time. A quick comparison with those other scene guides - which were for 3 hour productions - confirms this. There's obviously many more episodes that could have been included (battle against the Amonites, Jethro's visit, other rebellions etc.), but this is as complete a telling of the full Moses story as any other, yet in a fraction of the time.

That said it's interesting how this film handles much of the material in a similar vein to DeMille's take on The Ten Commandments. (He made two versions in 1923 and then the Charlton Heston version in 1956. It's the latter one that is dominant in the public imagination, largely because it imports the best aspects - to DeMille's mind at least - from the first film, and expands on them.) So, for example, both the Ten Commandments scene and the Golden calf incident, are handled as DeMille handles them; Moses goes up a mountain, receives the tablets bearing the commandments, and returns to find rebellion in the camp, the punishment for which is wandering in the desert for 40 years.

Biblically speaking, however, the Ten Commandments are given to all the people whilst Moses is at the foot of the mountain (although he has made several treks up and down the mountain by this point), and he then goes to spend time with God. When he discovers the people's unfaithfulness, the punishment is death to those who refuse to repent. It's not until the survivors refuse to trust Joshua and Caleb, as opposed to the other 10 spies, that the people are sentences to wander in the desert until they die. It perhaps not surprising that an animated film aimed at kids edits the material in this way, but the reliance on DeMille is striking. Another example is Moses' banishment after killing the Egyptian. I wonder to what extent the script writers were aware of this as they wrote?This is one of the only films about Moses that deals with each of the ten plagues in turn. The sequence in Exodus does become rather repetitive and so usually film-makers focus on the reaction to one or two before seguing their way through the rest of them, or just omitting / combining some of the ones in the middle before returning to the plague of death at the end. This one gives time to each of them.

One thing I did notice, however, is that it moves the plague of lice to number 2 (rather than number 3). It's an incredibly minor point, of course, but that only peaks my curiosity. Why was this change made? (That's not an objection, by the way, it just strikes me as strange).There were also a few little visual things I wanted to add in her. Firstly, it's interesting how this film makes the giving of the Ten Commandments even more spectacular. In the DeMille films there are pyrotechnics as fire from heaven carves the words into stone.This film goes way beyond, as the two tablets are caught up into the sky in a whoosh of stars, and are gradually lowered in front of Moses. It's one of the film's most original moments, and, sadly, its worst.

As I mentioned in my review, there are, however, some nice visual moments. I was reminded of the God shot during the parting of the Red Sea, which, again, is otherwise very DeMille. There's also a shot during the manna and quails episode of one of the older men, whose naked chest bears the scars of his time as a slave, and lends extra poignancy to the rose-tinted nostalgia that the people are expressing for Egypt and it's food.

Scene Guide - The Real Old Testament

Having reviewed Paul and Curtis Hannum's The Real Old Testament last week, I'd like now to give some scene analysis on the film. This is a fairly easy task as the individual episodes are given Bible references, and tie in fairly well with the chapter breaks on the DVD. Citing Bible references makes the film more authoritative, particularly for those who are not that familiar with Genesis, whilst also defusing some of the potential objections that its critics might raise. The main story headings (for each chunk of the story) are just cited as whole chapters, but each element within that chunk is accompanied by more specific references. To capture this I've made the main headings bold. All verses are as cited by the intertitles

[Extra-Biblical Episode - Introduction]
Gen 1-3 - The Garden of Eden
The Forbidden Tree - (Gen 2:15)
Temptation at the Tree - (Gen 3)
The Fall From Grace - (Gen 3:9)
Gen 4 - Cain and Abel
Cain and Abel's Offering to God - (Gen 4:3)
Cain kills Abel - (Gen 4:8)
God Confronts Cain - (Gen 4:9)
Gen 12, 15, 16 - Abram and Sarai
God Comes to Abram - (Gen 12)
Sarai is Barren - (Gen 16)
Sarai Deals Harshly with Hagar - (Gen 16:6)
God Find Hagar in the Wilderness - (Gen 16:7)
Gen 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot Visited by Two Angels - (Gen 19:4)
Lot and His Family Flee - (Gen 19:15)
Sin of Lot's Daughters - (Gen 19:30)
Gen 17, 20-22 - Abraham and Sarah
Abraham and Sarah meet King Abimelech - (Gen 20)
Sarah Laughs at God's Pledge - (Gen 18:9)
God Tests Abraham - (Gen 22)
Gen 29-30 - Jacob and Rachel
Jacob Meets Rachel - (Gen 29:9)
Laban and Leah deceive Jacob - (Gen 29:23)
Jacob and the Handmaidens - (Gen 30:3)
Rachel Trades Jacob's Favours for some Mandrake - (Gen 30:14)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - The Re-Union Show]

Notes
There are a number of similarities between this film and John Huston's The Bible: In the Beginning (in addition to covering the same subject matter). Firstly, the film's title suggests it covers a greater portion of the Bible than it actually does: Huston's film stops at Genesis 22 (after the aborted sacrifice of Isaac). The Real Old Testament goes eight chapters further.

Secondly, from a textual point of view, both films offer a fairly literal reproduction, yet in both cases it is precisely because these films let the stories speak for themselves that they bring such uncomfortable challenges to the original stories. Finally both films star their directors in key roles: Huston plays Noah and Paul Hannum plays Snake whilst Curtis Hannum plays God. There are, of course, numerous other comparisons.

This is the only film I can recall which shows the incident with Lot's daughters. It's absence in other Genesis films perhaps owes something to it's strangeness, and even though it's played for laughs here, it's uncomfortable viewing. Another episode usually glossed over is that of Rachel swapping sex with Jacob for Mandrake. Having recently watched Pan's Labyrinth (my review), where the legends surrounding the plant are explored, these aspects seemed particularly pertinent to me this time around. For more on this see the post on Rachel and Genesis 30 at Ralph the Sacred River.

Whilst covering most of the first thirty chapters of Genesis there are a few notable omissions. In particular Noah and the Tower of Babel, as well as the stories of Isaac and Esau. I imagine that former pair were omitted for reasons of budget as much as anything else. (Interestingly the Noah scene is the only one in which Huston sought to bring out the humour). I'm curious as to why the story of Esau was left out. Perhaps the Hannums couldn't see the humour in it when they were creating the scenarios. Or perhaps it was filmed, but didn't reach the same standard as the rest of the film. One or two scenes are moved out of the order they occur in the bible, although their arrangement there is not actually chronological in any case.

As with MTV's The Real World, the film ends with a "Re-Union Show" where all the characters get together again. Bring characters separated by time together produces a few new laughs, such as when one character calls Eve a "babe" before realising that they're supposed to be related, or Snake extolling the virtues of agents. It is however, the weakest part of the film. Interestingly though, it does raise questions about the treatment of women in the book of Genesis.

Scene Guide - Jesus Christ, Superstar

Having reviewed Jesus Christ, Superstar via my podcast a couple of weeks ago, I've been meaning to post a scene guide ever since. The film / musical is so well loved that there are plenty of resources for it online, and I'm sure that if I'd looked for long enough I would have found one which does exactly this. It may well have been quicker. The plus side is that I've been able to add times (although these are approximate), song titles, and a few more subtle references than normally. As per my usual procedure I'll continue to preference Mark over the later synoptics where appropriate.

0:00:00 - Overture
0:05:30 - Heaven on Their Minds
0:09:00 - What's the Buzz? - (Matt 6:34; John 14:1; Luke 10:38-42)
0:11:30 - Strange Things Mystifying - (John 12:3-7)
0:13:30 - Then We Are Decided - (John 11:47-48)
0:17:00 - Everything's Alright - (Luke 8:1-3; Matt 6:34; Mark 14:3-9)
0:21:30 - This Jesus Must Die - (Mark 14:1-2; John 11:49-50)
1:25:30 - Hosanna - (Mark 11:1-10)
0:28:00 - Simon Zealotes - (John 6:15)
1:32:30 - Poor Jerusalem - (Mark 10:45)
0:34:15 - Pilate's Dream - (Matt 27:19)
0:36:00 - The Temple - (Mark 11:15-19)
0:39:00 - Gethsemane/See my eyes - (Mark 1:32-34; Luke 11:29)
0:42:30 - I Don't Know How to Love Him
0:46:30 - Damned for All Time / Blood Money - (Mark 14:10-11)
0:51:30 - The Last Supper - (Mark 14:17-31)
0:58:00 - Gethsemane (I Only Want to Say) - (Mark 14:32-42)
1:04:30 - What's the buzz (reprise) - (Mark 14:43-50)
1:06:15 - The Arrest - (Mark 15:1)
1:08:15 - Peter's Denial - (Mark 14:66-72)
1:11:00 - Pilate & Christ - (Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:6-7)
1:13:00 - King Herod Song - (Luke 23:8-11)
1:16:45 - Could We Start Again, Please? - (Matt 16:22)
1:20:00 - Judas's Death - (Matt 27:3-5)
1:24:30 - Trial Before Pilate - (John 18:29-38, 19:4-16; Matt 27:24,26)
1:31:30 - Superstar
1:36:00 - Crucifixion - (Mark 15:22-27,34; Luke 23:34, 46)
1:38:45 - John Nineteen: Forty-One - (John 19:40-41)
1:41:15 - [Empty Cross] - (John 10:11-15)

Notes
Aside from the opening few songs, Superstar is essentially a Passion play, albeit one set to music. That said, it is also a significant deviation from that genre as most of the action takes place prior to Pilate's decision to execute Jesus rather than from that moment to his death. It is noticeable that the crucifixion is over very quickly in this film, and the road to the cross section is limited to a few brief shots during the title song.

The film's use of the biblical sources is particularly interesting. As is fairly standard for a Jesus film, the various gospels are harmonised into one telling. Since the libretto holds fairly loosely to the texts this is generally unproblematic, but one exception is the scene where Pilate condemns Jesus - Trial Before Pilate. This draws on John 18:29-38, as well as 19:4-16 and two verses from the gospel of Matthew 27:24,26. This song seems a little overcomplicated as it seeks to explain why Pilate condemned Jesus. It's the one aspect that the 1999 recording of the stage version of the opera does particularly well - explaining why the brutal Pilate we find recorded in history appears to act meekly in the case of Jesus.

Elsewhere however the film picks out random bits of the gospels to use as throwaway lines in other songs. Typical of this is the priests' discussion of Jesus referring to his miracles, or Judas referring to his teaching. Likewise Jesus's anointing is placed in an entirely new context. One further example of this is the way in which Simon the Zealot is given a far more significant role here than in the gospels. His surname, which may have referred to his past or present beliefs (or may even have been ironic), is used as the basis for a whole song.

Whilst I've expanded the list of references here there are more I could have included. One of the useful sources in constructing the above information is Stern, Jefford and Debona's "Savior on the Silver Screen". There they include a few verses that I did not, such as the use of Mark 16:8 to refer to the actors getting on the coach in the silence at the end of the film. This hasn't been included mainly because this scene is outside of the historical referencing of the play, and those verse refer to different characters both in person and in function.

In order to simplify things, the film combines a number of characters. So Pilate's wife is absent and does not, therefore, appear to be warned about Jesus in a dream - all this happens only to her husband. Likewise the various parties opposed to Jesus are brought down to just two leads, Caiaphas and Annas, and a few priests.

The Cross (2001) - Scene Guide

Here's the Scene Guide for Lance Tracy's The Cross (my review). This one is a little different from normal, as one of the DVD options is to have bible references turned on. So the references given here are mainly the ones cited by the DVD itself. Those in brackets are additional ones I have included.

[Opening Shots]
Road To The Cross - (John 19:17, Matt 27:55-56)
Magdalene Cured - (Mark 16:9)
Crucifixion - (John 19:18)
Boy Jesus - (Luke 2:41-52)
Father Forgive - (Mark 15:24, Matt 27:39-43)
John Baptist - (Matt 3:1-17)
Mother Son, Son Mother - (John 19:25-27)
Who Is The Greatest - {Luke 24:22-27}
Foot Washing - (John 13:1-38)
Betrayal - (Matt 26:36-50)
Gethsemane - {Mark 14:32-42}
Arrest - {Mark 14:43-52}
Trial - (Luke 22:54)
Denial - (Matt 26:69-75)
Roman Trial - (John 19:1-16; {Matt 27:25})
Beating, Judas' Suicide, Peter Weeps - (Matt 27:26-30, 1-10)
Crucifixion - (Luke 23:36-43, Mark 15:33-37, 2 Cor 5:21)
Resurrection - (John 20:1-18)
Peter & John At Tomb - (John 20:1-18)
Mary Sees Jesus - (John 20:1-18)
Mary Tells The Disciples - (John 20:1-18)

Notes
Of all the gospels, this one relies most heavily on John. Much of the information from Gethsemane to Jesus's death is largely common, but where there are some differences, they often chose John in preference to the others. In particular the resurrection sequence almost solely reproduces John 20.

This film also is one of the few to base Mary Magdalene more on scripture than tradition, although there is still a good deal of artistic licence. So nowhere does this film treat Mary as a prostitute. Instead we see Jesus heal her after she has self harmed / attempted suicide, and then exorcise her. Whilst we have no idea what impact, whichever demons Jesus cast out, had had on her this was an effective visual way of communicating the information, just as in Gibson's The Passion of the Christ the brief shots there communicate his take on Mary.

One aspect that didn't ring true for me was Caiaphas recollection of Jesus as a boy. Early on in the film we flashback to the incident in Luke 2:41-51 where Jesus goes missing and is found "sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions". In this film we're shown a younger Caiaphas as amongst those teachers, and later on in the film the older Caiaphas recalls the incident and knows that these two Jesuses are one and the same.

When I interviewed Lance Tracy, I wanted to ask him about the use of Matt 27:25 in the trial before Pilate. Whereas this sentence is only used once in just one of the gospels, here the crowd repeats it several times. Given the long association of that verse with anti-Semitism I was a bit troubled by it. However, this is also offset by the small size of the crowd in this scene. This is one of the few films where Pilate's court is shown, but is not crammed full. Such a small crowd off sets the possibility that this crowd could represent all Jewish people even at that time, and is a nice way of dealing with the scripture whilst still including it. Personally I wish they had just had the crowd utter it once (or not at all), but this is one of the most interesting scenes in the film for how it is shot.