12
The Jesus Films: The Twenty-first Century
The Body
Interestingly, the first film of the new millennium to touch on the subject of Jesus is a problem story rather than a life of Jesus. Jonas McCord’s The Body is a popular entertainment film that raises age-old apologetical questions about Jesus and the Resurrection. It is the material of The Passover Plot or The Inquiry (the former of which prejudged the issues of the Resurrection, while the latter raised familiar questions with interest and respect).
The body of the title is that of a man from the time of Jesus, which is found by a Jewish archaeologist (Olivia Williams) who thinks that the bones could be those of Jesus. Here we have the key question of the Resurrection for Christians. Jesus rose physically from the dead so the tomb has to be empty. There can be no body. (Theologians and scripture scholars have tended to say that there are more important thematic questions as to what Resurrection means in terms of Christology and redemption.)
The film is also a political thriller, so Palestinian and Muslim groups take an interest in what could upset the religious status quo and cause unrest. Israeli authorities have both political issues in mind. The archaeologist is Jewish, so traditions of hostile Jewish-Christian relationships could surface. Israel also has to deal politically with the rest of the world, with pro-Israel lobbies and anti-Semitic groups. Needless to say, the Vatican takes a strong interest and sends a priest-scholar (who has a secret agent background, Antonio Banderas) on a mission to prove that the body is not that of Jesus. A priest who has lost his faith (Derek Jacobi) is tormented by the discovery and its consequences.
This gives the screenplay much opportunity to include dialogue about Jesus as a person, about his sufferings and death, about the meaning of the Resurrection. Jesus does not appear at all—nor are the bones those of Jesus. They are ultimately recognized as the son of a prominent Jew who leaves an inscription, a prayer that his son will be received just as Jesus was. But, the film does raise old questions in a contemporary context, which enables the audience to reflect on the body, the risen body, and the consequences for faith.
Judas
Originally titled, Judas and Jesus, this film focuses on Judas himself with Jesus being a significant presence but having more of a supporting role. It was made by a Catholic television company managed by the Paulist congregation who had made the Insight series for television and films such as The Fourth Wise Man and Romero. It was written by Tom Fontana, one of the creators of Homicide: Life on the Streets and Oz. It was directed by a devout Catholic, Charles Robert Carner. Paramount Television did not screen it when it was ready for release in 2001 but did broadcast it in early 2004 in the wake of the success of The Passion of the Christ.
Johnathon Schaech gives quite an impressive performance as Judas, the angry Zealot who believes that Jesus is the man to lead the Jews to revolution against the Romans, but who cannot quite commit himself as a disciple, who betrays Jesus and kills himself, feeling betrayed by Jesus.
On the other hand, television actor Jonathan Scarfe, is a smiling, “modern” Jesus, a kind of Californian surfie Jesus who does not always come across as a sufficiently strong and powerful presence, able to command commitment or loyalty from his followers. The producers were right in taking Jesus’ name out of the title and focusing on Judas.
While the prevailing American accents (especially with Jesus and Pilate and, to a lesser extent, with Judas and Caiaphas) would not cause problems for American audiences, they do for non-Americans. Mary, however, and most of the apostles have British accents. The American accent sounds too contemporary for a story set in a particular historical period. In addition, the dialogue includes many contemporary American idioms that are understood but not used by non-Americans. This makes the film sound anachronistic rather than relevant. Pilate says that he hopes Jesus “will stay out of town.” There are such phrases as “I’ll pass,” “I figure,” “What d’ya say?” and “. . . , right?” and Herod (British accent) says of John the Baptist, “What a pain in the arse.”
Be that as it may, Schaech is strong enough and many of the re-created Gospel scenes are powerful enough to offer some insights into the Gospel story.
Judas is presented as the son of a crucified Zealot (in a field of many crucified Zealots), embittered while still a boy, growing up resentful of the Romans, looking for a Messiah who will not “roll over” to the Romans. He has become a wine seller—though his mother says he was born for better, a visionary like his father. He does not mince words about the priests handing over money to the soldiers for extra taxes for Pilate. When he hears of John the Baptist, he goes to the Jordan where John assures him he is not the Messiah. His first glimpse (and the audience’s) is of an angry and yelling Jesus overthrowing the buyers and sellers in the Temple. Judas is impressed and invites him to a meal, where Jesus is sorry, saying that no one is changed by yelling or anger or being deprived of their livelihood. When the disciples arrive, Judas says that they should not be treated like peasants. “We are peasants,” says Jesus.
There follows a love-suspicion-hate relationship on the part of Judas toward Jesus. When he is mugged in the streets of Jerusalem and his house raided, Judas escapes to Galilee where he is welcomed by Jesus, although the other disciples are aware of his dark side and wish that Jesus would send him away. However, Jesus likes Judas—“I wish you could see in yourself what I see.” The screenplay gives Jesus the opportunity to preach to small groups the gist of the Sermon on the Mount, which Judas criticizes. Judas, now in charge of finances (Jesus saying he is no good at this), suggests that they charge for cures, something that Jesus abhors. Jesus trusts in providence and refers to the lilies of the field and God’s care of them. When Judas persuades Jesus to give the apostles his powers to heal, Judas interprets this as raising an army. And Judas fails to heal, while the simple James succeeds by opening his heart and praying the Our Father.
Jesus is grieved by the news about the arrest of John the Baptist. There is an interesting scene where Judas asks Mary in her kitchen about Jesus’ father and finds her account of the Annunciation hard to accept.
Caiaphas, a strong figure in the film, has kept in touch with Judas and asks him to spy on Jesus, suggesting that the powers that be would support Jesus as long as he led no protests or demonstrations. After Jesus raises Lazarus and singles out Peter as leader, Judas becomes more disillusioned, thinks that Jesus is “lame” because of his melancholy. Caiaphas tells him that one man’s betrayal is another man’s salvation.
The rest of the film—apart from Judas’ mother dying and Caiaphas suggesting that Jesus could raise her (and giving the thirty pieces of silver for the funeral)—goes according to the Gospels. Jesus celebrates the Last Supper, experiences the Agony in the Garden. The Passion sequences are brief, and Jesus is spotlighted in his appearances before Caiaphas and before Pilate. There is some melodrama as Pilate’s wife, who up till now has been complicit in the plotting, especially about the staging of Barabbas’ release, has her nightmare and rushes to warn Pilate to free Jesus.
Jesus is nailed to the cross, is lifted up, speaks some of his last words (also saying, “This was my destiny”), and dies. The sky darkens; the soldiers run; Mary holds Jesus, Pietà fashion; and a choir sings an Agnus Dei. The film ends with its Judas focus as three apostles cut down Judas and take him away for burial. They pray for Judas: “This is what Jesus would have wanted.”
Saint Mary
Saint Mary is a film version of an eleven-part miniseries of the same name produced in Iran at the beginning of the twenty-first century (114 minutes cut down from eleven 45-minute episodes). It is based on the stories of Mary in the Koran and in Islamic tradition and produced in Iran. The comparison between this story and the Gospel stories holds its own fascination, but it is all the more challenging for a dialogue between Christians and Muslims concerning Mary and the understanding of Jesus as Prophet and Messiah. This discussion could serve as a prologue for even deeper dialogue about the status of Jesus himself as portrayed in the 2005 The Messiah—retitled in 2007, Jesus the Spirit of God, also a product of the Iranian film industry—which invites theological reflection about the humanity and divinity of Jesus, his role in Christianity, and his place as a great prophet in Islam. Jesus, the Spirit of God will be considered later.
As with so many films about Mary, including Jean Delannoy’s 1995 Mary of Nazareth and the 2006 The Nativity Story, Saint Mary culminates with the birth of Jesus with very little of a screen Jesus.
Saint Mary puts Mary at the forefront of the religious community of Jerusalem in her day. In 16 BC, Herod, who has collaborated with the Roman occupation of Judea, suffers from nightmares about the coming of a Messiah. However, Hannah, wife of the prophet Imran, gives birth to a girl, Mary. She is dedicated to life in the Temple under the care of her cousin, Zechariah. There is a great deal of dispute as to a female living in the Temple, so her own small house is built on to the Temple. Mary, even before she is ten, is devout and has the gift of healing (mirroring the miracles of her son).
Later, she is favored by God, even to mysteriously receiving gifts of fruit and grapes out of season. At the same time, Elizabeth is pregnant and Mary visits her as she gives birth. Mary becomes pregnant, and bewildered but trusting in God, she goes out into the desert to give birth under a palm tree, which suddenly bears fruit. There is no mention of Joseph or any father. When she returns carrying the baby Jesus, the leaders and the people turn against her for her sins and want to kill her (mirroring her son).
In the meantime, the wise men (from Persia/Iran) visit Herod to ask where the Messiah is to be born. They explain the prophecies of two thousand years and calculate the place for the birth. Herod acts in the same way as he does in Matthew 2 but sends his guard to search for the child and kill this rival king of Judea.
The climax of the film—and an extraordinary scene for a screen Jesus—has a religious leader asking the baby to justify his mother. And the baby does. He speaks out words of praise for Mary as well as explaining his role as God’s prophet.
Saint Mary is similar in many points to Luke 1, especially with Zechariah in the Temple, Elizabeth’s pregnancy, and the birth of the Baptist and Mary’s visitation. It is not so similar to Luke 2, which relates Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. However, the parallels between the film and the Magi story in Matthew 2 are strong.
For Western audiences it would come as a surprise to see an Islamic film about Mary and even more of a surprise to see Jesus, the Spirit of God.
Maria, Mae do Filho de Deus
In this Brazilian tale (2002), a mother takes her daughter to the hospital and, to put her at ease, recounts the story of Jesus and Mary and the Gospels.
The Apocalypse
The Apocalypse (L’apocalisse, 2002) is part of the series of principally Old Testament stories filmed in Italy from the later 1990s (including Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jeremiah, and David). Richard Harris, in one of his final roles, plays the aged John the apostle on Patmos. The emperor Domitian has proclaimed himself a god and Christians are being persecuted. They want John to come to the community in Ephesus to strengthen their resolve. The screenplay creates a fictional story (along the lines of Quo Vadis) about the son of a general who is a Christian and a young woman he is in love with. This subplot provides scenes of prisoners in the quarries of Patmos, Roman oppression, and an escape attempt and allows for John to do Jesus-like things in caring for the prisoners.
This is the context for some mystical visions that form the core of the Book of the Apocalypse. In them, there are brief flashbacks to the Crucifixion and, when John sees a man flogged, a flashback to Jesus’ scourging. Within the visionary sequences, a glorified Jesus is seen with the 144,000 saved in their white robes. He is pictured reading the names of those written on the scroll. There are many lamb images, especially of the lamb that is slain.
The Apocalypse provides an opportunity for Richard Harris to give moving renditions of passages from John on love and to voice key apocalyptic sequences like those of the four horsemen, the breaking of the seals, and the coming down of the New Jerusalem.
The Gospel of John
A new but traditional version of the Jesus story, The Gospel of John, premiered at the 2003 Toronto Film Festival. It was directed by British filmmaker Philip Saville, written by veteran John Goldsmith, and narrated by Christopher Plummer. The director says that the film follows the text itself; “every single word is there.” However, it is also referred to as part of the series The Visual Bible (whose Matthew and Acts appeared in the mid-1990s and were considered earlier).
The Gospel of John offers a visualization of the complete text of the Gospel. It uses a contemporary translation, The Good News Bible, and avoids exclusivist masculine language. It is also careful to give the historical context of the clash between Judaism and Christianity in the first century and to offer nuances with its translation of “The Jews.” When Jesus challenges the religious leaders, the translation used is “the Jewish authorities.”
Narrative and Drama
The narrative is spoken, to great effect, by Christopher Plummer. Since there is a great deal of dialogue in the Gospel, many characters such as John the Baptist, Mary at Cana, Peter, and Philip have speaking parts. This is the case for the Samaritan woman at the well, the man born blind, Martha, and Martha’s sister Mary. And, since so much of the Gospel is monologue by Jesus himself, much of the meaning has to be communicated by actor Henry Ian Cusick as Jesus.
Before the long discourses of Jesus begin in chapter 5 after the healing of the lame man in the pool at Bethzatha, the narrative takes time for many pauses. This works to great dramatic effect. The audience, which is looking at Jesus, at the other characters, at the settings, and at the action, has plenty of time to respond to what is going on. In fact, the pauses help us appreciate the inherent drama in the text. Later, the continuous discourses make heavy demands on the listener (as they do in liturgical readings). The screenplay sometimes “opens up” the images to give the eye and the imagination something to focus on as well as the words. In a visual medium, this can ultimately be distracting as the audience’s attention goes to the images rather than concentrating on words and meanings. This is particularly true of the last discourse of Jesus (chapters 14–17).
The film was immediately released in the southern states of America, perhaps its natural home with its more literal presentation of the Gospels. This is one of the major difficulties of filming the Gospel of John. It is not a particularly “literal” Gospel. Rather, it is a narration of some of the “signs and wonders” that Jesus performed so that through them, “he let his glory be seen” and “his disciples believed in him.” This is said specifically of the changing of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana (2:1–11). How to visualize the story while highlighting its “mystical” meaning over its “realistic” tone? This is something that the film does not really attempt—though, strangely, one moment where this kind of potential is shown is in the conversation between Jesus and Nathanael (1:43–51): when Jesus tells Nathanael he saw him under the fig tree, we see a flashback to Nathanael’s moments of contemplation under the fig tree, divine light shining through the leaves with Nathanael in rapture. Generally, the film stays with a literal and realistic picture of events.
Signs and Wonders
The first two chapters work quite well. As Christopher Plummer speaks the prologue, we see images of the sun and the spreading light as well as the daily lives of people—who do not recognize Jesus, the Word of God made human, who is glimpsed first through shadow and an overhead tracking shot of his walking toward the Jordan. The Baptist scenes are effective as drama, building up to Jesus’ own baptism (with close-up of the face of the immersed Jesus rather than any voices from heaven or literal doves). The calling of the disciples is well edited, very filmic, with action filling in detail during the pauses between the speaking of the actual words of the text. This is also true of Cana, where Mary is seen as a dignified, very matronly figure. Drama goes into action as the text stops and vigorous scenes of Jesus clearing the Temple of buyers and sellers visualize the text.
Chapter 3 and the discussion with Nicodemus introduce the Gospel text as a dialogue. The conversation style helps the audience appreciate the talk of being born again. This continues very well in chapter 4 with Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well. The conversation is both serious and ironic, the woman parrying Jesus’ comments with a wry smile. She is an interesting and engaging personality. As naturalistic conversation, it does not (and cannot) quite work, especially when the woman moves the conversation to specific religious matters about prophecy and worship on Mt. Gerizim and Jesus introduces discussion of the Spirit of God blowing where it wills.
Discourse
The difficulty in filming the complete text of John comes to the fore in the second part of chapter 5. After Jesus heals the cripple at Bethzatha, he moves into discourse. Jesus roams, the camera roams to convey a sense of action and drama, but the text is meditative. It is the same with the long chapter 6 on the bread of life. The feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water take the audience back into drama but then there is more discourse on the bread of life. The hostility of many of the disciples to this teaching gives the discourse some edge.
Discourse is the main focus along with controversy with the religious authorities about the authenticity of Jesus’ teaching and claims from chapter 7 to chapter 12. These are interrupted (welcome interruptions) by the story of the woman taken in adultery, which is treated quite straightforwardly according to the text, although Jesus shows a winning and smiling side as he sends her off without condemnation and the urging to sin no more (chapter 8). The story of the man born blind (chapter 9) is one of the best dramas in the whole Gospel with quite a number of speaking parts (which is how it is best communicated in liturgical reading).
The scene shifts from the Temple to the man washing at the pool of Siloam, back into the Temple, then to the Sanhedrin where the man and his parents are interrogated by the chief priests and Pharisees. This confirms in the viewers’ minds who Jesus’ antagonists are, especially Caiaphas.
An advantage of images is that they can be filmed as background to Jesus’ sayings. He walks amongst sheep in chapter 10, the Good Shepherd chapter. In chapter 15, during the last discourse, he can walk through vines in a vineyard on his way to Gethsemane and speak of his being the true vine. Chapter 11 is another dramatic example of the signs and wonders, the death and the raising of Lazarus, the narrative giving a setting for Jesus telling Martha that he is the Resurrection and the life. This continues in chapter 12 with the banquet at the house of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, with Mary’s washing Jesus’ feet with ointment and wiping them with her hair. At last we see Judas and hear his comments about selling the ointment for the poor. He gives a particularly arresting tone to his uttering three hundred denarii—it will not be long before he accepts thirty.
The Last Supper, the Last Discourse, the Passion
Chapter 12 is the preparation for the Passion: Caiaphas making his statement about one man dying for the good of the nation; Jesus saying about the grain of wheat dying in the ground before it produces fruit; Philip bringing the Greek visitors to see Jesus; Jesus saying he will draw all people to himself when he is lifted up; the roll of thunder that seems like the voice of God approving Jesus. Once again, the camera combines movement and contemplation as Jesus speaks and the crowd listens.
With John’s version of the Last Supper, the emphasis is not Eucharistic (that has been the topic of the long chapter 6). Rather, this is at last Jesus’ hour to be glorified and for him to glorify the Father (foreshadowed in the changing of water into wine at Cana). Jesus’ key action at the supper is the washing of the disciples’ feet and announcing the new commandment of love by which all would be known as his disciples: to love one another, just as Jesus himself loved. Judas goes out—and it is night.
For chapters 14–17, the long discourse of Jesus after the supper and his final prayer for his disciples, screenwriter and director chose to take it out of doors before the indications given at the start of chapter 18 of how they went through the Kedron valley to Gethsemane. Jesus and the disciples are on the way almost immediately. An interesting feature is that Mary Magdalene is present all the time, receives some close-ups as she listens to Jesus, and receives an individual blessing along with the other apostles.
The discourse can then be broken, visually, by the walk through the vineyard, through the tunnels of Jerusalem to the garden. When the screenplay gets too word heavy, there are many flashbacks, in fact, recapitulating the whole film. Intercut at once is the procession of soldiers and the crowd led by Judas toward Gethsemane. This gives the film a dramatic drive just when the text slows to mystery and mystical contemplation and prayer.
In the aftermath of The Passion of the Christ, most Passion dramatizations might seem somewhat slight. In John’s Gospel, chapters 18–19, Jesus is scourged (here there are nine lashes some of which we see) and crowned with thorns, but when Pilate does bring Jesus out to the crowds, there is not much blood visible, some spatterings on Jesus’ face that look more the result of makeup than torture. The core of the Passion narrative is the dialogue with Pilate, which is presented dramatically, and the release of Barabbas as the crowds call out for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus’ death is presented reverently. Mary appears briefly at the foot of the cross, along with John and Mary Magdalene. The pace of Jesus’ dying goes with the Gospel text and is brief—with attention given to the piercing of Jesus’ side.
Resurrection
After the burial by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, the Resurrection narrative of chapter 20 moves quickly as well, apparitions to Mary, the eleven, and then to Thomas. There is a longer treatment of the added chapter 21, which again has narrative interest and moves outdoors to the Sea of Galilee and the apostles fishing, Peter swimming to shore to Jesus. The threefold profession of love is presented rather quietly, all seated around the breakfast fire. When they all rise and Peter’s death is foretold, there is a momentary visual flash forward showing Peter’s death while the image freezes on John as the final words of the Gospel are spoken.
Watching The Gospel of John in one sitting is very difficult since it is so long. While the visualizing of some of the Gospel narratives is helpful—and Cusick’s Jesus combines the traditional style of dignified stature more than a cut above ordinary people with the more recent emphasis on genial humanity—so much of the Gospel is meditative, long reflective passages. The film is probably best seen, not in one sitting, but rather in sections, so that the audience has time and powers of concentration to appreciate it. The individual scenes could well be presented as the reading of the Gospel. One of the strengths of an actor like Cusick speaking the discourses of Jesus is that he speaks them with acting flare, intonations, and pauses, bringing them to life and meaning better than the usual proclaimer of the Gospel.
The Passion of the Christ
The world and the film industry were surprised (the industry was astonished) by the commercial popularity of Mel Gibson’s The Passion with Jim Caviezel as Jesus. It focused on the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life and drew both on the Gospel texts as well as the writings of a German mystic favored by Gibson, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who, from her prayer (her “visions”) gave detailed descriptions of what she saw of the Passion. Gibson opted for Latin and Aramaic dialogue, wanting the audience to focus on the visuals of Jesus’ suffering.
Anti-Semitic? Too Sadistic?
The immediate response from some Jewish scholars as well as Catholic (basing their comments on a draft of the screenplay) was that the film was anti-Semitic. This raised issues both of how John’s Gospel spoke of “the Jews” and their responsibility for Jesus’ death and of the Matthew text (27: the “blood curse” on the Jews present and their descendants). The long traditions of Christians accusing Jews of being “Christ-killers” played their part in the debate. While the Catholic church apologized for the long persecutions and anti-Semitism in a Second Vatican Council document (1965) and Pope John Paul II visited the wailing wall in 2000 and inserted his own prayer in a crevice, questions about Jesus’ death as being part of God’s plan and how the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, fit into this plan, continue to be raised.
While Gibson continued to work on editing the film during 2003, several of the religious leaders who saw versions of The Passion thought that it was not anti-Semitic but that many audiences would find the visual depictions of Jesus’ suffering and death too vivid and disturbing.
For over a year before the release of The Passion of the Christ—on Ash Wednesday, February 25, 2004—there was worldwide discussion and quite some controversy based on the apprehensions about how the film would be made as well as on sensitivities about Jewish-Christian history, anti-Semitism, and current dialogue between Judaism and the churches, especially in the United States.
The Passion of the Christ had been a long-cherished project of actor-director Mel Gibson. Gibson’s Catholic affiliation and his support of traditional Catholicism, with the influence of his very outspoken father, was another controversial factor in the discussions. Early screenings of The Passion as a work in process offered opportunities for church leaders and Christians involved in media to see the actual film, offer their opinions, and dialogue with Mel Gibson. There seemed to be a general consensus that the film was not anti-Semitic. Some Jewish leaders and reviewers like Michael Medved spoke positively about the film. Several heads of Vatican offices saw a show-reel of the film and spoke in favor of the film, including Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and Cardinal Dario Castrillon of the Congregation for the Clergy, who issued a statement urging all priests to see the film. Cardinal Walter Kasper received comments from Jewish leaders and issued a statement that the Vatican at large was not recommending the film and that any recommendation would depend on people seeing the completed film. This was the stance of many religious leaders in the United States, including the American Bishops Catholic Conference.
Early Christian-Jewish Antagonism
As regards the Jewish-Christian issues and the explicit language about the Jews in the Gospels, especially that of St. John, it is important to realize that the more formal, “official” antagonism between Christians and Jews emerged in the early decades of the second century. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John emerged from Jewish communities. Luke’s Gospel draws strongly on the Jewish scriptures, interweaving biblical references and motifs throughout the text. The clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time was a clash within Judaism, a religious controversy about the Messiah (of which there were a number in this period) and Jesus’ claims. Disciples who became Christians accepted his claims. Many religious leaders amongst the priests and the Pharisees did not. There were other converts like Paul, who was proud of his Jewish heritage and who took a strong stance about disciples of Jesus not being bound by details of Jewish law. It has been difficult, given the centuries of antagonism and the experience of repression and persecution of Jews by Christian, and Catholic, communities to enter into the context of Jesus’ time and the mentality of the period.
Biblical Background
The Passion of the Christ draws its narrative from each of the four Gospels, for instance, the quake and the rending of the Temple from Matthew, the fleeing young man from Mark, the women of Jerusalem (here, Veronica and her daughter) from Luke, and the Pilate sequences on truth from John. This linking of incidents in one narrative is the way in which the Gospel stories were remembered and written down. There is some material drawn from the later legendary stories and apocryphal Gospels (Veronica and her veil, Desmes the “bad” thief).
One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians who are not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be critiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels. They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned. This is a danger for The Passion of the Christ. It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a “version” of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.
This use of the four Gospels means that there are different perspectives on the Jews of the time in each Gospel. Matthew’s Gospel presupposes detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and sees Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy—hence the more “apocalyptic” scenes at his death. Mark and Luke look on from the outside, Luke writing for readers familiar with Greek and Roman ways of storytelling. John’s Gospel from the end of the first century echoes the roots of Christianity in Judaism but acknowledges the growing rift.
The screenplay is able to combine Gospel incidents into a coherent narrative of the Passion with selected flashbacks to Jesus’ infancy and life at Nazareth. The action of the Passion is intercut with brief scenes of Jesus’ fall as a child and his mother picking him up, his making a table in the carpenter’s shop, his relationship with his mother, and his playful sprinkling of her with water as he washes his hands. These are the screenwriters’ inventions in the spirit of the Gospels. There are also flashbacks to Mary Magdalene’s past where she is combined with the woman taken in adultery of John 8:1–11, to Peter and his protests of loyalty, to the Last Supper. There is a flashback to the palm welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem during the heckling of the crowd on the way to Calvary. There is dramatic development of characters like Pilate and his wife, Simon of Cyrene, the centurion, the good thief, and the thief who reviles Jesus (with retribution seen in the form of a vicious crow attacking him). Of interest is the portrait of Satan, the Tempter, who appears early as an androgynous character, visual suggestions of female but male voice, growing more obviously feminine as the film progresses and finally appearing at the Crucifixion (with a visual technique reminiscent of William Wallace seeing his loved one at his execution) carrying a child. Once again, this is imaginative license in interpreting Jesus’ being tempted and tested.
As with most Jesus films, much attention is given to Judas. His motivations are not made explicit in the film. It relies on audience knowledge of Judas. The film portrays his action in Gethsemane and subsequent dismay and return of his thirty pieces of silver. It introduces a theme of children meeting Judas and taunting him as he goes to his death.
Theological Background: The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus
The Passion of the Christ generally follows the approach to the person of Jesus used by the Synoptic Gospels, a “low” Christology, a focus first on the humanity of Jesus and moving toward an awareness of his divinity. When the film uses John as a source, it reflects that Gospel’s “high” Christology, the presupposition in the narrative that Jesus is divine and expresses this divinity in word and action. The Synoptic approach is seen in the flashbacks of incidents before the Passion as well as in the main events of the Passion, the Agony in Gethsemane, the treatment of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and Herod, the scourging and crowning with thorns, and the way of the cross and the Crucifixion itself. The Johannine approach is found in Jesus’ declaration of his being the Son of Man at his trial (which is also in the Synoptics) and the discussions with Pilate about truth and about Jesus’ kingdom.
This means that, theologically, the film presents the perennial teaching that Jesus, in his person, was both human and divine in nature.
The humanity of Jesus is often presented in a striking manner: Jesus working in Nazareth; the experience of deep human pain in his agony, scourging, falling on the way to Calvary; the nailing and his experience on the cross. It is there in his dignity at his trial, in his composure with Pilate and Herod. The film also highlights Jesus’ human anguish of soul and sense of abandonment in his agony and on the cross, along with his profound surrender to the Father.
While the Jesus of cinema is usually slight and slender in build, Caviezel is big and strong, with some girth, a credible carpenter and a solid man. This makes the film’s Jesus more real than usual.
Theological Background: The Resurrection
Some commentators criticize a film that focuses on the Passion for its meager treatment of Jesus’ Resurrection. (This was a criticism in the 1960s and 1970s of Jesus Christ Superstar.) Theologically, the Passion makes sense only in the light of the Resurrection.
While Mel Gibson’s film wants to immerse its audience in the experience of the Passion, the final sequence has the stone rolled over the tomb. The stone is rolled away, the cloths wound around Jesus’ body are seen collapsing and the camera tracks to Jesus in profile, sitting in the tomb as a prelude to his risen life. These are the images with which the audience leaves the theater. The Resurrection, presented briefly, is still the climax of the Passion.
Theological Background: The Eucharist
There are flashbacks to the Last Supper during the Passion, especially to Peter protesting that he would not deny Jesus and to Jesus washing the disciples’ feet.
One of the major theological strengths of the film is the insertion of the Eucharistic scenes of the Last Supper during the nailing and the lifting up of Jesus on the cross. As Jesus offers the bread as his body, we see the body that is painfully broken and given for us. As he offers the wine as his blood, we are only too conscious of the bloodletting, blood poured out for us. Jesus tells his disciples that there is no greater love than laying down one’s life for friends—and we see it in its fullness. He tells them to celebrate the Eucharist so that his Passion and death will be present to them.
In this way, the screenplay highlights both aspects of the Eucharist: the celebration of the meal and the sacrifice of Jesus.
The Place of Mary
Mary has a strong presence in The Passion of the Christ. She appears as a woman in her forties, striking rather than beautiful. She appears in two flashbacks. Her demeanor is serious. She says very little. With Mary Magdalene and John, she follows the Passion and the way of the cross without any of the histrionics that characterize a number of portraits of Mary, especially Pier Paolo Pasolini’s mother in The Gospel according to St. Matthew (who was more like a real Jewish mother, it was suggested by a Jewish mother, than Mary played by the Jewish Maia Morgenstern). At one stage, she wipes the blood of Jesus on the praetorium floor after his scourging. She kisses his bloody nailed feet. The bond between mother and son is suggested several times by significant eye contact rather than words. The request for John to take care of Mary is included. After Jesus is taken down from the cross, she holds him in a Pietà tableau. She gazes intently at the camera and at the audience as the camera withdraws from the scene.
Most audiences should be satisfied with the portrayal of Mary. Those who find some of the cinema representations of the past too much like holy cards or plaster statues will appreciate a more biblically grounded Mary.
Realism and “Naturalism”
One of the principal intentions of the director and his co-screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, is to immerse audiences in the realism of the Passion of Jesus. Caviezel was chosen to play Jesus; the only other name performer is Italy’s Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene. Caviezel was the same age as Jesus when the film was shot. As mentioned earlier, he is a believable human Jesus, a big, solid workingman who was able to stand up to the terrible sufferings of the Passion before he died.
One of the controversial aspects of the film was the early decision to have the film’s dialogue in Aramaic and Latin with no subtitles. The language decision was followed through and works well, but we needed the subtitles, many of which are quotations from scripture. But, there is no distraction in hearing anachronistic American or British voices and accents. Rather the audience hears what conversation was like in those days. It is helpful to be reminded that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English!
A useful distinction to be made is that between “realism” and “naturalism.” The latter refers to filmmaking that portrays action as it is, home movies being a popular example, as is footage shot for newscasts. Realism is filmmaking that helps audience have a genuine feel for what is happening on the screen, as if it were real. A number of cinematic devices, such as the style of different compositions for the screen, the types of shots, and the pace of the editing can be used to give this impression of realism.
Mel Gibson has opted for much of his film to be naturalistic. He has plenty of time available and is in no hurry to take us away from the picture of Jesus’ suffering. Perhaps a number of people in the audience will find the scourging (in two grim parts) too much to watch. This is a matter for sensibilities and sensitivity as well as cultural differences. With most of the characters being portrayed in a naturalistic way, the action seems authentic. However, Gibson is able to use cinematic devices that alter perceptions, helping us to realize that we are seeing a particular version of the Passion, as all of us do when we listen to the Passion narratives and use our imaginations. He frequently uses moments of slow-motion filming to make us dwell on a particular moment. He uses a musical score with a wide range of orchestral and choral tones.
This naturalism is seen in the confrontation in Gethsemane, at Jesus’ trial, with the scourging and the crowning with thorns, and, especially, during the way of the cross as Jesus struggles with the cross, falls with thudding impact, is nailed, and the cross is raised. The stylization is seen in the close-ups, with the differences in lighting (Gethsemane blue, the confined space of the high priest’s court lamp-lit, the broad daylight of the way of the cross), in the framing of the characters with memories of the traditions of Christian painting, in the lighting and some of the tableaux, in the passing of time as Jesus hangs on the cross, in his death and the apocalyptic aftermath, and in the intimations of the Resurrection.
This offers a credible picture and understanding of Jesus. Gibson has introduced some effective elements to reinforce this. For instance, in the garden, Jesus is hit in the eye and from then on and during the trial, he has the use only of one eye; when Jesus is able to open his injured eye, Gibson makes a great deal of his ability with eye contact—with Pilate, with his mother, and with John at the foot of the cross, simply looking at Jesus and nodding as he agrees to care for Mary.
Dramatically, familiar Gospel characters are briefly developed, which helps the narrative: Peter, Judas, Pilate, Pilate’s wife, Simon of Cyrene, Herod, and the two thieves crucified with Jesus. Veronica is introduced as she watches Jesus pass and wipes his face with her cloth—but Gibson shows restraint by letting us see her holding the cloth and, if we look closely, suggestions of the outline of Jesus’ face can be glimpsed. The Roman soldiers are also vividly dramatized: the brutes at the scourging with their sadistic commander, the drunken soldiers mocking and brutalizing Jesus along the way and on Calvary, the more sympathetic centurion. The key figure who has powerful dramatic impact in every Jesus film is Judas. The taunting of the tormented Judas and the children pursuing him to his death is dramatically effective.
The Passion of the Christ offers a credible, naturalistic Jesus whose sufferings of body and spirit are real. At its release, it was difficult to predict what impact it would have on those who are not believers. For those who believe, there was the challenge of seeing pain and torture, which are easier to read about than to see, but there was also the satisfaction of experiencing familiar Gospel stories in a different way.
After a Year
One of the interesting features of re-viewing the film a year and more after the initial controversy is that the film seems stronger. Sensitive to the criticisms that the film was anti-Semitic, many thought that the appearances, especially of Annas and some of the Sanhedrin, seemed like caricature villains (though they are less obvious than in some of the better-known Jesus films). This does not seem to be the case upon subsequent viewing. Trying to hear whether the “blood curse” of Matthew’s Gospel was spoken by the leaders and the crowd, we hear only a murmur, no distinct words.
Mel Gibson responded to comments during 2004 that The Passion of the Christ was too brutal and bloodthirsty for some audiences and many potential viewers said that the reports of the visual violence influenced their decision not to see the film. Gibson recut the film so that it was six minutes shorter. More accurately, he “trimmed” his film with the hope that it would find the audience who did not see it originally and that it would receive a lower age classification this time, making it accessible to younger audiences. In fact, the British Board of Censors, which gave the film an 18+ rating in 2004, gave the recut version a 15+ certificate (whereas 15+ was the classification given to the original version in Ireland).
In fact, the recut version seems very little different from the original cut. The alternate images of Mary during the scourging and the lessening of the loud impact of the whips means that this sequence, though still very strong, does not seem quite so “over the top.” The way of the cross seems unchanged—except for a lessening of the impact of the crow’s attack on the unrepentant thief.
Reception in Other Countries
The film was screened in many Asian countries. As might be expected, it was very popular in the Philippines, the Catholic country of Asia, a country with a Hispanic religious tradition that has followed the devotional aspects of Catholicism with great emotion, even passion. In some areas, there are vividly physical re-enactments of Christ’s Passion. This audience has very little difficulty in responding straightforwardly to the strong presentation of Jesus’ suffering.
However, the film was successful in unexpected areas. It broke box-office records in Dubai, where the population is 85 percent expatriate, many from the Philippines but also from Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan. Lebanon was another country where it drew large audiences.
In Hong Kong, where the Catholic Audiovisual Office prepared the Chinese subtitles, it was showing on twenty-seven screens during Easter weekend 2004. The distributors limited the screenings in Bangkok to six (with the Catholic office again preparing the subtitles) but they were immediately booked out, and so another four performances (with discussion following) were permitted.
The situation was different in neighboring Malaysia where the religious and legal climate did not permit public screenings. Audiences watched the film on pirated copies—pirating is something of an industry in this part of the world.
Issues of anti-Semitism are not prevalent in most countries of Asia.
The film, as might be expected, was very popular in Latin America. It was very strong in Brazil with its population near to that of the United States. Once again, the Hispanic and Iberian religious traditions and sensibility mean that audiences are immediately “on the wavelength” of this kind of film. The violent sequences do not seem out of place as they do in more reserved European cultures. Rather, audiences identify with the experiences of Jesus and his suffering. It was said in the 1970s that South America was the region where Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth was most popular. Many church leaders were supportive of the film.
One difficulty that emerged in Western comment was that the theology and spirituality underlying the film were inferior to those of more developed cultures, which sounds somewhat patronizing, even colonialist.
Europe was the region of the world where there was the greatest diversity in response to The Passion of the Christ. It was well received in Eastern European countries, especially Poland. Perhaps it was a heritage of religious persecution in the twentieth century that led audiences to identify more with the sufferings of Jesus. Opinion differed in Western European countries. Italy, Spain, and Portugal saw strong audiences. However, in France, there was a mood of hostility toward the film: American, religious, violent. In Germany and Benelux, the violence was considered far too much for its audiences, and the film was disliked by critics and some religious leaders, although many popular audiences went to see it. It was more successful in Ireland and, despite generally hostile criticism in Britain, The Passion of the Christ was top of the box-office chart for two weeks. Release was spread out through Europe—earlier in Lent in Italy, capitalizing on fervor, later in Lent in Britain, where it caught religious interest as Holy Week approached.
Different Christian groups in Europe contributed to an appreciation of the film from a religious standpoint. A German Protestant group prepared a book of reviews reflecting the wide range of opinion. In England, a group prepared a booklet of questions and answers about the film and about the Gospels. It was distributed at many of the cinemas screening The Passion of the Christ.
The issue of the violence of the film and the brutality depicted has caused a great deal of media debate and prevented a number of people seeing the film, fearing they would not be able to watch and bear the violence. Had the film been about any other person but Jesus, would the film have been made like this and allowed to be shown?
Practically everyone who saw The Passion of the Christ in 2004 felt compelled to mention the scourging and its brutality whether they admired the film or not. In retrospect, it seems somewhat strange that so much comment was made on what people saw in those nine minutes and comparatively little on the flashbacks, which were so well placed to give a wider perspective on Jesus’ personality as well as his ministry and which, in dramatic terms, relieved the intensity of the torment.
The sight of blood has varying effects on different people. There are some robust sensibilities that are not so disturbed by it. Blood has been part of their history. There are other sensibilities that are more fastidious about the sight of blood. This seems to be the case in Western Europe where there has been a tradition for some decades to enforce tighter controls on depictions of violence (in contrast with a more liberal attitude toward the depiction of sexual behavior). Mel Gibson’s career came into focus in this regard—his action films such as the Lethal Weapon series and others, as well as his depiction of the battles and death of William Wallace as Braveheart. He was considered as too bloodthirsty. Some reviewers referred to his “zealot’s rapture” for the Passion and as indulging in sadomasochism.
This is what many saw: because they felt that the violence was over the top, it seems to have prevented them from seeing so much more that was in the film. The caption at the opening of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53, the suffering Servant of Yahweh. The Servant songs of the Book of Isaiah are the peak of redemptive theology in the Jewish scriptures: the innocent Servant who is prepared to be the innocent lamb led to the slaughter bearing the sins of others in vicarious suffering. Vicarious suffering has always been acknowledged and admired as complete self-sacrifice. The Jerusalem Bible translation includes the phrase to describe the impact of the suffering Servant on those who witnessed his suffering: “they were appalled on seeing him.”
“Appalled” is the biblical word, and that is what Gibson wanted in his audience. Jesus’ suffering and death are shocking. Perhaps too long an easy spirituality and sanitized art has prevented us from being appalled.
It is surprising to read the Passion account in Matthew’s Gospel and note how much detail of the screenplay is taken from that text. Dramatically, many sequences are just as effective: Peter and his protestations, his drawing of his sword, his denials in the jostle of the courtyard, and his weeping and confession to Mary; the significance of Judas, his going to the authorities, Gethsemane, his bewilderment in the courtyard, his torment by the children, and the rotting corpse of the donkey as he hanged himself; the support of Simon of Cyrene, who is taunted as being a Jew.
Caviezel’s screen presence is strong, a well-built man who could endure so much suffering. His quiet gentleness, smiles, and humor in the flashbacks are a welcome counterbalance to the suffering. Morgenstern’s performance and presence as Mary made a great impact originally and retain their power, both her strength in grief and the moment when she weeps.
San Pietro
San Pietro (Saint Peter) is a 2005 Italian television production with Omar Sharif as Peter. It’s a film reverent in tone that opens with Peter’s Gospel encounters with Jesus and then moves into the early decades of the spread of Christianity. Running for three hours, it received better reviews from Catholic countries whereas some Protestant and evangelical viewers from the United States complained that the film was too Catholic, especially in its treatment of Peter’s leadership and the place of Rome in the church. Director Giulio Base had also made television movies about St. Maria Goretti and St. Pio, better known as Padre Pio.
During the opening credits, Jesus is glimpsed on the cross, with John and a howling Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross. The early part of the film goes back to the Last Supper (da Vinci again) and a discussion about Peter and his life. With Peter absent from the Passion except for his three-times denial (seen later in flashback), the film shows Jesus’ burial process and the work of Mary, mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene. However, Peter goes to the tomb and sees the light of the risen Jesus. He is the strength of the apostles who are full of fear and confusion after the death of Jesus.
A great deal of attention is given to the episode in John’s Gospel, chapter 21, when Peter and others are out fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus appears. Peter leaps into the water to greet Jesus. The episode of Peter’s commission to feed Jesus’ lambs and sheep is highlighted. At the end of Peter’s life, there is a flashback to the scene in Matthew 16, where Peter is called the rock on which Jesus will build his church. Peter dies crucified like Jesus.
Color of the Cross and Color of the Cross 2: The Resurrection
Advertised for U.S. distribution in October 2006, Color of the Cross indicates a new direction for the Jesus film: Yeshua as black with issues of racism behind his Passion and death. As Mary asks Joseph after Yeshua is taken, “Is it because he is black?” Joseph gives his answer: “No, it is because he is the Messiah.” The staging of the Gospel sequences follows the visual tradition of the American Jesus films, and they are recognizable. The difference is in the way that the camera tracks and focuses on the black Jesus.
The information on the film’s website, along with a trailer, states:
This powerful, epic film vividly portrays the last 48 hours of the life of Jesus Christ and challenges commonly held assumptions about Him. With moving performances from Jean-Claude LaMarre (Malcolm X) and Debbi Morgan (Woman Thou Art Loosed), this stirring film is a triumph!
The first depiction of Jesus as a black man, Color of the Cross is also the first to suggest that the Crucifixion could have been racially motivated. A compelling script and astounding interpretations of The Bible make this daring masterpiece an achievement not to be missed. With its inspiring, unconventional approach to an emotionally volatile issue, Color of the Cross presents a fresh perspective on the history of Christianity and delivers as moving a portrait of His life as has ever been put to film!
By portraying Jesus as a black Jew, this movie may appear controversial to some. However, it stands to be the single most positive image of a black lead character in a film to date. This film will undeniably resonate in the hearts and minds of the black community and strike a chord of inspiration in the hearts of Christians of all ethnicities around the world.
Color of the Cross tells a story that is familiar to most. The movie addresses four areas: Jesus and his disciples, the state of mind of the Romans occupying Judea, the issues facing the Rabbis in the Sanhedrin, and the family life of Joseph, Mary and their remaining children as they were affected by Jesus’ persecution.1
The movie opens with Jesus and the disciples approaching Jerusalem for the Last Supper and the film unfolds with the events leading up to Jesus’ capture and Crucifixion. This extensively researched film remains true to Biblical and historical facts.
The claim that this is the first black Jesus is not accurate. The South African Son of Man was released in 2006.
The reactions to Color of the Cross were mixed. Some alarming condemnations of making Jesus black can be found on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb). They come from bloggers. These commentators do not seem to be aware of the tradition of adapting the figure of Jesus to the culture of those re-telling the story. In the twentieth century, especially as a reaction against the white representations of Jesus and Mary, an abundance of Jesus images and Madonnas could be found—Aboriginal Madonnas, Japanese Madonnas with local features and garb, holding the baby Jesus similarly dressed.
There were also vehement comments about the liberties taken in the screenplay in diverging from the Gospel texts. The comments on moving away from Gospel detail were just as strong for Color of the Cross 2: The Resurrection.
The Resurrection opens with the Agony in the Garden and Jesus severely criticizing Peter’s inability to pray with him. During the credits there is a note that Yeshua is a radical interpreter of the Torah. In the background are voices recapitulating events of Yeshua’s life. In the Crucifixion sequence, shown at quite some length, Jesus is tied by rope to the cross, not nailed. He is alone (although reference is made to the two other men crucified). There is no one at the foot of the cross. His mother, Mary, returns home to find Joseph and her two sons, James and Jude, arguing whether Jesus was really the Messiah or had deluded himself, referring to 132 texts from the Torah that he had to fulfill. Mary challenges them by reminding them that Yeshua had given to them land that was his by right. Later, on the road to Emmaus, the disciples encounter a wise man who opens their eyes to the Resurrection.
Jean-Claude LaMarre’s Jesus is black but there is less emphasis in the screenplay on race as a political issue. On the cross, he is bearded. Risen, his head is shaven and he is beardless.
The running time of the film is comparatively short but there is quite some repetition from the first film. Jesus rises forty minutes into the film.
However, the writers, including LaMarre, have drawn on many texts, and they have a variety of characters (apostles, priests, and Pharisees) quote and explain them. Mary Magdalene offers a voiceover commentary as well as a flashback to Jesus’ kind treatment of her. Pilate features with the priests and the tomb guards and remarks to his wife that he wished he had washed his hands of the whole affair.
Judas features quite strongly, especially in the suicide sequence. When the other apostles come across his hanging body, they condemn him harshly.
The Resurrection is suggested by some hand movement under the burial cloths, then an earthquake and sight of the stone rolled away. Many of the Gospel Resurrection texts are used: the burial of Jesus by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea; the fear of the soldiers; Magdalene’s encounter with the angel at the tomb and with Jesus; much discussion among the apostles about what they should do; the apostles’ fears and Thomas’s disbelief. There are warm scenes where Yeshua’s mother and the Magdalene converse.
Production values and re-constructions are limited but often effective. During the final credits, the director takes the opportunity to go through key scenes yet again.
The Cross: The Last Hour of Jesus
A sixty-minute animated film by Cy Bowers (2005), which can be used as an installation experience. The technology is explained in the promotion material:
For the first time ever, an animated digital portrayal of Christ on the Cross has been created by DigiArt LLC.
This moving painting with optional sound tracks creates a unique and compelling experience of Christ’s suffering on the cross.
Two years in the making, The Cross is the result of the intense labors of a team of animators and digital artists. Virtually all animation sequences are seven or eight seconds long, while The Cross is an astounding one-hour shot containing 87,000 files.
The work began with digital paintings of the elements, and the figure of Christ was then wrapped like a skin over a three dimensional wireframe. Every wire in the wireframe was controlled by animation software, making it possible to convey even the slightest change of position. The figure, the cross, the clouds and the backgrounds were then all deftly composited into this extremely complicated digital work. The subtle movement creates an intense dynamism. The result is a new way of enjoying art, a living painting that moves. Glance at it and then return a minute or an hour later, and it’s a slightly different perception. Or watch it like a movie and be drawn into the almost mesmerizing real time experience.
Video artists of great skill have been supplying museums and wealthy patrons with digital video art for years. But this is first time a work of digital art is available at a very modest price for a wide range of consumers. The Cross plays on any DVD capable computer or through any DVD player to any video screen.
For a museum-like display, all that is necessary is a flat panel screen and a DVD player. If it is set up with a dedicated playback system, The Cross creates a jeweled renaissance style alter wherever it is placed.2
La Sacra Famiglia
Raffaele Mertes, who directed the Italian television series Gli amici di Gesu (The Friends of Jesus), also made a television film The Holy Family (2006), covering the infancy stories of the Gospels. This was the same year as the release of Catherine Hardwicke’s The Nativity Story. The show has a strong cast with Allessandro Gassman as Joseph, Ana Caterina Morariu as Mary, Franco Nero as Zachary, and Angela Molina as Elizabeth. It runs for two hundred minutes.
The Passion
This version of The Passion is the 2008 BBC/HBO series, an ambitious series which was shown during Holy Week 2008 in the United Kingdom and repeated on Easter Sunday afternoon before the last episode screened that evening. As with so many biblical films, it was made in Morocco, taking advantage of the Mediterranean locations, the desert, and buildings, which easily stand in for Judea. Directed by Michael Offer and written by Frank Deasy (who had a Catholic background), The Passion in fact did not focus solely on the events of the Passion as did Mel Gibson’s film. Rather, it opens with Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the donkey, and the first half of the film covers Jesus’ preaching and actions until the Last Supper. The second half begins with the Last Supper and has forty minutes on the Passion. The final thirty minutes are on the Resurrection. The cast would have been known to viewers of British television or the London stage. Jesus was played by Joseph Mawle (who was thirty-three when the film was in production).
Adapting the Gospels for Television
As with any version of Jesus’ life, it is “based on” the Gospels rather than an exact following of them; not even Pasolini’s Gospel according to St. Matthew did this. As the early Christian communities did, the filmmakers omit, add, and create dialogue and incidents. They interpret. This is the interesting point for the viewer, the challenge to the viewer’s ideas and presuppositions. The Passion screenplay certainly picks and chooses. It also creates some incidents and coincidences.
The style of the film is determined by television conventions using a great many close-ups, but the backgrounds add a touch of the spectacle without dominating. In most ways, the filming is visually traditional. The actors speak in a variety of British accents, although James Nesbitt’s Pilate has the actor’s natural Ulster accent, which is more than a little disconcerting and distracting. Pilate was a foreigner in Judea, but with such an accent?
In many ways, there is too much in the first half of The Passion. Many of the things that Jesus does did not take place in the Gospel texts during his final days. To that extent, the action seems crammed. Added to that is the inclusion of so many of the sayings of Jesus that preceded this week. It is a value to have these teachings spoken on-screen, but they come, one after the other, without enough time to absorb them and their meaning.
While the presentation is in the line of The King of Kings and the Jesus Project, what is always interesting and worth watching is what the filmmakers do with the familiar texts and how they interpret Jesus and the principal characters.
Here Jesus is very ordinary. At first, he does not stand out. In fact, he is only moderately charismatic or magnetic. The actor relies on an inner conviction and strength rather than dramatics, except when he throws the money changers and sellers out of the Temple, but this episode stands out in the Gospels themselves as not “typical” of Jesus. At first it is difficult to distinguish Jesus from the apostles, and the apostles, except for Judas, are not quite distinct until the Last Supper. The impact that Jesus makes is not instant. Rather, it is a cumulative effect until he is dying on the cross.
With the focus on the last week of Jesus’ life, the characters of interest are Judas, Pilate, and the religious authorities.
Pilate, Caiaphas, and Judas
Sequences with Pilate give some background to the Roman occupation, the contempt of the Romans for the Jews, and their lack of understanding and tolerance for Jewish religious beliefs and practices. Yet, Pilate has to keep the peace as well as watch his back at the court of the emperor. The spirit of Zealot revolt is also on Pilate’s mind. Barabbas, called Jesus Barabbas, is shown with his followers with their violence and rioting. Pilate’s wife is a strong influence on Pilate, and the film emphasizes the Gospel story where she has the dream of Jesus and tries to dissuade Pilate from executing him. But Pilate is capable of executing criminals without any compunction as we see when many are brought before him and he, almost offhandedly, condemns them to crucifixion.
This version presents a much more rounded portrait of Caiaphas than most Jesus films. He is played by Ben Daniels as a dominating religious leader who prides himself on walking the difficult path between his people and the Romans and keeping the peace in Judea. In that light, Jesus is a threat to peace. His followers are potential rioters who will antagonize the Romans. Jesus constantly refers to the Temple, speaks of destroying it and rebuilding it, and throws out the buyers and sellers. Caiaphas says that the only way Jesus can be saved is by his renouncing everything.
Caiaphas is shown as money preoccupied. His pregnant wife is the person who reminds him that Jesus is only one man and, therefore, expendable. Caiaphas is shown as acting according to his intuition for the political good (and, therefore, the religious good). He has many advisers in the Sanhedrin, some of whom challenge his stances, especially Joseph of Arimathea. His father-in-law, Annas, is much more conniving. Ultimately, Caiaphas is shocked by Jesus’ claims and uses all his diplomatic skills and cunning to persuade Pilate not to antagonize Emperor Tiberius and to crucify Jesus.
As with Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth, there is a fictional character who represents those who plotted against Jesus. This character is played by John Lynch as part police, part thug, part rabble-rouser. His vicious hitting of Jesus after his response to Annas is far more brutal than the “slap” of the Gospel.
Judas (Paul Nicholls) fits into this plan. He is caught up in the same ideas as Caiaphas and is presented as seriously concerned about Judea and what Jesus is doing. Judas has personal conversations with Jesus. He tells Jesus that they all believe. They want to. But Jesus answers, “When you look into your heart, what do you see?”
Judas says, “Forgive me, Lord.”
“You are forgiven. Now tell me what do you see inside?”
Judas has no answer. And Jesus says, “I’m, sorry, Judas.”
Judas feels that he is a true disciple but that he needs to speak with the authorities. With his role as the purse keeper and his rebuke of Mary anointing Jesus with the expensive ointment, his motives are mixed. When he betrays Jesus, he spits on those who give him the silver. They say they do not want to be in his debt and that he can give the money to the poor. At the Last Supper, Jesus sends him away before the breaking of the bread. “Judas, you have to go.” Judas hurries out, but in a surprising dramatic moment, he suddenly vomits in the street. Resigned to what he has done, Judas kisses Jesus in Gethsemane with some force but then collapses morally, drinking, encountering Barabbas, wandering the streets, finally coming to a well and using the rope for the bucket to hang himself down the well.
Disciples, Men and Women
These are the characters around Jesus who make much more dramatic impact than the apostles who appear as his group of followers and have more prominence at the Last Supper, with the washing of their feet and Jesus giving them the bread as his body—with some of them muttering that they do not understand what Jesus is doing. They join in the melee with swords in Gethsemane but, afterward, are shown fearful in the upper room, some wanting to go back to Galilee where they say they had a life, others sympathizing with Jesus’ fate. John rushes with Mary, Jesus’ mother, and Mary Magdalene to the foot of the cross.
The women play a not insignificant role during these days. Jesus’ mother is shown as aging and matronly, talking with Jesus privately after he comes out of the room where he is preaching. This invented sequence places Mary in her role as mother but also as stepping back. Jesus says that God asks everything of him and she touches him, “Is there anything I can do?” She is given some lines that led to controversy, indicating that she didn’t know what was happening until she felt the child in her womb: “I never asked for you. What if Joseph had said no?” She is seen in the upper room and, on the news of Jesus’ Crucifixion, hurries to Calvary. Her line is, “My beautiful son.” She screams and rushes to the cross, kissing Jesus’ feet. Jesus’ line is, “John would you look after her as your own mother. Mother, this is your son.” Jesus also adds, “Love one another.”
Mary Magdalene is shown as a close friend of Jesus, always present and supportive, especially as she says farewell to him after the Last Supper. The earlier part of The Passion has Jesus pass a brothel and encounter the “woman who was a sinner in the city.” She taunts but is struck by Jesus’ sincerity and is able to leave her work, feel affirmed, and follow as one of the disciples. When one of the apostles taunts her as Jesus is dying, saying that she will soon go back to work, she says strongly that she will not. She has a new life.
A Portrait of Jesus
And the portrait of Jesus himself? We first see him with the group and then riding triumphantly into Jerusalem, the crowds acclaiming him. He quotes many of the Gospel teaching passages, almost as conversation pieces in passing—the filmmakers presuming knowledge of these texts and their being able to absorb them as they are reminded of them, passages especially from the Sermon on the Mount about the law. Jesus also speaks of his Father and that the Father will never abandon him.
At times, he glimpses crosses already on Calvary. His character and mission are seen more forcefully when he encounters the prostitute and there is a raid on the brothel. The woman is initially defiant, saying “Plough, not preach.” But Jesus says to the woman, “You have suffered enough already, your sins are forgiven. Your faith strengthens mine.” He is also forceful in the Temple, calling the merchants a nest of criminals: “Is this how you honor God?” And then he goes into action against them.
Familiar episodes are introduced. A dwarf comes to challenge Jesus about paying the tax. Jesus kneels below the dwarf’s eye level and gives him the answer of rendering to Caesar and to God. When he tells the parable of the lost sheep, someone remarks that a shepherd would guard the ninety-nine and the lost one would come back. Joseph of Arimathea admires him, and Jesus asks him what is the greatest of the commandments. He speaks the parable of the vineyard while holding a child. Jesus also begins to attack the religious leaders along the lines of the condemnations of Matthew 23. He also begins to speak about destroying the Temple and raising it up again.
The Last Supper and the Agony in the Garden
As the week is coming to an end, Jesus is anointed by Mary with ointment and Judas makes his criticism. But then the time of Passover approaches, and Jesus sends Judas to buy a lamb for the sacrifice and for the upper room to be prepared for the supper. As they gather, there is a lightheartedness and jokiness about Galilee that we do not usually associate with this solemn meal. Jesus says, “I wanted to enjoy this last meal together.” He first washes the feet of the apostles with Peter protesting. The screenplay offers a précis of Jesus’ words after the supper: love one another, learn from me. But Jesus suddenly speaks in a more theological language: “This will be your sacrament. This will be how you will bring me back to you when I am gone.” Yet some of the apostles say, “I don’t understand” and “the wine can’t be his blood.” Jesus also tells them not to be too hard on themselves. They have to let him go. He adds, “Don’t hunt for the traitor.”
In his agony, Jesus first holds on to the trunk of a tree: “Is there another way? . . . Release me from this pain. Can you forgive me if I refuse this path? Your will. You give me nothing. No sign? Silence. I am begging you, release me from this.” After going to the disciples who excuse themselves for sleeping—“Forgive us, we’re just tired”—he prays again, this time face to the ground: “Give me strength to do your will, to be light to the world.” When Judas comes, Jesus greets him, “Peace be with you” (which he also says to Barabbas when they pass each other in the cells).
Passion, Death, and Resurrection
During the trial sequences, Jesus is silent, the camera focusing on his face. He is like a patient icon. While Pilate tries to save Jesus—“Truth is what men make it”—Caiaphas persuades him to condemn Jesus after the stirred-up crowd cry for Barabbas’ release. Jesus is scourged (only two strokes heard and the camera on Jesus’ face). He carries the crossbeam to Calvary, where a bystander tries to smooth his face and is thrust away by the soldiers. Jesus falls and there is a brief flashback to his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. He is nailed through his wrists. Again the camera focuses on Jesus’ face and his scream. He is taunted by one thief, comforted by the other. Jesus is shown as semiconscious. He refuses the wine, though the soldier tells him that it is easier to die when drunk and that he will be screaming for it later. When Jesus does scream later, the soldier says that he told him so.
The sky darkens. Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John arrive. When Jesus cries out, “My God, why have you abandoned me?” his mother cries out, “Jesus, no.” Joseph of Arimathea looks on. Jesus’ final words are, “Father, I give you my spirit. I love you with all my heart.”
After Jesus’ death, a considerable amount of attention is given to the burial of Jesus: Joseph of Arimathea, ashamed of not coming forward that morning and asking Pilate’s permission to bury Jesus; Caiaphas confronting Pilate about this; the taking of Jesus from the cross; the procession to the tomb; the guards (at whom Mary sneers as they warn her away) and the closing of the tomb. The drama of the faithless apostles is interesting and striking, bringing home just how weak their loyalty to Jesus was. With Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre, Peter and John running to the tomb, and the disciples walking and talking on the way to Emmaus, the drama uses the device of having a different actor portray Jesus when he is not recognized and Joseph Mawle appearing once Jesus is recognized. The final words of Jesus, spoken principally to Peter (an arresting theological emphasis), take place as Peter is caring for the sick and the poor where the infirm gather.
In some ways, this is a more reserved presentation of Jesus than an extroverted American drama or a more baroque and emotionally exuberant Italian version.
Mormon Jesus Films
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormons, have treated communication and communications as an important part of their ministry and evangelization. Although the Book of Mormon has some character and thematic links with the Jewish and Christian scriptures, it moves away from mainstream understanding of Jesus, his life, and his mission. It is not surprising that Mormon directors should make Jesus films.
Although in America, Helam witnesses the star heralding the birth of Christ, and 33 years later he faithfully awaits the promised coming of The Messiah despite persecution for this belief. Helam’s son, Jacob, is interested more in the ways of the world, including the lovely Laneah, and when his abilities as an artisan bring an offer to work for the wealthy and powerful Kohor, he jumps at the chance and is estranged from his father’s house. Kohor is plotting to destabilize the existing government and become the absolute ruler. In contrast, Amaron, a holy man, preaches to people of Christ, whose ministry and miracles are concurrently taking place across the seas in The Holy Land. As Jacob becomes more immersed in the secular life of Kohor’s house, Laneah becomes more interested in the humble faith he is forsaking. Her conversion to Christ, and the death of Amaron at the hand of Kohor’s men, brings Jacob to his senses, but he knows of Kohor’s plans and is imprisoned when he refuses to join the conspiracy. In Jerusalem, Jesus is crucified and the far away city of Zarahemla is plunged into darkness and destruction as Helam pushes through the crowds and ruins to help his son. All seems hopeless when he is blinded, has not found Jacob, and thinks his quest to see The Messiah has failed.3
Clearly, this is not a film that mainstream Christians or evangelical Christians would understand or approve of. It does not relate to known church history. However, it is very instructive to read the blog comments on the IMDb—mostly from the United States and specifically Utah and Salt Lake City, and mostly from Mormons or those sympathetic to the Mormons. As with some mainstream churches who use the Jesus movies in their services, a writer warns that some churches are doing this with The Testaments.
Notes
1. Fox Connect, “Color of the Cross: Description,” www.foxconnect.com/color-of-the-cross-dvd-widescreen.html.
2. PRWeb, “Digital Art Breakthrough by DigiArt LLC,” May 28, 2005, www.prweb.com/releases/2005/05/prweb245382.htm.
3. Brian Greenhalgh, “Plot Summary for The Testaments: Of One Fold and One Shepherd,” Internet Movie Database, www.imdb.com/title/tt0258247/plotsummary.