Afterword: More Than a Hundred Years of Jesus Films

In the late nineteenth century, audiences were eager to see devout representations of Jesus in the new medium of moving images. Short biblical and Gospel films were shown everywhere and were often used for religious instruction and inspiration.

With the coming of feature films and feature length in the second decade of the twentieth century, films like From the Manger to the Cross, Christus, and the Gospel sections of Intolerance drew on a reverent tradition and on the popular religious art styles of statues, pictures, and cards to dramatize Jesus, his life, and his preaching. With the silent filmmaking, actors relied on declamation for the captions and an overdramatic presentation. The theological and spiritual underpinning of these films was based on quite a literal reading of the biblical texts, with an emphasis on Jesus’ divinity underlying his humanity. This was the perspective of Cecil B. DeMille with The King of Kings in 1927, although he allowed himself and his writers some liberty in inventing facets for the familiar stories.

For whatever reason that national industries shied away from representing Jesus face-on and speaking from 1927 to 1961 (King of Kings), more than three decades of reticence followed, especially in the era of the development of sound, of color processes, and of wide-screen photography. Was it an overemphasis on Jesus’ divinity and not wanting to represent his ordinariness and humanity? This theology and spirituality kept audiences at a distance from Jesus when he reappeared in the 1950s, partially seen in films like The Robe and Ben-Hur.

However, away from the studios in the United States, members of evangelical churches and some Catholic producers were working on more direct presentations of Jesus, using the text rather literally but also being inventive on how to fill out details not included in the Gospels.

While the 1960s were a time of turmoil and change, Jesus at last was seen on the big screen, in color, and he spoke. This provided filmmakers with opportunities to be creative in their characterization and in their storytelling as well as to indulge in spectacle with “biblical-sounding” scores. However, the reading of the texts was still fairly literal, emphasizing the divine Jesus but opening up different ways of looking at him as a human being (though European rather than Semitic). Even Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Gospel according to St. Matthew uses a very literal reading of the text, using it as a screenplay, which makes it a stylized piece no matter how “realistic” it was intended to be in its stark black-and-white photography.

With the rethinking of Christian doctrine and practice in the 1960s, movements like the Jesus movement, and groups of charismatic prayer in mainstream churches and not solely in Pentecostal communities, there was room for a different kind of Jesus, the rock opera Jesus of Superstar and Godspell. These plays and films moved quickly into the audience consciousness (the films only twelve years after King of Kings), although many traditional Christians found it hard to come to terms with this singing Jesus.

But, it was the 1970s that saw the landmark films on Jesus. Franco Zeffirelli made his Jesus of Nazareth for television (and an edited version for the cinemas). This was not a literal interpretation of the Gospels. The background of Judea at the time was explained. The writers took note of biblical scholarship during the twentieth century and interpreted the texts according to the different literary forms and drew on their Hebrew references. Jesus of Nazareth was particularly popular in Catholic countries.

On the other hand, the Jesus film from The Jesus Project, which was released at the end of the 1970s, stayed with the more traditional image of Jesus and the literal use of the text. This interpretation has lasted for almost three decades and has had many new leases of life in its original form, in the many subtitled versions in Asian and African languages and in sections being used for particular focus versions, for instance, for children.

But, the freedom for filmmakers to present Jesus in different ways led to some arresting images (like those of Ken Russell in The Devils) or the possibility of humor (as in the Pythons’ Life of Brian). This was also the period of the early 1980s when VHS copies and machines were becoming more readily available. This also meant that more challenging images of Jesus could appear on-screen, testing beliefs concerning humanity and divinity, creating some uproar for those who thought these attempts were blasphemous, but stimulating, on the other hand, for those who wanted to study the Gospels in more depth. This was the impact of The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal in 1988.

The 1990s saw a proliferation of films and videos that were less for commercial entertainment than for edification and teaching. Anyone could operate a video recorder. This meant that there was a range of theology available from the most fundamentalist reading of the texts to imaginative interpretations.

The millennium, however, brought a new impetus to Jesus films in the mainstream. The television Jesus with Jeremy Sisto caught the imagination of many audiences with its more humane Jesus. Animation had been used at this time and The Miracle Maker showed how entertaining and instructive animation films could be.

Then, The Passion of the Christ. What was a personal enterprise (personally and professionally) for Mel Gibson became a byword for Gospel films and their impact on audiences (and on the box office). While many European commentators criticized the film for a seeming lack of attention to the Resurrection (and, therefore, an incomplete theology that emphasized the suffering and death of Jesus), audiences around the world responded and many, especially older audiences who were brought up in this kind of expiation spirituality, felt at home with the film despite the brutality of the scourging. Younger audiences also seemed to value a strong and suffering Jesus. With the release of The Da Vinci Code two years later (and with the millions who read the book), discussion about Jesus, whether grounded or not in the scriptures or in history, was open to everyone.

Mel Gibson has offered filmmakers not only a liberty to go in whatever direction they wish (for example, several films since with an African American Jesus) but an ever more alert audience of both believers and unbelievers (including many who are interested financially rather than because of faith). High-definition cameras and digital editing mean that almost anyone can make a Jesus film. Considering the Internet Movie Database list for Jesus as character and the entries since 2004 reinforces this. And with website outlets from YouTube on, some exhibition is the least of the filmmakers’ worries.

This book has suggested that directions already taken include documentary, presence in television series, a growth in horror films, satire, and spoof, as well as many serious films. Many of these films and clips are from independent filmmakers and student directors.

All of this means that, if these trends persist, there could be a need for another larger chapter on Jesus films before many years have passed.