Appendix 4: Interview with the Director of Jesus, the Spirit of God

What follows is a conversation between Nader Talebzadeh, Iranian director of Jesus, the Spirit of God (The Messiah), and me.

What interested you in making a film of the Messiah or about Jesus?

Very simple. It was the fact that the Muslim culture knows so much about Jesus and he’s one of the most important prophets. And, most important of all, we are awaiting the return of Jesus as Muslims. We believe in the end of times and we believe in God’s justice at the end of world history, and it will happen once two companions come back. This is the belief of Muslims. One is Jesus and the other is Matthew, the grandson of the prophet.

So this is an ordinary common belief and I think that Christians do not know that the Muslims have this belief about Jesus nor the fact that, especially in a country like Iran, Christians have been living among us all through the centuries. In fact, the first Christian church was built in Iran. The very first church was built in Yerevan, presently in Armenia, which was part of the Persian Empire. It existed within Iranian boundaries and after Islam they continued to exist in peaceful coexistence.

So you took as a basis for your screenplay the verses in the Koran about Jesus? And how much did you create from the text for the film?

Well, I took history and I used what is known in history—I incorporated the four Gospels and the Gospel of Barnabas, which I think is an interesting Gospel, and what is said in the Koran which is not contradicted by the Gospels—that is very important—I used that as the basis for the story.

Basically, it’s the same traditional story up to the end and I did not deviate from the main story, from the main storyline. There’s some different events that happened, there are different interpretations of some of those same chapters of the Bible. However, it’s the same storyline. And at the end, I put two endings: one, which is the Christian belief about the end of Christ and the other is the Muslim belief as interpreted by the Koran.

That was the interesting thing for me, that as I looked at the film and the Last Supper scene, and then Jesus goes into glory. And then am I right in thinking that Judas assumes the person of Jesus and goes to the Passion? But would you say a bit more about that, because that is new for us.

Yes. First of all, you saw the version that was in the Fajr festival in 2005. That has changed. Basically the same line, but at the end I first present the Christian ending where Christ is crucified. After that, I do the Muslim version of the end of Christ. And as you mentioned, yes, the person who betrays Jesus is the one who assumes the face of Jesus and he screams out that he is not Jesus, he is Judas, but no one listens to him and he’s taken into captivity and you have the rest of the story up to the Crucifixion.

I wanted to point to the fact that Jesus in the Bible mentions the fact that he who digs the well for me will fall into that well—will fall into that pit. And it’s also emphasized very strongly in the Koran that he was not killed. It appeared this way to people who thought that who they crucified was Jesus.

The Gospel of Barnabas clarifies this, saying it was Judas. Islamic interpretations are different—about ten or twelve different interpretations of who that person was. Some say he was a good disciple; some say he was a bad disciple. Different interpretations, but in this cinematic version, I used the Gospel of Barnabas. I mentioned this in the subtitle: according to the Islamic narrative and the Gospel of Barnabas.

In the main part of the film, leading up to the Passion, you portrayed some of the miracles of Jesus and an amount of his preaching which I suppose Muslims and Christians could easily identify with.

Yes, of course. Let me elaborate that in the television series which is coming after the feature is released—in ten parts—you will get in great detail the sermons of Jesus, the different sermons, the different teachings, different miracles that Jesus performs, in great detail. I think that will be very, very interesting.

The cinematic style you used—how Iranian is it and how much influenced by other cinema traditions?

I don’t think it’s very Iranian—at least that’s what people tell me. I shot a lot of it myself—did a lot of the camerawork myself, a lot of hand-held shooting. It’s influenced by European film directors whose films I saw as I was growing up. There’s also my documentary background. I’ve been doing documentaries a long time.

I really didn’t want to make a festival film. I wanted to make a film that would connect Christians and Muslims, or create dialogue between them. And I filmed it the best way I knew how to shoot.

There is a difference between this film and other films, according to people who have seen it. I have not put the film out yet in any festival because the film is, as we are speaking, being processed in the lab. I refused to let the early copy be released because it was not complete. What we added to the version you saw is the Christian ending, where we say it: this is what Christians believe. It is a more interesting way to do it.

In talking with people, I found that was precisely the thing they were interested in, the comparison. I want to ask about your actor who performed the role of Jesus and his style. It reminded me a bit, say, of Cecil B. DeMille’s King of Kings, much less of the more recent Jesus films which tend to emphasize his humanity. What were your perceptions on the character of Jesus and your direction of the actor?

The actor is from a mountainous area of Iran. He has been a hardworking artist all his life, a hardworking man, also a very ardent religious Muslim. He prays—as soon as there’s a call for prayer, he rushes to his prayer rug. I like that aspect of him. He’s a man who likes to pray. Also he’s never been seen in any film in Iran and he made a vow to himself that he would not act in any film afterwards. He is a nonprofessional actor.

We searched among the professional actors and we felt that his face looked very much similar to how the face of Jesus appears in church paintings and in the history of Western paintings of Jesus. Maybe that was a mistake; maybe I should have used a different actor with different complexion, for more drama. Instead, I chose something more documentary-like. The way he feels, the way he walks, the way he moves—I think he presented himself in a convincing way. I have never talked to anyone who is not convinced by his acting. They might not like the style, but I felt that he was the proper actor for this sort of contentious filmmaking.

In a way, that’s what Pasolini did with the Gospel according to St. Matthew. He took the amateur actor who gave an intense non-professional performance. Had you seen Pasolini’s film?

Yes, and I enjoyed that film very much. I still think it’s a classic film among religious films in world cinema.

When you spoke of your actor being a prayerful man, I was reminded of Mel Gibson’s choice of Jim Caviezel for Jesus. He is also a praying person. There seemed to be an intensity about Jim Caviezel, perhaps from his own personal life. Did you see The Passion of the Christ?

Yes, I not only saw The Passion of the Christ, I talked about it on television—four or five different programs, live and recorded. I spoke about it in different religious circles. I admired the film, even though it’s not the right story in Muslim belief. But it was done so passionately and with such conviction, it’s admirable.

Two or three nights ago I recorded an interview with guest, a very famous Ayatollah, an authority on cinema, and we talked about The Passion again and we were intercutting it with some images of the film. So The Passion is still a very live subject. I admire it. I think Gibson did something for Christianity and religion. He brought the subject alive again, which I think is an admirable thing.

You’re right, because one of the members of our jury in 2005 from Bangladesh said when he saw The Passion, it was the first time he understood the Christian interpretation.

The favorite image of Jesus on-screen, at least with Catholics is Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth with Robert Powell.

Yes, I also admire that film. I’m a fan of Franco Zeffirelli. I think he’s a great director and his Brother Sun, Sister Moon is a masterpiece. His Jesus of Nazareth, I thought, was a very good film, you know, made with conviction, and it was the longest film made in the West about Jesus. I like Zeffirelli’s style and tone. It affected me very much.

Now, this is prime time to interject with a different film, coming from Iran. Right now Iran is a controversial country and being blamed for many things, but I think a lot of people will be surprised that Iran has made a film about Jesus. It’s not a short film—it’s almost eight hundred minutes. Basically, we’re talking about creating an opportunity for talk between Christian and Muslim people and scholars.

It’s important for a film to be able to talk about it. I think that it is an effective enough film and I think due to the collaboration of a lot of artists it’s a strong enough film to create a backbone for a serious discussion.