• Bible Films Blog

    Looking at film interpretations of the stories in the Bible - past, present and future, as well as current film releases with spiritual significance, and a few bits and pieces on the Bible.


    Name:
    Matt Page

    Location:
    U.K.

    View my complete profile
    Contact me



    Saturday, August 12, 2017

    25 things to look out for on the blog


    I've decided it might be fun to give you a little run down of what the next few months (or maybe years) are going to have to have in stock. I usually resist this kind of nailng your colours to the mast exercise, but sometimes it's quite helpful and I htink now might be one of those times. If I'm ever going to get my book written I should probably get on with it. Plus there are other obligations I have to meet and things I want to cover, not least the three films based on the gospels that are due out before the end of the year. So here's a list of them, either to whet your appetite, or to help you steer clear for a while...

    Firstly there are 18 films

    Joseph in the Land of Egypt (1914)
    Salome (1922)
    Sodom and Gomorrah (1922)
    Samson and Delilah (1922)
    Lot in Sodom (1933)
    The Greatest Commandment (1939)
    Salome (1953)
    Barabbas (1961)
    Il Vecchio Testamento (The Old Testament) (1962)
    I Grandi Condottieri (Samson and Gideon) (1965)
    Jesus, Nuestro Senor (1971)
    Moses und Aron (1973)
    Jacob and Joseph (1974)
    Wholly Moses (1981)
    St. John in Exile (1986)
    Book of Life (1998)
    Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (2001)
    Noah (2014)
    Chasing the Star (2017)
    Mary Magdalene (2017)
    The Star (2017)

    Then there are three series I'll be continuing to dip into

    The Greatest Heroes of the Bible (1978-79)
    A.D. The Bible Continues (2015)
    Pioneers of African-American Cinema

    Then a few books

    "The Silents of Jesus in the Cinema" - David Shepherd et al.
    "Hollywood Biblical Epics: Camp Spectacle and Queer Style from the Silent Era to the Modern Day" - Richard A. Lindsay
    "Judas Iscariot: Damned or Redeemed" - Carol A. Hebron

    Lastly there's a piece on the Lion's Den that I need to write as well.

    This ridiculous optimist in me likes to think I could get this all done by New Year. More realistically this list is going to take a while to get through and other things will emerge before it's done. Perhaps Christmas 2018 is a more realistic target. Still it's good to have something to aim at...

    Wednesday, August 09, 2017

    Joseph in the Land of Egypt (1914)


    The story of Joseph is one that's never really benefited from a major Bible film, though the Joseph entry in The Bible Collection did win an Emmy back in 1995. For me, this is because the two climaxes to the story - Joseph's elevation to the role of Egypt's second in command, and his reunification with his father - have never been adequately fine-tuned and balanced. The literary version uses Joseph's sudden promotion as something of a mechanism to get the children of Israel into Egypt, the end of a lengthy prologue before the real story of the Hebrews starts in Exodus chapter 1.

    But that doesn't cut it for a movie version of Joseph's life, so films have tended to be caught between the peaking-too-early drama of Joseph's elevation from prison to governor and the actual ending but hard to develop moment when Jacob and his son are reunited. In between the two lies a complicated narrative where the brothers traipse back and forth between Canaan and Egypt, having tests/tricks played on them by their little brother before he finally gets his Dad and full brother Benjamin back by his side. For me, it's this that tends to kill the narrative. It's no coincidence that the most successful dramatisation of the story is Rice and Lloyd-Weber's musical Joseph and his Technicolor Dreamcoat which compresses this final act so that Joseph's elevation by Pharoah and his reunification with his father are in far closer proximity.

    At three and a half reels Thanhouser's Joseph in the Land of Egypt (1914) was relatively long for its day, but is short compared to later versions of the story meaning that whilst most of the to-ing and fro-ing is included, it doesn't take that long overall, even if the love Jacob has for his lost son is largely underdeveloped. This is not helped by the fact that the film's intertitles - in the version that remains on the Thanhouser Vimeo channel at least - tend to be lengthy scriptural quotations rather than something more emotionally stirring. That said, in places the biblical version of the story does contain some good lines, most notably Joseph's "lift up your head" pun when interpreting his fellow inmates' dreams, which the film wisely retains.

    But whilst the dialogue is rather stodgy, the filmmakers do manage to sex things up a bit, mainly in the form of Potiphar's wife. Here, she's a character I feel rather sorry for. The Joseph story is often seen as the climax of the story of the patriarch's Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but this story is a reminder of the other type of patriarchy. Mrs Potiphar is cast as the villain of the piece and the archetype for the seductress attempting to derail the virtuous hero from his quest. It's no coincidence that Potiphar's wife is the last woman encountered in the book of Genesis, forming a matching pair with the first woman of the book, Eve.

    Two points in this regard are particularly interesting. The first is the fact that whilst the wife has tended to be portrayed as am older cougar type, preying on her young buxom servant, here she is very attractive, particularly when compared to some of the actresses that were playing other supposed biblical beauties such as Judith or the Queen of Sheba at the time. She is clearly taken with Joseph right from her first sighting of him in the slave market (above) where she nudges her husband to make sure he buys him.

    The other is later in the film, when she is shamed before Pharoah for her actions. This is a rare insertion into the text, but one that highlights that gulf between her and Joseph that now exists. Joseph is the victor and it is lauded over his former accuser. And this, perhaps inadvertently, reminds us that history, even biblical history, is usually written by the victors. Ultimately Joseph triumphs over Potiphar's wife and accordingly the Bible's account of what happened very much flatters and favours him rather than her (she started it, he resisted, she falsely accused him). It's not inconceivable is it that what really happened was less black and white.

    The other thing that is striking in this film is the use of dream sequences and flashbacks. Whilst this was hardly unknown in cinema at this stage, it was realtively innovative for a biblical film. The first occasion of this is in the dungeon when Pharoah's cup-bearer tells Joseph his dream. The sequence is hardly elaborate, it's a close up of the vine which, after what seems like quite a while, the cup bearer enters to pick some clusters of grapes. Yet the closeness of the shot and the inital absence of humans in it gives it a distinctly different feel from the rest of the film. It feels more credibly dreamy than many of the dream sequences that are produced today, perhaps because it is so simple and primitive.

    Not disimilarly is the moment we witness a flashback which the camera indicates is taking place inside Joseph's head. Again the sequence is simple and Joseph's recollection of his father's love is far from overwrought. Instead the naturalistic, low key acting and the simplicity of the shot are the most emotionally true moment of the whole film. The moment is recalled again in the final shot as with the family reunited Jacob's rests with his son's arm around him as if for all the suffering the pair of them have been through, it's Jacob's that has caused the greatest heartache. The point of the biblical narrative maybe to manouver him into the land of Egypt, but as far as the film is concerned it's a simpler story of a man who is finally reunited with the son he so deeply loved.

    Labels: ,

    Thursday, August 03, 2017

    A.D. (2015) - Part 2


    This is part 2 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here.
    As I noted in my initial post in this series A.D. doesn't rush straight into the book of Acts in the manner that I, at least, expected. This episode, for example, is the second in a series of only ten, and yet we've still not got into Acts yet - this episode ends with the Ascension. Whilst I imagine the filmmakers had hoped for further series, A.D. - The Bible Continues didn't; NBC cancelled it July 2015 and talk of a new channel which would carry content such as this has not (yet?) emerged. So for now the series looks to be left high and dry in Acts 11.

    This episode is particularly strange in this respect. There's a great deal of weight put on the episode in Matthew 28 with the soldiers at the tomb and an early example of attempting to "control the narrative". Guards are dragged to and forth, examined and cross-examined, beaten and eventually murdered whilst Pilate and Caiaphas scheme. It all becomes a bit tiresome, with the only point of interest the way that Pilate gradually turns from the noble and indecisive-but-thoughtful leader of episode 1 to the throat-slitting, blood-thirsty tyrant he becomes here. Caiaphas eventually becomes appalled by the man he is doing business with, although it will be interesting to see how this turns out when Saul arrives on the scene.

    Meanwhile though Jesus is still around making resurrection appearances. It's strange that some of plays second fiddle to the film's zealous attempts to hammer home Matthew's apologetic concerning the guarding of the tomb, to the extent that it skips over Luke's story of Jesus' appearance on the road to Emmaus. This has proved popular with other filmmakers and has led to some interesting interpretations.

    That said we do get John's story of the appearance on the shores of Galilee. This was the episode's high point for me. The beach that Jesus appears on is busy relative to how it's portrayed in the handful of other films that include this episode, where it is often deserted other than Jesus and the disciples. Given the time of day I think the approach here is a bit more likely and whilst it loses something of the intimacy of a meeting alone, I think it emphasises Jesus being someone who was out among the individual people and like the relatively natural way in which it's portrayed.

    If that's the best scene, it's equally clear which the worst scene and for the same kind of reason. The Ascension is something that is relatively rare, at least as something that is visualised rather than something that happens almost off screen. Relatively few films have portrayed this, though notable depictions include Pathé's Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1907), where Jesus is hoisted up to painted, hardboard clouds; the Jesus film (1979) where we get Jesus's point of view as the crowd disappears below him; Dayasagar/ Karunamayudu (1978) where Jesus becomes a massive figure against the night sky; and the flashing light disappearance trick of The Miracle Maker (2000). Here it's poorly executed CGI, which will only get worse as the film ages, and took me right out of the film. It's typical of these two series use of special effects - rather than doing something simple their budget could stretch to, they went for something spectacular that it couldn't.

    That said I'm kind of relieved to see the back of this episode's Jesus. Despite hanging around for two episodes the filmmakers haven't given him much to do, other than occasionally turning up smiling. Their interest mainly seems to lie in the fact that he is still around rather than in the person himself. It's not helped by the aesthetics. Whilst the dark-haired Jesus here is better than the blond from the original The Bible (2013) series, his look is far too bearded-Chippendale for my tastes. There's an attempt to roughen him up a little round the edges, but he's all oiled muscles, perfect teeth and shampoo-advert hair.

    However it's not just the visuals that are problematic, some of the dialogue in this episode is particularly poor. "Stay in the water like the eel you are" is one of the finer examples of bizarre phrases that feels neither historical nor modern day. In the opposite corner - dialogue that is meant to sound profound, but is actually pretty empty - was this: "We found nothing...and everything."

    In the next episode I'm hoping we get as far as Pentecost, either way I guess Peter will be the main character.  This is definitely a good thing as Adam Levy's performance so far has stood out in comparison to many of the others, and whilst this should be welcomed as a positive thing, it doesn't look too good if a humble fisherman is outshining the son of God incarnate.

    Labels:

    Wednesday, July 26, 2017

    Chasing the Star Getting a September DVD Release


    Back in June I compiled what I thought was a comprehensive list of films based on the Nativity. Within days I'd come across two further movies to add to the list which I have now updated.

    The first was 2010's Io sono con te (literally "I am with you", but released in English speaking countries as Let it Be), which I reviewed earlier in the month.

    The other was Chasing the Star, slated for release in September this year. It's the second in a trilogy of New Testament films written by DJ Perry, the first being last year's 40 Nights. The release date seems a little early for a film based on the events of the first Christmas, but I guess there are two issues which may have nudged things in that direction.

    Firstly, there is the fact that Sony have already announced their plans for the release of a major animated Nativity film called The Star featuring the voices of Oprah Winfrey, Christopher Plummer, Ving Rhame, Kris Kristofferson and Tracy Morgan amongst others. That's due for release in November, so I imagine there producers have thought both that it's best to get their film out there first.

    Secondly, it's possible that the filmmakers are hoping that from a small initial release they will be able to build an audience based on word of mouth, If that strategy is going to come to pass then they will need it to have a few weeks/months build up so that it peaks during advent. Plus the publicity surrounding The Star is likely to boost discussion of films about the Nativity, which might also give a boost to their sales.

    I've posted the trailer above and it features prominently on the film's web site. There's a little bit about the film, it's brief theatrical release in three cities in Michigan here and the film's IMDb page is here.

    The trailer is not the least like you might expect. There are no tinklings of Christmas carols, indeed the music is not at all seasonal or cosy. No dissimilarly the trailer studious avoids the typical Nativity scene shots. There are no men on camels, virgins in blue robes or dazzling stars. Indeed there isn't even a shot of three magi together. Then, there's the dialogue which is kind of angsty. All of which, I think, is encouraging, suggesting that this will be a more interesting project that the typical faith-based Mary and Joseph movie.

    Hopefully I will get to review this one before the release of the DVD.

    Labels: , , ,

    Phoenix and Mara to star in Mary Magdalene

    I'll hopefully post more info on this film shortly, but there's been relatively little official info on this one so far.

    What we do know is that Rooney Mara will be playing Mary Magdalene and that Joaquin Phoenix will be playing Jesus. Chiwetel Ejiofor also has a role and Garth Davis, who directed the excellent TV series Top of the Lake back in 2013 is down to direct.It's due for release in November.

    There is of course the vaguely controversial/iconic photos of Phoenix and Mara in costume smoking on the set, and Peter Chattaway has a little bit more.

    Hopefully there will be more about this one soon.

    Labels: ,

    Wednesday, July 19, 2017

    A.D. (2015) - Part 1


    This is the first in a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode with fairly unvarnished comments rather than a more crafted review.

    Roma Downey and Mark Burnett's A.D. Kingdom and Empire (or A.D. The Bible Continues if you live in North America) is the sequel to 2013's The Bible and 2014's Son of God, and a remake of the 1985 series A.D. so it's kind of surprising that the events it depicts start on Maundy Thursday before even Jesus has died. There's a new actor playing Jesus (as opposed to The Son of God's Diego Morgado), this time it's the turn of the darker Juan Pablo Di Pace, though some of the original actors do survive to the new series. There are a couple of other notable casting decisions as well. Joanne Whalley (Scandal, The Borgias) plays Pilate's wife, whilst Vincent Reagan, who played King Mattaniah in 1998's Jeremiah plays Pontius Pilate.

    Part 1, then, covers the kind of material that usually belongs to the end of Jesus films. starting with Jesus' trial at the house of Caiaphas and ending, with the empty tomb, so there's plenty of scope for comparison with other productions. From a historical-ish point of view, Jesus is crucified with nails through his hands, in contrast to the recent trend in favour of archaeological findings suggesting the nails went through the wrists. We don't get to see whether Jesus carries the whole cross or just the cross beam, though a later shot of the cross itself suggests the carpentry is too elaborate for the latter and it nails its colours to the mast on th eissue of whether or not Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover. Furthermore, the key Roman soldier, who claims responsibility for actually killing Jesus, turns out to be called Cornellius who, presumably, is going to pop up in a later episode.

    That clarifying shot of the cross is from a rather odd scene of Caiaphas visiting the now empty and deserted cross, and surmising that he "bled like a man" before ordering it to be broken up, which suggests he is able to order Roman soldiers about? Either way, this assertive view of Caiaphas ia fairly prevalent. Pilate is reticent about killing Jesus whereas Caiaphas and the crowd are insistent Caiaphas is far too cosy with Pilate, and the account of the soldiers being posted at the tomb is exaggerated. In one later scene he paces around Pilate's office, whilst the prefect lounges passively in his chair.

    And from an anti-Semitism point of view its a bit troublesome. There's a large crowd calling for Jesus death and this is not just at Pilatre's house, there is also a large baying crowd at Caiaphas' house. That said much of this is offset by showing Caiaphas' home life' his wife and kids, and by the way Joseph of Arimathea is shown as in Caiaphas' inner circle.

    "He was killed for the repeated blasphemy of claiming to be the Messiah", which again isn't really true. Jesus did tell the woman in John 4 that he was the Messiah, and he praised Peter for calling him that, without actually affirming the claim. He clearly thought of himself as special and acted in ways consistent with being the messiah but by the point of his trial he certainly hasn't been "repeatedly claiming" he is the messiah. And if, when pushed to answer if he is "the Christ", he affirms it, this is not really consistent with "repeatedly claiming" his messiaship.

    Of course that's something of a nit-pick, however it's typical of the way this episode (and I guess we'll see about the series in general) features characters speaking with the hindsight, interpretation and overconfidence of some modern evangelical preachers. Their comments are neither a strictly accurate refelction of what is in the gospel, nor the kinds of things these characters would have ever said. They're anachronistic, modern, western Christian refelctions on the gospels, not the things themselves.

    Case in point, here, everyone seems very sure Jesus prophecied that he would rise from the dead. Mary recalls Jesus' "prophecy" that "on the third day he promises  to rise from death" which is a stretch both theologically and indeed grammatically. Jesus may have made such claims, but none of his followers seem to grasp what he's saying. It therefore even less likely that Caiaphas would have heard and so interpreted these claims, but this is what we find in Matthew's gospel, (27:62-66), but I've long found this passage and its conclusion (28: 11-15) kind of hokey, but I guess many of you wouldn't see it that way. If so you'll be pleased because this is pretty much how A.D. plays it, Caiaphas anticipates that the disciples are going to try and raise the tomb after three days' and so pushes for a full Roman guard. This feels kinda hokey to me to, but I guess, on this point, I can't legitimately criticise it for being fairly faithful to the text, at least in this instance.

    One of the consistent tendencies which I criticised The Bible for was this bombastic exaggeration - scenes dialled up to 11, making scenes far more dramatic and over the top than they are in in the original and so here the earthquake accompanying Jesus' death causes huge destruction, outing even DeMille's version of this scene in the shade, with numerous fatalities. The shot (above) from inside the holy of holies as the curtain is torn in two is interesting, however, in spite of being a bit much. To an even greater extent, the resurrection scene really outdoes itself, with a flaming commet that turns into a armour clad angel, some hearty singing and a tomb that glows from the inside. This also gives some context to those large crowds calling for Jesus' death, whilst the filmmakers should be wise as to how their film portrays Jewish culpability, their choice of these large crowds is primarily driven by making every, single, aspect of their film scaled up and and over the top.

    Labels:

    Tuesday, July 11, 2017

    ...And God Spoke (1993)


    In theory, a mockumentary about the making of a Bible film should be funny. There's an overblown genre with an penchant for taking itself too seriously and, as audiences assume, a habit of going way, way over budget. Then there's the fact that those that engage in such undertakings not infrequently suffer from delusions of grandeur. DeMille's cameo in Sunset Bouelvard (1950) may be a famous example of an epic director sending up his own image, but it's rare. This is not just because of the genre with which he DeMille is now best remembered, but because, satirical takes on, and mockumentaries about, directors are thin on the ground in general. Add to that fact that to many parts the Bible are themselves inherently funny (something even the most devout will admit on occasion) and there would seem to be promising ingredients for an amusing film.

    Sadly, ...And God Spoke is not that film. It's hard to pinpoint why exactly that is, but essentially, this feels like a three-minute skit stretched to the length of a feature film. This affects things in numerous ways. Firstly, the two leading characters, director/producer team Clive Walton and Marvin Handleman, never develop to become believable or likeable characters. Yes they take themselves too seriously and yes they're clearly not up to the job, but whereas that would work across a sketch, for a full movie it quickly becomes tiresome and implausible. Would a movie studio really hand out quite so much cash to these pair?

    Compare this to the musicians in Spinal Tap. Whilst they clearly believe their own ridiculously overblown hype and are hardly masters of their respective crafts, they are reasonable enough musicians. The chaos and amusement that ensues is as much about the more human failings such as communication, organisation and ego, than it is about basic competence. Furthermore, This is Spinal Tap manages to make its heroes interesting and even slightly endearing, whereas here, not only are they incompetent, on any level, they're also not really that likeable.

    Sercondly, And God Spoke (or The Making of 'And God Spoke... as some have it) suffers from a lackof any kind of plot or narrative momentum. Two guys get the go ahead to make a Bible movie, but their plans fall apart. It's a beginning and maybe even a middle, but that's it. And gradually as the film continues, its lack of anything engaging turns to frustration. EVen if it was never going to be a classic, it should at least have been better than this.

    Admittedly there is, very occasionally, the odd half-decent line. When the studio forces them to cut back and jettison the film's New Testament section, the two optimisitically reflect, "we still got Moses. Hopefully he can save us like he did the Jews". The sight of the actor who plays Jesus smoking is probably funnier now thanit was then what with the photos of Rooney Mara and Joaquin Phoenix smoking on the set of the forthcoming Mary Magdalene and smoking onscreen being something of a taboo on screen in general. Also the sight of Lou "Incredidible Hulk" Ferrigno playing himself playing Cain, is not without merit.

    But really, this is a very poor film. I first watched it quite a few years ago and decided then that it probably wasn't worth the effort to review it and in some ways I'm not sure why I'm bothering now. If you want a second opinion then I guess Variety kinda liked it at the time. But even so, a missed opportunity.

    Monday, July 03, 2017

    Io sono con te (Let It Be, 2010)


    In contrast to films such as the BBC's The Nativity, which uses a romance between Mary and Joseph to drive the plot, Guido Chiesa's Io sono con te (which literally means 'I am with you') is possibly the first feature length Nativity film which chooses not depict the holy couple as in love. There is affection and respect, but ultimately this is not so much their story, as her story.

     In part this is because Joseph is so much older than Mary. Mary is played by a 15 year old Tunisian actor Nadia Khlifi who looks even younger which would make any kind of romantic attachment rather uncomfortable for modern viewers. Whilst "there's nothing ethereal or other worldly (or even conventionally beautiful) about her", (Haven 2011) Khlifi manages to exude an unusual mix of vulnerability and strength, often defying the patriarchy that dominates her village.

    This patriarchy is very much a defining part of the village's life which is portrayed here in ways radically different from the traditional biblical epic. For one thing all the characters in this film look they, like Khlifi, might have roots in the Middle East. The film was shot in Tunisia - parts of it on the very sets that Roberto Rossellini used for his Jesus film Il Messia (The Messiah, 1975) - and the majority of the cast and extras were chosen from the region. This has been an increasing trend in recent biblical films. As Peter Chattaway, writing about the choice of Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary in The Nativity Story (2006), observes
    "Gone are the days when blue-eyed, blonde-haired actors and actresses could pass themselves off as the Jewish Messiah or his immediate friends and family. Audiences expect more “authenticity” these days, and filmmakers eager to promote their films as something new and different are more than willing to provide it. 
    Even Mel Gibson, who faced a firestorm of controversy over allegedly anti-Semitic elements in The Passion of the Christ, made a point of altering the appearance of actor James Caviezel (through make-up, and by digitally turning his eyes from blue to brown) in order to make his Jesus look more Jewish."
    Since then the trend has only accentuated with Jesus recently having been portrayed by Lebanese actor Haaz Sleiman in Killing Jesus (2015), half-Tamil Selva Rasalingam in The Gospel of Mark (2016) and Israeli actor Aviv Alush in The Shack (2017). 1

    But as well as the actors' ethnicity being worthy of note, their costumes and the manner in which their way of life is portrayed is similar significant. Gone is the pale blue linen wraps so beloved of screen Marys. Here she wears various long, brightly-coloured, striped woollen kaftan-type garments. Almost all characters have their heads covered most of the time, Joseph, for example wears a tallit for a great deal of the film.

    It is Mary’ s strength, particularly with respect to her strong sense of morality, that is very much one of the key themes that this film is exploring. It’ s hardly surprising, then that the film has been praised for its feminist credentials. However, an independently minded Mary is hardly original in and of itself. The same could be said of Keisha Castles-Hughes in The Nativity Story (2006). What makes Io sono so notable in this respect is that rather her defiance being against her parenting, or those who question her purity, here the film pits her against numerous aspects of both the Jewish religion and a wider Middle Eastern culture. In particular the practice of circumcision comes in for heavy criticism, most memorably in a scene where another baby is circumcised. The scene consists of a fast montage where, in a similar fashion to Un Chien Andalou (1929) and Psycho (1960) numerous short shots are spliced together to create the impression that you see an incision, whereas in fact yo do not. Io sono both borrows this technique, but also draws on it’ s heritage reflecting the horror that Mary feels at the practice. It is not insiginifcant that Chiesa's website contains a link to the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centres.

    As far as the film is concerned, Mary's strong sense of morality means that Jesus is uncircumcised. That could be taken as pre-figuring the way Jesus' followers would soon remove the requirement to be circumcised from their newly founded religion. Yet at the same time as appreciating the point that Chiesa seems to be trying to make about the inappropriateness of the practice in the modern world, I'm also a little troubled by him portraying a non-circumcised saviour. Jewish-Christian history is littered with examples of the terrible consequences that have occurred when Christians have overlooked some of the markers of Jesus' Jewish identity and circumcision is undoubtedly a key one of those. At the same time, the film does such a lot to emphasise Jesus' Jewishness, from the mezuzah on most of the characters door posts, to the head coverings, portrayals of the synagogue, actors ethnicity, scriptures cited and, actually, the intra-religious discussion about the finer points of the law. Which is to say portraying an uncircumcised Jesus might be a problem were it not for the fact that few, if any, films come close to Io sono in their portrayal of Jesus as a Jew.

    That aside, circumcision is just one of the many bloody acts that Mary is appalled by. The spectacle of animal sacrifice circles her throughout the film with numerous appearances of sheep and goats punctuating the film. Indeed even the annunciation, such as it is, takes place whilst Mary is milking goats. Later she witnesses one giving birth and others being slaughtered in the temple. Numerous other images of animals with such Girardian overtones appear throughout the film. Little wonder then that the words of Hosea, “I desire mercy not sacrifice” (later repeated by Jesus), are amongst those that Mary draws upon during the film.

    The film also shows Mary refusing to partake in the political violence portrayed by the film, be it the Romans/Herod's soldiers strong arming the local populace, or Jewish rebels seeking to avenge it. When the rebels begin to try and gain support Mary leads her family, and particularly Joseph's other son, away.

    But Mary does not just stand against physical acts of violence. One of the key rules that Mary disregards entirely is an apparent taboo on feeding new-borns their mother's milk for the first few days of their lives. This rule, which is not found in the Bible emphasises that the form of Judaism that Mary, and by extension, the filmmakers, find objectionable is an unorthodox variety, suggesting that not all forms of Judaism should be treated in the same fashion.

    Mary, and later Jesus, are also appalled by the ostracisation of a man called Hillel (whose liberal historical namesake is best known for coining the "golden rule"). For reasons that are never made clear, Hillel is permanently considered unclean and forced to live so far away from the village that he cannot walk to the synagogue on the Sabbath without breaking. Initially Mary and eventually Jesus refuse to conform and visit Hillel at his house, eventually encouraging him to attend the synagogue. Jesus objects when he is told to leave, but only succeeds in convincing the rabbi to change the reason that Hillel has to leave. It's another indicator of the strict purity rules that exist in the fictional Mary's village and of which the majority would have confronted the historical Mary and Jesus as well. And again it's the kind of scape-goating that is very familiar to those that know Girard's work.

    The fact that Chiesa's film is an exploration of Girard's philosophy is something that the director confirmed in an email to Girard scholar Cynthia Haven, a section of which she included in her review of the film:
    "René Girard‘ s work was a great source of inspiration for our project and it helped us a great deal during the writing of the script and the understanding of several Biblical passages about Mary and Jesus’ s childhood" (Haven)
    If biblical epics are a vehicle for big themes and concerns, then Girard's unending cycle of violence is hard to top.

    Even more interestingly than this, is the way the film seems to want to extend this revulsion at this form of Judaism beyond its characters to its audience. The final part of the film concerns the period when Jesus is twelve. The circle of life has completed another revolution; Jesus is now the age as his mother was at the beginning of the film. He sits there and listens to one of the religious leaders recounting the time Moses commanded a man to be stoned to death for collecting wood on the Sabbath. To modern ears it is an horrific story that rightly belongs to the distant past. Here it is presented without bias, comment or reaction. It would be there for the viewers to make up their minds, except, for the fact that shorn of its original context, no modern viewer could find it acceptable.

    But of course, in Jesus' day this was still the law and the story's presence here is a jarring reminder of the context into which Jesus and Mary came. Typically, biblical films transport us into a world that purports to be the past, but really resembles our own far more than it ought to, what Sobceck describes as the "projection of ourselves-now as we-then". (Sobcheck, 284) Here, however, and throughout the film, Chiesa has given us an emotive reminder of how very different the past was from our own time.

    1 - This is for New Testament films made by westerners. Clearly films such as the Iranian films Saint Mary (1997) and Jesus, the Spirit of God (2007) have been employing Middle Eastern actors for some time.

    ======
    Chattaway, Peter T. (2006), "Ethnicity in Jesus Films: Does it Matter?" FilmChat, 24 November 2006. Available online - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2006/11/ethnicity-in-jesus-films-does-it-matter.html Accessed 3 July 2017.

    Chiesa, Guido (2010), Io Sono con Te: La Storia Della Ragazza Che ha Cambiato del Mondo. Magda Film, Colorado Film RAI Cinema. Available Online - http://guidochiesa.net/media/opera/nicoletta-micheli-filippo-kalomenidis-e-guido-chiesa/io-sono-con-te/pressbook.pdf Accessed 2 July 2017.

    Haven, Cynthia (2011), "Io Sono Con Te: A film with a René Girard p.o.v.", 21 February 2011. Book Haven. Avaliable Online - http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2011/02/io-sono-con-te-a-film-with-a-rene-girard-p-o-v/ Accessed 2 July 2017

    Sobchack, Vivian (1995), '"Surge and Splendour": A Phenomology of the Hollywood Historical Epic', in Grant, Barry Keith, Film Genre Reader II, 280-307, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Labels:

    Wednesday, June 21, 2017

    La Sacra Famiglia (2006)
    The Holy Family: Jesu, Mary and Joseph


    At 159 minutes long Raffaele Mertes' La Sacra Famiglia (2006) is one of the longest films primarily about the birth and childhood of Jesus, but, surprisingly it's the least "epic" of all of those I have looked at recently.

    It's actually Mertes' second film about the birth/childhood of Jesus, the first being Joseph of Nazareth from six years earlier. Indeed Mertes has become one of the most prolific Bible film producers having also directed Esther(1999), Mary Magdalene (2000), The Apocalypse (2000), Thomas (2001) and Judas (2001). Mertes' seventh and, at the time of writing, final Biblical tele-visual film is one of his better ones however, most notably in the first half whilst the story is still able to stick relativity closely to the gospel accounts.

    The story starts in the period immediately before Mary and Joseph's betrothal. In contrast to almost every Jesus film that covers the subject Mary hails not from Nazareth, but from Jerusalem. She has been orphaned before the start of the film and, in an interesting interpretation, now lives with her aunt and uncle Elizabeth and Zechariah. She's adventurous and fun-loving as a scene where she fashions bed sheets into a rope in order to escape from her room, but also capable of being serious and strong-willed ("I am the one who decides who I will marry").

    Not dissimilarly Joseph also plays against the traditional portrait, at least the one that we find in cinema. Rather than having long had feelings for Mary (and having to bide his time until she, euugh, reached the already rather young marriageable age), he is a widower, himself also something of a rebellious character, who gets chosen to be Mary's husband when a nearby almond tree spontaneously bursts into bloom. It's one of a number of miracles in the film, all of which are handled in a low-key fashion. This is a strong contrast with traditional biblical epics when miracles are typically accompanied by swelling, reverential music. Joseph takes some convincing that anything out of the ordinary has occurred. After all he was only a visitor in Jerusalem, heading home to Nazareth.

    This leads onto another are in which La Sacra Famiglia differs from the traditional biblical epics, its lack of self-seriousness. Again, it's noticeable right from the early scenes that Joseph is often a source of mild comic relief, notably when his donkey refuses to behave as he wants it to. There's something of Au Hasard Balthasar here, with the donkey as a divine agent who honks just in time to prevent Mary and Joseph kissing in an early scene, and kicks Joseph to prevent him from leaving Mary later on. The donkey is a divine fool, acting for God yet nevertheless providing comic relief. This contrasts with the approach of the classic epics where the aesthetic only works if everyone keeps a straight face (even if they give the impression they might have been a lot of fun to make).

    Mary and Joseph's arrival back in Nazareth causes something of a stir. Like Mertes' Joseph of Nazareth Joseph has children from his previous marriage (in line with Catholic and Orthodox theology rather than Protestant). These have grown up to the age whereby they are far closer to Mary's age than is their father, and her fiancé. Indeed James also seems to be attracted to Mary and while his dad seems a little unsure about about marrying her, James shows far less reticence. Joseph is a little thrown by this but Mary's strength of character comes through again. "I must follow God's will, not James's. I'm promised to you". Joseph concerns ("I'm old enough to be your father.") are soon alleviated.

    In addition to Joseph's sons, James and Judas, we're also introduced to other members of the family, such as Joseph's daughter Sarah, his brother Cleopas (and, of course Mary's uncle, who we met in the almond-tree scene above, is Zechariah the priest). There's a real suggestion, then, that most of those associated with following Jesus during his lifetime were members of his own family.

    Things are complicated further when Joseph has to head away for work for a few months. Joseph has noted something going on between James and Mary, and so he leaves Judas in charge. It's during this prolonged absence that Mary has a vision from God by which she understands that she is to give birth. Interestingly whereas one of the characteristics of many epics is the audible voice of God, here the message is conveyed silently so that only Mary hears it and using techniques such as slow-motion and hand-held camerawork which tend to feauture in epics only during battle scenes. When Joseph returns he is naturally dismayed, but quickly realises he loves Mary and decides without apparent divine intervention (aside from his donkey) that he should stay with her.

    The film adopts a more traditional approach for the remainder of part one, Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem, find a stable and host unusual visitors. The most notable moment here is when Joseph rushes off to find the village mid-wife - the only time I can recall the use of an unknown midwife in amongst all the birth of Jesus films I have seen.

    The second half of the film never quite matches the strengths of the first. As Catherine O'Brien observes "efforts to depict the childhood of Jesus are fraught with danger". (2016: 456) Not only does the audience know Jesus' survival is assured, but once Herod dies there is no real antagonist (save perhaps a sulky James, and some immigrant hating Egyptians) and rather than re-working a familiar and cherished tale, as with the first part of the film, the second half is largely what was created by the screenwriter.

    Nevertheless, La Sacra Famiglia is one of the better dramatisations of the birth and childhood of Jesus. Certainly the first half, which can stand by itself, will get repeat viewings around Christmas time in years to come.
    ================

    Labels:

    Sunday, June 18, 2017

    Joseph and Mary (2016)


    Joseph and Mary is just one of five films from 2016 and 2017 to make an explicit attempt to cover the birth and childhood of Jesus. The Star and Chasing the Star are both due for release later this year, The Young Messiah was the highest profile release of those from last year and Le Fils de Joseph won acclaim on the art house circuit. Which leaves Joseph and Mary a Christian movie distributed by PureFlix and directed by Roger Christian. The film's biggest star is Kevin Sorbo, best known for his work in another epic production the TV series Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (1995-1999).

    Indeed, from the start, the film makes clear its aspirations to fit the mould of the classic biblical epics of the 1950s and 1960s, John Rhys-Davies' rich, Welsh, voice narrating exactly the same kind of prologue, one "in which the voice of history defines...the significance of the world-historical contest to be enacted". (Babington and Evans 1993: 181)
    It was the year of our Lord, Jerusalem was ruled by King Herod the Great. Ruthless and greedy he ignored the laws of God and chose the favours of Rome over his own people. But from the darkness emerged light. The time had come to bear witness to a 2000 year prophecy: a child of God would be born.
    Rhys-Davies' close association with epic films, and indeed biblical films, in his younger days gives his introduction extra significance, a trusted and authoritative voice of experience, "old-world knowledge" and "apostolic wisdom". (Babington and Evans 1993: 182). As with the opening of King of Kings (1961) the voice-over is accompanied by images of the temple set against the clear blue sky.

    When the film descends to street level to pick up the story, we find that the annunciation, and the accompanying emotional drama, has already happened. Furthermore, Mary conceiving outside of marriage does not seems to have caused the least bit of controversy. Indeed they remain close friends of the local rabbi/Pharisee Elijah and a recent young widow, Rebecca. This couple form a contrasting pair with Mary and Joseph, particularly Elijah who is selfless and good. Indeed his devotion to his Jewish faith marks him as exactly the kind of positive, yet fully Jewish, character that was so needed in The Passion of the Christ (2004).

    In contrast, Rebecca is afflicted by the urge for revenge. The same soldier, Tiberius, kills her husband in the opening scene, then her two children during the slaughter in Bethlehem. As the years pass, her thirst for revenge remains unquenched. When her and Elijah are reunited with Mary and Joseph twelve years later (in the moments after Jesus has been lost in the temple) Elijah and Rebecca have married. Rebecca is no longer clad in the black of the opening scenes, and unusually for a character set on revenge, her desire for it has not corroded her soul entirely, but she is still determined to get even.

    The appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem is also interesting for the way it portrays Judaism. Not for the first time in the film there is debate amongst the Jewish leaders which manages to be passionate yet jovial. The men clearly love the cut and thrust of debate, and to defend their own ideas and listen to those of others as a natural part of faith and community, rather than as a source of conflict and division. These men are arguing together because they like one another, not because they don't. Jesus brings another angle to the discussion. It's welcomed and they are impressed, but they don't stand back in awe as if centuries of learning have suddenly fallen by the wayside. Again this is a very positive portrayal of Judaism, and not merely one where all the good characters are Christians-in-waiting.  

    However, the downside of this extra emphasis on Elijah and Rebecca, in addition to that on Joseph and Jesus, is that Mary is very much pushed to the margins. Indeed not only are Joseph, Jesus, Elijah and Rebecca more prominent than Mary, but even Tiberius, the Roman. As with Lucius in King of Kings (1961) and Severus in The Young Messiah (2016), Tiberius is a member of the roman-who-keeps-crossing-paths-with-Jesus trope, encountering the holy family at several points along the story's extended timeline. He first enters the story before Jesus' birth; then doesn't quite encounter them at the slaughter of the innocents; and then again later after the twelve-year-old Jesus' trip to Jerusalem. He also seems to be the character tasked with injecting a bit of camp into proceedings given the shortness of his tunic and sleeves.

    However it's not just the presence of other characters that squeezes Mary's screen time, it's that even the parts of the story where you would expect to find her role to be more prominent are strangely compressed, often even as Joseph's role is inflated. So the term of Mary's pregnancy is shortened; Joseph's efforts to find her a suitable place to have the baby are dramatised and fleshed out. The birth and the arrival of the magi are shown only in montage; Joseph's dream and the resultant flight to Egypt is expanded. As much time is spent on the holy family meeting Simeon and Anna as is spent on Jesus' birth, and even then Mary speaks only once in the scene.

    That said, perhaps this is just a matter of personal preference over subject matter. After all of the twelve most recent film versions of the Nativity, (going back all the way to the release of The Nativity Story in 2006), this is the only film to even mention Mary in the title. There's no reason why looking at the story from Joseph's point of view is without merit, in fact Raffaele Mertes did precisely that with Joseph of Nazareth in 2000. And this is what we see. Whereas other Jesus films, such as Roberto Rossellini's Il Messia (1975) and Mary the Mother of Jesus (1999) showed moments where Mary is heard passing on the Precise form of phrases that he is recorded as saying during his ministry, here we hear Joseph talking to Mary and Elijah about having love for an enemy.

    Again this is the sort of slightly too pleased-with-itself connection touch that would not be out of place in a 1950s epic. Elsewhere, Jesus says to Elijah rather portentously "It seems we are at the crossroads Rabbi. Are you coming with me?" And then there are the unexpected connections such as it emerging that Jesus' uncle is Joseph of Arimathea.

    Indeed, whilst the film doesn't have the budget to give the visuals that epic feel and the soundtrack of largely consisting of synthesizer and string quartet lacks the militaristic pomp (Wood) that full orchestras gave to the major Hollywood epics. Nevertheless in many ways this is the film that has most attempted to walk in the footsteps of the epics of years gone by. The bright colours, prologue, sense of its own importance, camp and re-use of actors already established in the genre all capture something of a interestingly nostalgic return to the biblical epics in their heyday.

    Labels:

    Tuesday, June 13, 2017

    Nativity Films Revisited


    In the run up to the release of The Nativity Story back in 2006 I drew up a list of films about the birth and childhood of Jesus. I've come across quite a few more over the last decade so here's an update. I've put in a few links of interest, but haven't had time to link even to all the bits and pieces on these films even on my own blog. Overall, if you include this year's forthcoming The Star and Chasing the Star, that makes 52 films excluding documentaries (which compares to the mere 19 films I listed in 2006)

    -La naissance de Jésus (1908) - Pathé
    -The Star of Bethlehem (1908) - Edison - 10 mins - B/W
    -The Birth of Jesus (1909) - France - short - hand tinted colour
    -La Nativité (1910) - France - short - B/W
    -Herod and the Newborn King (1910) - France - Gaumont - B/W
    -Star of Bethlehem (1912) review B/W - 3 reeler -
    -The Three Wise Men (1913) - US-Selig - - 1000 ft - B/W
    -The Birth of our Saviour (1914) - US - Edison - - 1000ft - B/W
    -Naissance de Jésus (1914) link Dir: Maurice-André Maître, starring: Jacques Normand
    -L 'Enfance de Jesus (1914) link
    -Der Stern von Bethlehem (1921) - Germany - B/W - Lotte Reiniger
    -Reina de reinas: La Virgen María - Mexican (1948)
    -Mater Dei (1950) - Italy - 80 minutes - dir: Emilio Cordero
    -A Child is Born (1950) - US-NBC TV - 30 mins - B/W
    -The Play of the Nativity of Jesus Christ (1952) - US - Studio One in Hollywood
    -The Star of Bethlehem (1954) - James Mason brief review
    -The Star of Bethlehem (1956) - D/GB - 90 mins (re-release of the Reiniger film with narration in English) brief review
    -Erode il grande [Herod the Great] (1959) - Italy/France - 93 mins - colour - dir: Arnaldo Genoino
    -Hvezda Betlemska (1969) - Czechoslovakia - (The Star of Bethlehem) - 10 mins - animated colour.
    -Jesus, Maria Y Jose (1972) - pictured - 92 minutes YouTube
    -The Small One (1978) - US-short - 20 mins - colour
    -The Nativity (1978) - US-TV - 98 mins - colour
    -Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith (1979)- Ca-TV - 152 mins - colour (review)
    Cammina, Cammina [Keep on Walking] (1982) - Italy - 171 mins - colour
    -Deux heures moins le quart avant Jésus-Christ (1982) review
    -Hail Mary (1985) link, review
    -Un bambino di nome Gesù - A Child Called Jesus (dir. Franco Rossi, 1987) FilmChat
    -L'Annonce faite a Marie (1991) - dir. Alain Cuny
    -Per amore solo per amore (1993) - Penélope Cruz
    -Marie de Nazareth (1994) Jean Delannoy Fr/B/Mor
    -La Estrella de Belen [Star of Bethlehem] (1998) Spain
    -Mary Mother of Jesus (1999) Bale
    -Close to Jesus: Joseph of Nazareth (2000)
    -Maria, figlia del suo figlio (2000) dir: F. Costa, Italy
    -The Nativity (2000) Latter Day Saints
    -Saint Mary (2001) dir. Shahriar Bohrani, Iran
    -Los Reyes Magos [The Magi-Kings] (2003) Spain
    -Maria - Mãe do Filho de Deus (2003)
    -The Nativity Story (2006) central page
    -La Sacre Famiglia (2006)
    -The Fourth King (2006)
    -La stella dei re (2007) Italian - 90 minutes
    -Birdsong (2008)
    -Little Baby Jesus of Flandr (2010)
    -BBC Nativity (2010)
    -Io sono con te (2010)
    -On Angel Wings (2014) animated short - review
    -Joseph and Mary (2016)
    -The Young Messiah (2016) review
    -Le Fils de Joseph (2016)
    -Chasing the Star (2017)
    -The Star (2017) - Sony Animation

    The very earliest films about Jesus were Passion Plays and as the twentieth century began these began to expand to include other episodes from the life of Jesus, including the Nativity story. The situation is complicated by the fact that these earliest tableau films were often sold in individual sections so it is difficult to work out which of the Pathé films were released in their own right.

    Nevertheless, the first Nativity epic was probably Thanhouser's 1912 The Star of Bethlehem which at three reels would have run for approximately 45 minutes. Whilst only a reel's worth of material survives it's clear to see rudimentary elements of the biblical epic already in place. Herod's lavish palace is packed with beautiful courtiers in exotic dress and Herod's outfit reveals his muscular limbs. According to the Thanhouser Vimeo page for the film, its special effects, which "took a week's work",  include a bright star that appears to shepherds and magi alike and a choir of angels appear in the stable to celebrate the saviour's birth, both indicators of divine activity. There is also impressive architecture, a 200-strong cast and a reputed cost of $8,000. .

    Whilst there were a number of other silent films based on the Nativity, such as Lotte Reinger's silhouetted Der Stern von Bethlehem (1921) it would not be until 1948 that a more expansive film was released. At 85 minutes, the Mexican Reina de reinas: La Virgen María (Queen of Queens: The Virgin Mary, 1948) was the longest film yet primarily focussed on Mary. Two years later the Italian film Mater Dei (Mother of God, 1950), covered the period from Mary's own childhood to Jesus' ministry. The decade witnessed vast swathes of 'pepla' such as Erode il grande (Herod the Great, 1959) which ends with Herod ordering the slaughter of the innocents as an almost casual command after hearing the story from a shepherd (there's no sign of the magi).

    The 1950s also saw the first television adaptations of the Nativity story with four productions in the decade's first six years. A similar trend occurred in the latter part of the 1970s when both The Nativity (1978) and Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith (1979) were broadcast. Only one feature length film was produced in this period, a low-budget Mexican film Jesus, Maria y José (Jesus, Mary and Joseph, 1972).

    Widely regarded as quiet period for biblical films in general, there were a number of significant, feature-length, films released in the 1980s. Whilst this included traditional style Bible films such as Un bambino di nome Gesù (A Child Called Jesus,  1987) the majority took more unconventional approaches such as Jean Luc Godard's controversial Je vous salue Marie (Hail Mary, 1985), the comedy Deux heures moins le quart avant Jésus-Christ (Quarter to two before Jesus Christ, 1982) and the longest of all Nativity-themed films the Italian Cammina, Cammina (Keep on Walking, 1982). This popularity continued into the 1990s and the start of the twentieth century. Notable releases include Penélope Cruz in Per amore solo per amore (For Love, Only for Love, 1993) and Christian Bale in Mary, the Mother of Jesus (1999) as well as several films from Italy France and Spain, however none of these were the kind of big-budget spectacles that are associated with the biblical epic.

    This was about to change however with the unexpected success of an independently made Bible film which also gave significant focus to the relationship between Jesus and his mother - The Passion of the Christ (2004). This emboldened New Line into giving the green light to The Nativity Story (2006) and there have been several other films since which I suspect wouldn't have seen the light of day otherwise. It is noticeable, for example, that almost all of the films made since The Passion have been English language films. Regular readers may have noticed I have discussed a few of these in recent weeks and I intend to cover some of the others in more detail than fits here in the next few weeks as well.

    Labels:

    Thursday, June 01, 2017

    Le lit de la Vierge (The Virgin's Bed, 1969)


    Undoubtedly one of the most beautiful Jesus films if also one of the most likely to offend the devout, French auteur Philippe Garrel's Le lit de la Vierge (The Virgin's Bed) is and usual take on the life of Jesus. Filmed shortly after the May 1968 protests in Garrel's trademark high-contrast, black and white style, it follows a young Jesus round the countryside as he tries to work out his angst and sense of lost-ness. The imagery and characters (Jesus, his mother and Mary Magdalene) are clearly biblical but the events that unfold are only tangentially related. As with Garrel's Le révélateur (1967) the images are dreamy and surreal and you sense that to try to interpret each as if it were some sort of cipher is to miss the point.

    The film sits, both chronologically and stylistically, somewhere between Pasolini's Il vangelo secondo Matteo and the 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar, with the starkly beautiful black and white photography of the former and the rocky vibe and attitude of youthful rebellion of the latter. The second scene - a long tracking shot of Jesus riding a donkey down the middle of the street whilst being taunted by people riding on horses - accompanied by rock guitar, is perhaps the coolest shot of all biblical films. At other points the music is more accordion based - perhaps one of the sources of inspiration for the similarly surreal Little Baby Jesus of Flandr (2010).

    Some of the events that occur are easier to make sense of than others. Jesus is frequently rejected by those he meets, aside from Magdalene and, towards the end of the film, a small boy who asks him to open the large box he has begun to carry round on his shoulder. There' s a sense of foreboding about this, and the horrors that unfold when it is finally opened suggest Jesus has been carrying a sort of Pandora's box, containing the sins of the world. A Jesus type figure appears before Pilate, but it is only when they are dragged away that we realise it's not Jesus but Magdalene. The imagery here however suggests that this is not an attempt to radically revise the gospels as much as an attempt to appropriate the imagery of the gospels as metaphors relating to the failure May 1968.

    There's an interesting quote from Garrel on this aspect of the film on the Artfilms site:
    I believe my point of view on the Christian myth is quite clear in Le Lit de la Verge. It is a non-violent parable in which Zouzou incarnates both Mary and Mary Magdalene while Pierre Clementi incarnates a discouraged Christ who throws down his arms in face of world cruelty. In spite of its allegorical nature, the film contains a denunciation of the police repression of 1968, which was generally well understood by viewers at the time.
    There's also a quote there from Harvard's David Pendleton who says the film is only "minimally concerned with traditional religion" instead focusing on "the ways in which Garrel and his friends saw themselves as belonging to a kind of religious sect, engaging in ritual behavior.” I assume that the "friends" referred to here are those related with the Zanzibar Films Collective a group of directors and artists even younger than the French New Wave directors who had been inspired by the '68 uprisings. Also worth a read is a brief piece at Strictly Film School.

    Saturday, May 27, 2017

    The Young Messiah (2016)


    Back in the first few months that I was writing this blog I wrote two pieces about a potential adaptation of Anne Rice's novel "Christ the Lord". I must admit that in the meantime I've never quite been quite interested enough to read the actual book, but it's certainly pleasing to finally sit down to see a film that you've been following for so long. That said the same could have been said about the Star Wars prequels and look how that turned out.

    In some ways the premise is also not so dissimilar. It takes an iconic character we know well due to their adult life and attempts to fill in the gap. Rice had an advantage over George Lucas in that she also had a few fragments of birth stories to work with, but there's a sense in which the audience's investment in the character is both a help (in selling tickets) and a hindrance (in terms of their heightened expectations).

    Young Messiah, then, starts in Egypt several years after Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the rest of their never-fully-defined wider family have fled from Herod. The family seem to have settled well overall but Jesus is beginning to discover some of the things that make him different in ways that don't necessarily help his family to lead a largely anonymous existence. Plus he's being tracked and taunted by a mysterious Brad Pitt look-a-like who appears to be one part devil, one part 80s heavy-metal guitarist. It's hard to know which aspect is more terrifying.

    The devil manages to incite the crowd against Jesus' family such that, as is often still the case for asylum seekers today, even though they have done nothing wrong they still get blamed and in this case feel they have to leave their home again. Plus Nazareth is calling them home (which sounds a little bit like it might have been the title of one of the Pitt-Devil band's biggest hits). Unfortunately just as the family arrive home Herod's son is beginning to inherit his father's paranoia, such that he's sending out soldiers out to try and track down the youngster who so threatened his father. Clearly he wants to tidy up any such loose ends.

    Such plot, then, means that the story necessarily takes place around the quiet byways and backwaters of first century Galilee, Judea and beyond, rather than in amongst the cities and crowds. This means that whilst the film retains many aspects of the Biblical Epic, its size and scope means that overall it lacks the genre's typically "fantastic excess". (Wood 169) That is not to say that it is entirely devoid of spectacle; in one scene Satan appears to Jesus and shows him a burning Jerusalem and later scenes take place in the temple, amongst impressive sets and a mass of extras. And the film also retains many of the other aesthetic characteristics of the genre such as "the typical locations, characters, and sounds" (Grace 13).

    What is particularly interesting about the film however is the way it maps out a new space within the genre's terrain. Traditionally the Old Testament Epic and the Jesus film have been accompanied by a third type of film - the Roman-Christian Epic - epics which visually and thematically fit within the scope of the Biblical Epic, but whose content is only tangentially biblical. The majority of these films, such as Ben-Hur (1925, 1959, 2016), Quo Vadis? (1913, 1924, 1951, 2001) and The Robe (1953) were based not so much on the Bible itself, but on works of fiction in which either minor biblical characters were given a greatly expanded role, or a major biblical character appeared only fleetingly. They also tended to be set in the time around or after Jesus's death.

    Like these Roman-Christian epics Young Messiah occurs around the fringes of the biblical narratives, however the events it depicts occur in an earlier time period between Jesus' birth and his appearance, aged twelve, in Jerusalem. Like them it is also based on a fictional work, Anne Rice's "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt". Like them it also contains a prominent member of the "(e)arthly powers" (Sean Bean's centurion Severus) through whose eyes we witness the events and who eventually comes to faith. (Babington & Evans 202) Yet whilst Severus is Roman, the power figure in this story is not a Roman, but Herod, who describes himself here as "Jewish". And Bean's climatic epiphany is not a conversion to Christianity, but more of a moment of revelation and reflection on his past. Whilst it would clearly count as a moment of divine intervention, it clearly goes even further than the "ecumenical blandness" which Babington & Evans find so typical of the Roman-Christian film. (p.8)

    Essentially, then, this is a fourth type of Biblical Epic, distinct from the Roman-Christian epic by being neither 'Roman' in the fullest sense nor technically 'Christian', (since it had not yet come into existence), even if both undeniably form a critical part of the film's historical backdrop. Furthermore whereas the Roman-Christian Epics relied on a blend of the promise erotic sexual content in the background and romantic love in the foreground here Young Messiah is essentially sexless. Severus is not converted due to his attraction to a Christian woman as in Quo Vadis? but by his encounter with Jesus - something more typical of the Jesus film. And the implication is that the film's leading lady - Mary, Jesus' mother - has remained a virgin even through her married life.

    One key element of the traditional Biblical Epic that is retained is the sense of camp, although the two main camp elements are both more influenced by The Passion of the Christ (Gibson 2004) than the earlier epics. Like Gibson's film Herod is depicted as a camp figure, albeit more subtly than in that film. With his love of soft furnishings, and his court of sycophantic misfits, he flounces barefoot round his throne room treating women with disdain but starring longingly at Sean Bean. In one notable scene he confronts Severus whilst using a female dancer as a proxy for his conflicted feelings about him. Not dissimilarly, the film also depicts Satan as a queer/androgynous figure, though in contrast to Gibson's use of a woman with angular features and a short "masculine" haircut, here Satan is played by a man with long curly blond locks, large dark eyes and soft features.

    Sadly the film's development of the Biblical Epic genre is probably the most interesting thing about it. The holy family's travails from Alexandria to Nazareth to Jerusalem makes little narrative sense yet never really captures the reflection and personal growth aspect of the road movie - a genre it otherwise sits within at least as comfortably as it does the Biblical Epic. Ultimately the plot is driven by Mary and Joseph's unwillingness to tell Jesus the basic facts about his life that apparently everyone else seems to know. A long and dangerous trip takes place simply because the otherwise sympathetic and caring Mary and Joseph can't cope with not being able to give Jesus all the answers. When Mary sits down to tell Jesus about his conception, she starts with the words "Listen well because I'm only going to tell this story once" which will cause most viewers to wonder why an apparently caring mother would refuse to repeat such an important and inspiring story. (I say "most viewers" because those in the UK may be distracted by the presumably unintentional citation from 'Allo 'Allo.)

    Bean's more metaphorical, internal, journey is no more satisfying. Our first encounter with him is as a tough Roman soldier who occasionally spares the life of a child. His ultimate decision not to kill Jesus (I'm assuming anyone reading this already knows that Jesus makes it through to the end of the film) and the revelation he may have acted accordingly in Bethlehem, show that, in fact, he has always been that kind of person.

    It's left, then, to Jesus to bring the film to some sort of vaguely reasonable conclusion and his final voice-over is perhaps the film's most satisfying moment. Trying to work out the reason God has sent him, he concludes "I think I'm here just to be alive. To see it, hear it, feel it, all of it. Even when it hurts. Someday you will tell me why else I'm here. I don't know when, but you will." It's an interesting way to capture some of the critical aspects of the incarnation without getting down into the details. Perhaps this is just "ecumenical blandness" again, but as Mary and Joseph eventually come to realise, sometimes not having a solid answer is OK.

    ==========================
    Babington, Bruce, and Peter William Evans. (1993), Biblical Epics: Sacred Narrative in the Hollywood Cinema, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    Grace, Pamela. (2009) The Religious Film: Christianity and the Hagiopic, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    Lindsay, Richard A. (2015), Hollywood Biblical Epics: Camp Spectacle and Queer Style from the Silent Era to the Modern Day, Santa Barbara, California/Denver, Colorado: Praeger.
    Wood, Michael. ([1975] 1989) America in the Movies, New York: Columbia University Press

    Labels: , ,

    Sunday, May 21, 2017

    Using Ewan:
    Star Power in Last Days in the Desert


    I finally got to watch 2015's Last Days in the Desert a month or two ago and I've been so pushed for time that I've not been able to properly review it and, given the various other things I need to write about at the moment, and how rarely I actually get to do that, I thought I'd make some brief/informal comments on the most interesting aspect of the film now, and hopefully get to return to review the film properly in a few months time. I'm telling myself that this way I can then concentrate on the more important writing projects, but I'm probably just procrastinating by putting off the next bit of writing for those more important project. But I digress, because, well...I want to talk about Ewan.

    Ewan McGregor is a star. Even if you haven't seen him in Trainspotting, the Star Wars prequels or Moulin Rouge you'll have seen him in something. Indeed at the time of filming he's almost certainly the most famous actor ever to play Jesus on film. Other actors have become famous after they played the role, perhaps even, in the case of Robert Powell, solely because of the role, but at the time the film in question was actually filmed I can't think of anyone else.

    So, clearly, it's time to talk about star theory. The major notion behind star theory is that actors bring with them their previous roles. Filmmakers may use that as shorthand (so we expect Jimmy Stewart to be a good guy in Harvey (1950)because he was a good guy in Mr SMith Goes to Washington); or to set us up for a fall by subverting our expectations (as Hitchcock uses Stewart in Vertigo (1958)), but essentially it recognises that few actors come to us as fresh, that stars always carry a certain amount of baggage with them.

    As McGregor wanders around the desert it's hard not to think of Tattooine and wonder if the devil will appear as a Sand-person. When he sees things that may not really be there, I know it's not heroin, but I'm still reminded of the baby crawling across the ceiling. I never quite expected him to burst into a duet with Nicole Kidman, but wouldn't have been completely surprised if as he was being crucified I heard his internal monologue intone "I chose not to choose life. I chose something else".

    It's difficult therefore to escape this when watching Last Days. In other words, I find McGregor as Jesus distracting. It takes me out of the illusion that I am watching Jesus, and I imagine most people feel the same. In fact, I wonder if, really, this was the point of the film. That it was an exploration not so much of the gospels as an exploration of star power. I think this for two reasons. Firstly, because McGregor is such a massive star that any filmmaker who would be good enough to convince him to take the role would know that they would be unlikely to overcome his back catalogue. I'm reminded of Groucho Marx's line about club membership. Any filmmaker that wanted McGregor to play Jesus would not be a good enough filmmaker to get him to do it.

    The other reason is the specific subject of the film. This is not just a Jesus film, it's one about his time in the desert. Whilst everyone has an opinion on Jesus, that specific section of the gospels is, almost paradoxically, something of a blank canvas.

    Of course, perhaps it's just that McGregor has always really wanted to play Jesus and finally found someone that agreed to let him fulfil his wish. But I don't think so. I think what the film is really about is about how we project onto Jesus our own experiences, opinions and preconceptions. But then I would say that , because it's the point that comes back to me again and again about this subject: it's incredibly hard to escape our own pre-conceptions about who Jesus was and what he was like. Watching a multitude of Bible films is at least one way of challenging the ideas we bring with us.

    Labels:

    The Nativity Story from The Passion to Trump

    It's been over a decade since New Line's attempt to mirror the success of The Passion of the Christ ended in failure. This perhaps ought not to have been a huge surprise. For every TheTen Commandments (1956) or Ben-Hur (1959) and there is a GreatestStory Ever Told (1965) or The Bible: In the Beginning (1966) - a film that tried to ride on the coattails of a successful epic, yet failed.

    In the aftermath of the film's failure many sought to discover why the film had been unsuccessful, and many different ideas were proffered. My own theory was that whilst various factors contributed to its disappointing performance, the speed with which the film was produced (less than a year between writer Mike Rich turning in his script and the film debuting in cinemas) didn't allow for sufficient quality control.

    Ten years on, I think that's a valid criticism of the film, and indeed I think that the speed of the production was a key contributor to the problem, but not in that way. Instead the issue was the amount of time that was spent promoting the film to its natural niche audience. As producer Wyck Godfrey said, just a few months after the film's release, Gibson spent six months promoting his film, they only spent one.1

    But whilst the length of time that went into the promoting the film was certainly a factor, not to mention the corresponding amount of effort that it suggest, was a huge factor, I think the failing was not only about how long the respective filmmakers spent marketing their films, but also how it was done.

    The key difference in this respect is the way that Gibson tapped into the sense of persecution that appears to have developed amongst many Christians in America  – something that was surely part of the reason such a large proportion of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. I wrote about this a little in my recent post "How The Passion of the Christ Wrong-footed Hollywood", but I'd like to revisit the subject here. In doing so I aim to be briefer overall whilst looking at the perception of persecution in more detail. These two pieces should probably sit alongside one another then, always recognising both that the roots of this issue are complicated and that there are many causes as well as a lot of background noise all of which makes a definitive analysis impossible to find.

    However, at the very least this perception of persecution goes back to the early 1970s. On the one hand books like "The Late, Great Planet Earth" (1970) popularised the kind of theology that anticipated a time of persecution, as a pre-cursor to the second coming.2 At the very least that gives something of an incentive to spotting evidence that the church is being persecuted. And then, of course there was Roe vs Wade and the shock wave that sent out, that sense that traditional Christianity's position of power was under threat.

    Whilst Ronald Reagan's election as president was initially greeted as a victory for the religious right disappointment at the community's perceived marginalisation under Reagan grew, such that by 1988 "traditional" Christianity was seen as losing ground to liberalism. And then in Hollywood - one of the main centres of the growth of liberalism - Martin Scorsese directed The Last Temptation of Christ. This was perhaps the leading conflicts in the culture wars of the late twentieth century and this isn't the place to get into the rights and wrongs of that particular film. However I do remember reviewing Thomas Lindlof's book "HollywoodUnder Siege" (about the controversy surrounding the release of Last Temptation of Christ) years later and being struck by the fact that the only people to make any money from the film were those Christian lobbyists who had run successful fundraising campaigns off the back of their opposition to the film's release.3 The perception that the religious right is under attack from liberalism has only grown since then such that in 2004 the scene was right for Mel Gibson.

    Gibson's approach typically involved a number of key aspects (again see my previous article). Firstly he claimed that he had been trying to make his Jesus film for years but none of the major studios would have it. I've no evidence to support or disprove that claim because as far as I know it's never been challenged. I'd sure like to see some though. Part of the reason it's not been challenged is because no-one is surprised that big popularist studios were not interested in an ultra-violent Jesus film in two dead languages based on the anti-Semitic visions of a nun.

    But the way Gibson told it was rather different. There was no calm of acceptance of what was in all likelihood a business decision. No, this was a tale of persecution; a tale of a Hollywood elite treating traditional Christians unfairly.

    Another aspect in Gibson's story regarding the film was the various intimations that God was in favour of it. The stories of miracles and conversions, of the "Holy Ghost directing traffic", the leaked 'papal' summary "It is as it was" and the repeated claim that he wanted to really show it as it was.4 In contrast to films such as Last Temptation his would "show the passion of Jesus Christ just the way it happened...like travelling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred...I'm telling the story as the Bible tells it".5

    In other words - whether intentionally or just naturally, he painted himself as a warrior in the culture wars standing up for God against liberalism. In so doing he made supporting his film a sign of faithfulness. Let's show Hollywood there's an audience for faithful depictions of the Bible, (even if, as it turned out, the results were not necessarily as faithful as might have been claimed). Lindsay describes this as a process of "scripturalization" that occurs through four stages of "directorial inspiration, ecclesiastical endorsement, experiences of spiritual transcendence, traditions of viewing and devotion".6

    In trying to market their film the makers of The Nativity Story attempted to reproduce The Passion of the Christ's strategy of attempting to court church leaders in order to gain their endorsement for their film. Just as Gibson talked to church leaders in order to secure support for The Passion, so writer Mike Rich, director Catherine Hardwick and producer Wyck Godfrey did the same. In fact they even made explicit links to Gibson's film to do so. Prior to the movie's release, Rich spoke of how he "was really inspired by the scene where Jesus falls while carrying the cross and Mary has a flashback to Jesus as a small child in danger".7 Rich even stressed explicit links with Gibson's epic such as the fact that parts of both films were shot in Matera, Italy, as well as the fact that they were loaned "the big olive tree...from the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane".8 Similarly the film's historical advisor, William Fulco, also drew links between the two films pointing out how "this film could not have been possible without The Passion."9

    The film's marketing team also commissioned prominent Roman Catholic film specialist Sister Rose Pacette to write a study guide for the film as well as edit another book collating eleven essays on the film and there were numerous special screenings for church representatives.10 The film's creators even arranged for it to premiere at the Vatican, Making it the first feature to do so.11

    Yet merely drawing the links between The Nativity Story and The Passion, and gaining acknowledgement of its worthiness was not sufficient. Whilst the film was seen as "authentic" and "faithful" the producers didn't create a similarly compelling narrative 12 Some church leaders did try to tell their followers that this was "an opportunity to get behind" a "family-friendly" film "as a way of telling Hollywood that's what audiences want".13 Whilst sending messages about the kind of film Christians wanted to see (even if they admitted it wasn't a great work of art) was something of a cause, it was nothing like as compelling as Gibson's. In terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs the fear of persecution, or even expressing support of an associate who is being persecuted significantly outranks entertainment preferences.

    As mentioned above the far shorter amount of time spent both creating relationships with church leaders and building a sense of anticipation about the film's release was also critical factor, as was the fact that Hardwicke and Godfrey lack Gibson's star power, but what The Nativity Story really lacked was a compelling story of how watching their film was a show of defiance and support for their community in the face of a supposedly unsympathetic, if not malevolent, behemoth like Hollywood.

    =================
    1 - Moring, Mark. "Nativity Comes Home" Christianity Today. 20 March 2007 -  (http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/nativitystorydvd.html) cited at Queen Spoo - http://nativitymovie.blogspot.co.uk/)
    2 - Lindsay, Hal. "The Late Great Planet Earth" Zondervan (1970)
    3 - Lindlof, Thomas R. (2008) Hollywood Under Siege: Martin Scorsese, the Religious Right, and the Culture Wars Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. p.283-4.
    4 - More detailed sources for these quotes can be found in my post here - http://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/film-new-passion.html
    5 - Zenit Staff - Zenit - "Mel Gibson’s Great Passion" - https://zenit.org/articles/mel-gibson-s-great-passion/ - March 6, 2003
    6 - Lindsay, Richard "Hollywood Biblical Epics: Camp Spectacle and Queer Style from the Silent Era to the Modern Day". (Denver, CO: Praeger, 2015). p.8
    7 - Pacette, Rose "The Nativity Story: Contemplating Mary's Journey of Faith" Boston: Pauline Books & Media 2006. p.5-6
    8 - Pacette, Rose (ed.) "The Nativity Story: A Film Study Guide for Catholics" Boston: Pauline Books & Media 2006. p.6
    9 - Patterson, Hannah - "The greatest teen drama ever told" The Guardian, 1 December 2006 - https://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/dec/01/2
    10 - Namely the two referenced in 7 & 8 above.
    11 - Moore, Carrie A. "The Nativity Story - Vatican premiere spotlights a new marketing tool" Desert News, Nov. 25, 2006 - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650209537/The-Nativity-Story--Vatican-premiere-spotlights-a-new-marketing-tool.html?pg=all
    12 - See, for example the debate between Christian film critics here - http://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/movies/2007/02/the-nativity-story.aspx
    13 - Moore, Carrie A. "The Nativity Story - Vatican premiere spotlights a new marketing tool" Desert News, Nov. 25, 2006 - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650209537/The-Nativity-Story--Vatican-premiere-spotlights-a-new-marketing-tool.html?pg=all