Judith in Film

Photo from Judith et Holopherne (1909)
Having done a series on Judith films at the start of the year, I realise I never actually wrote a piece on the eponymous heroine herself, so here I want to draw together my thoughts on some of those films with a particular focus on what they say about Judith herself.

The Bible emerged out of patriarchal culture and so I'm not sure which is more remarkable: Is it that there are so few women portrayed as heroes and leading characters, or that there are so many relative to the male dominated culture. Either way, the cinema in general does not suggest things have moved on a great deal further. A brief look at the top ten grossing films from last year shows 5 that had a clear single lead male figure, one featuring an ensemble cast of 8 only one of whom was female, one that might be considered to have a male and female lead, leaving only 2 that had a woman as the lead character - just one more than the number starring CGI animals.

If the deuterocanonical books of the Bible are included then only 3 carry a woman's name - Ruth, Deborah and Judith. Hardly a surprise then that cinema has only a paltry offering of films about these three characters. Ruth at least has a 60s epic, a fine animated version and a 90s art film to her credit, Deborah has almost nothing. Judith however has passed out of fashion, despite being the subject of what could arguably be called the first real Biblical Epic - Judith of Bethulia (1913).

By that stage she had already starred in at least three early silents. First up was the Italian offering Giuditta e Oloferne, perhaps dating from as early as 1906. French and British versions of the story followed in 1909 and 1912 respectively.

One thing that is particularly interesting about these portrayals is the way they weaken Judith's character. Several of the films about here show her as hesitating before finally killing Holofernes. This may be due to a number of factors. Firstly, it makes better drama. There's tension as to whether she will manage it in time, her emotional conflict, the possibility of love - all of which absent from the biblical account all offer audiences a little bit more. Secondly, this also allows God to explicitly sanction what it is Judith is to do. This is not just her idea, but God's commands, which not only makes Judith more sympathetic, but also makes the idea of killing for a good cause a little more palatable. It's perhaps notable that there were 4 about Judith killing in a good cause, in the eight years before, what was then, the most terrible war the world had ever known.

But lastly it also weakens Judith's character. Even today society is a bit squeamish about women assassins. They do occasionally make popular entertainment (such as last year's BBC series Hunted or Kill Bill) but various armies are still adapting to the changes, and when you consider how many male movie roles involve a lot of killing the success of The Hunger Games does little to disprove the theory that society accepts that women and men have an equal role as killers.

So Giuditta e Oloferne provides an angel to really let both Judith and the audience that this IS was God wants her to do. This contrasts most strongly with the biblical account where notably God is silent. Judith seems to believe that God is with her, but even she doesn't try and claim that he had specifically told her to take this course of action. Gaumont's Judith et Holopherne is less explicit though still shows Judith praying before she strikes, but Griffith's film goes even further showing her indecision to be rooted in her love for the Assyrian general. Not only has she become an indecisive woman, but she is unable to meet a powerful man without falling in love with him. 1959's Italian film Giuditta e Oloferne aka Head of a Tyrant takes this remoulding of Judoth's image still further. Not only does she fall for the tyrant in question, but she also performs an erotic dance for him. Whilst the Bible is clear that she possesses a certain allure, this sexualising of her demeans the proto-feminist character of the Bible.

It's refreshing, then to see a recent depiction of this story reverse this trend. Whilst the bedroom scene is still undoubtedly sexual, it is clearly Judith who is on top (signified literally at the moment of execution). Holofernes is shown as weak, and the actor's youth and demeanour portray a vulnerability. Judith by contrast is in control. Holofernes, as per the Bible, is slave to the whims of his sexual desires, Judith is active, prowling around the bedchamber making preparations whilst Holofernes lies idly by playing with the sword that will soon remove his head.

Despite various films' attempts to water down Judith's proactive and aggressive personality, what they cannot get away from is this: the Judith story is essentially about a bloody, brutal and mendacious execution.

Ishmael in Film - Part 3

The Ishmael of the Hebrew Bible is essentially a passive character acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, but never an active initiator. This has resulted in his appearance in film roles being rather limited: no modern filmmaker has taken the sparse details of Ishmael's life from the Bible and used them as a starting point for a more creative/fictional/midrashic telling of his story, either as a leading role in his own right, or as a more significant character within the story of Abraham or Isaac. As a result Ishmael's appearances tend to be bland unimaginative and, as in the text, he is very much a character who is acted upon, little more than a moving prop.

This was not always the case. In 1912 Pathé released two reels (perhaps with the intention of distributors showing them together) Agar e Ismaël and Le Sacrifice d'Ismaël by Henri Andréani. Both films featured Ishmael in the title, even if the short running lengths prevented any complex characterisation.

Perhaps the most intriguing portrayal was in Huston's 1966 film The Bible. Ishmael, still a boy, desecrates a sacred ceremony marking Isaac's weaning. Sarah is appalled watching Ishmael snatch, toss, smash and bury the ceremonial doll, which is, presumably, Isaac's effigy. Sarah views this as a portent of the boys' future relationship, and Ishmael's desire to forcibly assert his authority over his younger brother. To the viewer this appears as simply childish play in an inappropriate context; the result of over exuberance, or perhaps bad parenting. Abraham, however, seems unsure not only torn by his love of his son and the complaints of his wife, he is perhaps as concerned by Ishmael's willingness to stray outside of the accepted religious ceremonial norms. God's voice-over assures him that he need not worry about Ishmael's fate, but also raises the question as to whether Ishmael would have been quite such a willing participant in Abraham's later "test of faith".

One consistent feature about the Isaac episodes is the negative portrayal of Sarai/Sarah. Whilst some of this is derived from the text itself, few films seek to understand Sarah, let along sympathise with her. Indeed most films depict her in an even poorer light than the texts, showing her treating Hagar harshly, (for example carrying heavy loads even when very heavily pregnant). The portrayal of Hagar is often similarly unsympathetic. Whereas the text says only that she "despised" Sarai, several films show her criticising Sarai to her face for being barren. The intention here consistently seems to be to portray Abraham as decent, sympathetic and essentially good. Unfortunately given that he would have been her social superior. He comes across as weak and controlled by Sarah, rather than the master of his own destiny. The consistently shrewish portrayals of Sarah are bolstered by many films using a voice-over to inform the audience that God has also reassured Abraham that he is making the correct decision.

The efforts to beatify Abraham also extend to the portrayal of Ishmael's conception. Almost universally this is depicted as Sarah's suggestion. Indeed the only film to show any flicker of interest from Abraham at the prospect of having sex with Hagar is the irreverent comedy The Real Old Testament (2003) where he feebly tries to shroud his glee at the very prospect. The 2013 miniseries The Bible sexualises Hagar still further by not only choosing an actress with "model looks", but also dwelling on her naked back as she lingers in the tent after conception, watching Abraham walk away unmoved by what has happened.

At this point in the biblical story, Hagar runs away, meets an angel/God in the desert and returns with prophetic words about his future ringing in her ears (Gen 16:6b-14). The similarities between this (Yahwist) account and that in Gen 21:14-19 (Elohist) have meant that the majority of films featuring Ishmael have only included one or the other, sometimes harmonising the two. The one exception is Abraham (1994), the longest portrayal of the Abraham story.

Ishmael's early days are captured in a variety of ways, in some films Sarai takes to the new addition to the family, whereas in other there is enmity from the start. Yet it's perhaps the 1994 film that is most interesting here as Sarai and Abram coo and delight in their son while a still recovering Hagar has to watch from a distance.

Such nuance is however generally absent from the later scenes featuring Ishmael, indeed it is only the Abraham entry in the Testament: The Bible in Animation series where he is given a proper line. There are a few hints of his prowess with the bow (Gen 21:20) in Abraham (1994) and The Bible (2013), but, aside from the incident in the Huston film, Ishmael only needs exist for Sarah's anger to be kindled.To that end it's perhaps not surprising that only one film, In the Beginning, (2000) shows Ishmael's appearance at his father's death bed (pictured above). It is clear from his arrival at the head of a group of horsemen that the angel's words about his prosperity are already coming to pass.

Ishmael in Film - Part 2

This is the the second of two posts about Ishmael in film. The first, it turns out, was rather error strewn, and anyone with any decency would have gone and made the corrections and added the labels and so on before writing the second. He or she would probably also write a better more meaningful post for part two and reply to comments more consistently. But unfortunately, you got me.

There are 6 films that I'm able to lay my hands on that depict Ishmael, but to be honest none of them really do much of great interest with him. This is, I suppose, mainly because he is a minor character. The Bible, and the films that do adapt his story, or rather his part in Abraham's story, are not really interested in him, they are interested in Abraham and Sarah and how they act and react. There's a certain amount of etiology in the Bible's account: Ishmael goes on to be the father of the Ishmaelites (popularly considered to be the descendants of the Arab people), and some of the Edomites (Gen 36) who both become enemies of the Israelites at times (although trusted servants at others - 1 Chron 27:30 for example). Gen 25:18 makes special mention of the Ishmaelites living in "hostility" to all the other tribes.

Essentially though Ishmael is a passive character, acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and to a lesser extent Hagar, but never really an active initiator. The last mention of Ishmael the man is from Genesis 25. He is with Isaac when Abraham is buried (which raises the question as to how contact was made / maintained between the half-brothers) and dies himself at the age of 137.

This doesn't leave scriptwriters a great deal to work with, and although with some characters such a blank sheet might be seen as an invitation to be creative, the need to focus on Abraham means that none of the films really take it.

The Bible (1966)
Sarai takes the initiative here, calling Hagar over and whispering into her ear. She waits for Abram, explains to him her plan. The enmity between Sarai and Ishmael (Gen 16:4) is made explicit early on with Hagar disdainfully comparing Sarai to "dried-up fruits", but it doesn't go to the extent we find in the rest of Genesis as Hagar does not flee from Sarah. The scene then changes to Abram's rescue of Lot (Gen 14), before returning to Ishmael's birth and childhood. But it's Sarah who urges Abraham to send them away, after Ishmael seizes a doll at a celebration of Isaac weaning, and then smashes it and buries it. Sarah again urges Abraham to take action; he is reluctant, but ultimately yields. The narrator adds that God also endorsed the plan in a sentence that sounds too ludicrously anachronistic to be from the KJV but actually is ("Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad"). The next scene is of bright desert sands reflecting the sun and the suddenness of the switch from the previous night-time scene, to the brightness of this scene, is at once beautiful and momentarily painfully glaring. Hagar and Ishmael collapse in the desert and Hagar cries out to God before an angel appears and makes water spring from the ground.

Abraham (1994)
Again everything is Sarai's idea, though here she asks Hagar as her free choice and then proposes it to Abram. Once the baby is born however Hagar makes comments to Sarai about her affair with Pharaoh and then questions her choice of bed for the baby. Hagar then runs away and has a conversation with an angel in line with Gen 16 and including some prophetic words about Ishmael. Hagar and Sarai make up and Hagar gives birth whilst sat on Sarai's knee. But the film is very clear that the child is Sarah's such that even as she is recovering from childbirth, Hagar has to lie there watching Abram and Sarai bring up Ishmael. There's an interesting scene with Abram and Ishmael preparing a sacrifice, which heavily prefigures God "testing" Abraham.

Isaac is born and looks up dotingly to Ishmael, cheering him on as he wrestles with older men and bests them.But as the boys grow older, the tension re-emerges between their mothers.  Sarah fears that Ishmael will do what Hagar tells him, and that Hagar wants to usurp Isaac and make Ishmael the leader. So Sarah persuades Abraham to send the pair away. They go off into the desert (Ishmael with a quiver slung over his shoulder), and struggle for their lives before the visitation from an angel. The spring appears though it's not explicitly a miracle. This, I think, is the only film to show both the times Genesis records Hagar meeting an angel.

Testament: The Bible in Animation - Abraham (1996)
Testament makes the primary focus of the Abraham's whole story, his search for an heir. Right from the start, during Abraham's time in Haran, his failure to find an heir is seen as a big problem, highlighted by both the narration and Sarah's isolation from the children who play around her. Once the move to Canaan is completed it's Sarah's idea for Abraham to have a child through Hagar, the sex is skipped over and the next scene is of a heavily pregnant Hagar still doing tasks for Sarah. Sarah asks "Have you done your work", to which Hagar snaps back "I've certainly done yours". Hagar runs into the desert but is spoken to by angelic/God figure, who tells her to return and not fear Sarah: "Do not be afraid she will be kind".

Again the film seems to skip over another of the more human moments of the story by missing Ishmael's birth. Of all the films this is really the only one to give Ishmael a proper role. He's seen talking to his father and asking "It will be a brother won't it?". It also both shows and mentions Ishmael with a bow and arrow as per Gen 21:20. Ultimately, though it is Sarah who sends Hagar away telling her husband "I will decide". Abraham is reluctant but hears God concur. "Free them" commands this film's God, trying its best to put some kind of positive spin on an episode that doesn't really reflect well on The Almighty.

The Bible: In the Beginning (2000)
Abraham is the main character in the first part of this two part miniseries - indeed even the creation story is narrated by him (to his people). Sarai offers Abram a concubine. He initially refuses, but eventually he visits her tent in the middle of the night. Next scene a heavily pregnant Hagar argues with Sarah and escapes to the desert. Drinking from a pool of water she sees a shadow in the pool and a Godly voice prophesies about Ishmael. Ishmael is born. Abram is happy, Sarai less so. Soon enough she's pregnant and it's Hagar that's in a grump. Isaac's born, Abe's happy again, but soon Sarah becomes all protective and scolds Ishmael. (Hagar and Sarah argue again, Sarah really doesn't come out of her dealings with Hagar with much credit) and soon Hagar's heading back to the desert. Abram weakly tells her God will look after her but the provision of water in the desert is missed out. If that sounds like one of dullest pieces of writing ever to appear on this blog then its because the Ishmael episodes are dealt with in such a dully mundane fashion that it drains any interest from the task of recounting it.

What's a little more interesting though is that Ishmael reappears (at the head of group of horsemen) just before Abraham dies. He and Isaac verbally jostle over pecking order and then Abraham blesses them both equally, making a vaguely 21st century sounding statement about respecting different paths, which sounds a bit forced, but at least it's something of interest in an otherwise turgid portrayal. This is the only film to show the death of Abraham.

The Real Old Testament (2003)
Ishmael doesn't actually appear in this endlessly hilarious version of Genesis, but the chapters 16 and 21 of Genesis are covered and feature Hagar fairly memorably. It's Sarai that suggests Abram taking Hagar as a concubine, and has to explain to him what it actually means. Abram is rather more keen on the plan here than in the other films, and, as he spends his night with Hagar in a sillhouetted tent, is heard triumphantly shouting "I'm young again".

Hagar flees Sarai and meets God in the desert, and as the film doesn't really deal with the story from Genesis 21 that's more or less it. It does however pick up on a couple of parts of chapter 16 that the other film's miss. First is God's prediction that Ishmael will be a "wild ass of a man". In one of Hagar's talking to the camera sequences she clearly sees that as possible. "I have this uncle and he's a wild ass of a man". Also covered is Hagar naming God El-roi in Gen 16:13. God, however, is not impressed: "I'm not going to let that one stick".

The Bible (2013)
Of all the films discussed here, this is the one that simultaneously sexes things, whilst going to the other extreme to portray Abraham as whiter than white. When Sarah suggests that Abraham has his child through her, Abraham is initially vehement "no, no, no, no, no, no, no", but he does anyway. But as he departs from Hagar's tent he leaves the door open for long enough for Sarah and, more crucially, the camera to get a good look in. Hagar sits up, still naked, her beautiful back exposed to the elements. It's a very sexualised image, but in contrast, Abraham, fully clothed walks away as if he has been emotionally unaffected by the whole affair.

We also see Ishmael practising his archery (as per Gen 21:20), and Abraham celebrating his son's prowess. The story then cuts to the rather gratuitously violent story of Sodom before returning to the birth of Isaac. Ishmael and Hagar are dispatched fairly quickly - though there is a heavy implication that it is God's decision and that Abraham is assured by God that they will survive, and prophesies to Ishmael that he will have many children. The camera fades on the two as they walk into the desert and there's no death of Abraham scene for him to feature in.

The Passion, Last Supper, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ

Possibly the longest ever title for a Bible film, this cartoon is part of the "Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible" series. I believe it was originally released as simply as The Passion, Last Supper, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, so this version seems to be some kind of rebrand to cash in with the release of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The dates are a little unclear, the copyright on the DVD says 2004, one retailer gives it as April 2003 and the IMDb doesn't seem to cover it.

As with the other entries in this series there is a fairly lengthy and rather dull introduction to the topic by the late Charlton Heston. I suspect I won't be the only parent to have forward wound through it having to concede that the kids had a point.

Heston aside the series is fairly cheaply made, but visually is fairly good. But there's an awful song about Judas that trails through various episodes. It has enough of Jesus Christ Superstar about it to make it fairly clear that that was what they were going for, but unfortunately it seems like it was written in about 10 minutes.

The central tension for the filmmakers was how much violence to show given that on the one hand the focus was on the Passion, but on the other it is aimed at kids. It varies from child to child I suppose, but I was a bit unhappy with certain decisions the filmmakers made in this respect. I would be interested in knowing the relationship between the making of the film and The Passion of the Christ. There certainly seems to be some influence. Aside from the overall feel and focus of the film, all the beatings are shown, though the episode with Herod is omitted. It also bucks the trend towards incorporate historical findings. We're shown Jesus carrying just a crosspiece, and being helped by an African Simon of Cyrene. That said, this might all be just a coincidence.

However when it comes to the crucifixion there is very little shown. We're shown Simon helping Jesus but the next moment he is on the cross. The actual process of being put on a cross is omitted. This makes a strange contrast with most films on the subject which tend to dwell on the nailing to the cross, and the raising of the cross. It seems strange to cut this completely, but go into such detail about pushing the crown of thorns into Jesus' head (though it's implied rather than fully shown). On the other hand the Bible doesn't focus on the moment of Jesus being attached to the cross and raised, and the original audience for the gospels would have known that the truly horrific bit of being crucified wasn't so much the nailing as the hours of agony fighting for every single breath before a slow painful suffocation. All of the films, pretty much, seem to get this balance wrong though (from memory) the BBC's 2008 Passion is something of an exception.

As for the resurrection, it's harmonised in a fairly interesting manner. It's most reminiscent of another animated film - The Miracle Maker - even bringing the incident with Thomas a week forward to Easter evening, but there's also an interesting switch between Mary meeting Jesus at the tomb, and a group of women telling the disciples the good news.

Ishmael in Film - Part 1

This post is incomplete as there are a number of errors that need rectifying.

One of the characters who appeared in the History Channel's latest series The Bible was Ishmael, Abraham's first son by Hagar. Abraham in general hasn't appeared in that many films. As far as I'm aware his fleeting appearance in 1936's Green Pastures is the earliest remaining appearance in a film. I say "remaining" because I know of up to four silent films in which Abraham may appear.

The BFI film archive does list two films, which it seems are now lost, that are about an Ishmael, 1912's Pathé Hagar and Ishmael and The Marriage of Ishmael from the following year (Imperium films). I can't find a great deal of information on these films online - neither of them even appear in the IMDb, but the book on Pathé's silent historical films - Richard Abel’s "The Cine Goes to Town: French Cinema, 1896-1914" - might yield a little more information. The first sounds highly likelky to be about the biblical characters, but the second could very conceiveably be about a different Ishmael: the Bible only talks about his marriage in the future tense.

I'm also aware of some other films about Abraham courtesy of David Wilson. The Trial of Abraham’s Faith was made by British company Empire Films in 1910. According to a review in the 3rd February edition of Biopscope from the same year this is, as might be expected, about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. The other is, yet again, from Pathé, 1911's Le sacrifice d'Abraham (1911). Neither appears to have featured Ishmael, although it is conceivable that he was included in a shot or two. Presumably though Ishmael does appear in Pathé's Le sacrifice d'Ismaël from the following year. Pathé were at it again the next year (1913) with Rebecca about Isaac's wife, though it seems unlikely Ishmael featured in this one. There were also brief appearances in 1918's Restitution and Le Berceau de dieu (1926), both of which tell a sweeping story across the whole Bible, rather than focus on a particular group of characters.

A few films from the sound era feature Abraham, but not Ishmael, including The Living Bible's entry Abraham: Man of Faith (1952), Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Abraham's Sacrifice (1979), Year One, The God Complex (both 2009) and 2011's Young Avraham. (N.B. I believe Hagar features in the Greatest Heroes episode, but no mention of Ishmael and I haven't seen it to be able to comment).

All of which leaves only 5 films that I can lay my hands on that deal with Ishmael: Huston's The Bible (1966); the longest available treatment, Abraham (1994) starring Richard Harris; Testament: Abraham (1996), The Bible: In the Beginning (2000) and this year's The Bible, I had meant to discuss these in this post but it's got too late so I will have to save it for another day soon.

Celui qui doit mourir (He Who Must Die - 1957)

He Who Must Die is an adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis' novel "Christ Recrucified" by Jules Dassin, best known for his classic film noir Night and the City (1950). Dassin's eye for stunning black and white photography is in evidence from the first frame, and it's not hard to love the film on that basis alone.

The story is essentially that of the passion-play within a passion-play, a growing sub-genre which in addition to several other adaptations of "Christ Recrucified" includes films such as Jesus of Montreal (1989), Man Dancin' (2003), Mary (2005) and, it could be argued, 1973's Jesus Christ, Superstar. But of all those films it's here where the story feels most authentic: the battles are more political than religious; the isolation of the village and it's closely knitted community create the right kind of atmosphere; and the divisive issue at the core is one that still draws deep divides even today.

As with Jesus of Montreal and Man Dancin' the film's passion play is initiated by a religious official who fails to appreciate the radical nature of the play he is commissioning. Here the division comes when an a substantial immigrant community arrives at the village on the verge of starvation. The town's patriarch is a prominent member of the town's council who hide their prejudice behind their concerns for the impact of giving asylum to such a large community. By this time however Father Grigoris has already named the lead actors for the passion play and commissioned them to live out their lives henceforth in a manner consistent with their characters. And so they do.

In many such films the plot begins to whither as division starts to emerge it becomes clear that things are only going to end one way. However whilst the nature of the sub-genre means that this is to some extent inevitable, Dassin manages to sufficiently detach the story from its origins as to obscure how many of the elements will resolve themselves. Furthermore he manages to make the "real story" compelling enough that it is they, rather than the more predictable religious parables, that drive the film to a strong conclusion.

In many ways Dassin's camerawork foreshadows Pasolini's Il vangelo secondo Matteo which would not emerge for another 7 years. The rugged barrenness of the rural landscape, the unpolished look of the actors faces, the extensive use of outside locations and the black and white photography make much of this strongly reminiscent of Pasolini's famous film and one can't help but wonder if this film was, to some extent, influential on his choices.

With better distribution the film might still have the potential to be influential today. With Cyprus and Greece in major economic difficulty with Turkey poised to join the Euro, and immigration showing no sign of loosening its hold on the political agenda the issues are as relevant today as they were in the inter-war years in which the film is set. With stories of hunger and destitution on the rise in that part of Europe, tension is rising between those focussing on the authorities' responsibility for their own citizens on the one hand, and those wanting to react with compassion on the other. Aligning "Jesus" with one side or the other might not be particularly constructive at this point in time, but its focus on those suffering is a useful reminder as we wrestle over this complex issue. That two of the council members who initially opposed the immigrants later change their minds ought not to be forgotten.

Il Messia (1975)

Rossellini's final film, Il Messia, is, as one might expect, unusual for a Jesus film. Rather than starting the story with Mary and Joseph, or John the Baptist, or Jesus about to ride into Jerusalem, it starts 1000 years before as Israel's tribal leaders seek to persuade Samuel that they ought to mimic other tribes and have a king. Samuel and God disagree, but reluctantly give way, with warnings about the consequences if they do. If they accept a king he will charge taxes, press their young men into service and cause a variety of other problems. The Israelites however are not for turning, Saul is anointed king and it is no long before Samuel's status as a prophet is cemented. Soon we see Saul's army taking advantage of their possession and in one, rather shocking scene, hacking up a cow in the name of the king.

It's significant then that when the film finally begins the story of Jesus it begins in the court of Herod. Herod is even more corrupt and even more hated than his predecessor. When rumour spreads that he has been killed the people cause such an uproar that Herod makes vicious plans to be enacted upon his death. If the people won't mourn out of their love for Herod, he will give them something else to grieve about, just so his passing is accompanied by the sound of wailing. Clearly, if power corrupts, then the role of king brings with it an even more concentrated form of corruption and evil.

It's significant too that this film is not related to the name of Jesus but instead uses one of the titles associated with kingly power - The Messiah - even though his kingdom is not of this world. Jesus is the antidote to corrupt power and kingship. It's a key theme in the film which is not only displayed in the manner of his death, but in the manner of his ministry. Few films show a starker contrast between the corrupt elite at the top of Jewish society, and between Jesus and his followers. The Jewish leaders are associated almost entirely with grand buildings either around the great temple, or in an enclosed council chamber. The film's biggest flaw is its failure to discriminate between the Jewish leaders and other leading Jews of the time.

In contrast, Jesus and his disciples are associated with the open air, and with the ins and outs of peasant life. One of the things that people are always struck by when watching this film is the way that Jesus and his disciples continue to work with wood, or catch fish as he teaches them. Their ministry is no aimless wandering, real life very much continues. They continue to be ordinary people in that sense. What I's not appreciated until recently however is just how much of Jesus' ministry takes place in the same space. Jesus and his disciples interact on and return to the same patch of land over and over again, in the heart of a small village. In one much discussed scene we see a flashback to Jesus' childhood with Mary teaching Jesus some of the stories that he will become famous for. But what is often missed is that this scene too takes place within the same space. The whole scene is captured in one long shot as we pan across to Mary and the young Jesus before panning back across to Jesus the man talking with his disciples.

Another striking aspect of the ministry part of Jesus' last few years is the sending out of the disciples. They begin to recount various parts of Jesus' teaching in a form recognisable to us. One of the most striking is the story of the Rich Young Man. Most Jesus films show this as an event that is happening in real time. Here it is told as an account of an event that has already happened capturing the sense of events transforming into scripture.

There's a decisive break shortly after as we're told that the time is not 32 AD and Jesus and the disciples head towards Jerusalem. The point is indicated figuratively as well as Jesus and his followers cross a bridge. A new phase is being entered. The authorities are becoming infuriated and Jesus prepares to enter Jerusalem. Interestingly the film is one of the few to get the topography correct here. My understanding is limited but Jerusalem, sits a top mount Zion meaning thos entering the city need to go up hill. But in my recollection, most films tend to show this event either on the flat or, as in The Robe amongst others, downhill into the city. The climb here is relatively steep and uphill. The small donkey strains to make it to the gates, and the sense of a king coming in humility, not in power, is made much more forcefully. It also nicely underlines the sense of Jesus' ministry culminating.

The events of Holy Week pass by fairly quickly. Rossellini follows John in including the clearing of the temple at the start of Jesus' ministry, rather than at the end, and the question of paying taxes to Caesar is only recounted, not acted out. Judas is recruited with the minimum of fuss, and whilst the Last Supper is given decent shrift, it's not hugely extended. Indeed the naturalistic way in which this event passes off - with almost no sense of grand occasion - is a strikingly historic way of presenting the moment.

Jesus' trial is downplayed even more. Most of the infamous words are there or there abouts, but the moment is restrained. There are no point of view shots from within the crowd, the shots are long and dispassionate, and close ups of Jesus are still relatively rare. The most active part of the scene is the entry of the quickly assembled mob who are to pick Barabbas over Jesus. There's a clear sense that these people are not representative of the quarter of a million Jews in Jerusalem that Passover. They are just the High priests cronies, quickly rounded up to pressure Pilate into submitting to their wants.

Even more surprisingly for those acquainted with Jesus films is the absence of any procession to the cross. In fact a stations of the cross motif is almost entirely absent. The two Marys and John witness the trial, but when it ends in confusion (highlighting the language barrier which few other films even acknowledge) do not realise the sentence has been passed. When they arrive at Golgotha moments later, Jesus is already on his cross. Few of the words in the Gospels are repeated here and Jesus dies without darkness, thunder, earthquakes or a torn curtain. The scene is accompanied by a haunting children's song, present also when the boy Jesus got lost at the temple, about a cycle of violence and a breakdown in the sacrificial system.

Even the power that could be wrought from the resurrection is stripped from the film. After a lengthy pieta, where Jesus is finally associated with the inside of a building, Jesus is buried. But the film only goes as far as to provide a Markan ending. The tomb is ending, but the closure of Matthew, Luke and John is denied us. Jesus has gone, and Mary kneels in worship, but the conclusion is far from solid and there are no appearances of the risen Messiah.

Such an ending is consistent with the rest of the film which, barring a very low key feeding of the five thousand, omits the miracles almost entirely, continuing the approach Rossellini adopted in Atti Degli Apostoli, Stromboli, Viaggio in Italia amongst others. It is not denying the miraculous necessarily, but almost placing the viewer in the moment of its occurrence, almost unable to tell yet that something miraculous has happened. Only on reflection do we work out what has happened. Perhaps Rossellini's view was that miracles too represented a form of power, which as the fall of countless faith healers over the years has indicated, can also corrupt, In reality God may well be present with us, but his presence, and yes his transforming, renewing power, is not always discernible at the the time.

Holy Ghost Films

No, not a post on spiritual or faith-based horror films, just a bad pun about the portrayal of the Holy Spirit in film. It's quite a difficult distinction to make. Is the Holy Spirit pure spirit? What about passages where s/he appears as...? If the spirit of God is a pure spirit any depiction in film would have to be either metaphorical, or indirect (seeing the results of his/her presence, rather than their actual presence).

It's also difficult to decide where to place the boundaries. Acts films with their Pentecost scenes are an obvious starting place, as are scenes about Jesus' baptism, but what about passages from the Hebrew Bible such as creation, or Saul's ecstatic prophesying? What about the apostles' miracles in Acts? And then what about today? Charismatics, Pentecostals and a good deal of other Christians believe in a Holy Spirit that is active today and that works miracles today. SPOILERSDo we see the Holy Spirit in Ordet, or Lourdes, Ushpizin or The Song of Bernadette? END of SPOILERS What about films such as those listed in the book "The Hidden God" or in the Arts and Faith Top 100 Films, which used to be called the top 100 "Spiritually Significant" films? And then what about all those films which touch on the Fruit of the Spirit?

The main reason I'm writing this blog post is that blogging helps me think and work through my thoughts, process them, order them and sometimes, shockingly, even come to a decision. And I have a piece that I need to write on this, 700 words to cover "The Holy Spirit" in film. It's tough for me because I'm not sure what I think about how the Spirit works today. Fruit? Yes. Gifts? Sort of. Miracles? I'd like to believe in the possibility, but have too many questions to resolve in 700 words. But focussing solely on the biblical narratives would give the impression of cessationalism, which contradicts with my feeling that the only a God present and active in the world is worth following.

Big questions. And I'm already overdue. Perhaps I'll focus on the biblical stories and end with a very brief mention, of more contemporary films which touch on fruit gifts and miracles.

Holofernes in Film

Given the fairly one dimensional portrayal of Holofernes in the book of Judith, it's perhaps little surprise that he has rarely been fleshed out in film. The earliest silent films about Judith - Giuditta e Oloferne (1906) and Gaumont's Judith et Holopherne (1909) - portray him simply as a lust-driven tyrant; a piece of meat biding its time before slaughter.

Things begin to change in D.W. Griffith's Judith of Bethulia (1913). Physically all three portrayals of Holofernes are very similar - a well-built, dark-haired man with a heavy, black beard who lounges on a couch whilst scantily-clad servant girls fawn in attendance. But some of the subtleties of the biblical account (for example his relative fairness in Judith 11:1-4) are also portrayed, not least because this is the first film to explain the events from Holofernes' point of view as well as Judith's. The film's intertitles explain that Judith finds him "noble", but more significantly that he ""had thoughts only for Judith - and he gave no heed unto the Dance of the Fishers by the artful women". Holofernes' thoughts are also shown visually during the dance. Griffith uses an iris to put the spotlight on Holofernes and cast the rest of the action into darkness, demonstrating his isolation from them and his single focus on Judith.

Holofernes appeared in one more silent film - the Italian Giuditta e Oloferne (1928) - but then over thirty years passed before his next significant appearance in 1959 in another Italian production of the same name. The film was released elsewhere in the world under a variety of titles, including Judith das Schwert der Rache in Germany and Head of a Tyrant in the English speaking world. The film went still further in softening Holofernes' image. Whilst initially he is depicted as ruthless and debauched he falls for Judith and demonstrates tenderness. The transition is marked in a scene where Holofernes snaps "I should have killed you with the others", before gently holding her head and kissing her. Indeed in many ways the film is a variation on the Roman-Christian epics of the early fifties such as Quo Vadis where a good Christian transforms the heart of a Roman commander, only with a radically different twist at the end.

A swathe of made for TV movies followed in the sixties, from the USA (1960), Argentina (1961), West Germany (1965 & 1966) and France (1969) with two European films reaching cinemas in 1979/1980 from Spain (Judith) and the former Yugoslavia (Judita), but the story has largely passed out of fashion despite its rich source material (packed with irony, humour, wordplay and suspense) and the seemingly obvious appeal for modern audiences (sex, power, violence, politics).

One recent film, Quebecois filmmaker Eric Chaussé's 2007 short Judith has offered an interesting adaptation of the story. By limiting the action solely to Holofernes' sleeping quarters Chaussé strips him of the trappings of imperial power (servants, grand armour, luxurious furnishings) humanising him and making him more vulnerable. The actor (pictured) is also young, with softer features and seemingly more gentle. Shorn of his power Holofernes appears almost as a victim, even the way Judith climbs upon him implies her dominance, subverting the image of the would be rapist of Judith 12:12. The final shot is of Holofernes' execution, which is filmed from directly behind his head, an almost point of view shot which places the audience in sympathy with the Assyrian general. Chaussé's cinematography is utterly reminiscent of Caravaggio and Gentileshchi's paintings and gives the scene a fittingly dark, intimate and erotically-charged atmosphere.

Judith of Bethulia (1913)

By the time D.W. Griffith got around to making Judith of Bethulia in 1913 it was already the third film to have been made about the Jewish heroine. An Italian film from 1908, Giuditta e Oloferne, was the first and two years later a French film Judith et Holopherne also covered the story. Yet since Griffith's day the story has been largely ignored.

It's significant, of course, that the first two treatments were both from Catholic countries where the deuterocanonical books are more widely accepted, but nevertheless Judith's early exit from cinematic history is something of a puzzle. There are still far fewer strong female characters than there should be, but there is gradual increase. Where female leads have starred in action films they have tended to be strongly sexualised, Xena Princess Warrior and Tomb Raider being two notable examples. Judith's story, then, seems like it should be even more of an obvious choice today than it was 100 years ago - not only does it feature a female heroine, but she also uses her sexuality to carry out her role as assassin. It's to be hoped that the absence of modern adaptations of this story shows greater maturity in society's attitude to women. Sadly I suspect that its just a product of the predominance of protestantism in the UK, America and various other countries combined with a decline in interest in religion in general in formerly Catholic European countries.

Judith of Bethulia was released a year or two* before D.W.Griffith's ground-breaking and controversial film Birth of a Nation in 1915. Whilst a number of releases separate the two films, many of the techniques which brought Griffith acclaim are in evidence here, albeit in their infancy.

For example, in contrast to those two earlier films (the latter of which was made only 3 years beforehand) there is a far greater range of  shots from relative close-ups to long shots with a considerable depth of field. The sets are also an improvement on the previous Judith films, although Bethulia is no match for Griffith's Babylon in Intolerance three years later.

The major beneficiary of this range of shots is the battle scene, featuring significant numbers of extras and several shots with a significant depth of field. These are somewhat confused, particularly in comparison with his later big action scenes, lacking a certain organisation and making it difficult to differentiate which people are which. (No doubt this is not helped by only seeing a poor quality transfer of the print)

Griffiths also shows his penchant for personal melodrama shot against a backdrop of major historical events. Aside from the Jesus segments of Intolerance, the three other episodes all revolve around the trials of a young couple. Likewise Judith's story is juxtaposed with that of Nathan and Naomi a young Bethulian couple. She is captured by the Assyrians just before Judith's mission, and as the Assyrian army panic's in the wake of their commander's death, Nathan slips into their camp to rescue his beloved.

Such a juxtaposition creates interesting contrasts with the relationship between Judith and Holofernes. It emphasises the strength of character Judith displays, but it also highlights the romantic element of their relationship. He for his part is instantly "ravished with her". Likewise when she finally meets the commander, she is deeply conflicted, and "wrestles with her heart" because she finds him "noble" (despite the numerous semi-clad servant girls that hang around his tent).

Later an intertitle tells us "again she faltered for the love of Holofernes - yet struggled to cast away the sinful passion". Once again the intertitles also reveal Holofernes feelings, he "had thoughts only for Judith - and he gave no heed unto the Dance of the Fishers" but they are also conveyed visually. During the dance, a shot of Holofernes with his courtiers uses an iris to express Holofernes' lack of interest in his surroundings, which have, quite literally, been relegated to the shadows.

It is in the killing scene when this comes to a climax. Holofernes falls asleep and Judith raises a sword above his neck, but she hesitates and lowers it again torn between her love for him and her duty to her people. She stares into the distance and the film cuts away to the well of Bethulia now littered with the bodies of her countrymen. Whilst it seems physically impossible for her to see this, the sequence suggests that somehow she knows it and she gets up and kills the Assyrian leader. Interestingly we do not witness the decisive blow. This decision may have been on grounds of taste, or technical complexity, but it acts as a testimony of her love for him. And, aside from biblical fidelity, is more to be read into her taking away the head of the man she loves?

It's a significant film then, not only the launch of Griffiths into feature length movies, but also expanding on elements of the story only hinted at in the earlier films.

*Sources disagree on the exact year of release. IMDB and Campbell and Pitts cite 1914, whereas the BFI give the release date as one year earlier.

Judith et Holopherne (1909)

Commonly Known as Judith (1910-UK) or Judith Retterin Israels (D)
I'm unsure how many prints of this film still exist. Certainly the BFI archivelists only one and silentera.com are unsure as to whether the film is still in existence. The intertitles are in German, and are fairly lengthy - perhaps around 200-250 words across five cards, which constitutes a significant part of the reel's 8 minute running time, although the film's ending is missing.

It turns out that the intertitles are one of the more notable parts of the film so I'll reproduce the wording (in German) and offer a basic translation as I go through. The opening title card places the story in its historical context dating it as the 13th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, details the siege of Bethulia and the drying up of the cistern and notes that Judith is the widow of Manesseh.

Im dreizehnten Jahre der Regierung des gewaltigen Königs Nebukadnezar entbrann - te sein Zorn gegen die Judäer und sein sieggewohnter Feldherr Holophernes lag mit grosser Heeresmacht vor Bethulia, einer ihrer Stadte. Und es kam der Tag, an dern das Wasser in den Cysternen versiegte und das verzagte Volk bestürmte Osias, den Fürsten, die Stadt den Assyrern auszuliefern. Da entschloss sich Judith, die Witwe des Menasse, die Retting der Kinder Israels zu wagen.

In the thirteenth year of the reign of the mighty King Nebuchadnezzar his anger was kindled against Judah and his victorious commander Holofernes was lying in wait with a large army against Bethulia, one of its cities. And there came the day when the water dried up in the countries cistern and despondent people violently protested to Osias, the prince to surrender the city to the Assyrians. So Judith, widow of Manasseh, decided to dare (attempt) the salvation of the children of Israel.

The opening scene is of the marketplace in Bethulia before a cut to Judith's house and a visit of the town's leaders, before the second intertitle.

Und sie legte ihre Witwenkleider ab, salbte sich mit köstlichem Wasser, fiel auf die Knie und betete zu Gott. Dann begab sie sich begleitet von einer Dienerin ins feindliche Heerlager, wo sie angab eine entflohene Hebräerin zu sein

And she took off her widow's garments, anointed with precious ointment, dropped to her knees and prayed to God. Then she went accompanied by a servant into the enemy camp, where she claimed to be an escaped Hebrew.

We see Judith getting prepared, having her nails done by two servants and appearing in the marketplace. We're never quite told how Judith ends up in the presence of Holofernes, but the next intertitle, and scene, takes place in the Assyrian camp.

Und sie wurde vor das Angesicht des Holofernes geführt. Derselbe sah ihre Schönheit und entbrannte in Liebe zu ihr. Da gewährte er ihr eine Zufluchtsstätte in seinem Zelte und zwar an dem Orte, wo er seine Schätze bewahrte.

And she was led into the presence of Holofernes. The same saw her beauty and fell in love with her. Then he gave her a refuge in his tent, and that in the place where he kept his treasures.

Judith goes straight in and bows, and her and Holofernes chat. Yet again the girls present prior to this are hastily sent away. Eventually Judith leaves.

Am vierten Tage machte Holofernes ein Festmahl allen seinen nächsten Dienern. und er befahl, dass das hebräische Weib zu ihm komme. Und sie weigerte sich nicht, denn jetzt hielt sie den von Gott gegebenen Augenblick gekommen, ihr bedrängtes Volk zu retten.

...Und in der Stille der Nacht schlug sie dem trunkenden Feldherrn das Haupt ab mit seinem eigenen Schwerte.

On the fourth day Holofernes held his next feast for all his servants. And he ordered that the Hebrew woman to come to him. And she refused, because the God-given moment had not arrived for her to save their beleaguered people.

...And in the dead of night she hit the commander's neck with his own sword.

This lengthy intertitle rather spoils the climax for anyone unfamiliar with the story and dissipates any sense of dramatic tension. Holofernes holds another banquet where Judith pretends to drink whilst Holofernes pours his wine down his throat. Then she cunningly and seductively pours her drink down his throat as well. The courtiers leave and the next shot is in Holofernes bedroom, with Holofernes asleep on the bed. Judith prays briefly before hacking off Holofernes' head in what is, nevertheless, a nicely composed shot (pictured above). The final intertitle again explains what is about to happen.

Und sie verliess mit dem verhüllten Haupte des Holophernes ungehindert das Kriegslager, begleitet von ihrer Dienerin, und sie erreichte Bethulia. Hier war der Jubel gross. Das assyrische Heer aber, als es seinen Feldherrn erschlagen sah, entfloh. Die Kinder Israels waren gerettet. Judith aber ward hochgeehrt im ganzen Lande.

And she left the war camp unhindered with the veiled head of Holofernes, accompanied by her maid, and she reached Bethulia. Here, the jubilation was great. But the Assyrian army fled when they saw their commander killed. The children of Israel were saved. And Judith was highly respected throughout the country.

There's a brief scene from Bethulia - looking out off the balcony, before the end is cut off rather abruptly. There's no scene of Judith being honoured by her people as the final intertitle anticipates.

Sadly it's a fairly dull interpretation on the story, although the scenes with just Judith and Holofernes are well, er, executed.

The BFI describes the film as follows:

DRAMA. Historical. The Apocryphal story of Judith and Holofernes. The Israelites, besieged in Bethulia, beg their leader to hand over the town to the Assyrian commander, Holofernes, but one of their number, the widow Judith, decides on an alternative plan. She goes to the camp of Holofernes, who becomes enamoured of her. After a feast at which he gets a drunk, she escorts him to his bedchamber and there chops off his head with his own sword. The besieged Israelites await her return...(770ft). Incomplete. Note: This film employs the same sets as Gaumont's Le FESTIN DE BALTHAZAR (1910).

The notes for the second Ancient World in Silent Cinema event reproduce this text, but also credit the director as Louis Feuillade, date the film as 1909 instead and give its length as 8 minutes.

Giuditta e Oloferne (1906/1908)

The BFI Archive print of the film starts with an introduction

"The Italian film. From 1908 to 1914 Italy played an important role in film history with her classico-historical spectacles. The success of Quo Vadis (1911) as well as of the French Queen Elizabeth definitely established the long film and brought cinema new esteem"

I'm not sure at what stage these notes were added, but they go on to show some elements of analysis. "Insistence on architecture and gesticulation were constants".

The film begins with people challenging the priests to do something about the siege - children are dying. Judith arrives with her entourage and is dressed very much like a suffragette. It would be a mistake to assume this is a deliberate association on behalf of the filmmakers. Italian women didn't gain the vote until 1946 and it's more likely that the style of dress I associate with the suffragette movement is merely typical of pre-war European fashion. Nevertheless given the story's political angle and it's radically divergent portrayal of a woman, it's an association that I suspect many other viewers would make.

Certainly the expensive looking dress and the entourage emphasise that Judith is relatively wealthy and in high standing in her community. It's while Judith is doing her make-up at home that the angel appears to her with a sword to signify the deed she is being commissioned to carry out. There's no angel in the text of course so this addition strengthens the idea that this was God's idea.

Judith and her handmaiden leave the camp and are quickly captured by some Assyrian soldiers. They bring the pair into the court and Holofernes is instantly smitten. Having been making merry with his court and cavorting with some scantily clad servant girls, he sends out the whole court upon Judith's arrival. Holofernes starts to seduce Judith. Judith stands but the angel appears again and orders her down. This again indicates Judith's mission is God-ordained circumventing any questions about the morality of her actions.

The next scene takes place in the adjoining room where once again Holofernes has company (including some blacked-up servants), only this time Judith drinks. He then takes her to his bedroom where she continues to resist his sexual advances. Eventually Holofernes passes out but Judith is reluctant to kill him. Suddenly the angel appears again, specifically gesturing that she should cut off his head and so eventually she does, drawing the curtain around Holofernes' bed before popping his severed head into a bag and leaving.

The final scene (pictured above) depicts Judith returning home and pulling out Holofernes' head before the assembled people to show their victory. The people of Bethulia bow.

The repeated addition of the angel, even urging her to kill Holofernes is strongly interpretative, and is particularly interesting for those who like me are intrigued by the way Christian art often distorts the biblical text in order to rationalise such awkwardly violent acts seemingly at God's command. For protestants this story is not so problemmatic as they give the "apocrypha" much less authority, but what's interesting is that similar tactics are used throughout the history of filmmaking for stories from the universally accepted canon.


The plot summary provided by the organisers of the "Ancient World in Silent Cinema II" event gave the film the following synopsis:

Giuditta e Oloferne [Judith and Holopherne] (Italy, Mario Caserini, 1908) 6 mins. The Israelites, besieged in Bethulia, bemoan their fate. In Judith's palace, an angel appears and instructs her to help. Judith is led into the tent of the Assyrian leader Holophernes. He, much taken, orders everyone out including his protesting concubine. Judith is reluctant but, after the reappearance of the angle, submits to his embrace. Holophernes feats with his concubine and court. Judith enters and feigns pleasure. He leaads her to bed, but falls drunkenly asleep. The angel urges the reluctant Judith to kill him. Judith returns to the Israelites and shows them his head.

The BFI also summarise it on their website:

HISTORICAL. Apocryphal story of Judith who saves the Israelites by seducing and beheading the Assyrian leader Holofernes. "THE ITALIAN FILM. From 1908 to 1914 Italy... JUDITH AND HOLOPHERNES Produced by Cines-Roma. Biblical...insistence on architecture and gesticulation" (101) JUDITH AND HOLOPHERNE. Wolf logo. CINES (102) The Israelite people, soldiers and priests, besieged in Bethulia, bemoan their fate. Black slaves enter down steps followed by Judith, attendants and fanbearers wearing tights. All kneel (171). In Judith's palace: columns and curtains: the attendants bedeck Judith. They exit. A female angel appears, instructs Judith, vanishes, reappears and exits. Judith summons her handmaid and they leave (242). Four Assyrians with spears, bows and arrows in a rocky place: Judith and maid enter, show alarm and are led off held by their wrists (261). Holophernes holds court in a tent with his concubine, other women, guards, fanwavers and black slaves. Judith and maid are led in. Holophernes, much taken, orders everyone out including the protesting concubine. Alone, he takes Judith to the couch. She is reluctant but, after a word from the angel, submits to his embrace (318). In a circular tent, Holophernes feasts with his concubine and court. Judith enters, shows disgust but feigns pleasure. They embrace, drink and exit (390). In the previous tent the crowd enters. Holophernes drives them all out with a sword, embraces Judith, leads her to the bed, and falls drunkenly asleep. She observes him, laughs, picks up sword, hesitates. The angel urges her. She picks up sword again and, back to camera, uses it, turns holding head and sword, drops both, closes bed curtains, emerges wrapping the head in a cloth and exits (479). The Israelites are still wailing. Judith and her maid arrive with the bundle. Judith climbs steps and shows the head. All kneel (528ft). Note: Intertitles missing. First 101ft are a modern introduction. Length without this is 417ft. Also held: (205243A 425 ft, no titles, slightly better print) and 608423A (Joye Collection no.1907, 376ft, opening title and Cines logo but no intertitles, incomplete- ends when Judith leaves with her trophy).

Judith Films

I'm going to be writing a bit on films about Judith and Holofernes over the next week or so including writing about 3 silent portrayals of the story, as well as a quick look at how the main two characters are portrayed in the various films. So it seems a good idea to start by collating a list of the different films in which the story of Judith features. Interestingly the majority of these films are from the silent era, despite the seemingly contemporary appeal of the narrative for today's audiences - sex, violence, seduction, empowerment - can you imagine what Tarantino would do with this story?

 

It's always difficult to know how exhaustive to make lists like these, particularly now people can make films on their cameras and upload them to YouTube, but here is a list of most of the significant portrayals of this story. If you think I've missed one, please let me know in the comments.

 

Giuditta e Oloferne (1906/1908)

[Italy, Mario Caserini] The earliest film about Judith, Campbell and Pitts date this as 1906, but the print in the BFI National Archive is dated in 1908.

 

Judith et Holopherne (1909)

[Gaumont, France, Louis Feuillade] A year after the Italian Judith, Gaumont made a Judith film of their own, distributed in the UK simply as Judith.

 

Judith (1912)

[UK, Theo Frenkel]Evidence on this film is rather scant, indeed it may even be two films, one released in 1920 and another made 2 years later. Things are further confused because the director of this film Theo Frenkel made another film called Judith in 1923, although that does not appear to have been a biblical one.

 

Judith of Bethulia (1914)

[Biograph, USA, DW Griffith] Undoubtedly the most well known of the films about Judith this was Griffith's first feature length film. A 1917 release of the film was renamed Her Condoned Sin.

Giuditta e Oloferne (1928)

[Italy] Campbell and Pitts list this in the notes to the 1906 film, but there are no further details. IMDb lists this as 1929, as does Derek Elley. The BFI Archive lists this as 1928 and describes the film as having "two parallel stories, the first, set in biblical times about the heroic Giuditta who dies to save her city Betulia from the Assyrians. The second is about an engineer who tries to prevent any speculation about a beautiful woman."

Head of a Tyrant / Giuditta e Oloferne (1959)

[Italy, Fernando Cerchio] IMDb gives this a lowly 3.6 score and from the trailer and excerpt available on YouTube it's clear that this film imports a dance of Salome moment into the film as well as attempting to create extra intrigue by having Judith fall for her victim. (Poster image above).

 

General Electric Theatre: The Story of Judith (1960) [USA]

Judith (1961) [Argentina]

Judith (1965) [West Germany]

Judith (1966) [West Germany]

Judith (1969) [France]

These five all seem to be TV movies from the 60s, but definitely different films as they all list different actors.

 

Estudio 1: Judith (1979)

[Spain, Alfredo Castellón] At 140 minutes this is seemingly the longest version of the story.

 

Judita (1980)

[Yugoslavia, Marin Caric] Produced by Yugoslav company Hrvatska Radiotelevizija (HRT) this is the only biblical film I know of from the former European country.

 

Judith (2007)

[Canada, Eric Chaussé] This 4 minute short from French speaking Quebec limits itself to the bedroom scene and even without subtitles is a remarkably powerful treatment. It's available to view on YouTube and is well worth the four minutes.

Book Review: Thomas and the Gospels

Thomas and the Gospels: The Making of an Apocryphal Text
Mark Goodacre

Paperback: 224 pages
Publisher: SPCK Publishing
Date: 18 Oct 2012
Language: English

ISBN: 978-0281067763

When I was growing up, if people talked about the fifth gospel, they meant you yourself. How you took the message of Jesus and expressed it to those around you. These days when I hear the term it's invariably referring to the Gospel of Thomas.

Mark Goodacre's new book "Thomas and the Gospels: The Making of an Apocryphal Text" is the latest in a series of recent books to examine the fifth gospel. Goodacre is somewhat torn as to whether it deserves its special status. On the one hand he points out that "privileging of Thomas has several damaging effects on the way we pursue our scholarship" (p.194-5), not least because it "encourages a kind of ahistorical privileging of one noncanonical gospel over many others" (p.195). Yet on the other hand, he himself has written a complete book on this one text, but has not yet published a great deal on other noncanonical texts.

However, those worried that Goodacre has lost his sense of direction can rest easy. Goodacre simply recognises the "genius" of the work, whilst wanting to bring an end to the discussion as to whether Thomas pre-dates the canonical gospels. His opening chapter "First Impressions" begins to do precisely that, marking out the territory by looking at the arguments of "genre" (p.9), "order" (p.14) and "Tradition History" (p.17) that are used by those in favour of an independent Thomas. Finding them unpersuasive he turns to John P. Meier's brief observations "that Thomas apparently has parallels with every type of Synoptic material" (p.21) and spends the rest of the chapter outlining what those are and what this means for the question of familiarity vs independence.

One of the things I have always admired about Goodacre is his desire to start by introducing the reader to the evidence before drawing out his conclusions and "Thomas and the Gospels" is no exception. Having set the stage with Meier's observations he spends the next six chapters exploring the significant quantity of material that Thomas shares with the Synoptics.

This is detailed work, offering the reader, at every turn, the original wording in either the Greek or Coptic (as well as English translations for those of us without the necessary language skills). But then Goodacre's point is precisely that our problems have arisen precisely because theories have flooded in before a careful and thorough examination of the evidence. Having read the book in between BBC broadcasts of G.K. Chesterton's "Father Brown" stories I'm struck by an interesting parallel. Time and again the police inspector draws instant conclusions, bending the evidence to fit his theories, whilst Brown strives for a deeper grasp of the evidence before solving the mystery long after the inspector's initial arrests have been released without charge.

Those familiar with Goodacre's work on the Synoptic problem will feel very much at home in these middle chapters. He starts by looking at the places of significant "verbatim agreement" (ch.2), moves on to what he calls "diagnostic shards" (ch.3) and then to examples of the kind of redaction that would be typical of Matthew (ch.4) and Luke (ch. 5) with a particular focus on the "Special Case" of Thomas 79 and Luke (ch.6). The section ends with a look at the places where Thomas's sayings lack seemingly critical details which the Synoptic Gospels include, what Goodacre terms "The Missing Middle" (ch.7).

In approaching the subject this way Goodacre continues the process, tools and vocabulary he uses in analysing the way the writers of the Synoptic Gospels may have used the others. It's the core of the present work and whilst it lacks the Dan Brown-esque zing of other works on the subject it more than makes up for them with a consistent, rational an detailed examination of the evidence. Replacing attention-grabbing conspiracy theories with a solid reappraisal of the evidence is surely a good thing.

Chapter 8 tackles the issue of orality. Thomas has been classified as a "sayings gospel" and so has played a part in gaining greater scholarly appreciation of the need to consider the fact that most people in Jesus' day were unable to read.  Whilst Goodacre acknowledges that literacy was indeed significantly lower in the first and second centuries and that this should be remembered, he considers that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. The consensus seems to forget that many people in the first century were literate, and that whilst most people today are literate, a good deal of interaction occurs orally.

As a result he finds himself unpersuaded by the claim that Thomas was an oral gospel - "The appearance of orality is a product of Thomas' genre, the sayings gospel" (p.153). The gospel's preface, the degree of verbatim agreement and its lack of quotations from the Hebrew Bible all suggest that the author was seeking to adopt the saying's gospel genre, rather than forming an oral gospel.

Personally I felt this chapter was a little light on detail in the crucial places. Having made a strong case for re-examining the way scholars handle the question of orality, the evidence suggesting Thomas made a deliberate choice is discussed too scantly to be fully convincing. Could the opening preface not be a later addition, added by the scribe who was finally committing the gospel to papyrus? The degree of verbatim agreement does suggest, to me at least, that Thomas was familiar with the Synoptics but I'm still unsure as to why this means the gospel must have been created first in written form. The case for genre adoption is well argued, but perhaps a little circular. I suspect Goodacre has more reasons to support this theory, so it's disappointing that there's no more detail here: it laves the chapter feeling a little curtailed.

Similarly the penultimate chapter (ch.9 "Dating Thomas...") also ends a little hurriedly. Having made a good argument against early dates for Thomas and Mark he settles on a post 70AD date for Mark, with Matthew and Luke appearing over the next couple of decades and Thomas not arriving until after Bar Kochba's rebellion in 135 AD. This based on Thomas 68 and 71 in which Goodacre finds suggestions that the temple has now been levelled. But again, I'm unconvinced. 71's redaction of the Marcan/Matthean prediction of the temple's destruction might be linked to Thomas' apparent disdain for Judaism, the OT and its practices. 68 might translate in such a way, but its meaning still seems too ambiguous to carry the weight of what is being proposed.But these are minor quibbles over what is overall an interesting, enjoyable, and largely convincing, read.

The final chapter looks at "How and Why Thomas Used the Synoptics" (ch.10) and is the best in the book. Here it is proposed that Thomas "conveys its radical difference from the Synoptic Gospels by hiding its theology in the words and images it derives from them." (p.192) By using Jesus' words in forms broadly similar to those in the Synoptic Gospels, Thomas gives his gospel a level of credibility and authenticity, but, like the later Synoptic writers (only to a greater extent) he brings to bear his own particular theology by which salvation is found through understanding Jesus' secret sayings. For Goodacre Thomas' opening self description, and the way it is expanded in the exchange in Thomas 13, are central to understanding the work. It's convincingly argued to the extent it makes me wonder why this isn't already the prevailing view.

Finally there is a brief conclusion reaffirming Goodacre's central thesis that not only was Thomas not an independent oral gospel written down at a later stage, but that it was a written Gospel which deliberately used the Synoptic Gospels to authenticate its subversive message.

There's evidence to suggest that Goodacre amongst others are starting to gain a greater following for the Farrer theory and it will be interesting to see to what extent his latest work encourages scholars to rethink the prevailing views about the Gospel of Thomas. It's to be hoped that they at least engage with the depth of scholarship here as fifth gospel or not, discussion about Thomas is to remain popular for a long time.

==========

As is often the case, for reviewing purposes I received a free copy of this book. No other financial or material gain was received.

Last Temptation and Film Noir

Over the last year or so I've been getting into film noir and reading a couple of books on the subject as well. It's changed my understanding quite significantly. It's always been a genre that I've enjoyed, but previously my understanding of it was primarily centred around adaptations of Chandler-esque novels such as The Big Sleep rather than a more nuanced definition.

Indeed part of the problem seems to be that as a genre it almost defies definition. Some would argue they know it when they see it, but often they disagree. Is, for example, Spiral Staircase part of the canon or not? For those not that familiar with it let me dispel a few myths. Film noir does not have to be black and white, it doesn't have to be made in the 40s on cheap sets, and it doesn't have to be about crime.

The consensus seems to rest much more readily on aspects such as the use of a weak male anti-hero, who is known to us and through whose eyes we view the events unfold. Thus the audience associates with his viewpoint, in fact often he will be the narrator. Typically there is also a female character present, (femme fatale) but she is less known to the audience and the leading man. He cannot figure her out, yet nevertheless he is drawn to her. Thematically questions of guilt, paranoia and identity are paramount.

There's a great definition of the genre in one of the books I'm reading at the moment, Andrew Spicer's "Film Noir".

Noir's highly complex narrative patterning is created by the use of first-person voice-overs, multiple narrators, flashbacks and ellipses which often create ambiguous or inconclusive endings. Noir narratives are frequently oneiric (dream-like), where every object and encounter seems unnaturally charged….The noir universe is dark, malign and unstable where individuals are trapped through fear and paranoia, or overwhelmed by the power of sexual desire. Noir’s principal protagonists consist of the alienated, often psychologically disturbed, male anti-hero and the hard, deceitful femme fatale he encounters. But the range of noir characters is more complex than is usually thought. (p.4)

So one day I found myself pondering on which Bible Films have the most noirish elements and it didn't take me long to land on Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ. Noir is usually set in the present (although The Spiral Staircase is a much debated exception) which few Bible films are really, but otherwise most of the elements are present. Jesus provides the narration, we get to hear his thoughts but not even he understands why he is drawn to Magdalene, who remains alluring but unknowable throughout the film. Dafoe's Jesus is weak, paranoid, riddled with guilt and unsure of his identity.

It turns out that this is not coincidental. Turning to Spicer's book to find the above quote I'm reminded about the fact that one of the most influential pieces on the understanding of the genre is a 1972 essay called "Notes on Film Noir", written by one Paul Schrader.

Schrader predicts the resurection of interest in the genre, and nudged his prophecy along the way by writing the screenplay for Scorsese's 1976 film noir of sorts Taxi Driver. Spicer takes an in depth look at the film in his first chapter on Neo-noir. Twelve years later Schrader and Scorsese collaborated again, with Schrader penning the script for Last Temptation.

Before everyone thinks I've gone a little bit mad, I should qualify my point. I'm not saying that Last Temptation is a film noir, but certainly a great number of noirish elements are to be found in the film and knowing Schrader's expertise in the genre certainly suggests another lens through which we should view the final production.

Posted with Blogsy

Official Trailer for The Bible

The History Channel is airing a 10-part series this March called The Bible and the official trailer went online last week. Various snippets have been emerging over the last few weeks, and you can catch them all via Mark Goodacre's NT Blog. Mark is one of the consultants on the project, but seems genuinely enthusiastic about it.

Just a few comments from me at this stage. Firstly, judging by the available material so far this will give a grand sweep of the Bible including some stories that have almost never been covered. In addition to traditional favourites such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus, it seems that the books of both Joshua and Daniel will also feature. That said, it's difficult to know to what extent. Will each of the 10 episodes deal with a different story? Or will they just be fairly nominal dividers in one seamless narrative. If it's the latter then it's possible that Daniel and Joshua role is fairly small, even if the more exciting and recognisable aspects of the story help a trailer to grab maximum impact.

Secondly, one of the videos Mark links to contains several scenes from the Passion, and, as I mentioned there, they seem as if they are almost a shot for shot remake of those moments from The Passion of the Christ. If I had more time I'd probably do a shot for shot comparison, but I think the point is clear enough.

The opening episode starts in the US on March 3rd and whilst I've not yet heard whether it will be screening in the UK or anywhere else, a DVD release is promised shortly afterwards.

Books by Film Designers

I've had a query from a reader and as my own answer is a little long, but also not entirely adequate I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has anything to add, or in case it was of interest to other people.

Matt, I know that many of the better films through the years have hired great designers who did their research and created outstanding and accurate fashions, props and sets for their films. What I need are photos that will provide me with some details. It’s my hope you may have the names of some books from both American and foreign publishers. An added hope is maybe some of the designers actually wrote some of these books. Thanks.

My immediate thought was of Henry S. Noerdlinger's book "Moses and Egypt" (pictured above) which describes itself as "The Documentation to the Motion Picture The Ten Commandments". It was published in 1956 by University of Southern California Press as an accompaniment to Cecil B. DeMille's second pass at The Ten Commandments. Noerdlinger was the official researcher for the film and goes to great depth in his research although sadly DeMille then left most of it out in the final work.

Whilst I'm sure there are other such books from the period, I personally don't know them. I have various books released as movie tie ins from Bible films, but most of these are more glossy books of publicity stills rather than works related to the design. It's certainly possible that some of these are still around, but I suspect it's something that wasn't popular at the time.

The other book in the above photo is more in line with what is desired, and it, too, is from a Moses film, 1998's The Prince of Egypt. It styles itself as a "Movie Scrapbook" and the front cover explains that it is "An in-depth look behind the scenes". Inside it takes various looks behind the scenes, including one called "Creating the Design". From memory similar books have been released for other more recent Bible films, though if they have I don't think I have any.

Actually though these things are far more likely to pop up as extra features on the DVD/Blu-ray discs. Special editions of most of the major Bible films have been made, and are often full of this sort of information - The Passion of the Christ for example is packed with this extra features of this sort, as also is The Miracle Maker. These obviously aren't quite still photos but if someone is just trying to get a general impression then film is as good as a book, and still pictures can be achieved from screen grabs on your PC/laptop. If you don't have any software that does this, then I'd recommend VLC which is open source (and therefore free), widely used, and well thought of.

If anyone has anything to add, please do chip in in the comments below. I know I've been a bit slow recently in moderating comments, but I'll keep a special watch out over the next few weeks.

David Suchet: In the Footsteps of Saint Paul

The BBC's major religious programme this year was a two part documentary on the life of St. Paul presented by Poirot actor David Suchet. Suchet admits a long term fascination with Paul and identified himself as a Christian in an interview with Strand Magazine. It's perhaps not surprising given his work on various audio versions of books of the Bible and his role as Aaron in Roger Young's 1996 version of Moses.

The BBC has covered Paul a lot over the years, but the documentary that lives most with me is their 2003 documentary Saint Paul released in the US in 2004 (IMDb). I'm going to write more on my reminiscences of that documentary in a later post, but to summarise I found it really made the life of Paul come alive for me, despite some of the rather tenuous theories it also voiced.

Sadly, whilst this two-part documentary ran to approximately twice the running time, it seemed to contain far less insight and was rather dull as a result. To a certain extent I think Suchet is to blame for this. This was very much a film about his journey to find out more about Paul and so it very much rested on his personality. Suchet is a great actor, but without a part to play he lacks the force of personality required to make this engaging for its two hour run time.

Part of the problems also stem from the editing and Suchet's style of questioning. I've watched many similar documentaries but I've never really appreciated the skill that goes into interviewing biblical experts. Fail to clarify what's been said and you leave the audience behind, but as this documentary proves, clarify too much and you just end up repeating everything that's just been said. This may not be Suchet's fault, but a problem with the format which find him meeting expert after expert on location, and seemingly trying to take on what they are saying himself rather than enlightening the audience.

None of which is to say the film is without redeeming features. It's stress on Paul's experience on the road is a useful counter to the breathless nature of Acts, and Suchet presses this home by repeating the fact that Paul walked at least 10,000 miles during his ministry.

It's also interesting to hear about some of the pieces of information that the 2003 documentary was unable to bring to light - either for matters of time, focus or because they hadn't been uncovered nine and a half years ago. Take for example the early scenes of Suchet beneath the streets under Jerusalem, uncovering part of Herod's temple that had been buried for the best part of 2000 years. Some of the insights into the places Paul knew were interesting as well, tolerant Tarsus, philosophical Athens, or cosmopolitan Corinth for example.

Sadly, in spite of the long running time, other aspects of Paul's story were rather glossed over, most notably the Council of Jerusalem summed up as the church agreeing with Paul - a gross simplification in my book.

So overall it's a mixed, but rather dull, bag. Paul's life is a terrifically interesting story: The story of an actor's own voyage of discovery is rather less so.

====
There is a bit more on this programme on the BBC website.

Scrooge Films, Poverty and the Bible

I did a talk a few weeks ago on different film portrayals of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and how they relate to the issue of poverty and the Christian message. I chose the reading of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16 as I have a hunch that it was somewhere in Charles Dickens’ mind when he wrote “A Christmas Carol”. Perhaps he wondered what would have happened if Abraham had been overruled? Certainly Dickens’ Yuletide yarn is eerily similar to today’s gospel reading. Both are parables about rich men and about the importance of how we treat those in need. Like Luke’s story Marley realises too late the dreadful error he has made, but in Dickens' novel Marley is allowed to warn his friend, Ebenezer Scrooge the peril he faces if he does not change his ways and seek “to interfere for good, in human matters” or to make “mankind his business”. "A Christmas Carol" is, in many ways, an extended parable.

As someone who has been reviewing films for the last decade you get used to people talking about the movies as 21st century parables. There’s a lot of discussion about what parables actually are. But by taking a moral issue and forging it into drama, parables help us to examine the ins and outs of that issue in ways that can be fresh, challenging and surprising. They give us fresh perspective and help us grapple with questions that may have ceased to grab us. And this is an ongoing process. Some scholars believe that in telling this parable Jesus himself was putting a fresh spin on an even older story. Dickens in turn made those issues more contemporary for his audiences and for more than 110 years different film directors have sought to take Dickens’ work and cast it in a new light for the people of their own day.

And ‘A Christmas Carol’ does seem to be particularly suitable to adapt. Of the 324 screen portrayals of Scrooge’s story on IMDB, at least 70 were based on ‘A Christmas Carol’, almost twice as many as adaptations of Oliver Twist and 3½ times as many as any of the others. Does I counted 7 playing on terrestrial TV over the Christmas period in the UK. The latest of which was made in 2009 starring Jim Carrey. It’s in 3D reflecting one of the ways this story adapts well to the fashions of its day.

Go back a few years and you’ll find Patrick Stewart starring in a version rich in CGI. In 1928 at the advent of sound the first Dickens talkie was "A Christmas Carol" and if you go back to the very first version of this story, from 1901 you’ll see how it uses very primitive special effects which were starting to be discovered. The BFI have made this film freely available on YouTube, and it's worth remembering that the film was made over a century ago in 1901, far closer to the publication of the original novel than to today.

The apparitions that fly past at around the 1m45s mark rely on people knowing the story, but essentially they show the events of the Christmases past that have shaped Scrooge. The first shows his return to his father’s house after years of spending Christmas at his decrepit school. His beloved sister welcomes him back. The second, with impressive economy shows the end of his relationship with Miss Fezziwick, who finds herself squeezed out by Scrooge’s pursuit of financial security.

It’s not something that is talked about often, but I think these two scenes are pivotal in the story of Scrooge’s life. Why else does the ghost, or if you prefer Dickens, choose to show us them? The villain we meet at the start of the story was not ever so. He was a rejected child even spending Christmas day at school, and a poor school at that - Dickens describes the decrepit school and classrooms at some length and noting that there was "not too much to eat". These early events seem to have shaped Scrooge quite significantly.

There’s sometimes a lot of talk about child poverty today in Britain. Government figures suggest that the number of children living in poverty is between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3. And such poverty doesn’t just have an effect on their past deprivation, or their present hunger, it affects their future health and shapes their attitude to life. They all too often believe that poverty is their lot in life, and lacking hope and aspiration settle for life at the bottom of the pile. No wonder the UK has one of the worst records on social mobility in the western world. Despite the occasional heart warming rags to riches story, the reality is that for the vast, vast majority, those who are born poor will, in all likelihood, remain that way.

Perhaps unexpectedly, Scrooge is one of those success stories. A poor apprentice who rises to run a successful business and grow wealthy. But “how profits a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?” Seemingly hurt by his childhood rejection and poverty, Scrooge’s brief foray into the warmth of love of his family and colleagues is slowly smothered by his desperation to avoid the poverty that afflicted his childhood. It’s not apparently greed but a yearning for security that drives a wedge between him and his finance. It’s a pivotal point in the story of his life:

From here Scrooge is done for. Having grown up in isolation he has learned to cope with it and since the death of his sister also seems to have occurred around this time, he seems to have retreated into isolation once more consumed by a desire to avoid poverty. As he explains “there is nothing on which (the world) is so hard as poverty”.

It’s not long before the next apparition - the Ghost of Christmas Present - is taking him to the household of his employee Bob Cratchitt. It’s arguably the most famous scene in a story crammed with iconic moments, but it relevance to Scrooge is easily over-looked. Firstly, here is a child also in poverty, but whose father has taken a different path to that of Scrooge’s father. Instead of sending him away, Tiny Tim is kept in the bosom of his loving family. Secondly, Crachitt’s family live in poverty, but have found the happiness that so seems to have eluded Scrooge. Tim has flourished despite his apparent adversity. Thirdly, I suspect there’s something of a grudging admiration for the fact that Crachitt has never begged - Scrooge is amazed to find out about Crachitt’s sickly child. These, I think, are what underlie Scrooge’s turn around rather than simply Tim’s cute way of saying “God bless us every one”.

It’s perhaps no coincidence that this part of the novel is where the brunt of its scriptural allusions are found. Most significantly Tim’s hopes for his presence in church which I’ll quote here “he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day, who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.”

Given the course of the rest of this story this line is pretty significant. Prior to the haunting of Scrooge, Tim is on course for an early death, but as Dickens tell us in closing the book, Scrooge’s repentance and intervention means that Tim lives to a good age. And so there’s an interesting implication that whilst Jesus has apparently not healed Tim directly, Scrooge has been able to be a vessel for God’s purposes. By using his money to make a difference to Tim’s life he has stepped into the role of healer.

I don’t know what your views on God’s healing today are, but Dickens’ subtle suggestion is that by being more generous with what we have, we can actually change the life chances of those in poverty. It is as true in our own day as it was in his. On average, the 20% most deprived people in this country will die 7.5 years before earlier than the richest 20%, and in some places it’s even more extreme. In fact whilst we like to think our world has changed since Dickens’ day, it’s rather depressing to see just how relevant the book is to our world. Some films have sought to narrow that gap for us, such as the 1988 film Scrooged starring Bill Murray, or ITV’s modernisation on the story from the year 2000 starring Ross Kemp. Even the perennial Christmas Classic It’s a Wonderful Life is an inversion of the story. Yet so much of the original novel is relevant in its own right. Take for example an early scene where Scrooge is approached by two men seeking to help the poor. His arguments are not a million miles away from those that some offer today. (Here’s the scene as portrayed in the 1984 version starring George C Scott.)

There are no longer any workhouses or debtors prisons, but teachers still regularly encounter kids without beds at home or that come to school hungry - I’ve had reports of that from a teacher I know who works at a nearby school just a couple of miles away. Yet some people today when faced with the plight of those living in poverty still resort to these same tactics - denying the problem, convincing themselves that paying their taxes absolves them of any further responsibility, or claim that they are all idle. It’s disturbing how many newspapers and politicians are content to peddle the myth that the poor are idle, despite the fact that more than half of all children living in poverty in this country are from working households. And whilst the phrase "surplus population" is more in line with Thomas Malthus than any of our current populations there does seem to be a shift away from seeing children are a gift from God towards them being a burden on the tax payer.

The words Scrooge speaks here are repeated tauntingly by the Spirit of Christmas Present later on, as Scrooge’s heart begins to soften they remind him of how awful some of his attitudes have been. In fact it appears that Scrooge has been isolated from the realities of poverty in his own day. Faced with the image of the starving children "Ignorance" and "Want" he is horrified and gasps "have they no refuge or resource"?

"If you deny him, slander those who tell others about him, admit he exists but do nothing about him." The reality is that in our country it is scarily easy to become isolated from those living below the poverty line. Listen to any public debate about poverty and someone will cite poor houses with satellite dishes - as if they have done a properly sampled survey on the issue rather than just noticed them on houses in areas they wouldn’t care to live as they drive hastily by.

Scrooge’s about turn is radical, but the question that should haunt us is would it take such an extreme turn of events to soften our hearts to the very real suffering around us and amongst us? Poverty has a ghost of the past, and of the present, what are we prepared to do to ensure it has no future? Are we prepared to act at a cost to ourselves to alleviate the suffering around us?

I don’t know whether Dives and Lazarus were any more real than Scrooge and Crachitt. But Jesus, Dickens and the filmmakers that have followed in their footsteps have acted from the conviction that it’s in this world that we have to address the problems of poverty in our world. We can’t leave it until after we’re dead.