The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 3 [s5e06-08] (2025)

 

I saw the third and final part of The Chosen: Last Supper last night and I have a very narrow window in which to post some comments so I'm, just going to post some initial thoughts under sub-headers and get through as many as I can in the available time. There's good, bad and some, well, ugly stuff in this episode so this will be a bit of a mix. Spoilers throughout.

Structure

Episode 6 picks up from the dramatic reappearance of Nicodemus at the end of the last episode. We also get to meet the man who has previously been dubbed "The Watcher" and it turns out he's called Matthias. Those familiar with the book of Acts will know that this is the name of the man chosen to replace Judas, so this is inevitably the same character. As before the opening scene starts at the Last Supper, showing the segment from John's Gospel than leads up to the passage that episode 5 began with.

 

Episode 7 then starts with the scene before that in John's Gospel where Jesus arrives and starts washing the disciples feet. Those of us who were disappointed that The Watcher didn't turn out to be Mark have a treat in store because we do get to meet Mark. The main part of the episode joins up the gap between where the last episode ended and where this one begins. It's the join between the intro sections (which have been telling the last part of the story backwards and the main section which has been moving forwards. In between we get to see several of the disciples remembering their lives shortly before Jesus called them.

Episode 8 now abandons this structure. We instead start with a flashback to Jesus calling Thaddeus – his first follower – on a building site near Bethsaida. The main story progresses to the Garden of Gethsemane and Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek having just arrived with a cohort of temple guards and officials.

Flashbacks

The Chosen has often used flashbacks, often back more than 1000 years into the Hebrew Bible, sometimes into scenes from minutes ago. We've also had several scenes showing how disciples came to be disciples, particularly those of Peter, Matthew and Zee (Simon the Zealot). But some of those other disciples we've never really seen how they came to meet Jesus, particularly Little James and Thaddeus. We've learnt a little about Little James, because he has had conversations with Jesus about his disability and how he himself has not been healed, but some of the others have been mysteries.

Here some of these stories are finally revealed and in glorious black and white as well. As I think I've admitted before, I am a sucker for black and white photography. I know it sounds pretentious, but I genuinely have to counterbalance my own love of black and white films when I review them because they appeal to me so much. And these sections were lush. The one of Simon the Zealot heroically trying to save two younger zealots only to discover he has sent them to their deaths is heartbreaking. Those about Big James and then of Andrew and Philip really stood out as well. 

 

Big James' was first such that I was so busy enjoying the filmstock that I don't recall the details. Andrew and Philips comes together as they are on the road with John the Baptist and the line about making the paths straight finally comes out. Little James we see how his dreams of becoming a singer in the temple are dented by his mentor and then he meets Thaddeus and Jesus on the road. 

 

Anyway these sections are beautiful to look at and on that level I enjoyed them, but to be honest after the first few they began to drag a bit and feel a bit like they were being dragged out a bit. The feeling, for me at least, was not unlike those episode you occasionally used to get of Friends or The Simpsons where they'd just assemble a bunch of clips from previous shows together and film and opening scene, a closing scene and a couple of link shots.... and yet this was new material. Personally I think it might have been better if these scenes had eeked out a long the way, a little as happens in season 1 of Lost (which I've just started watching). Perhaps with the flashbacks this season has a few too many structural gimmicks going on already but either at least one of these sequences should either have been cut or brought into an earlier episode, because they are beautiful and moving, but the effect started to wear thing quicker than it should have.

Gethsemane

The scenes in the Garden of Gethsemane take up most of episode 8 so there are a number of points I want to make about it. Firstly, this is one of the few on-screen biblical adaptations to include all three of the cycles of Jesus praying and then finding the disciples that we find in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke or John where they abbreviate down to just one cycle. This is a continuation of how this series has tended to be structured with John's account of Holy Week being covered in the pre-credits sequences, and the Synoptic take on the last days leading up to Jesus' death being covered in the main section of each episode.

Secondly, easily the most striking element of this cycle, and certainly the one that is boldest visually is that of Jesus walking through Ezekiel's valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37). This is the third of three visions that Jesus has (one for each cycle of praying & sleeping disciples, I think . The other are of Abraham and Isaac en route to the aborted sacrifice; and of his father Joseph, who hugs him). I have a vague memory of this scene from another production, but I can't quite remember where (2013's The Bible? This is what you get in a quick post like this one!). Anyway, it's a very striking, even if something about it feels a little off. It's interesting too that this non-biblical meeting with a past prophet – Ezekiel – gets included, but the transfiguration wasn't included (which I can understand).

 

Finally, what I really liked in these scenes were the visual references (conscious or otherwise) to previous artistic takes on these moments. This is partly because last weekend I got to go to the National Gallery and witness some of these amazing paintings, but their influence has definitely been passed down and seems to pop up here. Some of these are about the large rock that Jesus clings too. Othes are more to do with the disciples lying prone, deep in sleep. In particular, Andrea Mantegna's "The Agony in the Garden" (1455-6) and Giovanni Bellini's "The Agony in the Garden" (~1458-60), but possibly Ferrarese's "Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane" (16th century?) and Jacopo Tintoretto's "Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane" (1543-4) as well. I have a feeling there's at least one more of these, but don't have time to search for it right now.

Mark

I was really pleased to see Mark get an appearance as he only rarely makes it into Jesus films and what an appearance it was! I think most normal people found the Gethsemane scenes the most emotional, but for me the closest I was to tears was during the opening moments of episode 2. There we meet a young man, a mid-teenager, really, meticulously laying out the venue in which so much of the season has taken place: the upper room. 

 

From a conversation he has with his dad we learn that Mark has incredible visions. It was one of them which brought them to Jerusalem and to buy this very house after an earlier vision of that very room and now he has had another one. Or should we say three, because on top of a repeat of his vision of the room all laid out and being used for this meal, he has also had one of him carrying water to the well and one of his father in conversation with two men making arrangements for their master.

I don't know whey I'm so moved by this. It is an interesting plot device as well as further way of arguing for the reliability of the Gospels. According to The Chosen not only are Matthew and John literate scribes who write down everything as it happens (and Matthew has perfect recall due to his ASD), but now we find Mark as another eye witness who may not have been a disciple, but met them and knew them, but who also has special visions, presumably from God. It's an interesting and fun piece of dramatic licence, but it is notable how these moments all tend to point in the same way.

Anyway, this guy Mark is probably going to turn up at the very start of season 6 and I suspect will be losing some clothing shortly thereafter. (I'm not a mystic, it's just a popular interpretation of Mark 14:51-2)

The worst antisemitic stereotype yet

I didn't really want to lead with this, but I have to say that one scene towards the start of episode 6 absolutely appalled me. The first antisemitic racist insult I ever heard was at school. It was about Jews being "tight-fisted", money-grabbing, ridiculously reluctant to spend, or save money. It's an age old, very much Christian, slur about the Jewish people going back to the medieval times when, barred from most professions by the authorities (including the church) some of them managed to survive by doing work Christians at the time were forbidden from doing handling and investing money. Once some Jewish people succeeded at it, they got a name for it, and then envious Christians turned it into an insult and came up with all kinds of slurs to explain away their success.

And now here we are, hundreds of years after these stereotypes emerged and probably 40 years after I first heard the insult at school, in a time that we have otherwise (thankfully) largely left behind recycling racist slurs and what do we get? We get Judas and Caiaphas haggling obsessively over how much money Judas will get for betraying Jesus.. I can't say it's the first Jesus film to show this, but certainly the vast majority have the cultural awareness, the decency maybe, or at the very least the common sense not to recycle old racist stereotypes about Jewish people. 

I'm sure some will probably wish to defend this so allow me to say a little more. Firstly, this is not anywhere in the Bible. Of the four Gospels, John (who does call Judas a thief, 12:6) doesn't even mention an exchange of funds. All three of the Synoptics mention an exchange of money, but only Matthew gives the 30 pieces of silver detail. None mention any form of discussion over the fee.

The two characters in the haggling scene matter too. Judas is significant because he became (in later Christian tradition) especially associated with the Jews. Bizarrely many came to think of the majority of the disciples as not Jewish, but Judas retained that cultural identity. He became seen as typical of them. Then, of course, there is Caiaphas, who was, in many people's minds the leader of the Jews and therefore also, in a sense, a representative of the Jews. 

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me work out how this got past the advisory committee, and frankly, the fact that it did it seems to undermine the advisory board's very existence. Is it doing anything other than providing intellectual cover? Have there been any scenes at all that they have successfully vetoed? Honestly Dallas Jenkins and the other writers and producers need to take a long hard look at themselves, and perhaps the odd history book, because this is not acceptable and frankly I now have serious concerns about how season 6 is going to play out.

Final points

It's a shame to end on such a negative note and there are some more areas I'd like to talk about but I don't have time to discuss, the middle class nature of most of the disciples that emerges from all those flashbacks. Perhaps Is should have caught them earlier? I was also interested by the way that Jesus actually wears some headgear in his flashback scene. I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that this is almost the only occasion we've seen this (was it just to avoid continuity issues with his shorter hair in the first season? Or a sign that he put off something when his ministry began. Also what is with Nicodemus' crime-movie string board?

Anyway, let me know what you made of it all in the comments.

The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 2 [s5e03-05] (2025)

Part 1 of The Chosen: Last Supper proved so popular in the UK that theatres agreed to give parts 2 and 3 a limited cinema run here as well. Each part is 3 episodes rolled into one, so there's quite a lot to get into. I'm going to say that there are spoilers throughout as I didn't say that about my review of part 1, but then someone said they did consider what I wrote to be in that ball-park, so I thought I'd declare it up front and then I can talk about what I want.

As with part 1 (my review), each of the three episodes has a pre-credits sequence which begins with a section of The Last Supper, organised Memento-style, so that it starts with the final section and then – at the beginning of the next episode – leaps back to the section before it. Meanwhile, the normal timeline progresses as it did before, such that here, when we jump back to the 'present day' we're back in the temple courts in the aftermath of Jesus turning over the tables.

The three episodes in Part 2 here map out as follows: The first episode (episode 3) revolves around Jesus in conflict with members of the Sanhedrin and the end of his public ministry. The next section (episode 4) is much more behind the scenes, particularly with Jesus' followers as the group return to Bethany and among the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem who disagree as to Jesus and how he should be treated. The final segment (episode 5) sees the return to Jerusalem, Judas' continuing uncertainty and Caiaphas trying to engineer a solution to his Jesus problem.

Given that we're effectively picking up from Jesus' 'clearing' of the temple, inevitably a confrontation with the Pharisees, the high priest and one or two representatives of other Jewish sects ensues. Here and throughout, Jonathan Roumie delivers a strong performance as Jesus: passionate, wise, compassionate, charismatic and occasionally funny, his performance is the glue that really holds The Chosen together. And here the demands on Roumie are increasing. This is no longer a case of convincingly impressing the crowds, but to balance Jesus's knowledge of his divine calling with his knowledge that doing so entails pain, suffering and rejection.

Scholars often talk about the different portraits of Jesus that come through when comparing the different Gospels. Here, though, there's a sense of a different Jesus compared to previous series (seasons). My criticism of the climax of Part 1 was that the reasons for "why Jesus acts in quite such an extreme way...don’t quite add up...(to) such a violent swing in personality" and interestingly this is not only something that some of the disciples question themselves, but also something that is repeated during this part of the show as well.

Two incidents really stand out in this respect. The first is his one on one discussion with Judas while they are keeping away from the crowds in Phoebe's house (I expect great things from her, eventually). It's preceded by a similar one to one with John, in the same room, but the nature of the conversation could not be more different. With John, Jesus is relaxed, occasionally smiling. The two men sit side by side and laugh, do a slightly awkward retelling of the Jephthah story, reflect on Greek art and literature and occasionally underline their emotional intimacy with physical touch.

In contrast Judas and Jesus sit opposite each other across a table (see above image) as if it's a terse supervisory meeting. They barely, if ever, touch. Judas is questioning Jesus, but rather than the understanding, or even encouragement he has exhibited with the other disciples, Jesus seems closed off and tetchy with his would-be betrayer. I can't remember (after a single viewing) if Jesus raises his voice, but certainly that's the atmosphere in the room.

And this is after two earlier confrontations with the Shmuel and some of his colleagues from the Sanhedrin. Having clashed immediately after the turning of the table, a handful of Jewish leaders decide to try and catch Jesus out with clever questions. When they fail, he eventually turns on them and unloads an abridged version of the seven woes (Matt 23) that's second only in tone to Enrique Irazoqui/Enrico Salerno in Il vangelo secondo Matteo (Pasolini, 1964).

The most extreme example is when Jesus unleashes his ire on a fig tree – also memorably captured by Pasolini for Il vangelo. This really does come off as frustration-induced anger, even though the next day Jesus tries to pass it off – in one of those bits of expository dialogue which The Chosen is littered with – as a symbol of the temple looking ready but not bearing fruit, but I can't say that, on the basis of the show, I buy it. I'm glad they included this often-overlooked passage, particularly as the opted for the version in Mark where the tree doesn't wilt until the next day to die, but Jesus does not seem himself. Even his disciples have noticed. 

For me, something's a tiny bit off here. If Jesus were supposed to be merely human, this would make a lot of sense, his slightly more volatile mood would just be an understandable reaction to the stress and anxiety he feels about the pressure he's under. But he's not. The show has gone to some lengths to portray him as divinely wise, forbearing and person-centered. It would be one thing if that simply faded here (and the fact that the disciples comment on it does mitigate this somewhat). It's that these moments are presented as if nothing is awry. But as a recent case in the UK has demonstrated, deliberately destroying trees goes against basic standards of decent behaviour. To both literalise the story and expect modern audiences to accept this version of Jesus to calculatedly commit vandalism just to make a point, seems to go against his character arc in the show so far (even if it the incident is in the Bible).

What is good here, though, is the way the disciples themselves question Jesus' change in behaviour. They don't just go along with everything as they do in other on-screen portrayals of Jesus (other than Judas for obvious reasons). They wrestle with it, worry about it and wonder if it was all worth it. If Jenkins desire is to show us Jesus through the eyes of his first followers then this is the difficult, but more rewarding approach. These feel like real challenges and if the "message" of these sections is to trust him in real life, then it's a muted and honest restatement of what that might entail, rather than sugar-coated platitudes.

So it's not just Jesus that is meandering across the emotional map. What these episodes do brilliantly is the way they portray how the disciples are coming to terms with the threat and the uncertainty that lies ahead. There's a whole range of responses to this new territory they find themselves in. Some turn into problem-solvers. Others turn to panic. They turn over Jesus' most recent actions in their minds and share their theories with the group. Sometimes their reactions are entirely fictional (but valid). Other times they deliver a line from the Bible towards which their entire character arc has been bent from the very start of the show.

It's fascinating watching the different stages the individual apostles (as they are called here for the first time) are going through. For some this seems like the first time they have actually been out of their comfort zone. Zee (Simon the Zealot) jumps behind the wall like a frightened cat when he sees a cohort of Roman soldiers approaching. Others worry that the three years they've spent following this rabbi might all have been wasted. In contrast, though, Simon Peter – previously all over the map emotionally – has really emerged as a leader, calm and level-headed under-pressure. It's made all the more poignant by the fact that we all know he has a major re-lapse ahead of him, which itself could be heart-breaking.

It's interesting too seeing the different reactions between Jesus' male disciples and his female followers, who also have an inkling of what is coming. Instead of problem solving, or arguing, their reaction is more compassionate and focussed on Jesus. In a memorable scene Jesus also has a last meal with them, where he thanks them for their support for his ministry. In some ways it feels more real because it's not confined with having to correspond with 5 chapters of John's Gospel. It ends with their own re-worked version of the Dayenu, thanking Jesus for the effect om their lives.

This episode is one of the most commented upon moments in the whole of season 5. The Dayenu is a Jewish prayer/song from a Passover seder where those assembled sequentially move through a list of things God has done which they are to be thankful for. Each speaks a couplet in the form "If he had done X, but not done Y, it would have been enough" before the next person develops the story "if he had only done Y but not done Z..." and so on. On the one hand I've seen numerous Chosen memes repeating the line "it would have been enough" on the other I've heard various people relay that the scene moved them to floods of tears. 

Here the women's version of it comes at the end of the middle episode (four) and certainly its emotional climax. It mirrors a scene from the start of the episode, from the Last Supper scene 'before the credits' where the disciples recite the proper version. But it's also intercut with the Passover celebrations taking place in Bethany where Zebedee and Salome and Mother Mary repeat the lines just as Andrew and Philip and Thomas are doing.

While appreciating the well-crafted nature of the scene and the emotional effect it has had on many, I did feel a little uncomfortable with a coupe of aspects. The first is simply that this prayer is a much later Jewish Passover song (9th century AD). This is something The Chosen does quite a bit, extrapolating much later forms of Judaism back into the first century, as if Judaism is unchanging. One only has to consider how radically Christianity changed across that same period to realise how foolish such an assumption is, and some would argue slightly offensive. Secondly it's hard to think of a more pointed example of the show's supersessionism than taking a Jewish song, directed towards the one God and rewording it to place Jesus centre-stage in God's place. Of course, we do find moves of this kind happening in the New Testament. Tom Wright, for example, argues that Paul does this in 1 Cor 8:6 where he "has placed Jesus into the middle" of the Shema (Deut. 6:4). [2]

If this was the sole example of an underlying anti-Judaism in these episodes then it would be enough that would be one thing, but there are a few other elements I disliked. Four stand out in particular: the specific wording aimed at Judas; the portrayal of Caiaphas; the Roman reaction to Jesus' activity; and the way the decision is made to kill Jesus. I've touched on some of these before, but the show is getting to the pivotal scenes, scenes which when mishandled in the past have led to terrible acts of antisemitism.

The bit that really shocked me was Jesus turning to Judas at the Last Supper and saying to him "He has you now" (it is implied, though not explicitly stated, the "he" is Satan). In fairness, John's Gospel both has Jesus call Judas "a devil" (6:70) and stating that "Satan entered him" (13:27). But the real problem is the subsequent reception of these verses. The link between Judas and the devil and with the way Judas quickly became seen as a representative of the Jews as a whole[3] combined over church history to characterise the Jews as people as given over to Satan and therefore worthy of persecution. I'd really hoped that the longer running time given to the series would develop Judas' character a little more sympathetically and to some extent it does, but this line was quite worrying. 

Of course the unusual thing about The Chosen in relation to potentially antisemitic material in other Jesus films is that in many ways the project provides considerably more nuance, background and depth to the story's traditional antagonists. Jesus' opponents are far more rounded, three-dimensional figures than they are in the majority of Jesus films. Yet this extended running times also means that there is more time to fill with a line like this one. The Chosen goes to great lengths to contextualise its stories, to be clear about the Jewish nature of the story and to honour the religious life of these people, so I find it strange when lines like this sneak through. Why did it need to be included given its history?

The portrayal of Caiaphas is also particularly bad. Sometime ago the actor playing Caiaphas (Richard Fancy) appeared on Dave Roos and Helen Bond's excellent podcast "Biblical Time Machine" [4] which rather set me at ease, but here he really does play into a lot of the stereotypes. Perhaps Caiaphas, as the most powerful Jew at that time, makes for an understandable antagonist, and a more appropriate one than Judas given the above. However, again his role is elevated here and the look, costuming, delivery and dialogue here mark him out as possibly the most irredeemable character in the series.

Certainly, as with most Jesus films, there's a huge contrast between Caiaphas and the senior Roman figures in the show. Atticus is smart. Yes, he's concerned, but he's pragmatic, decisive, witty and ultimately likeable. His concern about the problem Jesus poses is portrayed as reasonable. Pilate – historically evidenced as a butcher inside and outside the Bible – is portrayed as an uninterested fop, capable of cruelty (like a child picking wings off a fly), but easily manipulated and generally not overly concerned with the running of Jerusalem. It's shaping up to look like the Jewish leaders are going to be the ones manipulating the Romans into killing Jesus. (Not that there are many Romans in evidence in the first place).

Which brings me onto my fourth point, the way that the decision emerges to kill Jesus lacks a little definition. We had Caiaphas "prophesy" it in season 4, but the likes of Shmuel and Yanni seem to move from being extremely concerned about his blasphemy to deciding he needs to be killed far too suddenly.

It would take this review far too off-focus to unpack these issues here, but I'd respectfully ask that if you're unconvinced by these four too-brief points above, that you do some reading about the roots and effects of Christian antisemitism over the centuries and why I think even small moves in certain directions need to be resisted. It's something that every church should teach and hardly any church does.

There was another episode that the series had available that I was also concerned about going in, but for quite different reasons: the Olivet discourse (Mark 13/Matt 24-5/Luke 21). For me this is one of the key passages in the Gospels. It seems likely that recalling these words of Jesus about the destruction of the temple gave impetus to Mark in writing his story of Jesus' life and perhaps gave Christianity extra credibility in the years following Jesus' prediction coming true (in 70AD). 

Yet many interpret them in different ways, not least Jenkins' father Jerry, as relating to a still future events such as the rapture. So I liked how the various snippets found in these passages were included – as they are often missed out as seeming to weird for audiences – but not in a partisan way. Both the likes of Jerry Jenkins and the likes of me can appreciate what's included without feeling its pushing a particular agenda, which is a delicate balancing act, particularly from one (Dallas Jenkins) who has grown up at the heart of one interpretation's biggest influencer. As a side note this is one of those passages where on-screen Jesus takes John, but not Matthew, but the pericope appears in Matthew's Gospel, but not John's.

Matthew, who I think is my favourite character among the disciples, is actually a fairly minor character in these episodes. He does get one good scene with Jesus, but (understandably) the focus is much more on Judas, particularly in the final section here (episode 5). Jesus' confrontation with Shmuel and his colleagues has deeply troubled Judas and he feels Jesus' opportunity might be slipping away. Having tried, and failed, to get Peter on board, he then tries to convince Jesus himself. Both men effectively pose Judas the same question: given you acknowledge Jesus' power, why don't you accept his vision and understanding?

What is surprising is that Judas does eventually get some validation and from such an unlikely source, Philip. Upon their return to Jerusalem the disciples try to come to some understanding about the situation they find themselves in and how they are meant to respond to it. Initially Judas is at the far end of the spectrum, but then sparking off Matthew and Thomas he thinks he sees a way forward perhaps Jesus wants them to try to crucify him so he reveal his power just when he seems he is at his weakest. 

Perhaps if all the disciples had disagreed with Judas at that point, then he might have been talked out of it, but Philip agrees and so it seems that this proves decisive for Judas. I says "seems" because, oddly, the moments where Judas find his way to the high priest's house in the middle of the night is kind of skipped over. Instead these scenes are intercut with Mary Magdalene being abducted and taken secretly to be reunited with Nicodemus. It does give a pulsating conclusion to part 2, but when you reflect on it, it does so at the expense of the crucial part of Judas' journey. I'm slightly hesitant in saying that, because there were a number of my questions about part 1 that were countered early on in part 2, so maybe this material will also be covered in part 3. I do hope so.

From a technical angle, there is one particularly good use of the camera at the start of episode 5, when the disciples situated in the upper room break into small groups to discuss who the traitor might be. The camera roves between them capturing snippets of conversation before moving to another corner of the room. This highlights the fractured nature of the disciples whilst also connecting them, tying their fates together inextricably. The sets and quality of the costumes continues to impress and certain sections of this episode really did look magnificent on the big screen, justifying the decision to take this to theatres, rather than distribute it solely through streaming.

Overall, then, Last Supper: Part 2 offers an interesting exploration of the time between the clearing of the temple and the run up to its titular meal. The use of bookends and reverse-chronological ordering to enliven the Last Supper material not only works well in its own right, but will prove fascinating when I re-watch these episodes in future. Moreover, Dallas Jenkins and his team continue to demonstrate their ability to craft compelling and emotionally powerful drama from these ancient texts. As the show approaches its climax, the way they draw out the story threads of the many characters and weave them altogether into a single cloth remains hugely impressive.

=========
[1] I'm grateful to The Bible Artist (Kevin Keating) for his "Recap, Review and Analysis" for episodes 3, 4 and 5.
[2] Wright, Tom (1997) What Saint Paul Really Said (Lion Publishing). pp.66-7.
[3] Jerome writing in the 4th century said "Judas is cursed, that in Judas the Jews may be accursed"
[4] I also appeared on this podcast – Episode 82 "The Best and Worst Jesus Films"

Will Trump's tariffs delay The Passion of the Christ sequel?

There have been rumours about a sequel to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ more or less since the film was first released in 2004. Then in 2016 The Hollywood Reporter revealed that Gibson was working on the script with Randall Wallace. There was still not much news about this in 2020 when I last wrote about the project. But stories have continued to emerge and the occasional quote has gained a bit of traction, until in March Deadline reported that the CEO Cinecittà in Rome had confirmed that filming was due to start in August 2026. (This was following on from a Joe Rogan podcast where Gibson had said he filming was due to start "next year"). [HT Peter Chattaway]

But now (once again) there's a potential fly in the ointment. Donald Trump has announced he is going to "...begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country" (sic.) not made in the United States. 

The movie industry has generally come out against the idea both in the US and around the world. The doubling of the price to make a film will leave many existing and planned project as unviable. So even if all things were equal, this would be bad news for Mel Gibson. If he is making his film in Italy he can either face said tariff, or suffer the higher costs of moving production back to the US.

But things are not equal because Gibson is one of three 80s movie stars who Trump has appointed as his "Special Ambassadors" to Hollywood (the others being Sylvester Stallone and Jon Voight). In the previous world of politics this would put Gibson in a bind: Not only would he have to lead by example and comply with this policy, but he's also have to try and sell it to others at the top of his profession. But then if values like this ever existed, they seem to have gone now. Perhaps Gibson will be allowed to skirt the rules, or be considered an exception. Or perhaps – having seen the success of The Chosen he will try and crowd-fund the film instead. Time will tell, I guess.