Пустыня (The Wilderness, 1991)

A friend I know only as Shota, messaged me a while back hoping I could help them identify a European Jesus film they had seen. I couldn't, but thankfully they eventually tracked it down and were kind enough to let me know the details. They also found it on YouTube and were kind enough to provide English subtitles.

The film is called Пустыня (1991), which anglicises as Pustynya. Shota translated this as  The Desert while the IMDb page gives lists English title as The Wilderness. It was made in Odessa in 1991, then still part of the Soviet Union (just), but now part of Ukraine. To make the language situation more complicated for native English speakers, the language the actors are speaking is Aramaic, but then a man speaks in Russian translating most of what is said. 

In that way it's a little like the Lumo project only this is not by any means a word for word adaptation of one of the Gospels. Instead the film is based on two novellas by Leonid Andreyev, predominantly "Judas Iscariot" (of which there is a free translation of here), but also "Lazarus". It'll be interesting to have a look at those and see how they compare to this melded adaptation. The film has a very jumbled, non-linear storyline and it would be interestingly to see if that's a feature of the novellas, or a creative decision by director Mikhail Kats (who also wrote the screenplay).

Art film touches and the non-linear storyline

The non-linear storyline is not the only way this film eschews established Hollywood conventions. Most obviously is the way it frequently switches between colour and black-and-white, and back again. It adopts a very particular style which feels quite at home in the art films of the early late 80s/early 90s.

It generally feels quite low budget (except for the scene in Herod's palace). There are disjointed passages, a nonlinear storyline, nudity, modern music. It's quite shouty, with a screaming over-earnestness at certain points. It uses visceral imagery, for example a close-up of meat being sliced open, for example, reminiscent of certain scenes in Last Temptation of Christ. 

For anyone that was alive at the time, and watching film and TV, that style is familiar. At the same time, however, it's very unusual for a Bible film to pitch itself that way, though far from unique. There are elements of it that feel a little bit like Amos Gitai's work notably his 1986 film Esther (particularly the colour scenes within Herod's courtroom) and Golem, l'esprit de l'exil (Golem, the Spirit of Exile, 1992). There are also scenes that feel a bit like Derek Jarman's The Garden (1990), in terms of that slightly experimental, nonlinear, avant-garde sense of things. Perhaps it's somewhere between those three films — there is a narrative, but it's much more disjointed than Esther, but much more coherent than The Garden. Another film that came to mind watching this was Su Re, the Sardinian film, which is from much later (2016), but the jumbled timeline and at least the sense that certain scenes are repeated only played slightly differently when they occur again (I've not managed a second viewing). All of which makes for quite interesting watching, and its quite fresh way to approach the Jesus story.

The film starts in a remarkably bold fashion. Before the action even starts, as the credits roll, we hear a screaming voice. The image gradually comes into focus and we realise what we've been watching is an image of Jesus healing a man who was blind with mud, shown from the point of view of the man himself. This way of introducing Jesus is something Cecil B. DeMille did in The King of Kings (1927), but here it adds the element of the healing using mud, and the tone of this film: in addition to the scream, we witness to the muddy hands on Jesus, they pull away, and then we quickly get the reverse shot that shows the muddy face of the man himself. It's  quite a good strong image with which to start the film. 

Some extreme distance shots follow, where it's hard to be sure what, exactly, is going on. But then suddenly, we're then shown Judas being pulled down from a tree having hung himself. The moment in time has jumped. There's very much a sense of before or after, different narratives overlapping in a nonlinear way, making difficult for the audience to really piece together how all this works.

One of the timescales in view here is the disciple John, who seems to be reliving it. In this production John is not only the disciple, but also the writer of Revelation, and there's a reference to the sixth seal (Rev 6:12-17). It also seems that he is blind. The film then cuts back to the trial, where we get a particularly bad depiction of Caiaphas in terms of antisemitic stereotypes: he's got a hooked nose, a long, scruffy beard and hair, there's a lot of showy, but tacky-seeming jewellery / regalia that situates him among scores of very bad Jewish stereotypes.

At the same time as the trial is happening, we get what seems to be both Peter and/or Judas in the courtyard outside, Peter warming his hands, and occasionally denying he knows Jesus. And these scenes contrast with the moment we've already seen where the disciples recall Jesus saying to Judas "What you must do, do quickly", and calling Judas "traitor" and "filth". Incidentally, Jesus (pictured below) is often referred to as "Rabbi" during the film. He's also called Yeshua throughout this film and a couple of times called Yeshua HaNotzri. 

Language and biblical quotes

Another one of these 90s art-film elements is, of course, the way it uses language. The film mixes up biblical quotations and everyday language in quite an interesting fashion. Some lines feel very much rooted in the here-and-now. There's discussion of a broken gate "For a year now I can't get new bolts" mixed in with direct quotes from Jesus, usually presented out-of-context and quite esoterically. Often they appear in the lips of others who are quoting Jesus. In contrast to the every day language such as the above the quotes from the Gospels have quite traditional, recognisable, phrasing but they emerge in very unfamiliar settings, and very often quite isolated. That and the unfamiliar formal elements makes Пустыня feel like the work of someone who's a big fan of the Gospel of Thomas or perhaps the theoretical sayings 'gospel' Q.

Here are the ten parts of the script where a quotation was fairly unambiguously from the Gospels (I may have missed some)

• "A tree that bears no good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matt 7:19)(Thm.43c) 
• "Whoever saves his life will lose it." (Mark 8:35)
• "Many are called, few are chosen." (Matt 22:14)(Thm.75)
• "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt 7:1-2)(Q)
• "Sooner shall heaven and earth cease to exist than a single stroke of the law given by my Father shall pass away" (Matt 5:18)(Q)
• "He who has ears, let him hear" (Mark 4:9)(Thm.96)
• "Do you not know that not a single hair can fall from one's head without the will of Him who sent me" (Mash-up of Matt 10:29-10; Luke 12:7; Luke 21:18)
• Mention of paying taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)(Thm.100)
• If you have faith even as a mustard seed, you could move mountains" (Matt 17:20)(Q)
• "The servant is not greater than his master" (John 13:16)
• "Whoever wishes to be first among all, must be a servant of all." (Mark 9:35)

In terms of the citations above (first bracket), where a quotation appears in more than one canonical gospel I've cited the one that is generally considered the earliest. All of the quotations are from the canonical gospels. However, in the second bracket I've marked whether the saying also appears in the Gospel of Thomas. Where the earliest citation is Matthew, but also appears in Luke I've indicated this by using the letter Q. This will probably annoy my fellow Q-sceptics, because this material should just be called the double-tradition material, but my reasoning is that this rather esoteric presentation of Jesus' words – plucked out of context, given an other-worldly feel, and not really presented in conventional life-of-Christ fashion – do feel more in line with Q than with the idea of Luke copying Matthew. (Besides, it doesn't have to have existed for writer/director Mikhail Kats to have believed in it.)

Other disciples

Part of the reason this feels a little more esoteric is because Jesus is not really on screen that much. He pops up in the occasional scene, and occasionally says or does something we recognise from the Gospels, but this is much more of a film about Judas, as might be expected given Andreyev's source material.

In contrast several of the other disciples are also more fully developed, and not just Peter and John as mentioned above. For example, we get introduced to Levi, and this name is used instead of "Matthew". As someone who is, himself, called Matthew, this grabs my attention. The Gospels never make this connection between Levi and Matthew explicitly. Mark and Luke name "Matthew" as one of the twelve, and tell a separate story of a converting tax collector called "Levi" without connecting them. Matthew's Gospel, however, changes the name of this tax collector to Matthew, so there is no Levi in his text. Given a number of more fluid name changes in the Gospels and the Bible more broadly it's very reasonable to assume this is another case. Yet Jesus films usually just go with Matthew presumably because he also holds interest as the Gospel writer. That said there is some dialogue in Jesus of Nazareth where Matthew introduces himself as, "Matthew... or Levi, I'm known by both names" and Peter fires back "and others". 

The role of Thomas is also significantly expanded. He first appears being carried into a scene by the disciples, who retrieve his battered body from a village in which he has been attacked. Initially, they say they killed him, but he is actually still alive, a broken, bloody, beaten body. The implication is that the attack took place while he was preaching in said village. The disciples describe how his eyes have been gouged and he was stoned.

Towards the end of the film both Levi and a restored Thomas both become more dominant and seem to have more power than Peter or John (who remains blind throughout). It's also not until the end of the film that we see any of Jesus' women followers. 

Herod and Salomé

We also encounter John the Baptist, and indeed there is quite a bit of talk about him when he is not on screen. There is quite a bit of detail about the events leading up to his death, and the scene of his execution at Herod's banquet is particularly long (particularly given the length of most of the other scenes in the film). It's also nearly all in colour, save a few shots of the corridors and minor rooms of the palace.

Herod, Herodias and her daughter (who is named as Salomé) are all there, but we get introduced to another character who is referred to, fairly consistently as Hegemon/hegemon. I don't know whether this is a name, but I suspect it's just a designation (as in "hegemon" someone from the ruling group) for Pilate. In contrast to a lot of other portrayals of Pilate here seems queer-coded, which is how many Jesus films have portrayed Herod. Certainly as also called Procurator a few times. He is also the one pushing Judas to betray Jesus.

Salomé's dance is one of the more erotically charged portrayals. We only ever really see from the waist down, with occasional full length shots, but it's difficult to really identify her as a figure until John the Baptist is brought and we actually see her face. In addition to Salomé's dance, the banquet is also served by naked waitresses, which adds to the unusual atmosphere in that place (as does the slap bass track accompanying it).

Eventually, we get the procession that brings John the Baptist's head to the table for Herod to show Salomé and, as with Jesus, Nuestro Senor (1971), we see John's severed head open its eyes. Unsurprisingly, this terrifies Salomé and she runs off. Herod however continues to look at John's severed head and hears John's voice.

Hebrew Bible Fabrication

John's voice returns fairly shortly after to haunt Herod. There's a fantastic extra-high shot of  Herod standing on the top of his palace, on top of high, rocky outcrop. As he looks out  John's words ring in his ears, which I'll quote in full here:

Listen to me.

The walls of your fortress shall crumble.

Dust from Parthian hooves shall cover your cities like a shroud.

The enemy shall brand your body with tempered iron.

Hungry dogs will lick your wounds on the last night of your death agony.

Such is the prophecy of the Lord God.

And then your pride shall scatter to dust.

When your name becomes merely a symbol of lawlessness,

I shall be glorified with your name.

I shall be glorified by generations to come, by elders and children.

Such is the prophecy of the Lord God.

What I find interesting about this is that to the casual listener, it sounds like it's a direct quotation from one of the prophets from the Hebrew Bible. No such passage exists. Indeed, it's cleverer than that because each line has 3 or 4 echoes from the Hebrew Bible, but it never really copies a specific line directly . I've combined all the echoes (A)I found into one giant Bible Gateway link. These combined together have the feel of quite late Hebrew Bible language / early apocalyptic sentiments which seems, broadly speaking, roughly in line with the little we know of John's message.

Part Two

Just before the hour mark an intertitle announces part two, though neither the disjointed narrative or the combination of two sources into one really give any clue as to why this is. Nevertheless, we reach of scene where the temple authorities have gathered and start to talk about Jesus and what he has been saying and doing. The story of the Samaritan woman at the well is recounted, while someone else mentions Jesus' evasive answer regarding paying taxes to Caesar. Then there are also mentions of his parables and miracles, notably his raising of Lazarus, and discussion about the clearing of the temple. All in all, this is one of the most informed sets of the temple authorities I've seen in a Jesus film. Finally one of the assembled delivers the line "Better that one-man perish than the whole nation."

The  authorities, aside from Caiaphas' ornate costume mentioned above, all have the classic tea towel and headband costumes style costumes. I imagine this is probably for budgetary reasons, it does really emphasise the very low-budget feel of this production (Herod's palace aside), while it also adding to its strangeness. And its worth stressing that while the budget might feel low, some of the cinematography is absolutely superb. The screengrab below (of John in front of the authorities) doesn't really capture the beauty of the shot (it's more the shot as a whole than one frame).

The debate between the authorities is paired with a similarly heated debate among the disciples among which of them is the greatest, but by the time we have joined it, this once theological discussion has descended into a macho competition to see who can chuck rocks the furthest off the edge of a cliff. This particularly inappropriate method of determining which of them will be first in the Kingdom of Heaven really highlights their pettiness in a way few films really tackle. 

Of course, eventually one of the disciples takes news of the argument back to Jesus, and returns to tell his confused colleagues that "he said that a servant is not greater than his master, and that whoever wishes to be first among all, must be a servant of all." (John 13:16 & Mark 9:35)

Death of Jesus?

We then cut to the flagellation scene, which is taking place inside somewhere with Jesus, already tied/chained in a cross position. It's here Jesus is referred to as Yeshua HaNotzri. We also get Judas referred to as "the son of Kerioth" (which is one possible meaning for "Iscariot"), and John as the son of Zebedee when it turns out that they are the witnesses for Jesus's trial. 

While Jesus' trial is happening, a large, raucous, Jewish crowd arrives carrying fire torches and chanting "Hit him! Crush him!". This is rather problematic, given the history of antisemitism, not least the way that Judas is also hounded by them. Indeed, then the film jumps back to a similar moment that turns out not to be to do with the trial. Instead Judas is being chased and comes to the disciples, and then to Jesus, to escape. Jesus faces up to the crowd, and then we see his heart bleeding.

There are a couple of quotations here from Isaiah (42:1 & 52:13) including part of the "suffering servant" passage: "Behold my servant, exalted and lifted up". and "Judas causing a money-loving fraud." There's a beautiful shot of John at 91 minutes (above) as he gives his testimony, and then a brief change between colour and black and white, as a battered Jesus is brought into the trial room. But it's only when John hears that a second testimony will be given by Judas that he starts screaming. He thought he was doing what Jesus asked him but now realises the predicament he is in. 

Hegemon/Pilate washes his hands, we get what looks like a reaction shot (close-up) of Jesus and then more words from Isaiah's suffering servant passage (Is53:4-5). And suddenly there's a flashback and we're back with the disciples and Jesus speaking aphorisms that are not from any of the ancient texts, such as "You pick a stalk of grain and crush it to make bread. Are you not killing? And when you pick the vine and press the juice from its berries — is that not killing?"

And this is more or less the last we see of Jesus. There follows much argument between the disciples and the flashbacks between John in Jesus' day and an older John continue and intensify. Eventually we see the older John feeling, embracing and then kneeling before a slightly less than life-sized sculpture of Jesus. And it's this that is as close as we ever get to seeing the death of Jesus. We see him battered at his trial and this memorial of his crucifixion, but it's unclear whether the event itself ever actually happened and whether that's because the creative team were aiming for a more artistic interpretation or more historically ambiguous one.

The scene after this shows a young man drop into a room carved into the stone containing empty tomb paraphernalia, such as a draped white sheet, flames, carved figures, beams of light and a simple memorial cross, and he then reads from a scroll "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God." And then there's another cut and a montage of people pacing thoughtfully, gradually coming together to form some kind of procession.

In the last six minutes there's a change in tone, almost without a clear end point. There's this silent procession. We get the operatic sounds of the Hebrew song "Él Málé Ráchámim-Gyászének", and t then the film's final image is of a candlelit boat floating on the water, away from the camera.

Final thoughts

Пустыня is a really interesting film because it takes a very different approach to the story. The disjointedness of it is particularly interesting, given that this is actually how people quite often experience the stories about and sayings of Jesus. Most people don't usually read them all the way through, even those of us who do that occasionally. 

With Jesus films, however, we tend to watch them all the way through and follow their conventional narrative (with some exceptions). But here, the Jesus material is a bit here, a bit there, and jumbled up, as they are, perhaps, bits of the Bible are read in church. So this film's approach is quite an interesting way of doing it.

It also means it puts the viewer a bit more on edge. The storyline is no longer familiar. You're not quite sure what is happening, what's going to happen next, whereabouts in the story you are, what is being portrayed. It's much harder to get a sense of it, and you have that disorientation that one could perhaps argue was felt by Jesus' first followers. 

So it's beautiful and strange, and certainly worth checking out for those who are interested in approaching the Gospels from a different perspective or for that matter those who are interested in late soviet era filmmaking.