The Resurrection on FilmPart 2 - Mark's Gospel

This is the second in a series of short posts for Easter this year looking at film portrayals of the resurrection. The idea is to take each of the Gospels in turn and look at one or two films that have sought to portray the resurrection in a manner that fits with that particular Gospel. Yesterday I looked at the resurrection in Matthew's Gospel and so today it's onto Mark.

As I mentioned in my recent review of the Lumo Project's The Gospel of Mark

The agreed upon text of Mark appears to comes up short at chapter 16 verse 8 (before any sightings of the risen Jesus) and all we're left with is a series of fragments where others have sought to create a new ending. It's a scenario that suggested a series of interesting possibilities cinematically...

Sadly no film has really sought to end their film in quite this way. As I noted in that review, rather than ending the film at Mark 16:8, or even dramatising the different alternate endings (but in a way that is notably different from the rest of the film) we simply get the most popular of the alternate endings presented in the same way as the rest of the film. Whilst it would obviously be too much to ask to see a Wayne's World style ending, perhaps the use of a different narrators voice, or a different actor playing Jesus might have been interesting.

Lumo's version of verses 16:1-8 (which you can view online) does follow the text of these eight verses fairly closely. There's a group of four women rather than three but they arrive at a tomb that is already open and go inside. They don't however meet a young man dressed in white, even if there is a hint that a white glowing object is present in the tomb. Then they run away from the tomb and the scene ends.

The absence of the young man dressed in white is a bit of shame. Those seeking to harmionise the gospels naturally assume he is an angel as we find in Matthew, but that is not actually what Mark's text says, and it's important to remember that Matthew was using Mark as his major source. Both Matthew and Luke tweak Mark's original wording, though in different directions. Incidentally, there have been some attempts to link the young man in the tomb with the other anonymous young man from Gethsemane who is sometimes known as the Naked Fugitive. (He is also absent from the relevant shot in the Lumo Project). Partly it's because these are the only two times that this particular NT Greek word for young man (νεανίσκος) is used in Mark and partly because of further references to a young man in an apocryphal text called the Secret Gospel of Mark. I must admit I find all this idle speculation interesting, but ultimately not very useful and highly tenuous. There's very little to suggest Secret Mark is any kind of credible source. But I digress.

A key question here is what are the options for the ending of Mark? Broadly speaking there are three. The first is that one of the endings we have was actually the original. One response to my Gospel of Mark review was from James Snapp who has argued elsewhere that the textual issues with the main "alternate" with Mark are overstated. I must confess not to be an expert, but note that even the majority of evangelical scholars concede that differences in style/vocab and the absence of this missing piece in some manuscripts is a little problematic. If Snapp is correct however then the Lumo project's ending is practically.

The second option is that the real original ending was somehow lost. Some have suggested that it was probably a key component of the endings we find in Matthew and Luke, perhaps the material that is common to both. From a filmic point of view this is rather unsatisfying. The text cannot be re-created. Even if we could determine that this was actually what happened we don't know if it was burnt by fire, eaten by worms or deliberately suppressed. One could try to recreate it from the endings of Matthew/Luke but even this would be highly speculative. Mark's distinct voice would be lost and any attempt to recreate it would probably reflect the new author's agenda and perspectives more than Mark's.

The third option however is potentially more fruitful. This is the theory that, for whatever reason, Mark intended the gospel to end at verse 8. This was perhaps controversial which is why Matthew and Luke added their own as did the unknown writers who sought to provide a climax that was (according to them) more fitting. But perhaps Mark intended his gospel to end on a question mark, something more mysterious, unknown and open-ended.

The only film that really fits in to this perspective is Roberto Rossellini's Il Messia (1975). Here we get a group of around 8-10 people heading to Jesus' tomb on the Sunday morning. The group is a mixture of men and women (again at least four), but as they approach they are met first by two soldiers running the other way and then by another woman (seemingly Mary Magdalene). This prompts Mary the mother of Jesus to run on ahead. She climbs up to the tomb and on finding it empty falls to her knees and worships (as pictured above), with the rest of the group on the ground below.

Whilst this fits the details of verses 16:1-8 no better (there is still no young man, and Magdalene is not mentioned as reaching the tomb before Jesus' mother in Mark) it does seem, to me, that it accords better with the possibility that Mark intended his gospel to end at this point. As I noted in my review a few years ago this is typical of Rossellini's strategy in his history films:

Jesus has gone, and Mary kneels in worship, but the conclusion is far from solid and there are no appearances of the risen Messiah... 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.

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.

Comparison: Good Samaritan

Last week I looked at various Jesus film portrayals of Jesus' Gospel Manifesto from Luke 4, as part of trying to find a suitable clip for a session on Luke I'm taking. I also want to include a clip of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, so I thought I add a few notes here as well (times indicate the point at which the relevant clip begins).

Kings of Kings (1961) - 1:28:20
Whilst Ray's Jesus is one who speaks about "peace, love and the brotherhood of man", the story part of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is missing. All that is left if the question "I'm a camel driver, who can I call my neighbour?" and Jesus' answer "He to whom you show mercy and compassion, whether you know him or not. This is all part of the Sermon on the Mount scene.

Godspell (1973) - 35:08
One of Godspell's strengths is the way it creatively re-tells the parables, reflecting the fact that when Jesus first spoke them there was a freshness and vitality about them. Here the Godspell trope act out the story with their hands. There's a slight change to the characters here, We get a priest, a judge along with the Samaritan, rather than a priest and a Levite. Curiously however there's a suggestion that the Samaritan is drunk.

At the end of the parable, the Samaritan is then hoisted onto someone's shoulders and paraded along until Jesus interjects with Matt 6:2-5 ("So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...").

Il Messia (1975)
This is the only film to show Jesus telling the parable in standard fashion. In fact it's a fairly unremarkable sequence, in keeping with the off-hand way Rossellini has Jesus deliver much of his teaching. Sorry I didn't note down the starting time for this one.

Jesus (1979) - 60:48This was, for me, the most memorable moment. Initially we see Jesus being questioned as per Luke, but then there's a watery dissolve into a dramatised version of the story. It's wordless, accompanied instead by a incredibly memorable little jingle, before we dissolve back to Jesus and the crowd. A couple of points here. Firstly, all three of those who approach the beaten man do within a very short period of time. This keeps the story brief, but it does rather let the first two off the hook to a small extent. The road looks busy, so the hurrying by looks less like desertion and dereliction of duty than it looks like simply leaving it to someone else. Secondly, here it's a woman who asks Jesus the initial question rather than an expert in the law which makes the scene softer and less confrontational. Likewise it's a young girl, not the original questioner, who answers Jesus' closing question, leading Jesus into "suffer the little children" passage.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999)
This version has Mary telling Jesus the story as a boy in keeping with the high view of Mary the film has. Jesus ends by asking "so the Samaritan was good?" to which Mary, rather curiously replies "yes, even though he was a Samaritan". The scene following this one links in, showing Jesus getting beaten up by a group of boys but refusing to fight back.

Miracle Maker (2000) - 45:50
This is one of the sections in this puppet animated film that switches to 2D, hand drawn animation, and it's done in a rather angular spiky style, which might actually be quite scary to younger children. It also explains some of the cultural reference points such as how the priest believed it made him unclean to touch a dead body, the Jewish people's hatred of the Samaritans (even showing one the children shouting out that he hates them). In the context of the film this is probably my favourite portrayal, but for a free-standing clip I don't think it would work so well.

So none of these are ideal really. What I probably will do instead is show the Mitchell and Webb version of the story, which never fails to amuse me, and ties in somewhat with Mary's response in Mary, Mother of Jesus

Rossellini TV Films on DVD

Roberto Rossellini took one of the strangest paths any director I know has. Having almost single handedly popularised Neo-Realism with Roma Città Aperta (Rome, Open City) (my review) he eventually made a deliberate move to television seeing it as the ultimate medium (for reasons I forget). It was here that he produced a number of historical films including Atti Degli Apostoli (Acts of the Apostles) and Il Messia (download my podcast). It was a move that remains largely misunderstood by film lovers, to the extent that Wikipedia (and a good many contemporary accounts of his career) gets as far as his affair with Ingrid Bergman and then stops.

Fortunately, the good people at the Criterion Collection know a good deal more than most, and they recently released a collection of his historical TV films on DVD. Sadly neither of the above titles are included, but as the collection is titled Rossellini's History Films: Renaissance and Enlightenment we can but hope that there might be a future series called Rossellini's History Films: The Ancient World (or something similar) which might also include his works on Socrates and Augustine of Hippo. Actually we can do more than that. Criterion have a "contact us" page with a specific email address for sending in suggestions. To which I will shortly be turning my attention. This is actually part of Criterion's Eclipse series.

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the link on this one. He also links to an article on this set by Dave Kehr at the New York Times.

Viaggio in Italia, Illibatezza and Roma Città Aperta

In preparation for seeing Atti Degli Apostoli later this month, I've been (re-)examining some of Rossellini's other films. I've now watched four in the last week, including and having recorded my thought on Il Messia in last month's podcast I'd now like to make a few comments about the other three.

Viaggio in Italia - 1953
The first film of the trio was 1953's Viaggio in Italia starring Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders as an unhappy married couple. The film opens with shots out of their car window. This gives the film a sense of immediacy such that it feels like the film had been playing for some time before we tuned in. Of course in the story of this couple's life, this is exactly what has happened. As the film settles down, it becomes clear that the marriage is starting to unravel, neither seemingly able to take the steps to bring about the necessary reconciliation.

Finally, after a short time apart (the whole film occurs in less than a week), they agree to get a divorce but are interrupted before the conversation reaches its natural conclusion. In the final scene whilst attempting to escape from the surroundings that have seemingly oppressed them so much during their stay, they are forced to abandon the car in the midst of a crowd. But once in the midst of the throng of people, Bergman is swept away and looks back in desperation towards her husband. He forces his way through to "save" her and the two are reunited and declare their love for each other.

To an audience bred on Hollywood romance, the film's ending feels incredibly abrupt and unrealistic. This has been variously interpreted by some as a deliberately false ending, or as a miracle – particularly as a man is shown directly afterwards carrying a pair of crutches. For my part, I can help but feel that this is part of the film's realism. Couples often argue over the silly little things, and the decision to get a divorce (particularly in 1953) seems facile.

In the same way the moment of reconciliation tuns on similarly insignificant event. Bergman faced no real danger, but it was enough to remind her of her need for her husband, and him of his love for her. Furthermore the moment has enabled them to express things to each other they both needed to share.

Illibatezza (Chastity) - 1962
Next up was Rossellini's section from the four way collaboration RoGoPaG (the other directors being Goddard, Pasolini and Gregoretti. Rossellini's film Illibatezza (Chastity) is the first of the four and last for about half an hour.

The story revolves around an American business man, Joe, and his obsession with a beautiful yet naïve air stewardess, Anna Maria. We first meet Joe as he looks at a copy of Playboy: that is until he sees Anna Maria when he puts down his magazine to watch her more closely. Clever use of point of view shots and editing mean that the audience quickly find themselves in Joe's place, viewing Anna Maria as an object of desire. He has clearly idealised her innocence which has, in turn, birthed an obsession within him.

Worried about the unwanted attention she is receiving, Anna Maria seeks the advice of her boyfriend. Significantly, we are first introduced to him via a film. Indeed the use of cine cameras throughout the film (Joe, Anna Maria and her boyfriend all use one) indicates that amongst the issues Illibatezza is raising is the medium of cinema itself. No less important is his absence from her life. Throughout the film's duration the two are never together.

Anna Maria's boyfriend discusses the problem with a psychologist friend of his, whose diagnosis is shocking: Joe is a psychopath with a fixation on Anna Maria's purity. In order to shake him off, she is advised to give the appearance of looseness. She dresses more provocatively and dyes her hair blonde.

Fans of of Hitcock's earlier, although colour, film Vertigo will notice numerous similarities. The voyeurism and obsession displayed in this film are reminiscent of that film as is the way in which a woman is co-ursed into turning blonde by an emotionally detached boyfriend. The scenario is far less extreme, and the genre is comedy rather than thriller, but thematically the two are very similar.

As predicted, Joe acts with horror and is left only with his memories. Having initially rejected the sexually "available" blonde of his Playboy magazine, in favour of a "virginal" brunette, he finds that she has become the image of the girl in the magazine. In the film's most comical scene Joe projects the film he took of Anna Maria onto the wall of his hotel room and seeks, in vain, to grasp her image. He has once again chosen the pure brunette over the sexually "active" blonde only this time he has chosen an image of a woman over the real thing. Joe's fruitless grapsing is both comic and tragic. He is left only with his obsession, unable to lay hold of a relationship with a real person.

Interestingly, Joe's revulsion at Anna Maria's new look is matched by that of her boyfriend. Even though she is clearly uncomfortable with her new image, Joe turns away in disgust upon seeing it. Like Scotty in Vertigo he has re-fashioned the appearance of his girlfriend only to be appalled by what he sees. In trying to protect her he has caused a rift in their relationship.

Roma Città Aperta (Rome, Open City) - 1945
This was Rossellini's breakthrough film and it was my second viewing. Whilst remembering only few images from the film prior to rewatching it (Pina's death and Don Pietro's interrogation in particular), I was astounded at how familiar the images were once I saw them again.

One thing I don't remember appreciating the first time around is the film's humour, particularly in the earlier scenes. This is not uncommon for Rossellini. Both of the previous two films involve some form of humour, and Il Messia occasionally injects irony into the proceedings.

I was also surprised at how graphic the torture scene was at the end. Sadly the person I watched it with found it all a bit much, and this detracted from me enjoying the film's climax as much as I did the first time I watched it.

As the film that popularised neo-realism it's hard to appreciate it's innovations over 60 years later. That said, knowing that this film was shot in the places where the original events occurred gave the film a real edge this time around. Similarly, the acting of Don Pietro in particular is strengthened by the expressiveness of his normal face.

I also noticed how the film blurs the line between the heroes and the villains by inserting two characters into the film who lie somewhere between the Nazi's and the Italian resistance. In the first half of the film (up to Pina's death – the sudden, unexpected nature of which causing a significant shift in the film's tone) there is an Italian policeman who is both friendly with those on his beat and who helps them during the Nazi raid on the neighbourhood. The second, darker, part of the film features a singer who has betrayed Don Petrino and his companions in order to get a fix.

What is interesting is that we sympathise with the policeman, even thought he works overtly for the enemy, whereas the singer's betrayal elicits the opposite response. However there is a twist right at the end when the cocktail of drugs and drink she bought with her information leave her unconscious on the floor. Her female confidant (and, it is implied, her lover) bends over only to reclaim the coat which she had supposedly given her. The singer remains on the floor only now our perception of her has become more sympathetic.

Podcast: Il Messia

The latest Jesus Film Podcast is now available. This month it's Roberto Rossellini's Il Messia. This is partly because I'm going to see Rossellini's other Bible film Atti Degli Apostoli in a couple of weeks but mainly because Il Messia itself will be showing in a few weeks. I've already mentioned the details of these screenings and tickets can be bought from the BFI.

Il Messia is the most obscure film I've discussed thus far, but has always been one of my favourite Jesus films. Preparing this has only increased my appreciation for it.

There are six other talks available to download from this podcast. They are Jesus of Nazareth, Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew), The Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus of Montreal, Jesus Christ Superstar and The Miracle Maker.

Dates for Atti Degli Apostoli and Il Messia

I got a copy of the BFI's film guide through in the post yesterday morning, and I'm pleased to announce (even before their website has) that both Atti Degli Apostoli and Il Messia will be showing in June as part of the BFI's Roberto Rossellini retrospective. As I mentioned back in October last year this is touring season to mark the director's 100th birthday. Both films will be showing twice (along with many of the great director's films), and the dates are as follows:

Atti Degli Apostoli
290 mins (+ intervals)
Sun, 17th June 2007, 16:00, NFT2 - Southbank
Sun, 23rd June 2007, 16:20, The Studio - Southbank

Il Messia
145 mins
Wed, 20th June 2007, 17:40, NFT3 - Southbank
Wed, 27th June 2007, 20:10, NFT2 - Southbank

I'm planning to be at the Sunday 17th showing of Atti Degli Apostoli, so if you're there as well, please do come and say "hello". This may be the only chance I ever get to see this film. Ideally, I'd like to see Il Messia on the big screen as well, but a combination of family responsibilities, travel difficulties, lack of funds and owning it on video are all working against me.

The National Film Theatre (Southbank) Box Office number is 020 7928 3232

Rossellini Retrospective - Atti and Il Messia

Ron Reed has news of a Rossellini Retrospective to celebrate the directors centenary which will be visiting a number of major cities. First up is the Cinematheque Ontario which will be showing the retrospective from October 20th to December 10th. It will also be coming to MOMA (New York - November 15 - December 22), Toronto, with London and Los Angeles to follow in 2007.

Rossellini made numerous great films, many of which are praised for their spirituality, despite the fact he declared himself to be "a complete atheist"¹. I've only sampled a few so far, (Roma Città Aperta (Rome Open City), Francesco, Guillare Di Dio (Francis, God's Jester) and Il Messia) but all are firm favourites. Three of his films made the Arts and Faith top 100 (Open City, St Francis, and Stromboli).

There are two films in the retrospective that specifically deal with stories from the bible. The first is Atti Degli Apostoli (Acts of the Apostles - 1968), which I discussed briefly in last months post on the Jerusalem Council. I've actually never seen this, so I'm hotly anticipating seeing this, although at 6 hours I may need to take a cushion.

The other is Il Messia, which I have seen several times, and included in my Top Ten List of Jesus films. I like this film a great deal, partly because, like Pasolini's Matthew, the neo-realist touches give the feel a very natural, low key feel. It's also the only film I'm aware of that shows Jesus continuing to work (as a carpenter) after his mission begins. This was actually Roberto Rosellini's last film, and so, sadly, it is not discussed in the sole book I have on Rossellini,"Roberto Rosellini" by José Luis Guarner.

I imagine that nearer the time the other cinemas involved in this retrospective will post their own details, although Cinematheque Ontario's site is very impressive. Hugo Salas has also written a nice summary of the director's work at Senses of Cinema, as has the BBC's Chris Wiegand.

1 - Essay on Rossellini Retrospective at Cinematheque Ontario

Top Ten Jesus Films

Peter T Chattaway has just had his list of Top Ten Jesus Films published by Christianity Today. We chatted a bit about the subject a while back and I've been meaning to post my list for a while. Peter's films are:

The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1902-05)
The King of Kings (1927)
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
Godspell (1973)
The Messiah (1976)
Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
Jesus (1999)
The Miracle Maker (2000)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Since Peter has now had his list published, and, as this is the last major post before Good Friday I thought it was probably about time I posted mine up as well. We actually agree on 6, although I'd be happy to swap 2 of those 6 for 2 on my list of honourable mentions further below. However, here are my Tope Ten Jesus films in chronological order:

From the Manger to the Cross (1912)
More of a film than The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ, more natural and genuine than DeMille's The King of Kings, This film, for me, stands out as the best Jesus film of the silent era. Controversial in it's day, for its very existence, (not to mention its ommission of the resurrection), Sidney Olcott's film has a quiet dignity about it, which is best captured by turning off the overbearing sountrack which was added later. The film was re-issued with a resurrection scene in 1916 as Jesus of Nazareth, and under that title again in 1932 with sound.

Golgotha (1935)
Golgotha was the first Jesus talkie, and set a high standard for those that were to follow> originally released as Ecce Homo. Julien Duvivier's use of the camera was way ahead of his time and he manages to capture the miraculous events in Jesus's last week as if they were the most natural thing in the world.
My review

King of Kings (1961)
The first Hollywood film about Jesus since the end of the silent era 34 years earlier. King of Kings remains enjoyable even though behind the scenes power stuggles destroyed the films promise. The Sermon on the Mount scene is still wonderful though, even if elsewhere Jesus is squeezed out of the film by the zealots.
My review

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964 - The Gospel According to St. Matthew)
Widely considered the masterpiece of the genre, at least among film critics, Pasolini's neo-realist style gave us a Jesus of the people, who delivers his pithy sayings with revolutionary urgency. The camera work draws the viewer into the story more, whilst the use of ordinary people cuts through the gloss of so many Jesus films both before and afterwards.

Il Messia (1975 - The Messiah)
The Godfather of neo-realism was Roberto Rossellini who ended his career with this film. Like Pasolini's film, Rossellini depicts a peasant Jesus, who continues his carpentry even as he teaches, and whose followers pass on his message at the same time he does. Of all the versions of Jesus in film this one perhaps focusses the most on his teaching. The film is also unusual for it's opening scenes from the time of Samuel.

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
One of my least favourite films in this list, and yet where would the genre be without it? In many people's eyes the definitive film Jesus, and a favourite amongst the faithful, Zefferelli does so much very well. Sadly, his leading character is dreary, and the film drags on without a charismatic compelling lead. That said the other performaces are wonderful and the period detail is impressive.


Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
A mixture of the good, the bad, and the dull. In parts Scorsese's film soars breathing new life into the character of Jesus and challenging the viewer about their cosy pre-conceptions. In other places though the film, is just bizarre and has offended many, whilst still other places seem to drag. For those looking for fresh insights and who like to judge films on their merits there is plenty to be mined here. For those who find whole films are spoiled by particular sections stay away, particularly if you are easily offended.
My review

Jesus (1999)
Jesus explores similar territory to Last Temptation, but in a safer more palatable form. Sisto's performance has many strengths, but it slightly spoilt by a few too many scenes of of him goofing around. That said the early scenes are particularly strong. Much of it is speculation, but certainly such that is within reason. It's also one of the few films to clarify that that it was the Romans, not the Jewish leaders that were in charge in Jerusalem in Jesus's time.

The Miracle Maker (1999)
The claymation version of Jesus's life is one of the genre's highs. Whilst clearly less arty than Pasolini's film, it is theologically, and historically strong, and surprisingly moving for a stop motion film. Ralph Fiennes does an excellent job as the voice of Jesus, and Murray Watts's scripts is excellent but the most credit must go to the team of animators who produced a wonderfully realistic and creative film.
My review

Passion of the Christ (2004)
Whilst there are several troubling aspects of this film Mel Gibson did plenty of excellent work with this as well. The film looked incredible, and whilst it starved us of insights into Jesus's earlier life, the few scraps we were allowed certainly aroused our appetites for more. And as filmic meditations on the stations of the cross go, I doubt it will be surpassed.


Honourable mentions
There are a few films which I had to exclude, for various reasons, but which really deserve a mention.

Son of Man (1969)
Son of Man isn't really a film, it's the filmed version of a Dennis Potter play. Nevertheless it remains one of the strongest visual portrayals of Jesus to date. Colin Blakely portrays a Jesus with fire in his belly, who speaks in the language of normal people, but in a manner that makes his collision with the authorities inevitable. The Sermon on the Mount scene again is amazing, and deserves repeated viewings.

Life of Brian (1979)
This is excluded form the list becuase it isn't actually a film about Jesus (although he makes a brief cameo at the start). Instead it's about the folibles of religion, and of humanity in general. Life of Brian does what all good films do - be excellent at something. In this film's case its comedy is hilarious hwilst remaining thoughtful. As a result it has gained a dedicated following, and appears time after time in those "best of" programmes.

Jesus of Montreal (1989)
Jesus of Montreal is another satire, only this time the target is modern day Quebec. The film follows five actors as they put on a controversial passion play which and finds the life of the groups leader mirroring that of Jesus whom he plays in the film. Perhaps the strangest scenes at a first viewing, is actually one of the best - where Jesus wanders through the subway proclaiming God's judgement in the style of Mark 13.

Book of Life (1999)
Hal Hartley's film stars Martin Donovan as Jesus returning to earth on the eve of the new Millennium, and finding that his love for humanity conflicts with his mission. Another sharply observed satire which explores form as well as content.