Testament (2025): I See [s1e07]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

It's always weird giving spoilers when talking about biblical films. After all, these stories are thousands of years old. How they go, how they end, is well known.

It's difficult to imagine many people sitting down to watch episode 7 of Testament without knowing that Stephen is going to die. Nevertheless, how a film chooses to do that, and the way it tends to portray those things, can still vary immensely. At the end of the last episode Stephen is being dragged off to be brought before the Sanhedrin and, cinematically speaking, the journey there will be relatively quick.

For the audience, the episode starts by going back 10 months, to the day of Shavuot (Pentecost). In episode 1 the moment where the Holy Spirit comes is not shown. We don't see it, we just see the disciples' reaction to it. Leaving out such a pivotal scene seemed quite a bold decision at the time, helping us identify more with Stephen as an outsider to the disciples. 

But now, he is very much an insider, so the series goes back there now and we see the events of Shavuot from the inside. The disciples and some of the other followers (including the women followers) are in the upper room. There is some mild use of special effects to convey the presence of the Holy Spirit coming, as well as a  wind coming in through the window and  blowing curtains. There have been a only a few different portrayals of Pentecost on screen in previous adaptations of Acts. Unsurprisingly, Roberto Rossellini also left it off screen in Atti Deli Apostoli (1969), but didn’t return to it later.

Here it is shown in quite an interesting fashion. Whereas other series over do the special effects, for example A.D. Kingdom and Empire (AD: The Bible Continues, 2015), here the touch is light. The primary focus seems to be on the way different languages are spoken. There's a cacophony of noise but the roving camera settles temporarily on individuals speaking specific languages as indicated by subtitles in those languages. The sound balance adjusts to bring each one’s words out from the rest. That seemed to be much more the focus than the primary visual element of the tongues of fire, which is shown purely through some faint, wispy, orange, smoke.

Given the budgetary limitations of the series, the filmmakers strike a good balance between doing something visual, but not overdoing it, or doing something very full-on badly on their limited budget. And then the credits roll, and as they do, Peter's words from his sermon in Acts 2 is spoken very quietly in the background by the actor who plays Peter, Tom Simper.

The trial itself is interesting. The  original mob, headed up by Abdiel comes in to the Sanhedrin’s chamber, but rapidly become fairly incidental to proceedings. The members of the Sanhedrin clearly object to them being there. It's only really when Saul reminds them that because he, a minister, has witnessed what has happened, they have to pay attention to these events and give them a proper hearing.

Acts 6:13 refers to this generic character, a “false witness” who testifies against Stephen, echoing Jesus’ trial in the Gospels where people also speak falsely about what Jesus had said. Here, Saul essentially gives the speech from 6:13, so, in essence, he becomes the false witness. This is interesting because in the text, Saul only really appears at the end of these events as a  way of introducing him as a character. It’s almost as if the text points him out as the guy that's going to become the main character in the rest of the story that’s being told, following this lengthy preamble. 

Most of the rest of the episode, then consists of Stephen’s trial unfolding. Ananias again  pipes up, clearly trying to edge Saul out completely. But instead, we see Saul very cunningly turn Gamaliel's attempts to build bridges with the apostles against him. Saul essentially portrays Gamaliel (Stewart Scudamore, pictured above) as one of them and says he has a witness that can witness the fact that Gamaliel has been meeting with their leaders. Gamaliel is forced to leave proceedings unable to influence proceedings any further. 

In any event, the case against Stephen seems well established, so then he is given his chance to speak. The writers use a lot of the words from Stephen's speech in Acts 7. In the text this speech is more or less one long monologue until the last seven verses when it switched back to commentating on events again. 

Working with long bits of text in biblical films is always quite a challenge. There are questions about whether you abridge them and the extent to which that is done; whether you present it all in one long shot or cut to reactions or different camera angles; and if, and then how, you paraphrase the text. 

I really like how the series navigates this potentially tricky territory. On the one hand the speeches are rewritten so that the parts we hear are slightly different to standard translations. Even compared to modern translations of text, the words have been tweaked to give a bit more vitality in how the speech comes across. There’s a looser sentence structure and a bit more freshness. It sounds more like a modern 21st century text than just a first century text being translated into 21st century language. 

However, the biggest difference is the way that the camera cuts away to scenes of the disciples back at base (as well as a few other scenes that inject a bit more action) in between the sections of Stephen’s speech. Rather than pausing the action on one of the timelines to show what is happening in the parallel timeline, as is often the case, here time continues to pass on the two timelines, even when the camera isn’t watching. This means that not all of Stephen’s speech is shown and the inserted, more action-heavy scenes provide some relief such that when we return to Stephen our attention is refreshed.

This is a really interesting way of presenting the speech while keeping the action and the audience’s attention moving. There’s some really good editing in this episode that is essential for making the whole sequence work. I’m interested to see how this abridged version of Stephen’s speech plays out in terms of how the speech hangs together in the context of the episode and how coherent it is based solely on the words we hear him speak in the show. Does those bits on their own work as a standalone speech? 

Personally, I think the first of those cutaways is the most striking.The camera cuts from Stephen to his mum Esther arriving at the disciples’ house and getting them to come and try and help him. Esther has realised her need to connect with her son too late and is desperately trying to get the followers to come and help him. They're keen to reassure her. Most strikingly, we get this moment from Susanna (Bobbie Little, pictured below) who having seen some of the others released before attempts to reassure Esther, saying “I know in my bones God will show up for Stephen”. This is such a jarringly strong line, because, of course, we know that God is not going to show up for Stephen, at least not in the sense Susanna means. We know that Stephen is going to die. 

This is yet another example of the show’s honesty and its sense of reality particularly in the writing. It openly confesses to the fact that sometimes people do believe they ‘know’ things, that God has assured them of things, that sometimes turn out not to be true after the event. If challenged, some might still say their words were true in a metaphorical / spiritual / emotional sense, but that would not be the sense in which they would have been understood at the time. 

Here, for example, it might be tempting to argue “well God did show up for Stephen but just not in the sense we thought”, but Susanna seems to intend her words to be taken at face value, and Esther would not have taken comfort from that at the time otherwise. The way Susanna says it at the time seems intended to be understood in a very specific way and that's not the way that it comes to pass.

It's really interesting that the series has depicted this over-enthusiasm, for want of a better phrase) a couple of times now. It hasn't shied away from the fact that incidents like this happen quite often in certain Christian circles. I seems to me that the life of faith does come with major disappointments and significant times when people put trust in God which doesn't seem to pan out as expected. And yet, I suppose, the Christian response is to continue to trust God anyway.

Another of the narrative interruptions to Stephen's speech happens when the group arrives at the temple complex. The Roman soldiers won't let such a large group  through the gates . They're only prepared to let one or two of them enter. As it happens we get to see Caleb again. Initially he’s detached from them. He’s just there as a bystander and when he asks one of his fellow bystanders what is happening he’s told “it's the Jesus people”. I think that is the first time that particular phrase has been used in this series, and of course even if this were a world that movement had already happened, it is the kind of informal, neutral term that you can see being used in this kind of scenario.  

Surprisingly, though, given his discomfort with joining the disciples after he was healed, Caleb (Steve Furst, pictured below) comes to help them. He starts attacking the electric device that keeps the door locked and it is notable that Caleb does this by kicking the device in order to break it. Obviously, prior to being healed he couldn't have used his legs in such a fashion, but now he is employing them to help his friend Stephen.

Eventually Stephen reaches the end of his speech. Despite having been fairly calm through the series so far, now Caiaphas yells. Suddenly a wind blows in and a bright light streams through the windows, and this isn’t just Stephen’s perspective, all the characters react to this bright light. From the audience’s perspective, we sense that his is an endorsement, just as Stephen and the text of Acts sees that as an endorsement of his position. Butt the scene also makes me wonder how the Sanhedrin interpret this light. Do they also see it as an endorsement of what they're doing? 

That’s certainly possible because the majority of the Sanhedrin then march Stephen off to a spot outside the city walls. However, not all of the Sanhedrin go something that is shown quite pointedly. This brings me to an issue I've been weighing up during the whole series that I've not necessarily reflected on in my reviews of it so far, namely how the series handles potential antisemitism. I’m going to start a new post on that because it’s a big issue and I want to do it justice without detracting from the review of a single episode.

The short version is that the Sanhedrin dragging a man off to be lunched isn’t a great look, but the fact that some demur and don’t take part is significant. I’ve mentioned before the parallels between Testament and the BBC adaptation of His Dark Materials (2019-2022) and here it allows us to approach about the question from a different angle. When that series aired the link between the Magisterium and the established church was widely acknowledged and there were various objections that it was an “undisguised” attack on Christianity. Testament treats Judaism in a not dissimilar fashion so I suggest it’s worth reflecting on that and recalling that Christian antisemitism has a terrible history.

Before we get to the stoning, there’s a brief scene as they attempt to leave the city walls. There’s a clear suggestion of Caiaphas’ corruption and his willingness to abuse his power. Indeed, he even asks the solitary soldier guarding the border “Do you know who who I am?” There’s also something in the way the soldier shrugs this interaction off, resigned to the compromises of real life and his lack of power to do anything meaningful about the system he find himself a part of.

And then we get to the moment we’ve been anticipating from the opening moments of the entire series. Stephen is dragged to a grubby, rundown bit of dilapidated brownfield wasteland and thrown to the floor. Even the ‘stones’ his persecutors pick up are just lumps of broken brick and masonry. Sometimes there’s almost a certain romance to the way this story is told. Testament, however, utterly strips this away and exposes it plainly as an awful act: a grotty moment of low-down violence, fuelled as much by group-mentality as hatred. The creative choices around location, props and camera filters here, really hammer this home. Despite it all Stephen sees the light and recognises he's about to go to Heaven. 

Significantly, the stoning itself is left off camera. Indeed, the scene cuts away before the moment plays out. There are a number of reasons for this. Doubtless part of it is to do with budget and access to the available skills to make that seem realistic rather than distracting (seeing foam rocks could be really distracting). However, this is also clearly an artistic choice. It avoids the mistake of glamorizing the violence. Some film theorists argue that the very act of putting violence on screen lends violence a sense of glamour, even when it is done in such a way as to clearly condemn the violence depicted. Cutting away as Syrstad does at this point refuses to focus on the violence. Instead, it focuses more on the impact of Stephen’s death on the people who loved him, on his mother Esther and on his friends among Jesus’ followers, than on the physicality of Stephen’s body and his suffering and pain.

Perhaps inevitably, the episode ends with a flashback, which nicely pairs with the flashback we had at the start of the episode. It's a flashback to Stephen and the boy Malachi (who has perhaps already lost one father figure and has now just lost another). It’s just a little scene. The two of them sit at a table and chat about the Jesus that neither of them ever met. Malachi just casually says “I can't wait to meet him” and Stephen replies “Neither can I”. It’s the last line of the episode which is somehow both moving and poignant and a little bit cheesy, but nevertheless, it nicely completes the episode.

It'll be interesting to see where this season goes from here in the final episode. It seems unlikely that we will get to Saul’s conversion in a single episode: So far progress has been at the rate of less than one chapter per episode and while chapter 8 is only one chapter in terms of word count the amount of personal and structural upheaval we see means it would feel like a real change of gear. Perhaps we’ll get Simon the Magician, perhaps we’ll have to dig out The Silver Chalice over the summer to keep us going. 

Either way, we'll soon find out. Episode 8 is out now for paying members, but won’t be shown on the livestream until Tuesday.

Testament (2025): And Tomorrow [s1e06]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

The sixth episode of Testament opens with a medium close-up of Stephen with his eyes closed. The camera smoothly pans back to reveal he is standing in a circle of Christians praying outside. "Keep me safe my God" we hear him pray in his head "for in you I take refuge".

Given the fact that Stephen's fate is well known, this opening strikes an ominous tone. Stephen has been easily the most likeable character in the entire series. Moreover, as the audience's way in the the mechanics of the early church, we've looked at all these events unfolding through his eyes. We've been encouraged to identify with him; and now we hear his inner monologue. A cry for safety taken from Psalm 16:1, which we already know will not work out for Stephen in the way in which anyone who prays such a prayer hopes it will.

The focus in this episode shifts quite markedly to Stephen, to the extent that "the twelve" barely feature, aside from an episode (pictured below) where they decide it's time to start to take Jesus' message further afield. This in itself is quite an interesting change. In the Bible, this decision is recalled in the immediate aftermath of Stephen's (Acts 8:1) death, which is either read as a reaction based, at least in part, around safety concerns, or as God encouraging them to increase in boldness, or follow Stephen's bravery. This relocation makes their decision a bit more strategic, but it also highlights the point that the disciples did seem to take a while before they cracked on with fulfilling the Great Commission.

Incidentally, the composition of this scene is fantastic. The below still doesn't really do justice to its balance, but at least gives a sense of the composition and tenebrist lighting. I love the way the eye is drawn to Barnabas on the far right of the screen (goodness knows the church will need his encouragement after this episode) and then to John's white shirt in the centre of the screen.

As ever we're introduced to new characters. Ade emerges from the fringes of the story in this episode, not only as someone who encourages Stephen, but also as someone who is trying and failing to tell the difference between the crazy stuff that God does and the crazy things that God doesn't do. "I tried to jump over the members" Ade confesses sheepishly. "Jump?" Simon queries: "...Fly..." Ade explains "...like 'Fly on wings like eagles'". There's a knowing smirk from Simon Peter, a man who walked on water and who ultra-conveniently caught a fish with a coin in its mouth and who can apparently see some kind of fundamental difference.

The two most significant 'new' characters in this episode are Abdiel – the leader of the Libertine Synagogue in Jerusalem (wordplay on Acts 6:9's "Synagogue of the Freedmen", or rather its title in the Greek Libertinon) – and his daughter Talia. Talia is a former school friend of Stephen. We're first introduced to her through a conversation she's having with a friend in a café. As it happens it's the café where Stephen's mum works, so Esther listens in, both out of curiosity and fear for her son's safety.

Talia is one of those in Salem who is becoming increasingly interested in what the followers of Jesus have to say. In her conversation in the café she talks about them going to synagogue and answering everyone's questions about Jesus. Later is reunited with Stephen and encourages him to keep going to the meeting and keep doing what he's doing.

Her father, on the other hand, could not be more opposed to what is happening. Abdiel is becoming increasingly unhappy about the way the apostles are muscling in on the meetings he is running and promoting these beliefs that he finds utterly at loggerheads with his community's beliefs. Moreover, his preacher, Minister Noam, has become a follower of Jesus leaving the synagogue without a lead teacher.

Perhaps surprisingly, it's Saul who steps up to fill this vacancy. Having been marginalised by the temple Saul is at something of a loose end. Abdiel and others from around the city who feel the same are starting to agitate and protest near the temple. "Let them join their messiah" one of them cries. Saul and Mara observe one such protest. "They're reporting that their places of worship have been invaded by heretics" Mara explains, "more and more people are complaining each day".

Saul knows he wants to do something about the followers, so his frenemy Minister Ananias suggests he take on the vacancy. He attends another meeting at Libertine and comes away seething. Between him, Abdiel and those who share their views, they hatch a plan to deal with Stephen at the next meeting which Talia unwittingly encourages Stephen to attend, despite the twelve having instructed their followers not to put themselves in danger by speaking at synagogue meetings.

As Stephen makes his way there, we once again hear his inner monologue. "Keep me safe my God, for in you I take refuge. Do not leave me. Without you God nothing makes sense. Give me the courage to speak. Give me the right words. Remind me to love like you and when I lose my words, do not leave me God. Don't leave me" "

It's fascinating watching how quickly things escalate once he arrives at the meeting. Stephen is unaware of what awaits him. He goes along determined not say anything during the meeting and just to speak to anyone who wants to chat afterwards. But the plan against him has already been agreed and set in motion. "This is a synagogue", Abdiel declares, "there will be no more questions for him". The accusations and lies gush out and suddenly Stephen is overwhelmed and out of his depth.

Saul and his mob drag Stephen off to the Sanhedrin. It's a bit unclear why they think that is the best course of action. Abdiel and his associates have been annoyed by the temple authorities' perceived failure to take firm enough action with Jesus' followers. They are already making false accusations and seem ready to physically attack Stephen. Are they hoping to persuade them to change course or giving them one last chance to endorse their preferred course of action before they take things into their own hands?

On an emotional level this is a fantastic episode. I've only gradually clocked-on to the fact that the writers credited for each episode vary between the director/show-runner Paul Syrstad, his wife Faith Syrstad and Kenneth Omole (who plays John in the series). Here, only Faith Syrstad is credited with writing the episode. It's excellent, something which is confirmed by the fact that, at the time of writing, the episode has a perfect 10 rating at IMDb, which I've never encountered before. Admittedly that's unlikely to last (scores there usually dip a little after some initial enthusiasm) but it's a good indicator of how strong this episode is.

I think what I admire most about this episode is its honesty. Stephen prays for protection, as David did before him and millions of Jews and Christians have done ever since, and he seems to trust in that. And yet the difference between Stephen and David is that David lived a long enough to die in his bed of old-age. In contrast, Stephen is about to be cut down in his prime. While some will make the claim that his prayers are answered in an eternal sense, that's doesn't seem to be the way his prayers were intended. Stephen appears to have a naïve expectancy that just as the apostles were freed by an angel in episode 5, so too will he also be safe. And, of course, even today there are Christians in various parts of the world who are killed for their faith. They too trust in God and pray for safety (and are too often forgotten by Anglo-American Christians complaining about 'persecution' because of things like workplaces asking them to use people's preferred pronouns).

Yet many Christians live with that dichotomy of trusting their God, but knowing that, aside from an eternal sense God may not protect them in the way that they desire, be that at moments of life-threatening persecution or during minor elements of their normal, everyday lives. Yet so often in Christian storytelling, this dichotomy is absent. Too many reach for dishonest platitudes rather than truth. By having us watch Stephen's decisions and hear his prayers when we already know his tragic fate the Syrstads transform the story of Christianity's first martyr into a searing honest examination of the life of faith. 

Testament (2025): Rising Tides [s1e05]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

Episode 5 of Testament, "Rising Tides" picks up again a few weeks after the events of episode 4, because Saul has been planning how to 'get' the disciples. He's clearly been spending his time laying an elaborate trap for them by having a network of conversations with both Sadducees and Pharisees in an attempt to get them arrested.

There's an interesting reference, during an early gathering of the temple hierarchy, to the Essenes, a word which Saul uses as a bit of a slur. When Minister Alexander asks him if he's "come to grovel for the Sadducee vote", he responds "I think I'd rather join the Essenes" to which another colleague jokes is "a low blow". This is perhaps accurate, but it does make me wonder what the Essenes would look like in the world of Testament and where they would fit in, in this modernised world in which the show has constructed.

There's another interesting quote that caught my ear early on, when Saul describes the Jesus movement as "a far worse threat to our faith, a disease, and it's spreading, coming to take everything we have. It must be stopped". Given Saul has moved into full-on zealot here it would also be interesting to see what the Zealot movement looked like in this world. Some scholars consider them closely linked to a certain brand of Pharisaism, not least because of Paul's use of the term "zealous" to describe his former status (Gal 1:14).

Essentially, anyway, what happens is that the Sanhedrin give the order to arrest the disciples, and we see the Twelve being brought in. As the series, has tended to do each episode introduces new characters and develops those that were previously just in the background. Here we get to meet some of the other members of the Twelve that we haven't really touched on more before. We meet another James and we get to know Matthias a bit more. And there are additional lines for some of the other minor disciples. Presumably, the new James, is James the son of Alphaeus. He doesn't appear to be James, the brother of Jesus, and his small stature perhaps reflects the way that church tradition has come to refer to him as James the less, or "little James" as both The Chosen and this series credits call him.

Interestingly, James practically says the famous words from Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5:33-39 only in reverse, a kind of paraphrase "if he wants it to remain standing, then regardless of whether we are in the picture or not, it will remain standing". 

And then I think we get the most interesting moment of the episode, which is the angel coming and releasing them all through prison. She's portrayed very simply (see below), and as a Black woman who just appears in the midst of the disciples, without any fanfare or special effects. While they are just talking, suddenly a voice casually says "You could just leave". They turn around, and she's there. When Peter asks "Leave how?" She just gets up, opens the cell door and walks out of it before opening the doors of the other cells. After hesitating for a moment the disciples walk through the unlocked doors too. The guard doesn't even seem to see them go. It's really nicely done. 

This episode also does a good job of capture the concern around the ideas that other people are feeling. There's quite a lot here about the tensions that are being felt within the community at this point. There's a mix of fear and duty, whisked up with some joy and some concern. This episode firms up my sense of the different approach between it and The Chosen. The Chosen seems like it is simultaneously trying to help those people inside the church to get to know Jesus better, and show people who wouldn't consider themselves Christians, what (the filmmakers think) he was like.

Testament feels much subtler to me. It's a fascinating exercise in putting the text in a modern context. If it has a target audience and a point it's looking to express, I wonder if it's trying to challenge those inside the church to live like the early church did, only in today's world, rather than how the church often is now. As I have said before, the series makes parallels with certain types of churches that come through again and again. Some of the leadership ideas that come through are interesting, and if feels like it is putting out a challenge for a more radical form of Christianity. 

Yet having escaped, the disciples then head straight back to the temple courts to preach again. This is written into the text (5:17-21 -- the writers make a lot of material out of just a few verses here) but it's done in quite a straight fashion forward. The disciples end up getting imprisoned again and given the lash. It's not clear how many times they get hit with the lash, but it is shown as being very brutal, with some quite nasty seeming injuries afterwards. If nothing else it's a chance for the special effects and makeup department to do something more challenging. 

Underpinning all of this we have Saul who, from Gamaliel's perspective, is going off the rails. He's frozen out of the discussions about the Twelve with the Sanhedrin when he thinks he should be right there at the heart of it. Time and again he's reminded that he's not a member of the council, This would be bad enough, but then Gamaliel makes a the speech for which he's famous (Acts 5:33-39), urging a more laissez-faire approach to this emerging movement.

This puts him very much at loggerheads with Saul, who confronts him afterwards angrily. Saul foams at the mouth, with huge globules of spit literally flying out of his mouth. He completely goes off the deep end about Gamaliel's seeming compromise. I wonder if there sufficient motive for this. Is it going to get unpacked in future episodes, or is it just something that's assumed and read into the text, but not really explained. Either way, Gamaliel's response it to withdraw his support for Saul's candidacy for the Sanhedrin.

Meanwhile a couple of interesting subplots are developing and, as ever, the editors do a good job of layering the various overlapping story-lines to keep each one of these parallel stories ticking over. Susanna and Mary Magdalene continue to be quite prominent. We also get to find out Dana's backstory (pictured). In the previous episode it was suggested that she was a former sex worker who was try to escape drug addiction, ably assisted by Mary Magdalene.

Here she is revealed to be the estranged niece of Captain Rosh, chief of the temple guards, which eventually leads to a touching reconciliation scene between them. I'm curious to see how that dynamic is going to work out. She's tempted to walk away from the followers of Jesus, not because she wants to, but because she feels unsafe. However, it's the temple authorities she fears, but the kind of people that she had in her previous life. It's interesting so see this other potential threat here (and, of course, there are the Romans too). Conversely, Rosh is overjoyed that Dana is now "clean", but he also knows that it is a risk for him to be seen fraternising with Jesus' followers which creates quite an interesting dynamic.

The other major element that comes in this episode is that we get to find out a little bit more about the Hellenist widows. In Acts the demands of serving them is so high that seven leaders are appointed to focus just on that, including Stephen. This is where Stephen is first named in the text so obviously as we already know Stephen he acts as our way into the story of these women.

This is an aspect of the text that's rarely been portrayed well in Acts adaptation -- it's perhaps not as exciting to most filmmakers as all the preaching, persecution and miracles -- but here it's made into quite a moving scene. We're introduced to a new female character among the core followers. Initially, she seems a little bit mean, but this is more or less due to her being a little bit too bound to the rules, failing to understand and empathise and therefore missing the spirit of what the movement following Jesus is supposed to be about. There's quite a nice scene where she suddenly realises the full extent of the situation which is able to be resolved allowing the character to redeem herself. It was a satisfying little sequence, a complete little story on the periphereries of the main text, shedding light on elements of the story that are often missed.  

As per Luke's text, the followers ultimately have a vote to determine who the seven assigned to this task are going to be. It's the first thing in this series that feels a little overly macho, despite the presence of these twelve male apostles. I think this because Peter is quite quietly spoken, and has quite a gentle manner, Indeed, even the physically bigger characters like James have a gentle nature. Yet suddenly this process feels quite male -- there's quite a lot of loud cheering and yelping, and it's suddenly very apparent how absent the women are in this process. Mary Magdalene isn't even there. Susanna, who has been such a key part of the early movement in many ways, is not even in the running for one of these roles. What is her role exactly, and where does that fit in? So the series picks seven men (again), in addition to twelve disciples.

Given the modern context, this is a choice. It's a choice to stick very literally to the idea of seven men, where that could easily have included women without rocking the boat, particularly given many of those who are chosen in the text have names are not at all familiar to us. They could have been female. Indeed, some of the disciples could have been female. This is a modernisation after all. Perhaps some may say that that very idea of equality and the importance of women relative to men is only with us because of Christianity, but if so, I'm not so convinced by that. In the case of sexual equality, things have progressed and Christianity has sometimes been involved in the mix, but sometimes the church has pulled against it as well. If the filmmakers are advocating for a certain way of doing church, do they picture leadership as still just the preserve of men? 

There are a couple of interesting visuals in this episode. As mentioned above, just the anti-spectacle appearance of the angel is strong visual choice. There's also a scene (pictured at the top of this post) where the Sanhedrin are watching the disciples preaching to a crowd in the court. It's raining, and so we see them all with umbrellas, which makes for a really interesting shot, partly because of the composition (and the lowish camera angle) but mainly because we've not really seen umbrellas in biblical films much before. It makes for a very British scene in some ways, but it's quite good, because it breaks some of the standard ways of looking at these things, and really brings home that sense of the modern world that's at the heart of this adaptation. I like the series' commitment to this sort-of British context. It'll be interesting to see how this develops as the movement starts to spread more widely geographically.

Testament (2025): Fire Burns [s1e04]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

Episode 4 of Testament opens with a warning: "The following episode is about Acts 5:1-10 and contains scenes that some viewers may find difficult to watch". For those who don't know the text well, this might seems like a strange and perhaps intriguing warning at the start of the show. For those who are more familiar with it, it's intriguing for an entirely different reason. The story from Acts 5:1-10 is of Ananias and Sapphira, the couple in Acts who withhold some of their money from the disciples and pay the ultimate price. It's a story that has rarely been covered in biblical films. That's in no small part due the fact that Acts films themselves are none too common, and even more so because what we might mean by an "Acts film" is often a production more specifically about Peter and/or Paul rather than the early church as a whole. 

There are obviously exceptions, from Rossellini's Atti degli apostoli to the more recent A.D.: Kingdom and Empire (aka A.D.: The Bible Continues, 2015). What makes Testament's portrayal so particularly interesting is the way that it tackles what is often referred to as a 'problem text' in such an honest fashion. Typically problem texts in biblical films come with a certain amount of spin. The character who dies, or otherwise suffers, is portrayed as being far worse than they are when you look at the words found in the actual text. This means that when God takes actions that might otherwise seem extreme, the extremity of those things are somewhat mitigated by the behaviour of the character in question. This is something that at least as far back to DeMille's 1923 version of The Ten Commandments where the firstborn son of Pharaoh (destined to die at the end of the plagues) kicks Moses on the shin in one of the preceding scenes.

It would be easy for Testament to do something similar with Annas and Sapphira, perhaps making them otherwise objectionable as characters. Admittedly, they're not the kind of character that I would necessarily warm to, but that feels like it comes down to personal preference. Otherwise, the series plays it fairly straight. They don't do much less or much more than what the text tells us. They sell something, they withhold some of the total, yet still perform an act of incredible generosity, 'perform' perhaps being the operative word.

Perhaps Ananias enjoys the appreciation that comes with his donation a little too much, but again, this hardly seems like a personality flaw that merits him being killed. Moreover, it's Sapphira whose death we actually see. And she is made all the more sympathetic as a result.

The route into this story starts very early on with Peter sat doing the accounts. He's allowing Matthew out to do the preaching for a time, while trying to play a more serious role, not just doing the bits he enjoys (which is clearly preaching) and sharing out some of the less enjoyable responsibilities. Again this is an interesting perspective, recognising that some jobs are perhaps in church life more glamorous than others.

Indeed, this episode does really feel like the kind of lower-middle class, urban, evangelical church environment that you find in places in Britain these days, where some churches really do try and live out the principles we find in the early part of Acts. There's probably a soup kitchen that runs on Tuesday nights and occasionally training days and conferences take place in Barnabas's centre. Someone has a guitar. I feel like I've been in some of these rooms dozens of times.

This closeness to modern day expression of Christianity is also reflected a little in their Christology. There are a couple of moments where their view of who Jesus was and how they should respond to that feels perhaps a little further on than would have been the case. For example, in the penultimate scene Peter describes Jesus saying "our saviour is not just a man, he is God". There are faint touches of this in the later Gospels, but it's not clear that the disciples had worked all these things out so soon after his resurrection.

This idea about Jesus being fully equal with God is perhaps a little bit early. Likewise, we're introduced to a child character in this episode, Malachi, who is assigned to Stephen, perhaps as a way of keeping Stephen in the plot, but also away from the glare of the Ananias and Sapphira episode. Malachi was left at the centre by his mother for a week and has been acting up. 

Stephen is brought in as someone who is "good with kids" and tries to see through Malachi's mischievous behaviour to the hurting child behind it all. It also allows Stephen to reflect on his own relationship with his own mother – the two of them are still estranged from episode 1. Malachi's arc feels a little bit trite and clichéd, it's certainly not to the standard that we've come to expect from the show so far, but he's been impressed by what he's seen about this man he doesn't know, Jesus, or as he calls him, "that person everyone's been singing about". Again, the question of whether the followers of Jesus were worshipping him with songs at this stage in the church development is open to some debate. 

But then the show both demonstrates within itself that time is moving on. There's been a bit of a jump between episode three and four. The centre is now fully up and running and has been for a little while and fully in use. There are other indications too that time has passed. Mara's punishment is coming to a close. Saul is still in the records room but it's clear he's been there for some time. In his interview with Peter Chataway, director Paul Syrstad explains that they're trying to give a sense of these events taking place over many years even if the full 30 years isn't going to be an option. Ageing actors by that much is expensive, an the just don't have the budget. 

Speaking of Mara, it's interesting to see her character arc develop significantly in this episode. It turns out I was completely wrong about her, almost comically so. Previously I had wondered whether she was a spy masquerading as a follower of Jesus, or a would be follower of Jesus masquerading as a spy. By the end of the episode here her cards are very much on the table. She is opposed to the Jesus movement and an ally, if not a provocateur, of Saul. They both wish to take a more radical line with this new movement than is perhaps being proposed by the others among the temple authorities. 

Mara's duplicity as a spy is paralleled with that of Ananias and Sapphira. The two storylines are intercut as they are getting their moment in the limelight. Elsewhere Mara, who is known as Naomi when she is amongst the Christians. This is a sort of twisty reference to the Book of Ruth where Naomi changes her name to Mara – meaning bitter – when she finds herself back in Bethlehem mourning her family (Ruth 1:19-21). 

Here, it is Susanna who calls her out for not being genuine and warns her, just as events are playing out with Ananias and Sapphira. Susanna refers to the story of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-3 who God also killed for a minor infraction. And this is offered, perhaps as the show's only attempt to offer some kind of wider context to the awful and seemingly unjustified punishment meted out on Ananias and Sapphira. 

If I was wrong about Mara's feelings towards the Jesus movement being ambivalence, then Gamaliel's arc seems to go full circle at this point. At the start of the episode it looks like he is being uncharacteristically tough on the followers of Jesus, relative to how he is portrayed in the Book of Acts itself (5:33-39). Whereas, there he is a little more que sera sera, here we see him talking to other characters within the hierarchy, talking about using other methods to stop the church's advance.

It may not be upfront, confrontational action to hem them in, but it nevertheless feels like it's coming from a strong dislike of them and their movement. But is it, because later in the episode, Gamaliel follows John to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane (in their modern day London equivalents). He too seems to have some ambivalence about the movement.

John is naturally suspicious. But Mara / Naomi, also witnesses this and then reports it back to Saul. And this perhaps will go some way to explaining the way that their initial closeness, i.e. Paul studying under Gamaliel's (Acts 22:3), ultimately results in their very different approaches to the early Jesus movement – Gamaliel's laissez-faire versus Paul's outright hostility and persecution. 

Saul is also experiencing difficulties with another member of the Jewish hierarchy, one of a similar age, training and at similar points in their careers. I got the feeling that Saul and this character were rivals, but with only very slightly different outlooks. Having completed their training they see each other as rivals for getting the bigger jobs within the temple hierarchy. Nevertheless, there's clearly a similarity but also a kind of petulant rivalry there, perhaps as best indicated by this man firstly mocking Saul for being restricted to the library, and then petulantly flicking the pages of his notepad, as he walks away. 

So even from the little we've seen, it seems like one of those "frenemies" relationships such as Legolas and Gimli. Were Saul and this man to find themselves stuck together trying to save Middle Earth from destruction, they too would probably go through a story arc of initial hostility eventually giving way to the gradual realisation that they are quite similar to each other. 

Now at first I misheard this new character's name and thought it was Annas. Naturally, I suspected this night be a reference to Annas either the father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas (implying an older man than is portrayed here), or his son Annas ben Annas who might be a similar age to Saul as this character is. But then I saw from IMDb that the character is called Ananias – another one! Presumably, then, this man will go on to be the disciple in Damascus who prays with Saul when he first starts to follow Jesus. This makes a lot more sense. It also adds a bit of extra depth to what the Bible tells us about this second Ananias (who is presumably brought in at this stage to make it clear two characters have the same name but are different, and to draw a few other parallels) and will add extra flavour when Saul has to rely on Ananias to help him when he stumbling about with temporary sight loss.

Given that Saul is also about to go and go a future change, it's also interesting seeing a little bit more backstory about him and his mother. At the start of the episode we see him having nightmares about her (and about meeting Peter). And I guess there's some pairing here with Stephen, who also is feeling his mother's absence, and his mother is clearly feeling similarly. In fact, we see James go and speaks to her to try and heal that rift by letting her know that Stephen is missing her.

So it's an interesting episode. One line that particularly stood out for me as perhaps summing things up is said by Susannah to Mara, "Come as who you really are". It will be interesting to see how that theme develops through the next few episodes.

Testament (2025): One Accord [s1e03]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

It's hard to think of another episode of a TV show that introduces quite so many new characters as "One Accord" -- the third episode of Testament. Of course, some of the characters are not so much new as re-imagined. Most people watching the show will know about (Pontius) Pilate and (Herod) Agrippa who appear in the early scenes. Both deviate slightly from the norm, and in a good way. 

Pilate is certainly tougher in many Jesus films (looking at you The Chosen) and there's a sense of everyone around him, including his "high minister" Caiaphas, being slightly in fear of how he will react to any given scenario and a nervousness about his mere return to the capital hangs over the entire episode. He may have seen military action, he may not, but people jump to attention when he orders them to do something.

For his part, Agrippa is physically quite slight, and much less camp, than most of his previous on-screen counterparts. This modern reincarnation has significantly cut down on jewellery and silks. There's still a sense of irresponsibility, privilege and a love of the high life. He's an essentially non-serious character. He has the air of someone who went to a leading British public school and appears on their alumni page even though he's not really done much with his life.

Then there are the characters who have been in the background up to this point in the series, but really come into their own in this episode. Susanna who is starting to get her voice heard among the followers as well as giving support to Mary; Matthew taking over the accounts following Judas' demise; Thomas, who gets to give his side of the story for a change, to Stephen (pictured above) who is a little wary following last episode's conversation with Caleb; and Mara whose motives are seeming decidedly mixed. Mara's there to spy for Saul, but there's a sense in which she is starting to get drawn in. 

Finally there are the characters from around the peripheries of the Gospels who make their first, but no doubt their last appearances in today's episode. The two most obvious ones are Joanna, who in the Bible is married to Chuza, one of Herod's servants. Having provided Jesus with financial support in the Gospels (Luke 8:3), we learnt in episode two that her ability to support the rapidly expanding Jesus movement is faltering. Now we actually meet the women herself as a servant around Herod's table. Whether we will see her with the apostles at any point remains to be seen.

And then there is Barnabas, who makes a memorable appearance in the closing moments of the episode following a brief scene early on. He first crops up in Acts 4:36-7 and goes on to play a fairly key role in Acts and we get the same elements here -- he makes a sizeable financial contribution and is renamed by the apostles (here just Peter) for being an encourager. It was all the more memorable for me because Barnabas bears some physical resemblance to a bouncer / fixer in the previous scene .

I find these scenes, exploring the practicalities behind Jesus' followers pooling their money, fascinating. This is rarely explored much in other productions. For one thing that's a tendency which goes back to Luke himself. He introduces passages such as Acts 2:42-47 and  Acts 4:32-37 which talk about the disciples selling their possessions and sharing the proceeds, but really just uses them as summary section breaks before moving on to the next act in the story.

Here, though, the series really gets into what that might mean in practical terms. We see them selling their belongings from smaller items at the markets and car-boot sales through to the sons of Zebedee selling their entire business. We even see Andrew's failed attempt to raise a few pounds (?) by flogging his rundown fishing boat. And then there's Barnabas using his wealth more strategically to meet their growing needs.

There are a few other moments that really grabbed my attention. In particular a momentary encounter (pictured above) between Saul and Peter (unable to hold off preaching even for a few days). Both men are being held in check by others in their wider communities. Jesus' other disciples (championed by an increasingly cautious and unyielding Simon Z) seem to want to lay low while Pilate is in town, but Peter insists they should continue. "It is literally what Jesus told us to do". Saul is soon to be told by Gamaliel "your recklessness will be your undoing" who pressures him into taking a more clerical role for a short while to allow things to blow over.

While Peter has sort of agreed not to continue preaching, he continues with low level preaching to small crowds in alley ways. And it's there that he and Saul make eye contact for the first time. Saul commands him to stop. Peter sprints off. A chase ensues. It's not how either man is typically portrayed, but again it underlines in a way that so few Acts films have done, the urgency of what's a stake, and the passion and compulsion that is felt on both sides. Saul's other scene which is heavy on the dramatic licence is a scene where he visits Jesus' now empty tomb. He meets one of the "sentinels" who had been assigned to guard it, still processing some kind of shock and apparently seeking to do so with alcohol. I like the way Paul flashes his Imperium citizenship card at this point, not least because he has the sentinels spear mere centimetres from his face when he does so.

And then there's Mary, putting herself at risk in a quite different way from her male counterparts. For Peter and the others, it's the risks of preaching with words. For her it's preaching with actions. There's a suggestion that she has been involved in sex work in the past (which in some ways is a little disappointing), but here for once, that world is portrayed as exploitative, where women are often vulnerable, at risk from violent men and frequently short on options. Mary rescues an addict called Dana, not a name from the New Testament as far as I'm aware, but it will be interesting to see if it's some kind of twist on a biblical character nevertheless.

Testament (2025): The Fishermen [s1e02]

Spoilers throughout. Image source: KOVA Releasing

Episode 2 of Testament is called “The fishermen” and it opens in the immediate aftermath of Caleb getting healed, and with Peter and John’s preaching getting them arrested. The term “The fishermen” is used here quite casually, as if it’s still in formation. It’s used once almost as a term for the twelve, and once as a slightly tighter way of grouping together Peter, James, John and Andrew (who wears an appropriately nautical Aran sweater from the first scene to the last).

As with the opening episode there’s as much focus on the goings on within the temple establishment as with the disciples. The news of the miracle, and the return of their Jesus problem, is causing a good deal of consternation. My friend Peter Chattaway has a great interview with Testament’s director Paul Syrstad where they go into the fact that Caiaphas getting surprised that stories about "that dead imposter" are cropping up again just as he was beginning to think they’d gone away.

Caiaphas' main concern seems to be that Pilate will find out and come down hard. Pilate doesn’t know about this new set of stories about Jesus. “He can’t find out that we have a rumoured resurrected messiah on the loose gathering a following" Caiaphas hisses at one point "He’ll think they’re building an army”. Is this why we see one of his staff among the new followers of Jesus? Or is it a sign that even within the temple some are starting to reject the party line.

Not that the party line as we might suspect given the way the temple hierarchy is often portrayed. For example, it’s good to see Gamaliel among the temple authorities, not only offering a Pharisaic perspective but also bringing a more relaxed approach to the problem. One of the things this show has done well (so far) is portraying varying responses and motives within the temple hierarchy.

It’s also interesting seeing them acknowledging their differing perspectives with the kind of jokey teasing you find in these kind of contexts. “Ah Gamaliel, thinking of joining us?” one of the Sadducees asks. “Maybe in the next life” he retorts. It’s a nice piece of writing, which breathes life into these relationships and makes them feel more real. It gives that sense that they speak together often to get business done, rather than conveying the information in a way that feels more expositional. It shows a confidence among the writers that they don't feel they have to explain every single thing for the viewer.¹

Another example of this might be there comments about the continuing unexplained absence of Joseph of Arimathea. I'm assuming this is a plot point that’s going to re-emerge later in the series, but it's happy to let the audience to wait before it unpacks everything that such a teaser provides.

Meanwhile, slightly on the outside of the temple clique, Saul is stirred by Caleb's healing, his agitation driving him to further bout of furious studying. Eventually he hears about Peter and John's release and charges off in a burst of zealoty fury. 

Having brought Saul in from the start (as a way in to the characters in the temple), there's something of a gap between these early chapters of Acts and when Saul pops up in the text. So it's nice to see the writers filling this gap by developing the world around Saul/Paul that's only hinted about in the New Testament. The most obvious example of this so far is the appearance of Saul’s sister and her son, whom we know about from Acts 23:16.

Perhaps with greater significance to the rest of the show, there's also a visual suggestion that Saul is suffering with some kind of pain or other affliction in his head. It seems like something more than his typically uptight personality. Is this a reference to Paul's "thorn ...in the flesh" that he mentions in 2 Cor 12:7? I can't imagine it's a reference to the idea that Paul's vision of Jesus was down to something like temporal lobe epilepsy, though it would certainly be intriguing if it were.²

Down in the cells, Peter's also seems to be suffering. If the clues for Paul's physical affliction were visual, the indicators regarding Peter's issues are both auditory and visual. We get to hear inside his head (a point of sound shot) the muffled sounds of other people in the room talking, which Peter is unable to decipher. Is he undergoing a panic-attack here? Certainly it seems stress-induced. Moreover, a visual indication of his stress is given by a flashback to the courtyard of the High Priest and his denying he knew Jesus on the eve of his crucifixion. 

This nicely tees up his later speech in front of the council. There can be an assumption that having been restored, on the beach, after the resurrection, in John 21, everything was plain sailing for Peter, particularly after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1. What this scene does is humanise Peter, because even if he no longer carries the guilt of his denial, he still has to overcome the fear that lead him to deny Jesus in the first place, and this time it's in front of the High Priest himself, not just his servants. And perhaps his subsequent burst of confidence and speech in front of the bench is the biggest story of what happens in this episode.

There are a few other points I wanted to make. Firstly, I think Mary Magdalene already establishing herself as my favourite character, with her calm rational head and her ability to persuade her more hot-headed male colleagues to see sense. There are hints of her former life here as well, though I'm a little unclear whether the implication is of some form of drug addiction or something else.

The show also does something interesting with the man who Peter healed, Caleb. We know from other shows how these characters are meant to react with unbridled joy and devotion. Yet we also know from the Bible that despite many people being healed by him on numerous occasions, only 120 were left in the upper room in Jerusalem. Caleb's reticence to get into trouble by joining the fledgling movement (“I’m not prepared to throw my new life away on somebody I don’t know!”) is a realistic reminder that Acts depicts following Jesus as a costly enterprise.

Yet the disciples – even without Peter and John's prompting – decide to take on an additional cost: funding the ongoing work by selling everything. I like that there's a reference to Joanna's previous funding of Jesus' ministry, but I didn't catch a reference to Mary Magdalen doing this. Still this decision to go all in (a principle I've always found challenging and which seems sadly forgotten among most within the church's present incarnation) as well as the news of John and Peter's release lead to jubilation. The episode closes with a bouncing huddle of fishermen, barbers and new followers in the dark singing at the top of their voices.³

You can watch my interview with director Paul Syrstad, and the actors playing Saul (Eben) and Stephen (Charlie Beavan) on YouTube.
==========
1 - For those who are unsure what this means, the Sadducees of Jesus’ day are thought not to have a belief in the afterlife, whereas Pharisees did.
2 - See for example D. Landsborough's "St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy" Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 1987 Jun, 50(6):659-64, available online at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1032067/pdf/jnnpsyc00553-0001.pdf.
3 - Despite several attempts I couldn't decipher all the lyrics here. All I got was  “The kings and the rulers are/we’re(?) together once again, against the LORD,,,". Can anyone fill in some of the blanks?

Testament (2025): Something New [s1e01]

Over the years there have been several attempts to adapt the Book of Acts; a number of modernised biblical narratives; and a handful of British biblical films, but never (as far as I'm aware) an attempt to combine all three.

Into that void steps Testament, a new streaming series from Angel Studios, directed by Paul Syrstad, who directed 2022’s The Parables Retold. The series relocates the story of the birth of the early church in what is almost, but not quite, the modern day. The events of this first episode take place in a city called Salem, which on the one hand evokes Jerusalem, but also draws on the atmosphere of the London locations where it was shot, and the accents of its predominantly British cast.

Yet it’s also not quite the modern world as we know it. For one thing, the Roman Empire never fell and has come to be known as the Imperium. For another, Jesus is not a figure from the ancient past, but from just weeks before the story is set. There are other details that are different in this new world as well: the temple never fell, and remains an important seat of power within Salem, ever under the watchful eye of the Imperium; and the digital revolution is yet to take place — there are no smart phones, messaging and internet surveillance.

The resulting atmosphere feels a little like what might have emerged if Mike Leigh had directed His Dark Materials. Its sense of otherness and that gateway alternative possibilities opening up in the midst of inner-city council flats. Syrstad has spoken of how the show’s Brutalist architecture “doubles down on the Imperium regime and the oppression that was being felt”.¹ It’s a world not of tunics and sandals, but of grimy blocks of flats and people living on the edge.

Among those living on the edge is Stephen who becomes homeless after a disagreement with his mother early on in this opening episode. By introducing Stephen earlier in the story than he appears in The Acts of the Apostles, the show uses him as one of the audience’s ‘ways-in’ to the story. We very much see the unfolding events from his perspective, as an outsider being drawn into a nascent movement. He senses something has changed, he experiences it even, and yet he’s still trying to explain it and grasp some sense of what’s happening.

This is quite a bold creative decision, because it leaves the audience (initially at least) on the outside too. We’ve not experienced what Stephen has, so it leaves us in a more curious, more dispassionate place. And it follows on the heels of a number of other significant choices, most notably to leave Jesus himself not only off camera, but entirely absent (physically, at least). Moreover the focus is not so much on his disciples, at least in this initial episode. They are strangers to Stephen, his curiosity combines with a certain wariness on his part, and ours too. For the audience, our distance from the crucial events that underpin the story’s is only increased by the camera cutting away just as Peter’s Pentecost sermon begins. Stephen hears it and is drawn in, but we are going to be made to wait to find out what has happened.

Stephen is not the only character who’s introduced earlier in Testament than in Acts as a way of bringing the audience into the midst of some of the story’s key players. We’re also introduced to Saul and his mentor Gamaliel amid the inner workings of the temple elite. Saul has a passionate heart and a steely look in his eye that seems so innate that it will be fascinating to see how this develops as the series goes on. Gamaliel’s affable, laid-back persona seems critical here too. Each member of the temple authorities has a different approach and Gamaliel’s more conciliatory nature adds some crucial depth to what might otherwise revert to a rather one dimensional portrayal of the apostles’ opponents.

So the scene is set for what looks like it will be an interesting series. Syrstad and his co-writers Faith Syrstad and Kenneth Omole have managed to fashion a world that feels real and create a scenario that has avoided some of the potential pitfalls of their chosen source material. Moreover the show feels like it’s more interested in exploring the text than serving up pat answers. This is not a sequel to The Chosen, but translated into the modern era. It has its own artistic vision and deserves to be treated on its own terms.

Testament is available on the Angel website and app from 8th June (subscription required).

==========

1. "Testament director Paul Syrstad on the problems with filming the book of Acts." - interviewed by me, on my YouTube channel.

The trailer for Acts series Testament

About 15 months ago I met the producer for a series that was about to start filming a modern-day take on the book Acts of the Apostles for Angel studios (who had yet to split from The Chosen). It sounded like an interesting project and while I haven't posted about it here before, I've been keeping tabs on it. As with all these things these days there is A LOT of material produced during production to help raise the costs of making these things.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see the official trailer has finally been released, which you can see below.

Naturally, this expands some of the earlier footage we've seen. Overall the footage looks good, although I do wince a bit at the portrayal of the leaders. I'm not sure whether that's rational or just because recently I've been looking a lot at the portrayal of the authorities in 'historical' Jesus films. I'll reserve judgement on that until I see the series itself. 

The production values do look quite high, though it looks like it will have quite a grungy feel. It seems that it will be following the text of Acts fairly closely. I understand it's being released in time for Pentecost, so expect the odd post or two about this one soon.

Incidentally, I've grouped together here a bunch of posts I've made about different adaptations of Acts. There are few series of these for which I've covered every episode including The Living Bible (1957), Rossellini's Atti degli apostoli (1969), Anno Domini (1985) and AD: The Bible Continues (2015) although all of these are set in the past, rather than being a modernised take on the story.

-----

P.S. My friend Peter T. Chattaway has written some more extensive thoughts on the trailer at his Substack.

Visual Bible: Acts (1994)

Back in 2010 I went through The Visual Bible: Matthew a few chapters at a time. But, aside from the odd post here or there, I've never looked at the sequel to that film, Acts. It's been a while since I watched the whole thing through but here are a slightly random collection of thoughts I have about this production.

The first thing that strikes you when watching Acts is the tagged on prologue. Matthew has only a slight added on "this is the person who wrote this book" intro, and mainly promoted its theory that the Gospel was written by the similarly named disciple, by visual means, occasionally fading between the narrating Matthew, and the disciple years earlier, a wry smile by the older actor at certain points etc.

This is nothing like the prologue here, where we are introduced to a boat in a storm (which is certainly not on the level of Master and Commander), and then someone needs a doctor, and lo and behold here's Dr Luke - and we're told he wrote the gospel and Acts and was a friend of Paul. Given that there's far from universal agreement that the author of these two letters / accounts was Paul's friend, and that its unclear whether Luke was a medical doctor, let alone the kind who might respond to "is there a doctor in the boat- type requests, this all seems a bit silly. Given the licensing agreement for using the text of the NIV was that the film "literally be the Word of God" [emphasis original] this is somewhat surprising (Marchiano 30).

Visual Bible's 2003 Gospel of John pulls back from this type of approach. There's an opening title to put the potentially anti-Semitic material in context, and it closes memorably on the young John's face, but it never actually presents things in quite such a black and white way. I think I remembered liking the way it actually gave the film the same sense of mystery about the full identification of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as the gospel, but I would have to check. Whereas Richard Kiley played the aged Matthew, here we have Dean Jones playing Luke as an older man.

Whilst Bruce Marchiano (who played Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew ) retains a cameo here as Jesus, many, if not all, of the disciples are played by different actors. This film does seem to be trying to be a sequel, rather than a separate entity like John. Its feel and particularly the use of the same actor as Jesus seem to support that theory, even though the other actors are different. The most noticeable change of actor is that of Peter. In the original he was played by a terrible actor, but he did manage to convey something of the uselessness of the Peter that comes across in the gospels. But here not only have they replaced this actual actor (and there's many reasons why they could have done this such as unavailability or the weakness of his acting), but they've also replaced the type of actor. No longer is is he feeble and stupid, now he is played by James Brolin - an actor so charismatic he was at one stage lined up to play James Bond. In contrast to Matthew's Peter, Brolin's is a leader of men, smiley, confident and so on. He's also older, which of course carries a connotation of being wiser, and more authoritative.

Now this might be a deliberate attempt to show some of the difference between the gospels and Acts (and Luke does show Peter more positively than Mark, at least) but one of the most interesting dynamics in Acts is how the Simon of the gospels becomes the Peter of Acts and the early church. Even locating a radical turn around as a result of Pentecost would have been something, but Pentecost seems to have little effect on him, other than giving him an opportunity to preach.

Acts continues the process Matthew started of trying to model the early Christ movement into the image of the promise keepers (a 1990s male evangelical movement). So there's even more hugging and inane laughing. and whereas in Matthew this at least seemed to be Jesus trying to bring them out of their shells a bit, here it's just imposing cheesy Christian man type Christianity onto the early church. Aside from the general feel there's also the choosing of the replacement disciple, where Joseph congratulates his rival in his victory in the style of a disappointed Oscar nominee, and is then commiserated by the man who drew the lots, the victorious Mathias and various others nearby. Perhaps worst of all is when in Acts 5 the disciples are released after a flogging and skip away laughing! This certainly wasn't a flogging in the mould of The Passion of the Christ.

Another bit that grates with me is the part where Peter's shadow heals someone. The impression I get of reading this from Acts is that Peter's movement is experiencing growth, and as a result, he is more pressed, both physically but also for time. However, his anointing is being accelerated accordingly so that even as he walks past people they are healed. Instead, here they take a very literal approach, taking away the sweep of the past and the amazing healing, and reducing it to an alternative method of praying for someone that allows for a full hug later on. In other words, the means of conveying what is going on (the growth an popularity of the church) becomes the event in itself.

The special effects, are rather weak in the scope used to depict some of the more supernatural elements. I would have loved to see what Pasolini would have done with some of the material, but here they are terrible. Jesus's ascension is poor and lacking creativity - confined by the film's literalist interpretation. Pentecosts's tongues of fire are similarly disappointing - both something very literal on the one hand, but also akin to a high school play on the other. The conversion of Saul is a little better in this respect with a few whirring point of view shots capturing the moment's disorientation.

On another occasion though, when a more literalist, understated approach might have fitted the material, the films opts instead to cut back to Jones narrating. This is particularly disappointing for me as someone who has long found the Annias and Saphira  to be particularly significant. The text's lack of explanation for their deaths (it notes only that they dropped down dead) leaves room for speculation. Did God kill them? Peter? Or was it just a coincidence? Given all this, it was a bit disappointing that this was not depicted, particularly given that the most literal rendering of this would require no special effects at all. Perhaps they decided that it was too controversial to impress on people with a specific image, or perhaps they tried it a few times, and failed and budget didn't allow for more takes. This isn't the only time Visual Bible has copped out of dealing with an odd passage, I remember feeling similarly disappointed when Matthew narrated the passage after Jesus dies where random men in their tombs are resurrected and walk round Jerusalem. Having Kiley/Jones narrate these passages is a bit of a cop out - if you're planning to produce a visual Bible it feels a little like sweeping the difficult passages under a rug to just have them narrated.

The camerawork here does seem to be a little more interesting here than before, despite Marchiano's assertion that the film used "No great camera angles, no fancy acting, no dazzling effects — just Jesus and the word" (Marchiano 27)

Jones, Brolin and Henry O. Arnold who plays Saul/Paul generally do a good job playing their parts, but as with Matthew, the project itself makes things a little stilted. Matthew however had a groundbreaking performance from Bruce Marchiano at it's core - a Jesus whose smiling "Jesus in jeans" type Christ broke the mould of previous cinematic incantations and which has influenced to a degree most of the versions that have followed (Marchiano 16). But Acts lacks this crucial USP. Whilst being the only word-for-word production of Acts does mean it is still unique, it lacks the draw that Matthew had, and suggests that had Visual Bible had the funds to film more of the good book it may not have had the same reception as the original movie.

=========
Marchiano, Bruce (1997) In the Footsteps of Jesus: One Man's Journey Through the Life of Christ. Eugene, Oreon: Harvest House.

More Old Thoughts on Peter and Paul (1981)

For a while now I've been meaning to post a few thoughts I wrote down after an early viewing of the 1981 film Peter and Paul, and seeing as Paul, Apostle of Christ was released on DVD and blu-ray last week, this seemed an opportune moment. As with the last time I posted some old thoughts on this film, the thoughts below date back at least a decade so they perhaps don't reflect what I would write about the film today, but I thought it might be of interest to some, and in any case I'm trying to gather up some of the bits and pieces I have written elsewhere on the internet that have subsequently disappeared. It's actually interesting to me how much I have moved on from the kinds of things I wrote then, and how the film then taught me, or helped me understand other things, that I've come to just take for granted in the meantime. These thoughts were originally posted at a discussion forum, so please forgive the change of tone, but (spelling mistakes aside) I wanted to preserve the original as much as possible.
====

I found it interesting that the film stresses the change of name being from the Hebrew Saul to the Roman Paul. I'd never really twigged that that was what went on. It certainly makes more sense of where the name change occurs in Acts, which was something that had always puzzled me.

I found the stoning scenes quite interesting as well. In Jesus films we never really see one (save Life of Brian of course which doesn't really help factually), only Jesus stopping one. Here we see a few, and there are a few interesting details. In one of them its actually a woman who throws the first stone which I thought was a curious twist on John 8. One thing I've always wondered is how come Paul survived so many stonings. I mean unless you run out of rocks or the stoners have a really bad aim, it's difficult to visualise. And the film did this well. (FWIW I'm sure that at one point the actor who plays Steven is an extra who throws a stone in another scene - irony). Also interesting that in some of the scenes the crowd gets stoned just for being there.

The way the restrictions get handled is thought provoking as well. I guess going into the film I thought Paul had agreed on certain compromises which he then seems to flout later in his letters. The film takes the view that the Jewish church rejects salvation by faith alone, but agrees with Paul pretty much, but then quickly goes back on it, leading to the argument with Peter and Paul from Gal 2. I presume their version of things sees Acts as airbrushing, or rather consolidating a longer debate into one incident.

I hadn't realised btw that Silas was being played by Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). And for British viewers the main Juadiser in the film is played by the guy who plays Howard (as in the legendary Howard and Hilda from Ever Decreasing Circles starring Richard Briers)

The slave girl of Philippi here is "gifted" rather than demonised, and this generally fits with the way the film downplays the supernatural elements of the story. So Pentecost occurs before the film, the visions are restricted to bright lights, Paul's sight is restored but it only looks like some dried skin is soothed or something, the death of Annanias and Saphira is ignored (again, a bible film that cuts out the troubling bits), Peter's escape from jail is an earthquake rather than an angel, the supernatural intervention surrounding the shipwreck is missed out and we just see them washed on to the beach. There are some supernatural elements, but they are generally sidelined. Its particularly interesting then that the film gives us the definition of a miracle as an "event that produces faith"

As I think I said above one of the things I liked about the film was the way it worked later themes in as if Paul is developing them, or coining them and coming back to them. I particularly liked the way it works 1 Cor 1 in there. (one day I might do a film series / or essay on the use of this passage - it also occurs in The Mission, Three Colours Blue and Four Weddings and a Funeral).

I was also surprised that Cornellius' vision was absent. It seems to me that Acts really hinges on ch 8-10. The execution of Stephen forces many members of the church to leave Jerusalem and thus take the message further afield, then Paul is appointed to the gentiles and Peter has his vision. This film makes little of the first aspect, and nothing of the last.

I also thought the dispute between Paul and Barnabas was handled effectively and the whole portrayal of Paul as a great man, but one who is flawed is the films real strength.

One other thing I though was interesting was how at times the film casts both Peter and Paul as Jesus, through certain scenes / shots that are very reminiscent of Jesus. Peter gets this early on in an upper room, and Paul somewhat later on as he stands silent before Nero.
====
Hope you found this trip down memory lane interesting