Testament (2025) s1e01

Image source: KOVA Releasing

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 will be available on the Angel website and app from 8th June.

==========

1. Interview with me, a copy of which will be released to my YouTube channel shortly.

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

A.D. (2015) - Part 12

This is part 12 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode and are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here

So we arrive at the final episode in the first series of A.D.: The Bible Continues, which, three years after series 1 concluded, looks likely to be the last episode, leaving the series high and dry somewhere around Acts 11. It's a shame really because as the series has continued it has far out stripped my expectations, not only surpassing The Bible (2013) and it's spin off Son of God (2014), but also the series' earliest episodes which seemed to fall prey to the same weaknesses as its predecessor. As the series has moved further away from the Gospels, and as the biblical content has been diluted with the Roman/fictional content it seems to have improved. There's still been the odd dodgy special effect - and this episode's angelic appearance to Cornelius is no exception - but the over-emphasis on violence has been replaced by better storytelling craft, character development and pacing.

The backstory that has been building up through the last few episodes is that of the statue of Gaius (i.e. Caligula) that is to be erected in the temple. The portrayal here conflates things a little. Pilate was out of power in Jerusalem by about 37AD, but the incident with Gaius' statues did not occur until around 39-40AD (recorded in Philo). There was however an earlier episode which both Philo and Josephus record where Pilate tried to erect Roman standards bearing Caesar's image. This took place around 26-27AD, at the start of Pilate's governorship and at which the Jewish leaders and people "fell to the ground in a body and bent their necks, shouting that they were ready to be killed rather than transgress the Law" (Josephus, War II:175-203, 7). This earlier episode was portrayed at the very start of Jesus (1999).

The composite incident we are left with in A.D.: Kingdom and Empire has Gaius' statues being brought into the temple by a nervy Pilate. There the Christian's, led by James and Peter, join Caiaphas and the high priests in kneeling on the ground in front of Pilate's soldiers and bearing their necks. Pilate decides discretion is the better part of valour and withdraws to consider his options. The last scene in the series is someone coming to arrest Peter, presumably just in time for series 2 to begin at the start of chapter 12.

Before all this however Peter has been in Joppa. There he encounters Cornelius after both men have heard from God. Peter for his part hears a voice that simply says "Peter, these are looked on as unclean, but do not call anything impure that God has cleansed." and on screen we see a selection of brief shots of individual non-kosher animals.It's all over rather quickly. Cornelius however, sees his vision only after being overwhelmed by guilt for killing Joanna. He takes some time out from Jerusalem for a while and arrives in Joppa and whilst there sees a vision of an angel who tells him "Godly has looked kindly on your...repentance" and asks him to send for Peter. The two meet and talk, and then those present - including Cornelius's family - start speaking in tongues and we see tongues of fire.

This scene is notable for several reasons. Firstly, because whilst all the elements of the biblical version of the story are essentially present, albeit in abbreviated form, it feels rather deprived of the Jewish context. I think essentially Peter seems to lack any sense of disgust at the unclean animals and untroubled by the implications of what is now happening. It's more than that, though. Somehow despite the way the series has led the way in its portrayal of race in many ways, it doesn't quite get this right here. The incident just lacks the significance the Bible gives it.

Secondly, it's interesting to see the different characters speaking in tongues. This is straight out of the Bible, but it's interesting that we don't often get to see Christians speaking in tongues, except occasionally at Pentecost, and even then it's rather different. Here the characters are speaking tongues making a similar sounds and in a similar manner to how charismatic Christians do today. That's an assumption by the filmmakers, but it's interesting to see.

It's also notable that Mary Magdalene is with Peter when she meets Peter and she somehow discerns that Cornelius was responsible for killing her friend Joanna and is troubled by it. Again it would be easy to be sniffy about this, but there is a ring of truth about the way this unfolds. Cornelius haunted by the guilt of it. A discerning Christian able to somehow put the finger on the issue, which, in turn therefore deeply affects the person in question.

Lastly once their meeting is over Cornelius pretty much just returns to his old job. The show does quite a good job of exploring this. Peter and his friends expect Cornelius to join their ranks, just as previous Jewish converts have done. Cornelius however think he has to go back to soldiering, but with an expectation that roles will change. It's tempting to say the show is pushing for a world where faith has no bearing on your beliefs and actions in your day job, but actually this is not at all fair. Instead it leaves it open and we're unsure how it will resolve itself. Cornelius is clearly a changed man and that is impacting how he lives in all areas of his life, but for him it doesn't equate to leaving the army, at least not yet.

It would be interesting to see how these various things resolve themselves, both as the focus shifts away from Jerusalem and as the leading characters become less tethered to the biblical characters. Sadly it doesn't look like we'll get the chance. It's a shame though because whilst I had to force myself to watch the first few episodes, in the second half of the series I've found myself having to slow down the rate at which I watched it to give myself enough time to write it up. I believe Roma Downey and Mark Burnett would like to produce more episodes. Lets hope that, against all odds, they get the chance.

A.D. (2015) - Part 2

This is part 2 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here.

As I noted in my initial post in this series A.D. doesn't rush straight into the book of Acts in the manner that I, at least, expected. This episode, for example, is the second in a series of only ten, and yet we've still not got into Acts yet - this episode ends with the Ascension. Whilst I imagine the filmmakers had hoped for further series, A.D. - The Bible Continues didn't; NBC cancelled it July 2015 and talk of a new channel which would carry content such as this has not (yet?) emerged. So for now the series looks to be left high and dry in Acts 11.

This episode is particularly strange in this respect. There's a great deal of weight put on the episode in Matthew 28 with the soldiers at the tomb and an early example of attempting to "control the narrative". Guards are dragged to and forth, examined and cross-examined, beaten and eventually murdered whilst Pilate and Caiaphas scheme. It all becomes a bit tiresome, with the only point of interest the way that Pilate gradually turns from the noble and indecisive-but-thoughtful leader of episode 1 to the throat-slitting, blood-thirsty tyrant he becomes here. Caiaphas eventually becomes appalled by the man he is doing business with, although it will be interesting to see how this turns out when Saul arrives on the scene.

Meanwhile though Jesus is still around making resurrection appearances. It's strange that some of plays second fiddle to the film's zealous attempts to hammer home Matthew's apologetic concerning the guarding of the tomb, to the extent that it skips over Luke's story of Jesus' appearance on the road to Emmaus. This has proved popular with other filmmakers and has led to some interesting interpretations.

That said we do get John's story of the appearance on the shores of Galilee. This was the episode's high point for me. The beach that Jesus appears on is busy relative to how it's portrayed in the handful of other films that include this episode, where it is often deserted other than Jesus and the disciples. Given the time of day I think the approach here is a bit more likely and whilst it loses something of the intimacy of a meeting alone, I think it emphasises Jesus being someone who was out among the individual people and like the relatively natural way in which it's portrayed.

If that's the best scene, it's equally clear which the worst scene and for the same kind of reason. The Ascension is something that is relatively rare, at least as something that is visualised rather than something that happens almost off screen. Relatively few films have portrayed this, though notable depictions include Pathé's Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1907), where Jesus is hoisted up to painted, hardboard clouds; the Jesus film (1979) where we get Jesus's point of view as the crowd disappears below him; Dayasagar/ Karunamayudu (1978) where Jesus becomes a massive figure against the night sky; and the flashing light disappearance trick of The Miracle Maker (2000). Here it's poorly executed CGI, which will only get worse as the film ages, and took me right out of the film. It's typical of these two series use of special effects - rather than doing something simple their budget could stretch to, they went for something spectacular that it couldn't.

That said I'm kind of relieved to see the back of this episode's Jesus. Despite hanging around for two episodes the filmmakers haven't given him much to do, other than occasionally turning up smiling. Their interest mainly seems to lie in the fact that he is still around rather than in the person himself. It's not helped by the aesthetics. Whilst the dark-haired Jesus here is better than the blond from the original The Bible (2013) series, his look is far too bearded-Chippendale for my tastes. There's an attempt to roughen him up a little round the edges, but he's all oiled muscles, perfect teeth and shampoo-advert hair.

However it's not just the visuals that are problematic, some of the dialogue in this episode is particularly poor. "Stay in the water like the eel you are" is one of the finer examples of bizarre phrases that feels neither historical nor modern day. In the opposite corner - dialogue that is meant to sound profound, but is actually pretty empty - was this: "We found nothing...and everything."

In the next episode I'm hoping we get as far as Pentecost, either way I guess Peter will be the main character.  This is definitely a good thing as Adam Levy's performance so far has stood out in comparison to many of the others, and whilst this should be welcomed as a positive thing, it doesn't look too good if a humble fisherman is outshining the son of God incarnate.

Quotes on Atti Degli Apostoli (1969)

With A.D. The Bible Continues airing on NBC at the moment there's a little talk around about other films based on the Acts of the Apostles and, as it happens, today I received in the post a new book about Roberto Rossellini's whose own take on the book of Acts - Atti Degli Apostoli (1969) - is one of my favourites. There's not much in the book about the film but there are a couple of good quotes that I thought I would reproduce here.

The book is "Roberto Rossellini: Magician of the Real" and it's a compilation of essays edited by David Forcas, Sarah Lutton and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. However the final section of the book is a collection of six "documents" written on or by Rossellini during the 50s and the 70s. The one I'm quoting here is document C, "Letter from Rossellini to Peter H. Wood (1972)" and says the following

The Acts of the Apostles is the story of Luke the Evangelist, but also of the change in ethics in our history when the Hebrew idea of nature - a gift of God which man must us to distinguish himself from the animals - spread, thanks to Christianity, through the Greek-Roman pagan world, which had regarded nature as something inviolable, which men, through rite and ritual, tried to render benign. (p.164)

The other quote is from Adriano Aprà's chapter "Rossellini's Historical Encyclopedia" and is found on page 144.

Acts of the Apostles is, in my opinion, alongside The Age of Cosimo de 'Medici and Cartesius, the best of Rossellini's television films. It is also the 'hottest', the one where the emotional involvement he renounces elsewhere is most visible. There is a broad sweep: the film starts from the centre, Jerusalem, and a community of brothers, the apostles, then gradually the circle widens. The apostles set out on their journey (like the friars at the end of Francesco); the conflict between Jews, Greeks and Romans, initially contained within the city, echoes along the route which takes the apostles and later Paul to Palestine, Syria, Pisidia, Athens and Rome, where the last scene in the films opens with the same invocation as the first (Jerusalem! Jerusalem!") and the circle is closed. Acts is the film of harmonic totality. The itinerary of the abstract idea is a concrete journey where the characters are cocooned by the surrounding space; the male community of the brothers is constantly given warmth by the silent activity of the women, who are frequently highlighted by the zoom; the dialogue, more than in the other films, is used to establish contact between people and try and overcome differences. Rossellini takes liberties with the text of the apostle Luke, synthesising, expanding, cutting and inventing to good effect.

David Suchet: In the Footsteps of Saint Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scene Comparion - Pentecost

My small group is looking at Acts at the moment and last week there was a bit of a mix up over who was doing what and so seeing as we were at my house I suggested watching the passage fr the day (Acts 2) in some different film versions.

Whilst there are quite a few film versions of a selection of stories from Acts a good number of them are Paul biopics and so are only really interested in Acts from the stoning of Stephen onwards. So films such as Paul the Emissary, Damascus, The Bible Collection's Paul and even, surprisingly, Peter and Paul all exclude this incident.There are however a number of films that do cover these events and here are some comments on a few of them.

Living Bible: Acts of the Apostles (1957)

If ever you want a stiff, very literal rendering of a story played out by men wearing tea towels, then  The Living Bible comes up trumps every time. The budgetary limitations area always obvious so for the start of Acts the Ascension is narrated and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the tongues of fire all occur off screen. The rest of the scene is dull in the extreme.

Power of the Resurrection (1958)
Peter is stuck in jail with a young Christian who is scared and so he tells the boy how he met Jesus and gained the courage he now has. So the retelling of Peter's life climaxes with Pentecost. It's strange, then, that there's no tongues of fire scene here either. We do see Annas and Caiaphas in the crowd as Peter preaches. The most interesting feature of this film, for me, is that both the younger and the older Peter are played by Richard Kiley, who would play another disciple turned writer Matthew in the Visual Bible's Matthew. What's most interesting is comparing how the film makers thought Kiley would look like as an old man, and how he actually does look. Had I not seen the latter production, I would have thought it a reasonably credible piece of make-up, but as things stand it looks more than a little naïve.

Atti degli Apostoli (1969 - pictured)
Overall I think Rossellini's film is my favourite of those that deal with Acts, partly because while it is still an obviously low budget piece it makes that into a virtue, rather than a constantly distracting flaw, but then I'm a big fan of Rossellini in general.

Again there are no tongues of fire, but the sky does momentarily go dark red before the disciples burst out into the public square. It's a wonderful moment, partly because it's been preceeded by a long and rather dry exposition of the story's cultural and historical context (from one Roman to another), which both give a better feel for that context but also because the disciples sudden arrival on the scene forms a striking contrast with the more stoic Romans. Furthermore there is something ambiguous about the moment. One the one hand it evokes Joel's prophecy about the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood, but on the other the disciples' absence from the moment distances them from it, as if to break the causal link. 

My favourite line in this story has always been Peter's "they're not drunk it's only nine o'clock in the morning: I remember laughing about that one as a ten year old at church. The majority of these films deliver it in a very po-faced and forced fashion. Here, Peter dismissively chucks it out over his shoulder as he marches through the crowd. It's reminiscent of Pasolini's Jesus making terse theological or political statements over his shoulder as the disciples struggle to keep up.

And then there's the climax, as Peter, the disciples and a bunch of keen to be new converts all rush in a state of high excitement to a watering hole outside the city. Are they ecstatic or just mad? Rossellini leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it. I imagine both interpretations happened at the time so it's nice to see this captured in the film and both sides thrown up for the viewer to pick over.

Incidentally, did I ever mention that this film is available to view (albeit without subtitles) here?

A.D. (1985)
Just as the series intercuts the story of the early church with tales of the Romans here we get the first Pentecost intercut with the Romans leading an execution. And just as the series often brings both stories together at certain critical points, so it turns out that the man who is due to be executed and is subsequently rescued is a friend of Stephen and other early Christians.

Inside meanwhile Mary seems to be taking a leading role within the early church - you don't have to interpret it that way but it seems to be the implication. On this occasion, Mary tells a story from Jesus' childhood. And then a very quiet wind starts up inside but someone notices it's not blowing outside. The effects look dated and the soppy looks on the disciples faces are rather comical, but Peter delivers his speech with real charisma, and it's probably the best delivery of that sermon of all of these clips.

Visual Bible: Acts (1994)
Whilst the special effect here will hardly have broken the bank it's actually very effective. In contrast to many of the other version - and my own prior visualisation - the moment of the Spirit's coming is initially very serene rather than ecstatic. Very little else works here though. Dean Jones' narration is more obtrusive than Richard Kiley's in Matthew, the word for word aspect feels very forces and
James Brolin is just to handsome, clean cut and all-American to pass for Simon Peter. It's interesting comparing his charismatic proto-TV-politician with the hapless dimwit played by Gerrit Schoonhoven in the Matthew film.

Where the forced literalism really doesn't work is during the crowd's lengthy response to what they are seeing, especially the various members of the crowd taking turns to recite a selection of the nations represented there. It wouldn't have been funnier if they had all done it together Life of Brian style ("Yes we're all individuals... from Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene.)

St Peter (2005)
The start of this film is so awful I've never been able to get past the first quarter of an hour or so, and the relevant scene here crops up about 35 minutes in. It's certainly one of the more interesting and creative explorations of the scene. The outpouring of the spirit occurs just at the very moment that the disciples are beginning to realise that language might be a barrier to the spread of the gospel.

Inside the moment is strikingly depicted with flames shooting up in the arches behind Peter and the other apostles. Outside however a shock-wave seems to strike everyone in sight. In contrast with the other versions Peter says very little of the sermon from Acts. So effectively this take on the story emphasises experience over explanations.

The scene ends on a rather sour note however. A Roman soldier - the very one who was present at the death of Jesus - wants to be baptised as well, but Peter refuses. I'm interested to see how this pans out: I have a hunch the soldier in question may appear later in the film.

Some Obscure Paul Films

Recently I've come across a number of lesser-known films about St. Paul so I thought I'd post a few bits and pieces about them here.

The first is Damascus (pictured above). It's a docudrama made in 2008 as part of a collaboration between Agape 4 Media (the team who distribute the Jesus film), Youth Arise and one or two others as part of the Pope's Year of St. Paul. It's shot in and around Damacus itself and uses actors from the region and at some point I should hopefully get around to reviewing it.

The next is Life of St. Paul (1949). According to the IMDb it starred DeForest Kelley, best known for his role as Dr "Bones" McCoy in Star Trek. Paul was played by Nelson Leigh who would reprise the role 8 years later in The Living Bible Series: Acts of the Apostles. Life of St. Paul was made the same year as The Pilgrimmage Play which also starred Leigh (as Jesus). Both films were made by the same director, John T. Coyle.

Then there is I Paul from 1980. IMDb contains a good synopsis of this one. It was essentially a soliloquy given by Fred J. Scollay as Paul delivers his final message from prison to Timothy using the words of the King James Bible. It's available on DVD in the States, but seemingly not in the UK, which is a shame given that this is the 400th anniversary of the KJV.

Dayamayudu appears to be a sequel to the Jesus film Dayasagar. It's about Peter and Paul and can be seen on YouTube in its entirety. (I assume given the advert that plays at the start and that its there in full that it's legitimate to watch it on YouTube). Sadly there are no subtitles.

Also online is Paul the Emissary which I've discussed in passing before and a long time ago at Arts and Faith. It's available through the producer's website TBN (you have to scroll down a bit as there are a number of other films you can view online including The Revolutionary.

Lastly, I posted a link on the Bible Films Facebook page to a piece on 1960's Paul of Tarsus. There's an article all about the 10 part series at Roobarb's Forum. According to Ian K McLachlan it still exists in its entirety in the BBC archives (as does 1956's Jesus of Nazareth. Another poster adds that there is a clip from the series in the Roger Delgado documentary on the Doctor Who Dalek War set. I'm not a great fan of Dr. Who these days, but I know a couple of readers of this site who are. Has anyone seen this documentary?

Whilst I'm mentioning the Facebook page, just a quick plug to encourage you to "like" it (which means all the news bits will appear in your News Feed) and to post your own links / opinions there. I really want the page to become much more communal and as so many of you know things that I don't it would be great to have your contributions direct.

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 5

Of all the episodes of AD the final one probably contains the least biblical content and thus has the greatest concentration on imperial Rome. It opens with the conclusion to last episode's cliff hanger. Paul is taken into Roman custody to protect him from those in Jerusalem who are seeking to harm him. The film dates this towards the start of Nero's rule (played with relish by Brideshead Revisited's Anthony Andrews). This is a bit of a leap historically speaking (though possible), but it fits well the impressive way that the script is starting to pull-together the once seemingly disparate strands of plot that it started out with.

One of the key links in all of this is Roman soldier Julius Valerius, who now finds himself sent to Palestine to serve as Porcius Festus's second in command. Paul is not shown appearing in front of the Sanhedrin, and the interaction with Felix is also omitted. However, Festus visits the Jewish leaders (Acts 25) and Acts' unfortunate suggestion that the high priest is a key part of the plot to murder Paul is implied here as well. The veiled hatred in this scene is contrasted with the words of Paul in the next. Whilst he remains in his cell he repeats for his friends (that have assembled there) the words from 1 Corinthians 13. It's a superbly executed speech by actor Philip Sayer.

Paul appears in front of the court convened by Festus where matters are brought to a close by Paul's appeal to Caesar. We next meet him on a boat with Julius Valerius and Luke. This is the scene that I remember from my childhood (during its UK broadcast). Whilst Paul and Julius talk (pictured), Luke notes down the things that have happened / are happening. It was the first time I really thought about the fact that the gospels had authors. What I didn't appreciate at the time is that Julius who, as the programme has gone on, has gradually become more prominent, is also mentioned in this passage of Acts. Throughout AD he's been portrayed as a faithful and moderate Roman, rejecting the excesses of the empire in favour of open-mindedness and even-handed fairness. Now as he listens to Paul it's clear he's being drawn in. The film is about to underline the point that the noble qualities that Julius has displayed throughout find their home in Christianity. Acts records Julius as showing kindness to Paul. Both the memory of his name (which might otherwise be unlikely to be remembered), and his noted kindness give some support to AD's idea that Julius ultimately becomes a Christian. When they dock at Sidon Julius is baptised (this time in the sea).

Strangely Paul's shipwreck is omitted, this may be for budgetary reasons (though Jon Solomon mentions that this was considered an expensive production at the time). And so Paul arrives rather suddenly and is re-united with Priscilla and Aquila. He also meets Julius's wife and a number of others. But then he is released and heads off to Spain. My limited understanding is that tradition is divided at this point with some sources saying Paul was killed under Nero and others saying he survived it to preach in Spain.

It's at this point that the other part of this film I remembered (and indeed conflated with the episode above) occurs. As Paul heads off to Spain he says farewell to Luke. Luke feels that the future God is calling him to concerns "parchment, pen and ink". "I shall have to write down all that has happened. There are men and women as yet unborn who must know of the Acts of Paul." "Not just of Paul" says the man from Tarsus "but of all the apostles of the word".

As Paul sails out of Italy, Peter sails in. The two men's boats cross and Peter even enquires about Paul's boat. Peter immediately appoints Linus in charge of the church of Rome and whilst the film is very much done with Acts, it continues to depict much of early church tradition, namely the fire of Rome and the subsequent persecution.

The fire of Rome is portrayed fairly well. Nero is planning to rebuild Rome, but the fire is very much an accident - neither he nor the Christians are responsible, though Nero blames them nevertheless.

The persecution scenes in the latter part of the film are actually very disturbing. Peter is crucified upside down and Paul returns to Rome only to be executed by decapitation. This allows the film to support both strands of the traditions about Paul. Nero himself is present for Paul's execution which seems rather unlikely. Also as Peter raised on the cross the camera gives what is meant to be a point of view shot, though it rotates on the wrong axis.

But it's the scenes in the Colosseum which are particularly uncomfortable. Whilst their parents are being eaten alive by tigers and leopards we see a shot of their children playing joyfully dressed in lamb skins, seemingly unaware of the trauma they have in store. That scene is actually more disturbing by the scene of them getting ravaged by dogs moments later. The tension is heightened by Julius's daughter being amongst those sent into the arena, and for a moment is appears that she has been killed. When it's revealed that it was a similar looking girl who died instead the sense of relief, both for us and him, is somewhat slight.

The result is however that the remaining heroes finally become Christians, and take on orphaned Christians as their own. They return to Jerusalem remembering the words of Aquila "soon it will be night and we will be questioned about love". The film ends with a shot of Roman soldiers taking down the scaffold from Peter's cross in the sun. Words come up on screen "The Beginning". And so it was.

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 1

I've been trying to get a copy of the full version of 1985's AD for four or five years now and having finally got hold of it I'm going to share a few notes as I go. I'll post some details about the DVD a bit later, but for now I want to focus on episode 1 and in particular the parts concerning the trials and triumph of the early church.

The series actually begins before the start of The Acts of the Apostles" with a story from Luke's first volume, the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24). Cleopas and his companion are quickly joined by Jesus as they hide behind a tree from some Romans. Jesus is rather annoying. He's quite smug and speaks in an Eddie Izzard-esque "Hello, we are the Romans" voice. The incident is shown at some length across several scenes and leading in to Doubting Thomas confession. Thomas's portrayal is even more extreme than it is in most such films. Not only is he a sceptic, but he's also very grumpy.

Interestingly though there's no ascension scene. Thomas's confession is followed by Jesus' promise of Matt 28:20, and a final dose of bread and wine. The camera pans round the disciples who are sat in a circle but when it returns to Jesus' spot, he has disappeared. At first it appears that he has simply disappeared in a similar manner to his arrival. However he's never seen again, and the next scene involving the disciples is the day of Pentecost.

Before then however we get a very nicely done introduction to Gamaliel and New Testament ers Judaism. Gamaliel is holding some kind of discussion with a number of men representing a good swathe of Jewish sects from the period. Present is Paul who is somewhat likeable if detached from the others, and Stephen who is yet to be converted but is still well on the way. A zealot contingent is also present. It's obvious from this episode alone that this production is at pains to provide a sold context for its story. Scenes like this and little details here and there do well at educating without being teachy.

The portrayal of Pentecost isn't very satisfactory. There's a build up with a mysterious blowing wind (despite all being calm outside) and then some kind of orange lighting effect whilst the disciples dance around. The accompanying music is terrible too so it's all rather disappointing.

This is followed by some kind of spontaneous procession into the temple (replete with people waving palm branches) and Peter delivers his sermon. He gets another chance to preach to a crowd in the final incident from the Bible in this first part. Peter and John appear in the temple and heal the man there. Peter gets to speak, as watched by some of the high priests and Paul who does definitely not approve.

The final glance we see of characters from the Bible is Stephen (pictured) converting and being baptised in the river. In many ways this episode is as much about Stephen as it is about Peter or Paul. The majority of the programme follows a paranoid Tiberius at Capri and a bunch of zealots trying to free one of their number from Roman arrest. Stephen is not a zealot but is determined to free the man (Caleb) as the two were wrestling prior to Caleb's arrest. But having introduced us to Saul/Paul the porgramme has been set-up nicely to learn more about Paul and his conversion in part 2.

Old Thoughts on Peter and Paul

Over the next few weeks there will be a number of posts on films based on Acts, mainly the two 80s TV programmes, A.D. (1985) and Peter and Paul (1981). I've now seen the first episode of the former, but writing up my thoughts on that will have to wait until I have a bit more time. So for now I thought I'd edit and post a few thoughts I wrote back in December 2004. Please be warned this is not he best, or most well informed, writing I have ever produced!

=============

Watching Peter and Paul is rather like reading the book of Acts. Obviously that's the intention - although the film is much more than a simple reproduction of Luke's second great work - but it also reflects the way Acts starts off well, but peters out towards the end (pun most definitely intended).

Hopkins is, as you'd expect, great value and he produces a really good mix of Paul the hothead that comes through so clearly from his writings. At the same time he avoids playing Paul as the kind of vitriolic bigot that he's so often caricatured as today. This view always seems a bit out of context, and casts him as someone who would be unlikely to achieve what he did. Hopkins does this better than any of the other actors I've seen play Paul, although surprisingly he delivers Paul's most vitriolic line ("why don't they just go and castrate themselves?") coolly and calmly, as if he's talking about removing a slightly annoying toenail clipping.

What I liked most about the programme was the way the script made constant biblical references like little extracts from the prophets, Psalms or now-familiar Pauline Hebrew Bible was pretty staggering when we consider that for him it wasn't all in one convenient little volume, he didn't have a concordance, and he didn't have the luxury of being able to leave a gap and cut and paste the quote in later. He seems pretty steeped in the Old Testament - I imagine he would have had to have memorised large parts of it to be able to pull out all the passing references and connotations he does - and the film portrays this rather well.

Paul is also shown referring to Jesus' teaching and here I was less convinced, particularly as he doesn't really do this much in his letters. We know he was familiar with bits of it, but he doesn't seem to use it that often and I'm not sure he would have known bits verbatim in their canonical form as the film suggests, particularly as some of those bits probably hadn't found this form when Paul was writing. But it is interesting how that as Paul goes on he uses Jesus' words less and less and starts to use his own words more. Perhaps this is suggesting that Paul's teaching started to drift from the message of Jesus, but it could simply mean that as Paul went on he had more and more confidence in his own material.

There are however a few moments in the second half, which particularly focus on Paul, which let things down. Dramatically the shipwreck in Acts 27 is potentially an exciting scene, but all we get is reference to a storm that is coming followed by a cut to a scene of the shipmates arriving on the beach clinging on to bits of driftwood. Likewise, the legal drama is left to the scene with Festus and Agrippa. I do find this a bit tedious in Acts, but I couldn't help wondering how much better these scenes might have been is they had been made by someone with good experienced of making legal dramas.

That said, the real let down is the depiction of Peter. Early on he seems to have decided he couldn't lead people despite a great Pentecost preach and called James in to do it for him. Peter then feels unhappy about the situation but tends to moan about it rather than getting on with the business in hand. He and Paul get on well and he seems to inspire Paul at the start but then doesn't speak to him for 8 years, and then there is the Council of Jerusalem and the clash of Galatians 2, and they never speak again. After this Peter wanders around going to Babylon (rather bizarrely) and eventually re-tracing Paul's steps, and only returning to real, on-the-edge, preaching once Paul dies. By this time it's only a matter of weeks before he'll die too, and it just seems like a dithering old man desperately trying one last attempt to make something of himself.

This is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly Peter is played into a weak role. It's not Robert Foxworth's fault he can't match Hopkins, but the script for Peter is poor too. Key Petrine moments are erased completely - notably Peter's last main solo narrative with his vision and Cornellius. But later on we delve into fiction (or perhaps its less well known legend with the closing scenes) whilst ignoring more popular "legends" such as the Quo Vadis moment. Fatally ending on the weak Peter, means that the film ends really badly. Once Paul goes, so does any resemblance of interest.

Paul of Tarsus and Jesus of Nazareth

NT Gateway's Mark Goodacre has been finding out some more information on the 1960 BBC TV series Paul of Tarsus. On Thursday he discussed the various bits of information he had gleaned from the associated novelisation. These included the book's ten chapter headings which, it's assumed, match up to the titles of the ten episodes. Interestingly, WitlessD left a comment on my earlier post which gave this and some additional information, from 2 different sources - the BFI Library and old copies of the Radio Times. Mark also describes the photos as the highlights of the book and notes how it relies more on Acts than on Paul's letters.

Mark's second post deals with his discovery that Paul of Tarsus was actually a sequel to a series called Jesus of Nazareth which aired in 1956. Various productions have gone by this name - in addition to Zeffirelli's famous 1977 TV series, there were silent film versions in 1916 (a theologically modified release of From the Manger to the Cross and 1928 as well as a Mexican version in 1942 - but this one was unknown to me. According to the IMDb it starred Tom Flemming in the lead role. Flemming went on to commentate on the 1972 Eurovision Song contest.

I'll not reproduce Mark's comments here, but would encourage those interested in these films to read his original posts for themselves.

I've also checked both Campbell and Pitts and Kinnard and Davis, and neither book mentions either series.

Troughton as Paul of Tarsus

Mark Goodacre has discovered details of an old BBC series called Paul of Tarsus (1960) which starred Patrick Troughton in the leading role. Troughton performed the role six years before he became the second Dr. Who in 1966.

Like Mark, I'd never heard of this film before. He quotes the brief entry in the BFI database ("A cycle of ten plays telling the story of the Acts of Christ's Apostles. BBC tx 1960/10/16 - 1960/12/18 (Sun)") and links to details of two episodes - To the Gentiles and The Feast of Pentecost - as well as the Cast List. The latter lists the writer, producer and director as Joy Harington, who, the following year, converted the production into a novel featuring pictures from the series. Mark's getting the book and will hopefully find out some more details. I'll echo his request for more information from anyone who knows more.

St Peter (2005) DVD release (Starring Omar Sharif)

Omar Sharif starred in two of last year's Bible Films - the cinematically released One Night With the King and the TV series Ten Commandments (2006) and I've just caught wind of a third Sharif Bible film released in March of this year (although produced in 2005). St. Peter is another Bible film from the seemingly inexhaustible Lux Vide (who brought us The Bible Collection) and stars Sharif in the lead role. Here's the blurb from the press release:

As a dedicated follower of Christ, Peter spreads the message of the Christians across the land, often staying only a few steps ahead of those determined to persecute him. As tensions between the Christians and Romans grow, the apostles lose St. Paul to crucifixion. On the road to Damascus, Peter comes face to face with a stranger, who shows him that he must put himself on the cross, for only martyrdom can bring peace to Rome.

Back in 2005, there was a report in The Guardian about this film. Sharif's comments had apparently led an al-Qaida linked website to advise its readers to kill him. Sharif converted to Islam in the 50s, but said playing Peter was "so important for me that even now I can only speak about it with difficulty. It will be difficult for me to play other roles from now on". He also claimed "to hear voices" during filming.

Peter Chattaway has just reviewed the film for BC Christian News. It appears it's a mix of Acts of the Apostles and Quo Vadis? and whilst he finds Sharif as the 30 year old Peter unconvincing he does praise "the sensitivity of his performance".

It'll be interesting to compare this film with St. Paul (known as Paul the Apostle in the US) which I made a few brief comments about in my post on Galatians vs Acts in Film.

Atti Degli Apostoli (Acts of the Apostles)

When reading Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, it's easy to forget that the events it describes took 30 years to unfold. Aside from the prologue Luke's gospel spends 24 chapter on the events of just 3 years, and the immediacy of his writing style changes little between parts 1 and 2 of his story about Jesus and his followers.

Films about Acts have tended to reinforce the speed with which we perceive the events occurred. With 28 chapters to cram into just a few hours it's difficult to carve out the space to show time ebbing along.

Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli (1968), however, bucks the trend. Whilst including a great deal of the biblical material (only chapter 19 and 24 are completely omitted), it still manages to convey the slowness of the process which led to Paul's arrival in Rome.

Rossellini does this by utilising a number of different techniques, many of which pull against the epic film genre. Large crowd scenes are kept to a minimum, as are on-screen depictions of miracles (although there are examples of both, particularly at the start of the film). Acts' many sermons are delivered in a low key style rather than converted into the kind of rousing speech that is so typical of the epic. Further more, most of the apostles' evangelism consists of one on one conversations, or talks in front of small groups, perhaps in a remote synagogue. The production opposes the epic in other ways, for example, it usually underplays the hero's persecution and refuses to import romantic sub-plots.

There are a number of other ways in which the film creates this more leisurely pace. Firstly, Rossellini punctuates his action with moments where nothing is really happening. There is space in this film, often at the start or the end of a shot. In some ways these moments of space are unnecessary; but in other ways they are the very essence of the film.

There's a masterful shot at the start of the seventh episode¹ which starts with a close up of a deserted dust track. The shot ever so gradually widens as the camera pulls back, eventually incorporating Paul and Barnabas as they trek up the road to Pisidian. It's one of many examples of Rossellini's Pancinor zoom technique – the long shots which zoom in and out drawing attention to various parts of the scene but keeping them connected to the larger whole. Here it starts with the emptiness of a remote path and then locates Paul and Barnabas on it. The shot as a whole tells the story of a long quiet walk along a deserted road.

Prior to this point in the film the action has centred around a busy Jerusalem, with only brief forays into the outside world. But from here on in, Paul becomes the main protagonist, and he and his companions pursue a lonely course of action through the towns of Asia Minor. Even the council of Jerusalem occurs outside the actual city itself.

The second way in which this film implies a more protracted timescale is by stressing how isolated Paul and the other disciples are from each other, and how unaware they are of the impact they are having. When Paul meets a besotted Prisicilla and Aquilla he is stunned to discover that he, and his Lord, are already well known in Rome. As he nears the great city in the closing scenes, he is again taken aback to find he is known and admired by a sizeable Christian community.

The great strength of these scenes is how emotionally powerful they are given their apparent restraint and understated acting. Somehow the numerous subtleties of the performances and the way they are filmed add up to something quite moving. Another example of this is disciples' reunion at the council of Jerusalem. Before launching into the debate about gentile adherence to the law, Rossellini pauses to show Peter waiting for the other delegates. But rather than being absorbed with the business the council needs to attend to, it seems he's mainly looking forward to seeing his friends and brothers again.

The film's ultra-long takes are, in themselves, another way in which the film suggests the passage of time. Perhaps the majority of scenes in Atti are filmed in a single, extended, shot. There are of course exceptions, notably the food riot in Jerusalem where the montage is perhaps a formal way of underlining that this particular episode is fictional, but these only serve to remind us of the longer takes elsewhere.

Filming a scene in a single shot gives the cuts between these scenes extra significance. Within a shot the action occurs in real time. Once that continuity is broken the time that has passed whilst the camera has been turned off is unknown and potentially, therefore, represents an extended period.

Commentators have suggested a number of reasons why Rossellini relied so heavily on the long shot, (accompanied by the Pancinor zoom and the plan séquence). For some writers it was simply economy – long shots reduced the post production editing process to simply joining the scenes in the correct order, whilst also reducing the time and money spent altering lighting and make up for each scene. Other commentators, however, whilst perhaps accepting those particular advantages also see it as a way of giving the film more realistic aesthetic, and allowing the films to be more neutral.

By this stage in his life Rossellini was firmly into his historical period, producing films that he thought would "aim human beings in becoming more rational".² To this end he had reverted to making films for television where "the [critical] spirit of the individual is more accentuated".³ Rossellini's desire for historicity is apparent throughout the series. Almost the entire first episode consists of an enslaved scribe giving a Roman noble a tour of Jerusalem along with a social and historical commentary. Elsewhere the rise and fall of the various Caesars is introduced into the relevant part of the script.

There is also a great deal of the everyday in Atti. The apostles spend a great deal of time engaged in manual labour. Peter is shown dyeing, Paul weaving, Stephen serving food and so on. Often the disciples spread they gospel as they work, a theme that would reappear in Il Messia.

That said Rossellini's concern is not so much with a detailed recreation of the period as of the particular work in which he is adapting. This also apparent with his other historical works which are also adaptations of historical artefacts. So whilst the costumes and locations are fairly realistic, these areas are not attended to as rigorously as they are in many historical films today. The aim is to recreate (the feel of) the work rather than the events the work discusses.

This is one of the reasons why so many of the miraculous stories are not shown directly. This is simply a feature of Luke's work which Rossellini is seeking to recreate. Yet Rossellini relies on characters recounting supernatural occurrences more than Luke. Whilst this might appear to be an inconsistency, it only reflects the manner in which the story has been heard ever since.

There are two further reasons why Rossellini portrays the miracles in this manner. Firstly, describing the miracles is far more ambiguous than showing them. This allows the viewer to approach them from their own perspective, without forcing a particular opinion. Secondly, it recontextualises them. Set in a fresh context they once again become startling, like they were for their original audiences, liberated from the confines of familiarity.

This recontextualisation is also seen in some of the speeches made by the apostles. "In these films, characters boldly foreground their words, paradoxically, by delivering them in a flattened, often completely uninflected way... [focussing attention] on the ideas and historical forces at work".⁴

Another way in which the film may be seen to be at variance with the book is in its great respect for the Judaism of the period. The lengthy prologue places the narrative firmly in a broader context explaining, for example, that Christianity was only one of a number of Jewish sects. It is also keen to stress the Judaism of the early apostles. Prior to his conversion Saul is shown sitting in the Sanhedrin, and even after his trip to Damascus he retains his side curls.

There are also points where the film questions Paul's modus operandi of using the network of synagogues to promulgate his message. Is he taking advantage of the hospitality which he is shown? Do the Hebrews (as the film generally calls them) in that town have good reason not to abandon their faith for his?

Such questioning should not be seen as an outright criticism of Paul. Indeed his dedication and his genuineness come across very clearly. Perhaps the biggest slur against him is the irritating American drawl used to dub the film into English.

Fortunately, the visuals are so brilliantly memorable that they persist in the memory long after the poor dubbing has faded into obscurity. As with the book, the precise words used by the apostles may no longer be recoverable, but the impact of what they achieved endures.

1 - The version of the film I saw was the ten episode "catechical" version. There is also a 5 episode version of this film (where each section is just short of an hour) where this shot should occur at the beginning of episode 4.
2 – Brunette, Peter. "Roberto Rossellini", University of California Press (1996) p. 253
3 – Interview, Filmcritica, no 190 (Aug 1968), 351 – cited in Brunette
4 – Brunette, Peter. "Roberto Rossellini", University of California Press (1996) p. 262

Atti Degli Apostoli - Scene Analysis - Parts 9 and 10

This is part of an ongoing series on the Roberto Rossellini series Acts of the Apostles (Atti Degli Apostoli). As the film was recently shown at the BFI in 3 sections (episodes 1-4, 5-8 and 9-10) I'm copying that structure in my scene analyses of the various episodes.

Episode 9
Arrival in Philippi - (Acts 16:11-13a)
(Eph 6:12)
Exorcism of the Fortune Telling Girl - (Acts 16:16-22)
At Lydia's House - (Acts 16:13b-15)
Paul and Silas released - (Acts 16:22-24, 35-40)
Arrival at Athens - (Acts 17:14-17)
(1 Cor 13:1-7)
Paul preaches in Athens - (Acts 17:34)
Paul in Corinth - (Acts 18:1-11)
(Luke 6:20-28)

Episode 10
Paul sets off for Jerusalem - (Acts 20:22-38)
Paul arrives in Jerusalem - (Acts 21:17-26)
Paul arrested - (Acts 21:27-36; 22:24-30)
Paul transferred to Caesarea - (Acts 23:23-35, 26:32)
Paul before Festus and Herod - (Acts 25 & 26)
Paul arrives in Rome - (Acts 28:14-16)
Centurion Recaps the journey - (Acts 27:1-28:10)
(Rom 11:11-32)
(2 Tim 4)

Notes
Episode 9 deals with two of the most famous parts of Paul's missionary journeys - the events in Philippi and Athens. The screenplay again plays around with the chronology of the events. Here Paul meets the fortune telling girl before he meets Lydia, and his arrest is told retrospectively whilst he is at Lydia's house (where he has found refuge after a night in jail). No mention is made of the the jailer or the earthquake that effected his conversion. It's also interesting how the disturbance concerning Paul and Silas is shown. At first not much seems to happen, but then the two are ambushed whilst within their own tent. The Athens scenes are far more conventional.

There are a couple of particularly interesting moments in the dialogue. Firstly, this episode starts with a declaration that Caligula is now the new Roman emperor. Secondly, Paul encourages Lydia that she can do all he has done. This statement is made more plausible by the omission of the earthquake incident, but the radicalness of it within Paul's own time (and, arguably, his own practice) is easily lost to some of the modern audience.

Both episodes also contain numerous words which are familiar from Paul's own letters. Strangely, the script has Paul in Athens trying out his famous passage on love from 1 Cor 13. There are also citations from Eph 6:12, Luke 6:20-28, Rom 11:11-32, and 2 Tim 4. Remarkably, this last quotation also appears in the final episode of that other ten part Acts of the Apostles series from the Living Bible. Both productions quote the "I have fought the good fight" verse (2 Tim 4:8). Yet, 2 Timothy is book about which there is considerable dispute about whether it was actually written by Paul.

There are a number of other similarities between Atti and the Living Bible Series: Both cover the greatest proportion of Acts in their final two episodes, both go beyond the end of the book of Acts in order to round off the story of Paul, both show him dictating letters to his scribes whilst under house arrest.

One thing this pair of episodes did well was stress how isolated Paul was from everything else that was going on with "The Way", and how unaware he was of his growing reputation. So in episode 9 we are introduced to a young Priscilla and Aquilla who have already heard of Paul, and also bring him news that Christianity has reached Rome. When Paul asks how it got there, they have to confess that no-one really knows for sure, although there is a rumour it was brought by Peter. The final episode finds Paul being greeted by Roman Christians on the Appian way well before his arrival in the city itself. On both cases Paul is pleasantly surprised at the spread of the gospel aside from his own work.

I'll hopefully write a review for this series as a whole by the end of this week.