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.

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.

Rossellini TV Films on DVD

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

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

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

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.

Atti Degli Apostoli - Scene Analysis - Parts 5 to 8

This is part of an ongoing series on the Roberto Rossellini series Acts of the Apostles (Atti Degli Apostoli). As the film was shown 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 5
Peter goes to Joppa – (Acts 9:43)
Cornellius and Peter – (Acts 10:1-48)
Peter Reports to the 12 – (Acts 11:1-18)
Paul and Barnabas return to Jerusalem - (Acts 11:29-30)

Episode 6
[Extra Biblical Episode – Riot due to Famine]
Death of James – (Acts 12:1-2)
Peter's Miraculous Escape Recounted – (Acts 12:3-11)
More of Jesus's Teaching – (John 14:16-19, 15:18-20)
The Disciples Scatter – (Acts 12:17, 24)
Paul and Barnabas Return to Antioch – (Acts 12:25)
Teaching In Antioch - (Acts 7:2-5, Rom 9:25/Hos 2:23)
Antioch Christians Fast – (Acts 13:1-2a, Matt 6:6, 16-18)
Paul and Barnabas Sent Out – (Acts 13:2-3)

Episode 7
From Antioch to Pisidian Antioch - (Acts 13:4-6, 13-14)
In Pisidian - (Acts 13:14-52, Ex 15:3-6, 1 Cor 15:20-25, Ps 22, Is 11:6, )
Return to Antioch - (Acts 14:21-28)
Judaisers arrive in Antioch – (Acts 15:1-2)
Paul on the Jews and Gentiles - (Eph 2:11-19)

Episode 8
Council of Jerusalem – (Acts 15:3-30)

Notes
As with the opening episodes these episodes continue to downplay the more dramatic events of the book of Acts. So here we're shown neither Peter's vision of the animals in the bed sheet, nor his escape from prison. That's not to say that the film denies them either. As with earlier examples of the supernatural, the events are reported and accepted by those that hear them.

The effects of this technique are three-fold. Firstly, it draws attention to those events precisely because it downplays them. When James is arrested the audience is expecting Peter's arrest to follow. But Rossellini catches us unawares, and in so doing makes those over familar with the story re-consider it. Secondly it puts these events where they belong in the realm of faith. The ambiguity Rossellini gives these scenes means that the viewer interacts with them and brings their own interpretation to the experience of watching the film. Finally, it means the story reaches the viewer as it has reached most of those who have heard it over the centuries - by hearing it from someone else, rather than seeing it. In the original story only Peter experiences these events. Even the first Christians have to decide whether they accept or reject his testimony.

One of the most striking scene of the whole film for me was when Peter decides to go to Joppa. Ironically, it stands out because actor Jacques Dumur underplays it. This lends a sense of mystery and conviction to the moment. He announces his decision and moves to implement it almost as if in a trance. It also stands out because the dangerous nature of the decision Peter makes is completely opposite to the self-preservation instinct that seems to be ensnaring the other disciples.

I looked at how the different film makers portrayed the visits of Paul to Jerusalem and concluded that "none of these films support the minority conservative chronology (that equates Gal. 1 with Acts 9, and Gal 2 with Acts 11)". In fact this is what this film appears to do. Whilst Paul's first meeting is not shown he has clearly visited Jerusalem to meet Christians there before the events of episode 6. The Council of Jerusalem in episode 7 is therefore his third visit to Jerusalem since his conversion.

In September last yearEpisode 7 devotes a significant amount of time to Paul and Barnabas' trip to Antioch in Pisidian. It's interesting that the film spends so long on this location as it is usually downplayed in favour of Paul's later journeys. Here it takes almost as much time as the Council of Jerusalem in episode 8. The events at Pisidian are very delicately balanced in terms of the Jewish - Christian debate. Paul is invited to speak, and whilst his oration is compelling, it feels a little bit forced and out of place, almost as if Paul has taken advantage of his hosts. The objections of the rabbi in the synagogue ("Can you say the wolf now lies down with the lamb?") seem very reasonable. The thrust of the narrative balances out these objections, but they are never convincingly defused.

The last of these episodes in almost entirely taken up with the Council of Jerusalem. Strangely this doesn't occur in Jerusalem itself, but somewhere in the countryside surrounding it, and outside. The film often locates the disciples close to nature and this is one such example. The discussions continue for a last time, and whilst James is set up to adjudicate, he clearly doesn't carry the authority or importance of Peter, John or Paul.

Atti Degli Apostoli - Scene Analysis - Parts 1 to 4

As I mentioned yesterday, I'm going to start my discussion of this film by analysing the different episodes (which I'll do over three posts) and then I'll finish by writing a review. I was unable to capture the individual titles of each episode. Gospel citations are as per my usual procedure.

Episode 1
[extra-biblical episode - Background to the story]
Recap of Crucifixion – (Mark 14:1-25)
The Disciples Gather - (Acts 1:13-14)
Recap of the Ascension - (Acts 1:3-12)
Recap of Death of Judas – (Acts 1:15-20, Matt 27:3-7)
Election of Matthias - (Acts 1:21-26)
Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost - (Acts 2:1-41)

(Episode 2)
Peter and John heal a Crippled Beggar – (Acts 3:1-10)
Peter Speaks to the Crowd - (Acts 3:11-26)
Peter and John Arrested - (Acts 4:1-14)
Caiaphas and Annas Decide to Release Peter and John - (Acts 4:15-22)
Disciples Pray - (Acts 4:23-31)
Jesus's Teaching Recalled - (John 15:18-21, Matt 10:29-31; Matt 18:20 / Thom 30)
Disciples Share Communion - (1 Cor 11:23-26)

Episode 3
Deaths of Ananias and Sapphira Recounted - (Acts 5:1-11)
Recap of Jesus giving Lord's prayer - (Matt 6:6-15)
Recap of the Woman at the Well - (John 4:1-42)
The Father's testimony about Jesus Recalled - (John 8:13-19)
[extra-biblical episode]
Peter and John Re-arrested - (Acts 5:21-41)
Recount of Jesus's Trial Before Sanhedrin - (Mark 14:53-64)
[extra-biblical episodes]
(Luke 10:3)
Appointment of the 7 Servants - (Acts 6:1-7)

Episode 4
Arrest, Trial and Death of Stephen - (Acts 6:8-8:1a, Mark 2:27))
Church is Persecuted - (Acts 8:1b-3, John 16:33)
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch - (Acts 8:26-38)
Saul Gets Permission to Capture Christians - (Acts 8:1b-3)
Conversion of Saul - (Acts 9:1-19, Acts 2:34-36)
Escape from Damascus - (Acts 9:20-25)

Notes
(The even numbered episodes are shown in brackets as the title cards were cut out to enable the two episodes to be "neatly" spliced together. It was generally obvious where one part finish and the next one started, but there is a certain amount of guess work involved. I should add that some releases of this film appear to have been in hour long segments anyway).

Roughly two thirds of the first episode is a conversation between two fictional characters who disappear from the story at the start of episode 2 never to be seen again. A Greek slave shows a Roman official around Jerusalem and gives him (and us) and detailed historical background to the city of Jerusalem and recent events. This is actually a common part of Rossellini's style, particularly during his historical film period. It's an unusual technique, but feels less forced than in many other films where the scriptwriter tries to shoehorn historical information into casual conversations. Whilst this technique is not particularly realistic it does enable the construction of a robust historical framework for the story that follows.

That said narration is very common technique in this production. The disciples frequently recount events from their time with Jesus. There are some particularly interesting touched here. John, for example, quotes Jesus fairly often, always using words from the gospel which took his name. We also hear Thomas reciting Jesus's saying "where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there also". This is the canonical version of this promise, which is also included, albeit slightly differently, in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 30). "Where there are two or one, I am with him".

Another notable example of this is in the first conversation we hear between the disciples based on Acts 1:15-26. Here the death of Judas is discussed, and interestingly the film tries to merge the divergent accounts of Matthew and Luke (Matt 27:3-7, Acts 1:15-20). Judas buys the field (as per Acts), but is credited as killing himself (as per Matthew).

There are also numerous examples when the disciples gather - something that occurs frequently in this version of the story. In particular, episode 2 features the disciples gathering after the events of Pentecost and the healing of the crippled beggar, and sharing communion for what appears to be the first time since Jesus's ascension. Jesus teaching is cited on several occasions, by various disciples. Much of episode 3 is similar.

Episode 4 opens with the arrest of Stephen who is seized not for being a Christian, or because of his superior debating skills, but because he is working on the Sabbath. His stoning is shown in a long shot with Stephen in the foreground, but his executioners included in the shot. In some ways the shot is detached from any particular point of view. Yet it also implicates us in the action and is most closely associated with the perspective of the other non-participant in the action - Saul (especially as we will increasingly share his perspective from this point in).

At the same time we are on the same level as Stephen, and distanced from his killers. There are so many ways this scene could have been shot, for example with heavy editing like the shower scene in Psycho that the choice of this realistic manner speaks volumes, particularly about the culpability of those who see but fails to act. Stephen's body is subsequently hung upside down from a tree.

The rest of this episode covers the resulting persecution of the Christians under Saul and his subsequent conversion. Saul's vision on the road to Damascus is filmed very ambiguously. There is a flash of lightning, a close up of Saul and then a shot of him being carried by his (former) cohorts. We see no vision and hear no voice. Whilst this could be seen as demythologising it actually only reflects the ambiguity of all three accounts found in Acts. The light is visible to all, but only Paul hears and understands the voice. Again Rossellini places his audience in the place of the neutral observer rather than the protagonist.

A similar approach was used for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The camera is not amongst the disciples at the crucial moment, but on the street surrounded by the general populace. There is a flash of darkness and then the disciples rush out. Their behaviour suggests a radical change, but the extent to which any tongues of fire would have been visible to a neutral observer is left to interpretation.

Back from Acts of the Apostles

I got back at 1:00am this morning from yesterday's screening of Roberto Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli (Acts of the Apostles), which ran from 4:00 to 9:35 last night in London's National Film Theatre. There was a fairly good crowd, perhaps 30 or so of us in total. We watched the equivalent of 4 episodes, and then had a half hour break, watched four more, had another break, and then watched the final two episodes. (I should note that this seems to have been released both in 10 half hour episodes and in 5 hour long episodes. We were watching the 10 episode version, although the film stock had been spliced to join the episodes in pairs.

I'm going to post my proper reflections over the next week or two probably starting by looking at the scenes in the same chunks the film was presented in, and end it with a review.

A couple of initial reflections for now. Firstly, I was surprised that the film was in colour, hence the colour picture above. I'd assumed that it would be in black and white, (no doubt because the majority of pictures I'd seen from this film, as well as the majority of the Rossellini films which I've seen, are black and white). Whilst I did find the above image a while ago, I'd just put it down to someone colouring it in (as they have done with my special edition cover for The Hustler, or for the entirety of Pasolini's Gospel according to St. Matthew - story here).

Secondly, I was also disappointed to find out that it was dubbed. I hate dubbed films, it tends to totally ruin them, and is a level of detachment from the original version that seems to go too far. Whilst this was no exception, I'm guessing that there simply is no English subtitled print of the film. Certainly the BFI rep apologised for the condition of the print before we started, and assured us it was the best one available. I'll settle for that in the circumstances, but I do long for a cleaned up, subtitled version of the DVD some day. I have just discovered an Italian (only) VHS of this film is available.

Finally, the title cards called this a special catechical version of the film, which may explain why it was shorter than some versions. Both Guarner's account of this film, and a conversation I overheard suggested a longer version is available. I'm not entirely convinced. Not a great deal was left out - at least not that would account for this. I guess the designation as "catechical" suggests it was used in religious education and the like.

One further thing to add. I also got to visit the Sacred exhibition at the British Library where I pop by occasionally on my trips to London. I plan to write on this at some later point as well.

Viaggio in Italia, Illibatezza and Roma Città Aperta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates for Atti Degli Apostoli and Il Messia

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

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

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

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

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

Rossellini Retrospective - Atti and Il Messia

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

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

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

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

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

1 - Essay on Rossellini Retrospective at Cinematheque Ontario

Galatians vs Acts in Film

It’s great to see Mark Goodacre is back up to full speed with his blog at New Testament Gateway. Mark’s currently exploring the relationship between the contrasting accounts of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Acts and Galatians. It’s a subject I’ve looked at in some length before and it’s one of those subjects I find fascinating. Mark’s posts are making me re-consider my position, which is always good, and I’d suggest taking a peak yourself.

So I thought it would be good to look at the various ways these incidents have been portrayed on film, and see how they try and combine the source material into a coherent account.

The Living Bible: Acts (1957)
(Episodes 3 to 6 of 10 – total run time ~ 180 minutes)
The Living Bible series takes a fairly literal approach to the bible and Acts is no exception. The story is largely narrated, intentionally based on Acts and rarely adds extra-biblical material. However, the 160 or so minutes run time is divided into 10 self contained episodes, and as a result there are incidents present in Acts but which falls between episodes.

Episode 3 Light From Heaven deals with the conversion of Saul, but leaves him in Damascus, before flashing forward to a far older Paul reciting 1 Tim 1:15-17. The next episode is No Respecter of Persons which deals with Peter and Cornelius and so Paul’s possible visit to Jerusalem at this point is omitted.

The fifth episode is God’s Care of his Own which deals with the church’s collection for those in Jerusalem, and Peter’s escape from prison. Whilst we see Paul and Barnabas making the collection, and setting off to take it to Jerusalem, we never actually see them arrive. Hence, the point at which the two of them arrive is left open to interpretation, and could be read as suggesting that they arrived much later and that there are parallel chronologies here.

Episode 6 is simply a conglomerate of mission related clips from the first 13 chapters of Acts, but in episode 7, Salvation and Christian Fellowship we arrive at the council at Jerusalem. The council is initially a very public affair, but cleverly incorporates the word “privately” in Gal 2:2 by having a smaller group go to a different room to make their decision which reflects Acts rather than Galatians. Unusually here there is heavy interpretation applied. The film’s narrator describes the decision as reflecting the majority, and calls council’s letter a “happy solution”, and “wonderfully friendly and frank”. So the film appears to support aligning Gal 2:11-16 with events leading up to the council (Acst 15:1-2) rather than following it as the Galatian letter suggests, although it has such a high view of Peter that his involvement is absent here.


Peter and Paul (1981)
(Between 30-90 mins for a 180 minute long film)
Here only two people lower Saul from the walls of Damascus, and the implication is that these are not his disciples. Paul is also beaten in Damascus (no reference in the text) We are then told it is 38AD and Paul is in Jerusalem to see Peter. The film here deftly combines the accounts from Acts 9:26-31 and Galatians 1:18-24. Paul comes to Jerusalem to talk to Peter, but the apostles are afraid of him. Barnabas arranges a meeting between the two and Peter and Paul spend a lot of time together, which it is easy to conceive is the 15 days of Gal. 1:18 (Peter even takes Paul to Galilee). Finally Paul meets James, and leaves for Tarsus (Acts 9:30).

It is then 8 years before we meet Saul again (46 AD). Barnbas mentions that Jerusalem is starving (rather than Agabus prophesying it) and tells Paul about the forthcoming meeting in Antioch. We never see this meeting instead the action moved onto Peter’s escape from Prison in Acts 12. When he arrives at the house of Mary and John Mark, Barnabas has just also arrived without Paul, but with a supply of food. Clearly this is a slight, but significant alteration. The film moves fairly meticulously through the available material at this point, eventually ending up with the council in Jerusalem (precipitated by Barnabas being told on his trip to Jerusalem that Greeks have to conform to Jewish law). The Jerusalem Council starts as a large and angry affair, but manoeuvres skilfully around the word “privately” in Gal 2:2 by having the major players go off into a side room to decide what to do. James’s decision, though, is to place “no restrictions” on the Gentile believers appearing to prefer Galatians to Acts. Peter then accompanies Paul to Antioch, and it is then that the events of Gal 2:11-14 occur. It is here that we see this film’s cleverest pieces of writing. The men that arrive from James bring the letter of Acts 15:23-30. The split from Barnabas is both due to his seeing Peter’s point of view and his support for John Mark (the reason given in Acts and in Galatians). Thus Paul continues his misson without ever having been party to the restrictions on the Gentiles.


Visual Bible: Acts (1994)
(Between 55-110 mins for a 180 minute long film)
This is a 3 hour word for word visualisation of Acts and so it has to present all of the Acts material and obviously largely ignores Galatians. Because it uses the NIV Paul’s escape from Damascus is assisted by his “followers” rather than the more committed-sounding “disciples” in some translations. Interestingly once this action has been shown we cut to a boat where an older Luke narrates the events of Acts 9:27-31.

The text then continues with stories about Peter, and some of these are shown whilst others are again narrated from the boat. Significantly Acts 11:25-30 is again just narrated. The action returns for the story about Peter’s imprisonment, and Herod’s death. We do see Paul in relation to Act 12:24, but he is not in Jerusalem, but walking in the countryside.

When it comes to the Jerusalem council, we are shown the action, although again the dispute in Antioch is not depicted (Luke simply smiles as he narrates this argument – hardly the way Paul feels about this dispute). The council of Jerusalem seems like a very well mannered affair. We also do not see the letter of Acts 15:23-29.

So whilst the nature of this project means that the film has to narrate these passages, the visuals do all they can to downplay the early appearance(s) in Jerusalem, and the controversy that led to the events of Acts 1. Whether this is just to avoid alienating some of their potential audience, or just to avoid commenting on such issues is hard to discern.

Paul the Emissary (1997)
(Between 9-15 mins for a 54 minute long film)
This is a very short film about Paul, and actually focuses a high proportion of its run time on the later part of Acts. Strangely it leaves out any trips by Paul to Jerusalem prior to the events of Acts 21. It’s main focus is on Paul’s preaching and so it ignores the theological issues that Council of Jerusalem throws up, in order to spend more time listening to Paul’s speeches such as that at Athens.


St. Paul [known as Paul the Apostle in the US](2000)
(Between 90-150 mins for a 180 minute long film)
Paul goes from Damascus to Jerusalem and meets Peter (and James) in a private meeting. He stays around Jerusalem and has another private meeting with Peter and James later on. They agree that Peter should go to Lydda, Barnabas to Antioch, Paul to Tarsus (9:30) whilst James stays in Jerusalem. So this is clearly Acts 9 territory. Initially Peter wants to delay message to Gentiles, and both he and James see it as meaning new rules for any potential gentile converts. Next time we see Peter he recounts his vision, but submits to James over Jewish/Gentile practice. Later Barnabas collect Paul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25-26) and they head to Cyprus (Acts 13:2-4), Herod dies (Acts 12:20-25), Paul and Barnabas go to Lystra, before arriving in Antioch.

Once in Antioch, Peter, and some people from James are there, and Paul accuses him and Barnabas of hypocrisy. So the film ties together the Acts 15 and Gal 2 accounts. The chronology fits with Acts (and goes against the order in Galatians 2), but Barnabas’s hypocrisy is in line with Galatians 2. This is followed by the Jerusalem council which is of such a size so it can be interpreted as either private or public. Peter is persuaded by Paul’s arguments, and so James decides that there is no burden except to keep the (ten) commandments, and there is no mention of the collection or of the letter. Paul and Barnabas then split over whether to go to Rome or not, ignoring both the excuse about Mark from Acts and the explanation in Galatians regarding Barnabas. Next thing, Paul is in Athens (Acts 17) and the film moves on.

One final observation, it is interesting to see how the film’s early baptisms are sprinklings whereas a later baptism is carried out by full immersion.

======

There are two other relevant films that I’ve been unable to cover. The most well known is AD / Anno Domini the TV series from 1985, which I saw when I was a boy, but have not seen since. If any of you who have seen it more recently (or even own it) want to contribute how this films deals with these issues, please do so via the comments.

The other is Roberto Rosellini’s Atti Degli Apostoli which at 5 hours and 42 minutes is almost twice as long as any of the other films. Given that runtime, and since it also downplays the supernatural events recorded in Acts one would expect it to give a good amount of time to these events, and indeed it does. Almost all of the "fourth chapter" is given over to the Council of Jerusalem.

It is interesting that none of these films support the minority conservative chronology (that equates Gal. 1 with Acts 9, and Gal 2 with Acts 11), and that they tend to equate the first visit with Acts 9 and the second with Acts 15, generally downplaying Acts 11 and 12. However, the dispute with Peter (Gal 2:11-14) occurs in various places, both before and after the Council of Jerusalem, in watered down form, or not at all.