Prefiguring Jesus in Jeremiah (1998)

Way back in 2009 I compiled a scene guide for The Bible Collection's 1998 film Jeremiah and concluded a write up of a few additional comments on it by saying:

I'm going to make a separate post another day to look at the way that the Jeremiah of this film prefigures Jesus, particularly the Jesus from the later film in the same series.

So I thought it was probably about time I got around to it, particularly as somebody asked me about this the other day.

I don't think there is a cast iron case for saying that the filmmakers were trying to make the Jeremiah of their film into a "type" of Christ. However, there are a few points of interest where the film makes a few additions/interpretations which move things in that direction and particularly in the direction of the Jesus of the Bible Collection's own, later, film Jesus (dir. Roger Young, 1999).

This tendency is most pronounced at the start of the film. Early in the film, when Jeremiah is still a child, he goes to the temple and we're led to believe - by his wide eyes if nothing else - that this is his first time in the city itself. There are quite a lot of similarities, between these scenes and those of The Bible Collection's Jesus being left behind at the temple. The visual identification here is quite strong, not least because the both films are shot on the same set, but there are also similarities in the way the two scenes are shot as well. The scenes include shots from behind the groups as they enter through an archway which frames the temple, and point of view and reaction shots as the two boys both take in the sights of the temple for the first time. It can be argued that this is, if not an actual coincidence, then just a result of the nature of the Bible Collection project, but I'm fairly happy with the school of interpretation which takes each film as a visual "text" not limited by authorial intent.

An additional factor in this scenes is that when Jeremiah enters the temple the shots from his point of view and the accompanying reaction shots convey a mild sense of disgust. It's difficult to pin down what this is due to but it's something that the film expands on when Jeremiah returns to the temple as not only an adult, but significantly as an adult who is now seeing these sights through God's eyes as well as his own. (It's interesting that these later PoV shots, then, become a shot from God's PoV, not just Jeremiah's).

Before all that however, we have the scene where Jeremiah hears God's call. It's notable how the film very much interprets and embellishes this scene - in the Bible Jeremiah says he's "young" but that could mean a young man and there's no specific mention of him being caught up in a vision. These combine then to mean that rather than Jeremiah being a young adult who hears God's call, that this Jeremiah is someone who knows from a very early age that they are in some way very special, chosen by God and set apart for a particular role. Again this nudges the portrayal of Jeremiah towards that of Jesus and increases the similarities between the brief, corresponding scenes of young boys with a special divine calling on their lives visiting the centre of worship for the first time.

A while after this the adult Jeremiah revisits the temple and again we get these PoV shots and the suggestion that Jeremiah is unhappy with what he is seeing. As this opening act of the film progresses it becomes clear that there are two things which are disturbing him.

The first seems to be linked to the slaughtering of the lambs. Whilst this isn't verbally expressed it appears that this is more than mere squeamishness, there seems to be some suggestion that Jeremiah thinks his message, and living faithfully before God, means that this rather unpalatable system is a little defunct.

Secondly, however, these point-of-view / reaction shots are also very familiar, for those who have watched a good number of Jesus films at least, to the shots that frequently precede Jesus' clearing of the temple. And true enough, a little while after this Jeremiah ventures down some of the side streets in the temple region and there he encounters some kind of market trader who is selling idols. The seller tries to persuade Jeremiah to buy something, but Jeremiah's outrage at this affront to God is palpable. And so he turns over the tables, in a way that is classically reminiscent of all those other turning the table scenes (for example, no-one lays a hand on Jeremiah or confronts him, they all just stand back and let him get one with it). This is the film's clearest attempt to draw parallels between its protagonist and Jesus - there's no corresponding passage to this in Jeremiah, it pure invention, or perhaps I should say borrowing.

Another such embellishment is the romantic relationship Jeremiah has with one of his near neighbours. The text of Jeremiah does make it clear Jeremiah is not to marry (16:2), but this is a general command of celibacy, there's no indication that this prevented him from marrying a specific woman.

Whilst the Gospels are silent about Jesus' marital status, in Young's film we find a very similar scenario: Like Jeremiah, Young's Jesus has to reject the woman he looks destined to marry to focus on God's call. This is a not uncommon feature of the Bible Collection series which inserts an extra-biblical love story into several of the biblical narratives which it covers, but the similarity is particularly notable here because in both films the lead character is in love but feels the call on his life in incompatible with this particular romantic relationship.Whilst Jeremiah has things work in a different way (the girl is sold as a slave), at its heart Jeremiah still has to reject the girl because of the call God puts on his life. There are several points of similarity with Jesus (1999) - the relationship appears chaste, but at the stage where an engagement looks on the cards. The girl still lives with her family and both families seem to approve. Then the girl is told it is off suddenly and that this sudden change of course is due to God's call.

There are several other notable similarities between these two films. Firstly, some of the parental relationships are similar, in the first half of the film there are strong relationships with at least one parent and the protagonists is very much still under their wing. Ultimately, however, the lead's parents don't fully understand their child's call and things transition from the son being at the heart of the family home at the start of the film to almost no connection with parents in the respective films' second halves. The protagonists' fathers disappear in the second act having once been very prominent and close to their son in the first half of the film. The reasons are, of course,  different - Jeremiah's father's suffers an extreme embarrassment whereas Joseph dies in Jesus - but it seems strange that family relationships that are presented as being so close at the start of the films just disappear without a great deal of regret or mention of them in the second part of the film.

Not unconnected is the similar kind of plot structure the two films share. We start with the protagonist in the family home, there's a brief scene of their childhood, and they look like they are following in the family trade. Then there's a break in those family relationships as God's call on the hero's life starts to come into effect and they leave home. There's a pivotal scene in the wilderness and then their ministry starts, getting up the noses of some, but crucially in both films not all, of the religious and political establishment. Of course, Jeremiah never dies, but there is a scene where he's tied up in a cage in a cruciform pose and hung up high for all the see (and when he's released the camera focusses, briefly, on the damage to his wrists).

A couple of other things that might have been on my mind when I wrote that comment 7 years ago Firstly in the opening scenes - when all is supposedly well in the tribe of Judah - Jeremiah's family arrives in the temple in the middle of some kind of celebratory procession with lots of palm branches being waved in a very similar fashion to those we tend to see in many depictions of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There might be something in the text behind that decision, but, if so, I don't recall it.

Then there's the way that Jeremiah's family are kind of seen as outsiders.At one point Oliver Reed's character asks "Why would God send a prophet from the wilderness when you are surrounded by schooled priests?", but Jeremiah was the son of a priest so this is kind of an odd thing to be added in to the text. Jesus of course was from an unknown family and a backwater town. "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Finally there's the presentation of Jeremiah himself. The biblical Jeremiah's suffering is obviously one of his most well-known characteristics, and this is very much to the fore (corresponding to Jesus which doesn't really give much motive for his persecution at the hands of his enemies, but also Jesus as the suffering prophet in general), but other aspects, particularly ones that are quite unlike Jesus (such as chapters 40-49 where Jeremiah prophesies against other nations) are omitted.

This isn't to say that the filmmakers are seeking to present Jeremiah as a type of Christ, or even that the parallels between the two men, or rather the two portrayals is remarkable, but there are certainly some parallels and some of those go a way beyond what is gleaned from the text itself.
======

Incidentally a previous post on this subject referenced Neil MacQueen'S outline to the film which has since been moved. It is now available (again) at Sunday Software

Dinah and the Shechemites in Film

Having looked at The Red Tent last month I thought I'd things off with a quick look at how different films portray the incident with Dinah, her brothers and the Shechemites. Given that it's a relatively obscure part of Genesis, it has only been covered a few times on the screen, but there are some significant variations between the four depictions with which I am familiar.

The Bible: Genesis (1979)
The first Bible film to cover the story of Dinah was one that pretty much had to. The New Media Bible project was meant to deliver a word for word portrayal of the whole Bible, though in the end only Genesis and Luke were covered and even then I say "pretty much" because certain parts of Genesis (e.g. the Tower of Babel) were omitted.

At the time this film was made the broadly accepted view of what constituted rape was different than it is today. Most, now, (in the UK at least) would agree that what is sometimes called date rape fully qualifies as rape. 36 years ago when this film there was no such cultural consensus. So it's perhaps not surprising that this film depicts the rape of Dinah as being of the more violent variety. She is grabbed, out of the blue, in the town square and pulled off to a more discrete location. This is the only film that depicts the incident in quite such a black and white manner.

In a not-dissimilar vein, it's interesting that as Dinah is "rescued" from her brothers from the smouldering ruins of Shechem, she is shoved around by them as if they are angry with her. I think this blaming of the victim seems to be something the film wants us to see and accept as offensive, though whether this is due to what they see as her complicity in her rape, or her acceptance of her subsequent marriage is unclear.

The strangest thing about this clip is the way in which the men of Shechem are so compliant in accepting their fate. On hearing the news they simply shrug and walk off and the camera neither seems to anticipate a further reaction or find their fate shocking in any way. The scene is only a little longer than 5 minutes.

The Bible Collection: Joseph (1995)
The Bible Collection devotes separate films to the stories of Jacob and Joseph and, perhaps surprisingly, this episode is covered within the longer Joseph film rather than the more obvious location within her father's story. In the cultural understanding of the time, daughters were seen as the property of their father's before marriage.

The story is given quite a more screen time here - around 15 minutes - and is set at a wedding celebration, contrasting the "right" way of doing things, rather than the way Shechem chooses to act. Dinah herself is far younger here: she's very much still a girl rather than a woman. This is a slightly tricky area. Whilst on the one hand marriage did take place at a far younger age (and of course Dinah has not yet been considered ready to be married) the Bible Collection's leading actors are consistently very much of the western contemporary world, ethnically white and of ages to match (e.g. Louise Lombard who was 29 when she played the young virginal Esther in the Bible Collection's 1999 adaptation).

The situation is further complicated by the seemingly flirty eye contact between the obviously underage child and her rapist-in-waiting. When she is suddenly taken ill and is lead out to a back room her attacker makes his move. Whilst the scene makes it clear there was no consent, not least Dinah's screams, I find the eye contact rather troubling. I'm not convinced the film wants to rule out any blame on Dinah's part.

When Hamor subsequently approaches Jacob the idea of these Shechemites getting circumcised is very much Jacob's idea and, again, there are more objections from the sons of Israel than from the soon to be scarred men of Shechem. They attack and give a rather clichéd war cry as they 'sneak' up to the "unsuspecting" city, but the depiction of the slaughter is not very graphic and Jacob's rebuke to his sons is no particularly powerful.


La genèse (1999)
The longest and most interesting portrayal of these events is from Cheick Oumar Sissoko's La Genèse (1999) which retells the story as an African tribal conflict. Like Joseph it does seem to hold Dinah partially responsible. She is depicted as a precocious flirt who, along with a couple of young boys, pushes Shechem too far.

But the film's African perspective highlights other concepts that westerners easily overlook. For example the city dwelling Shechemites resent the nomadic Israelites and criticise thm for being rootless and without culture (all the while Dinah is being held in their city). There's also the grim image of a bloodied sheet being displayed for the waiting crowd's approval. They are made complicit in the act which somehow transforms from an ac of sexual frustration to a political act on behalf of Hamor's subjects.

Perhaps it is a father defending his son, but initially Hamor blames Dinah for what has occurred, but then the film becomes the first to give Dinah a voice. She speaks back and rebukes Hamor and he seems to respond to her chastisement. Throughout the film Dinah is portrayed as a strong woman, unwilling to submit to what the various men and the patriarchal culture expects of her.

When Hamor seeks out Jacob he does not do it face to face initially as Jacob remains mourning in his tent. It is left to Leah to express the family's anger, even in the face of many gifts from Hamor. The idea to tell Hamor's people to get circumcised arises only once Jacob has held a second discussion with his sons.

But in marked contrast to 1979 version this film grimly portrays the Shechemites mass circumcising in wince inducing fashion. Firstly there is the queue of men waiting ominously (and unforgettably) for their appointment with the man with a meat cleaver and then there are the post-operation scenes of the various men hobbling around trying to minimise the pain. I highlights the link between the crowd complicity in Dinah's rape and their communal punishment. Meanwhile their womenfolk just stand by and mock them. The Hebrews mock Shechem also. "His crown has fallen and he can't bend to pick it up"

When the slaughter does come  it is disturbingly thorough. One of the Hebrews gives pause when faced with a baby boy, but a fellow countryman insists in no uncertain terms that all the males should be killed. The only survivor is Hamor - in stark contrast to the text where he also is killed by Simeon and Levi - left to face the cruel implications of his fate: not only has he lost his son and his friends but his tribe will die out with him.

The Red Tent (2014)
I've expressed my views on this film already elsewhere but essentially what The Red Tent does is stress how in the cultural of the time the story occurred/was written rape was primarily about the lack of the father's consent rather than the daughter's. This is why, for example, in that rather troubling passage in Deut. 22:23-29 we find s girl potentially being given in marriage to her rapist, or even stoned, but not being punished if the "rape" happens in the country. The passage simply doesn't start from the perspective that consent is the woman's to give. So in this film Dinah is not taken against her will, but her father and brothers are incensed because Jacob has not given his consent.

The film also has Dinah staying over at Shechem/Shalem's palace the night they have sex which hints at the importance of ancient near east hospitality codes. This further softens up the ground for the brutality of the slaughter scene which follows. It is considerably more violent than any of the previous four.

I must admit I'm in two minds as to what I think about the way this film portrays the "rape". On the one hand it could be seen as powerfully exposing the sexism of this part of biblical culture where a woman didn't even have a right to control who had sexual access to her own body. But on the other hand it could be criticised for airbrushing or infantilising a potentially horrific event into a teenage girl's romance fantasy. The sheer brutality with which the film shows Dinah's brothers wreaking their revenge suggests the former, but even with that Shalem and Dinah's love affair still feels a bit twee.

The Red Tent (2014)

"My name means nothing to you. My memory is dust... I became a footnote, my story a brief detour between the well-known history of my father Jacob, and the celebrated chronicle of Joseph, my brother."

So Dinah (The White Queen's Rebecca Ferguson) introduces herself at the start of both Anita Diamant's novel and this mini-series adaptation directed by Roger Young. The Jacob and Joseph referred to are those we meet in the latter chapters of Genesis - the founding father of Israel and his most beloved son. But this is not really their story; neither is it a conventional retelling of Dinah's own story. This is a fanciful exploration of the women of Jacob's clan on whom rests so much, yet receive so little credit. It's not just a film about Dinah; it's also about Leah and Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah, Rebecca, Tamar and the wife of Laban. It's an attempt to get behind the female names that tend to get skipped over, or only valued for their motherhood, and to look at the events of Genesis from their perspective and provide insights from their point of view.

So this isn't a film for those who might like to term themselves as biblical purists. For one thing the "rape" of Dinah portrayed in the film is nothing of the sort, at least by modern standards. Dinah is presented as a self-determining woman who falls in love with a tribal prince and makes her own decision to sleep with him. But of course in biblical times women were viewed as property of their husbands/fathers. It's at least possible that the prevailing view was that consent to sexual acts on their bodies were not theirs to give but that of their fathers. By this world-view it would be impossible for Dinah to give her consent - it was not seen as hers to give., it was Jacob's. The shocking possibility of that shows us what a radically different world we live in today, but in highlighting the difference the film perhaps strays too far into anachronism. If women really were as oppressed as this - denied consent even over their own bodies - then how likely it is that they would dare to defy this social consensus?

None of this is to suggest that Jacob (Iain Glen) is portrayed as that sort of patriarchal leader. Indeed he too is portrayed at taking a more progressive view of women's rights than the presumed cultural norm. In an early conversation in the titular red tent - the private space of the tribe's leading women - we're told that Jacob treats his concubines (themselves the daughters of Laban's concubines) as proper wives. Not dissimilarly Jacob is "in" on the switch that happens on the day of his first wedding. When Rachel gets cold feet, her similarly smitten sister Leah (Minnie Driver) offers to step in to prevent her embarrassment. Jacob discovers the switch before consummation, but he's happy to go along with the ruse and blame Laban in the morning. This the audience accepts because, really, Laban is the piece's only villain. He is later shown to beat his wife - behaviour that makes Jacob's, at times, rather suspect behaviour seem more acceptable.

Part of the interest of the camp's red tent is it gets to the heart of the question that intrigues so many about polygamous societies: how did the opposing wives get on? The obvious expectation is that there would be all manner of arguments, jealousy and disagreements, though some (mostly male) commentators have sought to suggest that the women would recognise that the system was the best for all and just get on with it as best they could. The film's take is a slightly different one - Jacob's wives are already sisters and the (initial) shared marriage is their idea rather than his (at least initially), furthermore Bilhah and Zilpah are shown as empowered and equal members of the family. I'm not sure it will satisfy feminists any more than it will biblical traditionalists, but it's intriguing to watch such a perspective played out.

The casting here is rather interesting, not least in this respect. Ferguson was excellent as Elizabeth Woodville in The White Queen - one of my favourite historical TV series of recent times. There's much common ground here as well. Both stories take traditional patriarchal stories and tell them from a female point of view - suggesting their leads wielded more power than they are traditionally ascribed. And then there is the similarity in the two character's social standing. Both start off as relatively well off women who fall in love with a man on his way to becoming king. Their marriage for love flies in the face of the conventional marriage-for-strategic-advantage that was expected of them and ends up causing a vast number of deaths. Furthermore, both Dinah and Queen Elizabeth rely heavily on the traditional female wisdom of their mothers, using curses and potions alongside a shared understanding of mid-wifery. It places them at odds with the patriarchal order, gains her not unfounded accusations of witch-craft yet proves to have access to a deeper understanding of the world that the dismissive men could ever appreciate. In fairness this it's not totally inconsistent with many of the beliefs of the time, even if the new-age spin on it is, at times, a bit over the top. The other casting is mixed. It's not hard to accept that Jacob, who the Bible seems to suggest was a fairly shallow man, might be so totally smitten for Morena Baccarin, but casting Minnie Driver as the "plain" one is a stretch too far. If the Leah had really looked like (film star) Minnie Driver, Jacob might never have felt the need to work for that second seven years.

Yet for all the female empowerment it's the actions of Jacob that drive the plot on into the second and third 'acts'. Dinah and the other women voice their displeasure at Laban's treatment of his wife; but it is Jacob who decides to return to the land of his father. Dinah's romantic involvement may be the spark that propels the violence between Israel and the inhabitants of Shechem; but it was Jacob's decision to move to the area and develop closer ties with Hamor that set the wheels in motion.

When the massacre of the Shechemites does comes it's vicious and very bloody. Up to this point everything about the production is typical of Young's work on The Bible Collection. It's filmed in Morocco and the skies, sets, costumes, indeed everything about the look and feel of the film - even the slightly uneven mix of lesser Hollywood stars with local extras - feels like the earlier series. But the massacre is jarringly out of sync with anything from that earlier work. Indeed it feels far more of a piece with the History Channel's recent series The Bible (2013), where the violence was very much ramped up. When I started writing this review I thought that discrepancy very much a weakness, but now writing these words it feels like it might actually be one of the film's hidden strengths. After all here, at least, it can be argued that Levi and Simon/Simeon's violence should shock us. It's an unprecedented tear in the social formalities of the day. Reparation had been made, or, at least, so it was thought. A treaty had been made. Simeon and Levi's act leaves Jacob reeling in disbelief and fear for his tribe's future. It's not insignificant that when this horrific event was written down centuries later, it's still Simeon and Levi who are still specifically remembered as being responsible. In many places Jacob's sons, and their tribes act as one, but not with this. Young's jarring change of gears jolts the viewer out of a relatively homely narrative of mutual sisterhood into the horrors of violent and dominant patriarchy when it operates without restraint.

Despite his horror at the events Jacob still struggles to appreciate the weaknesses inherent in the whole woman-as-property system. Jacob tries to put some of the blame for his son's actions on what he calls Shechem and Dinah's "sin". "There was no sin" Dinah fires back, "we were married...Your sons have slaughtered righteous men". The rift between father and daughter is so great that Dinah flees into the arms of her mother-in-law and the two move to Egypt, allowing the film to continue to interweave it's fictional exploration with the more established story of Joseph in Egypt. That said though, the film starts to become a little contrived in the second half and the points of interest, for Bible film fans at least, start to wane. That said Dinah's eventual reunion with Joseph is touchingly done.

Not infrequently I end reviews by describing them as "an interesting addition to the canon", but in some senses this doesn't quite seem apt given the projects aim to create an alternative story within and around the text of Genesis. Certainly that makes this an interesting experiment which, in turn, throws fresh light on one of the more overlooked parts of the Bible and offers a good deal of food for thought. It isn't for everyone, but, given that the original story is hardly beloved amongst the faithful, criticisms on its original release were rather half-hearted. It's appropriate I feel that The Red Tent is a film which nurtures thoughtful discussion rather than creating unnecessary conflict.

=======

Incidentally, you might like to read the less appreciative, but more humourous and thorough discussion of the film called "159 Thoughts We Had While Watching The Red Tent"

Ishmael in Film - Part 2

This is the the second of two posts about Ishmael in film. The first, it turns out, was rather error strewn, and anyone with any decency would have gone and made the corrections and added the labels and so on before writing the second. He or she would probably also write a better more meaningful post for part two and reply to comments more consistently. But unfortunately, you got me.

There are 6 films that I'm able to lay my hands on that depict Ishmael, but to be honest none of them really do much of great interest with him. This is, I suppose, mainly because he is a minor character. The Bible, and the films that do adapt his story, or rather his part in Abraham's story, are not really interested in him, they are interested in Abraham and Sarah and how they act and react. There's a certain amount of etiology in the Bible's account: Ishmael goes on to be the father of the Ishmaelites (popularly considered to be the descendants of the Arab people), and some of the Edomites (Gen 36) who both become enemies of the Israelites at times (although trusted servants at others - 1 Chron 27:30 for example). Gen 25:18 makes special mention of the Ishmaelites living in "hostility" to all the other tribes.

Essentially though Ishmael is a passive character, acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and to a lesser extent Hagar, but never really an active initiator. The last mention of Ishmael the man is from Genesis 25. He is with Isaac when Abraham is buried (which raises the question as to how contact was made / maintained between the half-brothers) and dies himself at the age of 137.

This doesn't leave scriptwriters a great deal to work with, and although with some characters such a blank sheet might be seen as an invitation to be creative, the need to focus on Abraham means that none of the films really take it.

The Bible (1966)
Sarai takes the initiative here, calling Hagar over and whispering into her ear. She waits for Abram, explains to him her plan. The enmity between Sarai and Ishmael (Gen 16:4) is made explicit early on with Hagar disdainfully comparing Sarai to "dried-up fruits", but it doesn't go to the extent we find in the rest of Genesis as Hagar does not flee from Sarah. The scene then changes to Abram's rescue of Lot (Gen 14), before returning to Ishmael's birth and childhood. But it's Sarah who urges Abraham to send them away, after Ishmael seizes a doll at a celebration of Isaac weaning, and then smashes it and buries it. Sarah again urges Abraham to take action; he is reluctant, but ultimately yields. The narrator adds that God also endorsed the plan in a sentence that sounds too ludicrously anachronistic to be from the KJV but actually is ("Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad"). The next scene is of bright desert sands reflecting the sun and the suddenness of the switch from the previous night-time scene, to the brightness of this scene, is at once beautiful and momentarily painfully glaring. Hagar and Ishmael collapse in the desert and Hagar cries out to God before an angel appears and makes water spring from the ground.

Abraham (1994)
Again everything is Sarai's idea, though here she asks Hagar as her free choice and then proposes it to Abram. Once the baby is born however Hagar makes comments to Sarai about her affair with Pharaoh and then questions her choice of bed for the baby. Hagar then runs away and has a conversation with an angel in line with Gen 16 and including some prophetic words about Ishmael. Hagar and Sarai make up and Hagar gives birth whilst sat on Sarai's knee. But the film is very clear that the child is Sarah's such that even as she is recovering from childbirth, Hagar has to lie there watching Abram and Sarai bring up Ishmael. There's an interesting scene with Abram and Ishmael preparing a sacrifice, which heavily prefigures God "testing" Abraham.

Isaac is born and looks up dotingly to Ishmael, cheering him on as he wrestles with older men and bests them.But as the boys grow older, the tension re-emerges between their mothers.  Sarah fears that Ishmael will do what Hagar tells him, and that Hagar wants to usurp Isaac and make Ishmael the leader. So Sarah persuades Abraham to send the pair away. They go off into the desert (Ishmael with a quiver slung over his shoulder), and struggle for their lives before the visitation from an angel. The spring appears though it's not explicitly a miracle. This, I think, is the only film to show both the times Genesis records Hagar meeting an angel.

Testament: The Bible in Animation - Abraham (1996)
Testament makes the primary focus of the Abraham's whole story, his search for an heir. Right from the start, during Abraham's time in Haran, his failure to find an heir is seen as a big problem, highlighted by both the narration and Sarah's isolation from the children who play around her. Once the move to Canaan is completed it's Sarah's idea for Abraham to have a child through Hagar, the sex is skipped over and the next scene is of a heavily pregnant Hagar still doing tasks for Sarah. Sarah asks "Have you done your work", to which Hagar snaps back "I've certainly done yours". Hagar runs into the desert but is spoken to by angelic/God figure, who tells her to return and not fear Sarah: "Do not be afraid she will be kind".

Again the film seems to skip over another of the more human moments of the story by missing Ishmael's birth. Of all the films this is really the only one to give Ishmael a proper role. He's seen talking to his father and asking "It will be a brother won't it?". It also both shows and mentions Ishmael with a bow and arrow as per Gen 21:20. Ultimately, though it is Sarah who sends Hagar away telling her husband "I will decide". Abraham is reluctant but hears God concur. "Free them" commands this film's God, trying its best to put some kind of positive spin on an episode that doesn't really reflect well on The Almighty.

The Bible: In the Beginning (2000)
Abraham is the main character in the first part of this two part miniseries - indeed even the creation story is narrated by him (to his people). Sarai offers Abram a concubine. He initially refuses, but eventually he visits her tent in the middle of the night. Next scene a heavily pregnant Hagar argues with Sarah and escapes to the desert. Drinking from a pool of water she sees a shadow in the pool and a Godly voice prophesies about Ishmael. Ishmael is born. Abram is happy, Sarai less so. Soon enough she's pregnant and it's Hagar that's in a grump. Isaac's born, Abe's happy again, but soon Sarah becomes all protective and scolds Ishmael. (Hagar and Sarah argue again, Sarah really doesn't come out of her dealings with Hagar with much credit) and soon Hagar's heading back to the desert. Abram weakly tells her God will look after her but the provision of water in the desert is missed out. If that sounds like one of dullest pieces of writing ever to appear on this blog then its because the Ishmael episodes are dealt with in such a dully mundane fashion that it drains any interest from the task of recounting it.

What's a little more interesting though is that Ishmael reappears (at the head of group of horsemen) just before Abraham dies. He and Isaac verbally jostle over pecking order and then Abraham blesses them both equally, making a vaguely 21st century sounding statement about respecting different paths, which sounds a bit forced, but at least it's something of interest in an otherwise turgid portrayal. This is the only film to show the death of Abraham.

The Real Old Testament (2003)
Ishmael doesn't actually appear in this endlessly hilarious version of Genesis, but the chapters 16 and 21 of Genesis are covered and feature Hagar fairly memorably. It's Sarai that suggests Abram taking Hagar as a concubine, and has to explain to him what it actually means. Abram is rather more keen on the plan here than in the other films, and, as he spends his night with Hagar in a sillhouetted tent, is heard triumphantly shouting "I'm young again".

Hagar flees Sarai and meets God in the desert, and as the film doesn't really deal with the story from Genesis 21 that's more or less it. It does however pick up on a couple of parts of chapter 16 that the other film's miss. First is God's prediction that Ishmael will be a "wild ass of a man". In one of Hagar's talking to the camera sequences she clearly sees that as possible. "I have this uncle and he's a wild ass of a man". Also covered is Hagar naming God El-roi in Gen 16:13. God, however, is not impressed: "I'm not going to let that one stick".

The Bible (2013)
Of all the films discussed here, this is the one that simultaneously sexes things, whilst going to the other extreme to portray Abraham as whiter than white. When Sarah suggests that Abraham has his child through her, Abraham is initially vehement "no, no, no, no, no, no, no", but he does anyway. But as he departs from Hagar's tent he leaves the door open for long enough for Sarah and, more crucially, the camera to get a good look in. Hagar sits up, still naked, her beautiful back exposed to the elements. It's a very sexualised image, but in contrast, Abraham, fully clothed walks away as if he has been emotionally unaffected by the whole affair.

We also see Ishmael practising his archery (as per Gen 21:20), and Abraham celebrating his son's prowess. The story then cuts to the rather gratuitously violent story of Sodom before returning to the birth of Isaac. Ishmael and Hagar are dispatched fairly quickly - though there is a heavy implication that it is God's decision and that Abraham is assured by God that they will survive, and prophesies to Ishmael that he will have many children. The camera fades on the two as they walk into the desert and there's no death of Abraham scene for him to feature in.

Apocalypse Then

This is an old review I wrote years ago for a different site, which is now no longer available. I just came across it today and thought I might repost it here. I take no responsibility for the content however - I've only had a chance to skim it, and even then I noticed a reference to CGI which is probably completely out of date now.There have been numerous attempts in the last ten to fifteen years to use the book of Revelation as major source material for a screenplay. Predictably, most of the resulting films have landed somewhere between disappointing and just plain awful. The biggest weakness has generally been low production values. However, this has usually been bolstered by detached, futuristic, interpretations of John’s apocalypse in turn creating fictional scripts that speculate on how Revelation’s bizarre imagery will come to pass in “reality”. Unfortunately, this has sustained the impression many hold that Revelation is a bizarre, virtually impenetrable book, leaving those who feel uncomfortable with such alien end of the world scenarios disillusioned with John’s apocalypse altogether.

It’s a relief, then, that Lux Vide’s The Apocalypse locates its story in the past, preferring to focus on John (played by the late great Richard Harris) and the group of churches in Asia he is responsible for. It is against this background that we see John (who is hiding under the pseudonym Theophilus) receive his visions. The task of covering 22 chapters of the biblical text, whilst building sufficient context around it is so huge that the producers wisely boil it down to its key components. For example, the film recognises the parallel nature of the seven seals / seven trumpets / seven bowls sequences, and wisely focuses, almost exclusively, on the first. By book-ending the film, and the main section of Revelation’s content, with abbreviated forms of John’s own bookends, the gist of the apocalypse is left largely in tact. This abbreviation process is also aided by focussing the non-visionary section of the film on just one of John’s seven churches, that in Ephesus.

The previous twelve films in Lux Vide’s ‘Bible Collection’ series were nearly all named after their protagonist. It seems strange, therefore, that they have not followed suit with The Apocalypse, particularly given the associations of poor quality filmmaking and the lunatic fringe such a title brings with it. As the film unfolds, it becomes clear that it is really about John. The non-visionary parts of the story actually take up the most of the film’s screen time.

So its no surprise that the film’s opening shot briefly introduces us to John, before jumping to Domitian’s announcement of his divinity and then to the Ephesian church. There we are introduced to Irene (who met John many years ago) and Valerius, who we soon find out is a Roman spy. Having worked his way into the church in Ephesus, his next mission is to infiltrate the group of Christians working in the mines of Patmos, where John himself is rumoured to be imprisoned. Domitian hopes that finding John and executing him, combined with a rigorous campaign of violence against the church in Asia, he will be able to stamp out the Christian faith altogether.

Inevitably there are also a few factual quibbles. For example, most scholars question whether the John who wrote Revelation was the same John who was one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles and the reign of Domitian has clearly been shaped to suit the overall narrative. However, this type of deviation is really just a by-product of disseminating the material for a wider audience, which the film does admirably well.

Where the plot really lets itself down is when it begins to deviate from its starting point, overcomplicating matters by introducing sub-plots of escape, power-struggles, pseudonymity and romance - not to mention the painfully inevitable conversion of Valerius. The two main aims of these sub-plots appear to be to add extra interest to the story, and to emphasise just how wise John was. The former falls flat on its face whilst the latter seems largely unnecessary, leaving little grounds for their inclusion.

The film’s other major flaw is its use of CGI. The film’s release has been delayed by two years and during this time CGI come on in leaps and bounds. However, even accounting for that, much of the CGI seems either forced, anachronistic or just poorly executed. The project’s demands are huge – alternating between realistic scenes on earth and supernatural scenes in heaven – and although it’s a worthy effort, the CGI is sadly not up to it. Hence, The Apocalypse is unlikely to be a film that cinephiles, theologians or historians embrace too closely (even though it embraces the style of interpretation favoured by most scholars).

It is to be hoped that such weaknesses can be forgiven by audiences because it is an important film. Artistic interpretations of the Revelation have almost always focussed on the bizarre aspects of the text. This has resulted in the book being gradually nudged towards the fringes of Christian belief where it is less of an embarrassment. Where this project excels is by locating the imagery in its original context so that potential applications of its message to 21st century Christianity can begin to emerge.

The film is an important starting point, turning back the clock on centuries of misinterpretation and over-active imagination. So whilst there are a few weaknesses and potential quibbles, its overall thrust should be loudly applauded.

Jeremiah Notes on Scene Guide

I was a little pushed for time on Friday when I posted a scene guide for Jeremiah, so I postponed writing a few notes on it until today.

The first thing to say is that whilst the vast majority of the material is drawn from the book Jeremiah, there are a few places where the film draws on parts of 2 Kings to fill in the historical gaps.

It's also interesting to note that most of the material taken from Jeremiah, aside from the opening, is taken from chapters 20-30. There's not a single reference from chapters 40-49 (where Jeremiah is mainly cursing the other nations), and only one from 10-19 (Jer 16:1-4). This passage - where Jeremiah is told not to take a wife - and Jer 34:8-11 - where Mattaniah frees the slaves before reversing the decision some time later - are used to insert the film's only real extra-biblical sub-plot where Jeremiah falls in love. This is actually a fairly common device employed by The Bible Collection's films, and in some of the other cases the picture is severely derailed as a result. Here the filmmakers manage to keep it under control so it forms interesting speculation that highlights Jeremiah's sad and introspective character.

Working out this scene guide does give me more of a feel for just how jumbled the book's chronology is. Of course some of this is down to the filmmakers rather than the source material, but material from the siege of Jerusalem, for example, is really spread around in such a way as to make me wonder why. Is there a purpose to this ordering, or was this just not considered important or in any way useful?Overall I think the film does a great job of summarising Jeremiah and putting him in his historical context, and it manages to include most of the book's famous passages. One surprising omission, however, is the story of Jeremiah at the potter's house and the attached sayings (Jer 18:1–23). The film does include the vision of the upturned pot, and perhaps the writers thought that too many pot symbols might be confusing. Even so, I would have thought the potter's house passage would have been the one to be selected.

There are a few things I noticed about the call of Jeremiah. Firstly, the film enhances Jeremiah's call with elements from the call of Isaiah (Is 6). In the book of Jeremiah, there's no mention of a vision, and God touching Jeremiah's lips appears to be more of a metaphor than anything else. We're also not told where this call took place. In the film, however, Jeremiah also sees a vision, twice, and on both occasions it occurs in the temple. It's interesting that the second of these quotes part of Jer 5:14 "I have put my words in your mouth", but cuts off before the use of the word "fire". Instead this element is represented visually as part of Jeremiah's call.

There is actually a further part of Jeremiah's call - the vision of the almond tree, but I noticed that the interpretation of this vision alters some of the details of this vision. The text simply says that the sign means that God is "watching to see that my word is fulfilled". But the film expands this to say "as this tree is in a hurry to sprout, so God is in a hurry to carry out his work".

Lastly, I'm going to make a separate post another day to look at the way that the Jeremiah of this film prefigures Jesus, particularly the Jesus from the later film in the same series.

Jeremiah - Scene Guide

I've been working away on a scene guide for the Bible Collection's Jeremiah ever since I re-watched it a couple of months ago. Of all the scene guides that I have done to date, this has certainly been the most difficult to put together. Not only is Jeremiah the Bible's longest book (based on number of words), but it's chronology becomes increasingly unlinear the closer you look. Furthermore, an odd verse can carry a great deal of narrative weight, but trying to find it, even with the wonders of the internet, can be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As well as my guide that follows below, I would also like to recommend an excellent outline of this film by Neil MacQueen. MacQueen's outline gives timings and descriptions rather than verses like my own, so the two complement each other quite well.

Book of the Law Found - (2 Kings 22)
Jeremiah's ancestry - (Jer 1:1)
Josiah's Passover - (2 Kings 23:21-23)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Josiah enters Jerusalem]
Call of Jeremiah - (Jer 1:4-10)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Nebuchadnezzar crowned]
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's Girlfriend]
Prophecy of the Almond Tree - (Jer 1:11-12)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's first sacrifice]
Prophetic vision/2nd call - (Jer 4:22; 5:28-29, 14)
Jeremiah prophesies at the temple - (Jer 7:1-11)
Jeremiah beaten - (Jer 20:1-2)
Overturned pot - (Jer 1:13-19)
Jeremiah told not to take a wife - (Jer 16:1-4) (complains)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah meets Baruch]
Prophecy about fall of Jerusalem - (Jer 22:1-5)
King tears and burns the scroll. - (Jer 36:1–24)
Jermiah asks Baruch to re-write scroll - (Jer 36:28)
Babylon invades Jerusalem - (2 Kings 24:1-12)
Temple stripping & deportation - (2 Kings 24:13-17, Jer 27:19-20)
Jeremiah the ox-yoke and Hananiah - (Jer 27:1-28:17)
Jeremiah imprisoned in courtyard - (Jer 32:1-3; 36:31)
Jeremiah calls for surrender - (Jer 21:1-9)
Mattaniah frees the slaves - (Jer 34:8-10)
Jeremiah put in prison - (Jer 37:11–16)
Mattaniah unfrees the slaves - (Jer 34:11)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Judith killed]
Jeremiah's complaint - (Jer 20:7-9)
Jerusalem under siege - (Jer 52:1-6)
Mattaniah seeks God's word - (Jer 37:17-20)
Word against Jerusalem - (Jer 21:10)
Officials speak against Jeremiah - (Jer 38:4-5)
Promise of Return - (Jer 32:37-40)
Jeremiah calls again for surrender - (Jer 20:4, 38:17-20)
Jeremiah thrown in a cistern - (Jer 38:6)
Ebed Melech frees Jeremiah - (Jer 38:7:13; 39:15-18*)
Jeremiah confronts Mattaniah - (Jer 23:1-2, 38:17-21)
Jeremiah buys a field - (Jer 32:6-15)
Babylon capture Jerusalem - (Jer 39:1-3, 52:6-7)
Mattaniah captured fleeing - (Jer 39:4-5, 52:7-9)
Mattaniah's sons killed, blinded - (Jer 39:5-7, 52:10-11)
Jeremiah freed - (Jer 39:11-12)
Jerusalem destroyed - (Jer 39:8-10)
God promises to rebuild the temple and the people's hearts - (Jer 31)

Notes
I've chosed to call Jeremiah's primary royal opponent by his original name Mattaniah, rather than the name Zedekiah which was given to him by Nebuchadnezzar as this is what the film calls him throughout. Interestingly scripture mainly calls him Zedekiah.

I have a few more points that I'd like to make on this, but I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll return to this task next week.

Edit: This can now be found here.

Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah

As I've mentioned here in the past I currently lead a course called Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years where we look at a different book of the Bible every month. In July we'll be looking at Esther and given how this story is a popular one with filmmakers (see all posts on Esther films), and how our baby is due any minute, I thought I might use some extended clips from one or two of them.

One of the Esther films I have always liked is the Bible Collection's version. It was one of the first in the series I watched, and it was perhaps the first time that I realised that the early part of the story wasn't some fairy tale love story, but that of state-sanctioned rape. It's possible that Esther enjoyed the glamour of it all, but the Bible certainly doesn't mention that. (Having said that even this film hints at a love story. Note the shot above - the first time the camera gazes upon Esther - and how the intimate close up and soft focus suggest romance). Naturally, then, this is one of the clips I'm thinking about showing, so last night I began to re-watch it.

The first thing I noticed was that both Ezra (below) and a young Nehemiah appear in this film. This was a little frustrating as I had hunted for relevant film clips during the last two months, if only to find a suitable image for the Through the Bible... blog. But having studied those books in some depth now it was interesting to see how the film treated the characters.Of the two, it's Ezra who gets the most screen time. Ezra's a friend (or disciple?) of Mordecai and we meet him even before we meet Esther. As a thief is dragged away by the Persian guards, Mordecai voices his dismay at the likely severity of the thief's punishment; he will have his hand cut off. When Ezra replies that such is the Persian way Mordecai begins to reply. "It's not the harshness Ezra, it's the absence of clemency. We Jews should remember when we write our own laws..." but he is then cut off by the arrival of Haman.

There's a fair bit packed into Mordecai's statement. Firstly, it clarifies that this Ezra is the same man who will go on to lead the Jewish people, and establish them as a people who (actually) follow the law. Lest their be any doubt, a little later he advises Mordecai not to let Esther "marry a foreigner". But there's more to it than that. Whilst the books of Ezra and Nehemiah present their leading man taking the people back to the law of Moses, there are also a few differences. Scholars disagree as to how much input Ezra had in the process, and whilst Deuteronomy seems to have been a written text by the time of Josiah, some claim that not much else was actually in written form by this point. Mordecai's statement seems to suggest that the laws weren't written by that point, and that Ezra was amongst those responsible for writing them down.

But there's more to it as well. Whilst Mordecai is shown as older and wiser, it doesn't appear that Ezra takes a great deal of notice of him. Indeed it's generally a very unflattering portrayal of Ezra; he comes across as arrogant and judgemental. There's very little compassion and this tends to be underlined by the actor's harsh an unattractive face. So the film doesn't seem to think a great deal of Ezra and is keen to show that not everyone was behind his abrasive approach to reform.Nehemiah's appearance (above) is briefer and he appears much younger than Ezra. There's some debate as to which of these two men acted first, but the film seems to back the theory that Ezra came first and needed Nehemiah's work to complete the job. This again suggest a fairly low opinion of Ezra. Those who value his input more highly tend to suggest that he was completing Nehemiah's work and not vice versa.

Nehemiah is also portrayed more positively. Whilst still not classically good looking he has a soft, endearing face, and his demeanour suggests he is humble, receptive and teachable. He is, of course, being tutored in the art of wine tasting, but there's enough in this brief vignette to hint at how this Nehemiah's future might pan out.

There were a few other points that I noticed. Firstly, in the film Ezra links Haman to the Amalekites of King Saul's time. This is something I'd missed before, and probably only picked up because it's significance is enhanced in the 2006 Esther film One Night With the King. Both films draw on a Jewish tradition that considered the Amalekite King Agag (whom Saul spares and Samuel kills in 1 Sam 15) to be the ancestor of Haman who is described in Esther 3:1 as "Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite".The film actually pays quite a lot out of attention to the various names. For example, as with the Bible, Esther is originally called Hadassah, but as she is taken to the palace Mordecai tells her to change her name to Esther - a Persian name. Later on the chief Eunuch, Hegai, somewhat awkwardly, expounds the meaning of the name. It's a variation on the name Ishtar - the Babylonian goddess of love. It's kinda funny that originally this name was chosen to sound un-Jewish, and yet these days Esther it's considered a classic Jewish name.

The film also calls Esther's husband Ahasuerus. This is in line with the original texts, but most translations these days use Xerxes instead. Whilst it's likely that Ahasuerus and Xerxes are one and the same, I'm glad the film sticks with what's in the text rather than try and interpret it in order to make the story seem definitively historical.

All this and I'm only about 40% of the way through the film! I do seem to recall that the opening part of the film is the strongest, but we'll have to see. The film is already quite different to how I remember.

Thoughts on Jeremiah (1998)

I got an email asking me for my thoughts on The Bible Collection's Jeremiah (1998) so I thought I may as well post them here so anyone else who's interested could read them as well. First off, I must admit that it's been a while since I watched this film in its entirety, so I reserve the right to change my mind about it when next I watch it.

Overall this is one of my favourite entries in the Bible Collection series. This may be partly due to the fact that it was one of the first in the series I watched and therefore things like the (seemingly) obligatory introduction of a love interest didn't bother me to the same extent as it did 10 or so films later.

The other main reason I liked it was far more positive. Prior to watching it I knew very little about Jeremiah, and considered his work rather dull. I believe that it's the longest book in the Bible if you count the number of words rather than the number of chapters. And most of it is fairly miserable prophecies. There's the odd high point - lots of people love to quote 29:11 (usually out of context) - but it's a hard book to really get into both because of it's size and it's make up. It's the biblical studies equivalent of exploring Russia.That said, what the film did for me was draw my attention to just how much narrative there is in the book; to make the links between Jeremiah and the other bits of the Old Testament that I was more familiar with; and to give me the broader context in which to read Jeremiah's prophecies. Most of the information was already there, but now I could see how it fitted together - perhaps the equivalent of being given a good map of Russia, or even a Lonely Planet guide or something.

There are a few memorable scenes in the film. One image that stands out is the discovery of the lost book of the law in the days of Josiah. This is shot from both inside and outside the sealed compartment which it has been stored in all these years. There's some question as to whether this passage should be taken as literally as the film takes it, but it's a memorable interpretation nevertheless. The PoV shot taken from inside the compartment almost makes the lost scroll a character in itself. It draws attention to the scroll's story, lost and neglected for years and now finally liberated.Another sequence that sticks in the mind is the one in which Jeremiah hears God's call. This is shown as a flashback if I recall correctly, and the child actor employed in the role of young Jeremiah does a decent job.

I mentioned the love interest above, but I seem to recall a scene where Jeremiah and his girlfriend are separated which is fairly powerful. It I remember rightly this spurs Jeremiah on to follow God's call more strongly. It's all extra-biblical of course, but it's an interesting hypothetical character motivation, and adds to the sense of melancholy that comes through so powerfully from Jeremiah's writings.Other memorable moments include those where Oliver Reed's General Safan throws Jeremiah in a hole, where Jeremiah prophecies with a yolk around his neck and the scene where his prophetic writings are thrown into the fire bit by bit. The film draws to a close around the time of the exile to Babylon under Zedekiah / Mattaniah and these scenes are also fairly striking.

There are a few other places that anyone wanting to read more about this film should check. Firstly the Prayer Foundation have a review featuring a few extra photos. There's also a few comments by Peter Chattaway at Canadian Christianity. Lastly there is some footage of the film available at Video Detective - it's the trailer for a 4 film set which also includes Esther, Solomon and Genesis: Creation and Flood.

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.

Joseph of Nazareth (2000)

Whilst the number of films about the Virgin Mary could hardly be called excessive, Joseph of Nazareth (2000) is the first film ever to make her husband the central figure. This is no doubt due to church tradition which, whilst it has honoured both Mary and Joseph, has given Mary special reverence. Interestingly, only two of the four gospels include an account of Jesus birth, and their authors choose to tell the story from differing perspectives. Luke's account places Mary at the centre of his prologue. So the narrative starts with a tale about Mary's relatives who will later take her in once Gabriel has told her of God's plan. We are given Mary's responses (immediately, and at length in the words of the Magnificat), detail about the birth where it is she who swaddles Jesus, and later ponders what has happened.

By contrast, Matthew's account deals with the story from Joseph's perspective. The opening genealogy immediately establishes his credentials, and we are quickly assured of his righteousness. The annunciation is only implied, but Joseph receives no less than four dreams. Joseph is cast then in a heroic role, righteous, not wishing to disgrace Mary, and then cast as the active husband whose faithful and decisive actions rescue their child from peril.

So, all in all, Joseph's chance to have a leading role is long overdue, and with thirteen bible films already under their belt, the Bible Collection clearly decided they were the people to do it, including it as part of their "Close to Jesus" series.

Like many of the Bible Collection films, Joseph of Nazareth fuses the biblical narratives with fictional exposition, quotations from other passages of the bible, and relevant extra-biblical history. The latter, as elsewhere, is presented in compressed form, so the deaths of Herod's conspiring sons, occurs at the same time as Mary's pregnancy whereas in reality these events unfolded over a five year period some time before a likely date for Jesus's birth.

Unlike many of the other Bible Collection films, however, it avoids turning the relationship between Mary and Joseph into some kind of soap opera romance, a smart move which enables deeper emotions to surface. Sadly, other aspects of the film do not fair so well. Joseph just happens to be the best carpenter in the nation, so much so that he is hauled off to do some woodwork for Herod at the same moment the angel is appearing to Mary. The scene where Joseph haggles with a despicable innkeeper is simply terrible. Furthermore, at the moment of Jesus's birth, Joseph just happens to have popped out to collect some firewood. Then there is Joseph dashing over the rocks with baby Jesus to escape one of Herod's soldiers. Fortunately, the soldier in question proves to be a cross between Gollum and Buster Keaton and falls to his death chasing after a ornate necklace Joseph just happened to have to hand. Finally, the incident where Jesus as a boy is left at the temple proves to be so stressful that it leads to Joseph's death, although this may be just his disappointment that the Son of God turns out to be so annoying.

Added to this is the uneven acting, which is embodied, in particular, in Tobias Moretti's portrayal of Joseph. Moretti absolutely nails some scenes yet seems to flounder in others. Stefania Rivi's Mary is perhaps the best overall performance in the film, but there are far too many at the other end of the scale. Worst of all is the role of Herod's seer, who turns in what is possibly the hammiest performance in any biblical film. It doesn't help that as he is led away to be executed Herod's sycophantic courtiers re-enact the laughing scene from Austin Powers.

One of the issues that is often discussed surrounding the nativity story is that of Mary's perpetual virginity. Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers hold that those listed in Matt 13:55 were either Jesus's cousins, or Joseph's children from an earlier marriage. The film dabbles in these traditions, but ultimately seems to dismiss them. In the opening scenes Joseph reveals he had previously been betrothed, but tragedy struck before he had married. Similarly, we are introduced to Joses, Simon and Judas, who are Joseph's nephews, but Judas and Joses are killed before the end of the film. Simon survives, but there is no mention of Jesus's sisters, nor the most important of his relations, James, who went on to lead the early church. It's a strange position to adopt, seemingly leaving Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians all unsatisfied.

It's not all bad however, the opening scenes, and those of the betrothal and the annunciation are believably and sensitively realised. At 37, Joseph considers himself too old for this young Mary, agreeing to marry her more as a favour to her father than anything else. Yet the film makes their relationship believable. There is plenty of love, but not necessarily romantic or sexual love. Joseph is part father figure, part husband, part friend, and part co-parent. It's a complex relationship, and given the very low regards which our culture has for arranged marriages, it would have been far easier for the film to opt simply for a romance driven relationship. Yet it is to the film's credit that it manages such sympathetic depiction of this relationship. It's just a shame that the strength shown in this aspect is marred by so many weaknesses elsewhere.

Solomon (1997) Scene Analysis

I reviewed Roger Young's Solomon (1997) last week, so here is the corresponding scene analysis. The film is a fairly comprehensive treatment as it starts before Solomon becomes King (1 Kings 1), and continues on to after his death and the reign of his successor. Since only Solomon's birth is mentioned in 2 Samuel, film covers pretty much all of the historical accounts about Solomon. It also interweaves the narrative of his life with quotes from the three books of wisdom associated with him - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.

Part 1
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Adonijah plans to become king - (1 Ki 1:5-8)
Abishag selected - (1 Ki 1:1-4)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Bathsheba informs David - (1 Ki 1:9-35)
Solomon anointed king - (1 Ki 1:38-53)
David crowns Solomon - (1 Ki 2:1-9, 1Ch 28:1-21)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Death of David - (1 Ki 2:10-12)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Adonijah and Abishag - (1 Ki 2:13-22)
Deaths of Adonijah - (1 Ki 2:23-25)
Joab Takes sanctuary - (1 Ki 2:28-34)
Solomon asks for Wisdom - (1 Ki 3:4-15)
[10 years later]
Solomon sets up tribes - (1 Ki 4:7)
Solomon marries Pharoah's daughter - (1 Ki 3:1)
Solomon's many wives - (1 Ki 11:1)
2 women and a baby - (1 Ki 3:16-28)

Part 2
Solomon builds the temple - (1 Ki 5:1-6:38, 11:28)
Dedication of the temple - (1 Ki 8:1-9)
God appears to Solomon again - (1 Ki 9:1-9)
Queen of Sheba - (1 Ki 10:1-13)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Various proverbs - (Pr 6:6; 30:25, Pr 1:7, Pr 7:2, Pr 22:6, Pr 12:1, Pr 11:12, Pr 12:10, Pr 15:1, Pr 17:14, Pr 17:27-28, Pr 6:16-19)
Sheba's acclamation - (1 Ki 10:6-7)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Song of Solomon - (SoS 1:2)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Quotes from Ecclesiates - (Ec 2:8, Ec 1:8-9, Ec 1:13, Ec 1:18, Ec 2:1-26, Ec 3:20, Ec 3:1-22, Ec 8:14-17, Ec 3:11, Ec 6:11, Ec 9:11, Ec 12:1-8)
Solomon's offering to Ashtoreth - (1 Ki 11:1-6)
God rejects Solomon - (1 Ki 11:9-13)
Jeroboam's Rebellion - (1 Ki 11:29-39)
Solomon tries to kill Jeroboam - (1 Ki 11:40)
Solomon's death - (1 Ki 11:41-43)
Israel Rebels Against Rehoboam - (1 Ki 12:1-17)

Notes
As noted above, the screenplay for this film incorporates phrases from three of the books commonly attributed to Solomon. These fall into three self contained sections. The first covering a variety of Proverbs, the second is a single quote from Song of Songs/ Song of Solomon, and the final section is an abridged summary of Ecclesiastes. There are a number of points to make here.

Firstly, is this self containment neat or lazy? On the one hand it certainly was a lot easier to write this scene analysis than it will be to write one for Peter and Paul. One the other hand it seems unlikely that Solomon would deliver these proverbs in the public, but ad hoc manner he does here.

This links nicely to my second point - what does this film consider the relationship between the finished books we have and the king who is routinely associated with them? Most scholars would consider it unlikely that he was the author of the final versions of these books as we have them, but would consider them to be at least derived from him in some way. The film cleverly lands in fairly neutral territory in this regard. These works have clearly been associated with Solomon, and he delivers them in semi-formal fashion. Yet, at the same time, they are far from being the finished product. The words used resemble the biblical text closely enough to suggest that perhaps someone wrote them down at a later stage, or that Solomon himself had them memorised and was able to recite them to a scribe/write them down himself at a later date.

Thirdly, the abridged summary of Ecclesiastes is very neat, and incorporates much of the book, particularly its order and most famous passages, and flows very smoothly. Ben Cross's acting here also makes this scene very effectively. It would certainly form a nice video clip for a bible study group looking at Ecclesiastes. The same could be said for the passage from Song of Songs.

Finally, whilst the film does very well at depicting Solomon's fall from grace as a gradual process, there is no doubt that the break-up with the Queen of Sheba is displayed as the most significant. It is this event that prompts the words of Ecclesiastes, and sees a significant rift occur between him and his council. This is underlined by the length of time given to this episode (which takes just one chapter in the bible).

It is always telling with a biblical film how they distribute their screen time. The comparison is made simpler by films such as these which divide into two parts. The material depicted here covers approximately twelve chapters from 1 Kings. Yet the halfway point occurs after only the first few chapters. The chapters where Solomon builds the temple are passed over fairly swiftly, before the film then spends quite some time on the romance between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (Ch. 10). Admittedly this section is also inflated as this is where the wisdom quotations occur. The film also spends sometime examining the lesser known events of chapters 11 and 12, which is most welcome.

A couple of further observations. Firstly, the dedication of the temple scene is played down somewhat. In Kings, this dedication is accompanied by a major blood sacrifice ("so many sheep and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted" 8:5), and God responds by filling the temple with a cloud (symbolic of his glory). Here there are neither, although a bolt of lightning does strike as the doors are shut.

It's also interesting that whilst this is one of the more honest accounts of these events one thing is still glossed over. The role of Abishag here is changed into some form of herbalist, rather than her somewhat more bizarre role as a human hot water bottle in 1 Kings 1:1-4. Whilst the text is clear that "the king had no intimate relations with her", she certainly went into his bed.

One final alteration to note. In scripture, the arrival of the Queen of Sheba is the next major event after the dedication of the temple, suggesting that the visit is triggered by the dedication (see for example 1 Kings 8:41-43). Solomon's wisdom is in building this temple rather than the case of the 2 women and the baby (what would have happened if neither woman had reacted, or if both had?)

Solomon (1997)

Solomon has always seemed a strange choice of biblical hero. In fact, it’s questionable whether he is a hero at all. Inheriting a large, politically secure kingdom, and in possession of a God given gift of wisdom, he does little more than solve a tricky dispute, build a temple, and impress the queen of Sheba. One could argue for his contribution to literature, but it’s unclear to most scholars exactly how much he had to do with the wisdom books which bear his name. Conversely, his building projects bankrupted the nation’s goodwill, whilst his marrying 700 wives left him spiritually desolate (presumably someone else planned all the weddings).

It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that there are relatively few films about Israel’s most enigmatic monarch. There’s a collection of early silents of course, plus one or two other minor films such as the one made for the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series, but, for years, King Vidor’s Solomon and Sheba (1959) was the only major film treatment of the story.

Thankfully, the Bible Collection did decide it was worth covering, and overall they have far outstripped Vidor’s film (which was little more than an orgy scene padded out with a trite storyline).

Perhaps the major reason for the film’s success is the quality of the acting.
This has been uneven across the Bible Collection as a whole. Whilst the series has used many well-known actors, these have generally been supported by relative unknowns. Rarely have these unknowns performed as well as they do here. Richard Dillane, Ivan Kaye, and Dexter Fletcher – all with only a handful to TV work to their names at the time of filming – are all impressive in the roles of Jeroboam, Adonijah and Rehoboam. Dillane is particularly good as Jeroboam who rises from labourer to Solomon’s closet confidant, and ultimately his successor.

The title role is played by Ben Cross, best known for his portrayal of another Jewish hero, sprinter Harold Abrahams in Chariots of Fire (1981).
Whilst, in real life, it is Abrahams’ counterpart, Eric Liddell, who is best remembered, it is actually Cross’s performance that makes the film so memorable. His burning intensity typifies the drive required of champion sprinters, and his smouldering, glowering stares manage, paradoxically, to leave the viewer both convinced that Abrahams will win whilst fearing that, somehow, he won’t.

Cross’s portrayal here is similarly complex, perfectly capturing a king famed for his wisdom, but crippled by his folly; loved for his vision, but blinded by love. His first few steps are uncertain, but he quickly finds his stride – the transformation is subtle yet utterly convincing. Later on, Solomon drifts away from his God, but the deterioration is depicted so gradually that it is impossible to work out where is really started to go wrong. At one point, Cross’s Solomon is so charismatic that it almost threatens to undo the logic of the narrative. He makes his case for religious tolerance so convincingly, that any social commentary intended by the filmmakers falls by the wayside.

But the film has many other strengths besides its acting. Roger Young has been at the helm for a number of The Bible Collection's best efforts including Moses and Jesus, and his direction is generally good here as well. For example, by placing less reliance on dialogue than looks and mannerisms, the Solomon-Queen of Sheba sub-plot is realised far more convincingly than the extra-biblical romances in many of the other Bible Collection films. At the same time, it is let down by being a little overlong. Whilst this was no doubt to emphasise the pivotal nature of this relationship, that is made quite clear by the following scenes, and the two together tend to hammer home the point a little too much.

What is surprising about these scenes is that they almost entirely eschew quotations from Song of Solomon, in favour of crass, but epic-sounding, dialogue such as "she is my missing arm. No, she is my entire body". Only one line from Song of Solomon stood out - "how much better are your kisses than wine?" Elsewhere, however, the film does a generally good job of incorporating Solomon’s writings into the narrative, thanks to Bradley T. Winter's strong script. The scene following Sheba’s departure, where Solomon recites several portions of the book of Ecclesiastes is particularly effective. There is also a fairly generous helping of proverbs. Thus the film links Solomon to his writings in the following order - Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes - in contrast to Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes which many favour. But then the Bible Collection series has always been good at taking an alternative look at things, and thankfully on this occasion this strength is more than matched by the strength of the film as a whole.