Finding Christmas Clips Redux

I talked last week about my attempts to find a decent film clip of the wise men for one of our Christmas services so I thought I would report back.

In the end I went for a clip from Joseph of Nazareth. The wise men segment from this film is relatively concise (particularly when compared to The Nativity Story, although in the end I edited the 4-5 minute segment into one about 2 minutes 15 seconds.

It was an unexpected choice in some ways. The film is not great, and there are some bizarre moments around the birth of Jesus - not least Joseph missing the birth because he is out collecting firewood. But it does have it's merits. I particualrly liked the shot from which the above still is taken which starts off looking back at the wisemen from the front before the camera gently rises up in the air and to the side so it can watch the magi pass below. It somehow catches the strangeness and the majesty of these men from the east arriving in the city. It's also a sort of God shot which is interesting. That said, here, as with many of the Bible Collection's films, the acting / dubbing is poor in places, and it lets this clip down a little bit, but all in all, I think I got away with it.

Similarities Between The Nativity Story and Joseph of Nazareth

I saw The Nativity Story back in November. The night before I watched the Bible Collection's Joseph of Nazareth from the "Close to Jesus" series. Watching the two films in such close proximity I was struck by a number of similarities between the two films and I've been meaning to post something on this ever since.

It is of course only natural that there will be some similarities between the two films as the cover the same incidents (the birth of Jesus) using the same narrative strategy (harmonising the two differing accounts), setting (first century Palestine), and approach (attempting to be historically accurate). But there are also a number of similarities which were quite striking watching the two films in such close proximity. I'll summarise these as a list first of all, and then add a few comments.

• Both films depict Herod as a builder, taking a hands on approach to his building projects.
  
• Both films note how Herod killed two of his sons for plotting against him (even though these events occurred well before the birth of Jesus)
  
• Mary's parents (Joaquim and Anna) feature fairly prominently in both films.
  
• Both films make a point of stressing that Mary and Joseph will not be able to consummate their relationship for a year after their initial betrothal. Both times it's inserted into the dialogue quite awkwardly.
  
• In Joseph of Nazareth Elizabeth knows that Mary is pregnant without being told, and Mary responds by saying "how did you know"? The Nativity Story this is repeated and Mary's response is almost identical "how could you know"?
  
• In both films Joseph finds out that Mary is pregnant after her visit to Elizabeth.
  
• Both films have Joseph carefully checking with Mary that a soldier hasn't raped her.
  
• Neither film has Mary gaining any assistance from other women during the birth
  
• In Matthew, Herod only becomes aware of, and concerned by, the birth of a messiah from Bethlehem after the visit of the Magi. Both films show it as a known concern well before the Magi visit.
  
• Both films prefigure Jesus clearing the temple. In Joseph of Nazareth, Joseph and Jesus are both equally disappointed by the state of the money changers etc. they find in the temple when Jesus visits at the age of 12. In The Nativity Story the comment is made by Joseph alone.
  
• Neither film shows the host of heaven appearing to the Shepherds. In The Nativity Story there is only a solitary angel. In Joseph of Nazareth we see only their reaction.
  
• Neither film includes Jesus's circumcision in Jerusalem, nor the presence of Simeon and Anna.

Now, as mentioned above, a number of these similarities would be expected, particularly as there is a great deal of tradition about Mary's parents, or the "three wise men". The attempts at historical accuracy might even go someway to explaining why the same additional details about Herod are included, even though they require the true timescale to be compressed to accommodate this.

Yet there are also a number of similarities which would be far less expected. Mary's almost identical response to Elizabeth, the awkward explanatory insertion regarding the "year's wait" before marriage is completed, questions about being attacked, or forced, and the comments about the temple (and these are gained from a single viewing of The Nativity Story.

Furthermore, the characterisations in the two films are all very similar. Herod and his son, Joaquim, Elizabeth, Joseph, the magi. Interestingly, it is the character of Mary, where there is actually the most biblical material, where the divergence is greatest. That said consider how similarly Joseph's discovery of the pregnancy is played. Mary and Joseph are reunited after a long time apart, Joseph finds out through someone else's reaction. Mary says very little whilst Joseph cross-examines her, raises the possibility of rape, and the options for divorce are laid out. Joseph goes off to gain advice, but finds himself accused. Mary remains steadfast about her innocence. Once he has had his dream, however, he is then overjoyed when God explains to him in a dream.

Yet consider the potential variations even given the self-imposed restriction of sticking to the biblical text. Mary could have told Joseph before she went away, or she could have outlined clearly what happened more actively, or her father could have (and no doubt would have) been the one to do the explaining. Joseph may not have needed to have options laid out for him by a Rabbi. Mary's assurance could have been shaken by this incident, Joseph may have been less than happy with his own role.

Some scriptwriters like to examine other version of the story they are about to write, others avoid them like the plague lest they interfere with their creative vision. I never had the chance to interview Mike Rich, but I would love to have asked him what his approach is, and if he had seen Joseph of Nazareth. Some of the similarities are quite striking.

Joseph of Nazareth - Scene Analysis

Having recently reviewed Joseph of Nazareth, and posted a review and some scene analysis for the thematically similar The Nativity Story. In fact the prominence of Joseph in The Nativity Story means that these two films are probably the most in depth looks at Joseph in English language film history. Anyway, on to the scene guide...

Joseph the carpenter - (Matt 13:55)
[extra-biblical episode]
Joseph meets Mary - (Matt 13:55)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Annunciation - (Luke 1:26-38)
[extra-biblical episode]
Mary visits Elizabeth - (Luke 1:39-45)
[extra-biblical episode]
Magnificat - (Luke 1:46-55)
[extra-biblical episode]
Mary returns to Nazareth - (Luke 1:56)
[extra-biblical episode]
Joseph discovers Mary is pregnant - (Matt 1:18-19)
Joseph's 1st dream - (Matt 1:20-21)
Joseph tells Mary - (Luke 1:31)
Joseph and Mary married - (Gen 2:18-19 cited)
Census - (Luke 2:1-3, Matt 1:15)
Mary and Joseph at Bethlehem - (Luke 2:4-5)
Birth of Jesus - (Luke 2:6-7)
Shepherds and Angels - (Luke 2:8-20)
Arrival of the Magi - (Matt 2:1-11)
Joseph's 2nd Dream - (Matt 2:13-15)
Slaughter of the Innocents - (Matt 2:16-18)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Joseph and Jesus - (Is 2:2-4, 14:7, 35:1, 25:8, 65:17 cited)
Joseph's 3rd Dream - (Matt 2:19-23)
[extra-biblical episode]
Boy Jesus - (Luke 2:41-51, Luke 12:22-28 cited)
[extra-biblical episode]
[Closing Citation] - (Is 14:7, 35:1, 25:8, 65:17)

Notes
Obviously this film, at least when depicting biblical scenes is a harmonisation of the gospels of Luke and Matthew. There are a few limited references to the Protoevangelium of James (such as the names of Mary's parents), and a fair bit of Josephus (notably regarding Herod and his sons) but otherwise it's Matt and Luke all the way.

At some point later, I plan to post a list of uncanny similarities between these two films, for now I'll simply note how the film omits a few key passages, in particular Jesus's presentation at the temple, and the prophecies about him by Simeon and Anna. We also don't see why the Magi return by a different route. It also omits both the birth of John, and the miraculous events surrounding his conception. It does however include the story of Jesus's trip to the temple.

Speaking of which, one of the things we overhear Jesus say on this occasion are the words from Luke 12:22-28, (Consider the lilies/ravens). It's plausible I suppose that Jesus's great wisdom even at this point included some of the insights he would become famous for as an adult, but somehow the scene didn't ring true for me at least. I find it quite hard to believe this scene really happened as Luke has it. I'd certainly be quite keen to hear the literary/theological arguments for it's inclusion as the sole incident in almost 30 years of Jesus's life.

There are a number of additions to the story. As mentioned above Josephus is used, in particular to flesh out the character of Herod. But there is a fair amount of fiction here as well. Joseph's life in Nazareth, his relationship with his cousins turned zealots and his involvement with Herod are all used to enhance the story. Interestingly, we also see Herod making a rash promise to Joseph in a manner reminiscent of his later promise to Herodias's daughter.

We also get a good range of Joseph's dreams. Three of the four are included, with the common practice of combining the final two being used again here. In this film though we do not see an angel for any of the announcements and dreams. Joseph hears God speak in his own voice. It's an old technique of course, but having seen it used a couple of times recently, it makes me wonder whether you would really do some thing as radical (as it was then) as not divorcing your (apparently) unfaithful wife merely on the strength of hearing your own voice speak to you in a dream.

Having only watched The Nativity Story once but having seen this once and dipped in and out of most scenes a couple of times, I'm actually more familiar with this film than The Nativity Story. I'm planning to watch that again soon though.

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.

Close to Jesus: Mary Magdalene

There’s been so much going on this month, that I’ve been unable to do much reviewing here recently. However, as I have finally got hold of a copy of Abel Ferrara’s Mary (on DVD) then I thought I would start by reviewing the other recent film on the subject, Mary Magdalene from Time Life’s Close to Jesus series

========

2006 has been a big year for films about Mary Magdalene. Although technically 2005 (by a whisker), Abel Ferrara’s Mary gained widespread acclaim early in the year as it played at film festivals before enjoying a limited run in theatres. Sadly it never got a proper release in the US and the UK and so few, in the English speaking world at least, have even heard of it. By contrast, the year’s other film about Mary was so hyped up that it was impossible to avoid. Based on a best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code was always going to be a big deal. Whilst its glimpses of Mary Magdalene are fleeting, it is probably even more influential today, in terms of how people in the west view Mary Magdalene, than the bible.

As Dan Brown would be keen to point out, history has not always been so kind to her. The earliest film about Mary was made in 1914 (Mary Magdalene). Although it is now lost, it appears that Mary was in love with Judas, but discovers Jesus and becomes his follower. In order to stay close to Mary, Judas also becomes his follower. Thirteen years later, Cecil B DeMille would use a similar plot device in his The King of Kings only in this instance Judas would follow Jesus first.

Whilst Mary continued to be portrayed in the majority Jesus films, most portrayed her as a prostitute despite the lack of biblical and early Christian evidence for such a position. But apart from that she had the title role only twice more; in the Mexican film Mary Magdalene (1946), and in the Italian film Mary Magdalene (La Spade e la Croce - 1959) starring Yvonne De Carlo (who had played Sephora in The Ten Commandments).

That is until Lux Vide decided to film four spin-offs from their Bible Collection series. The Close to Jesus series features fictional reconstructions of the lives of four of the more peripheral characters from the Gospels – Thomas, Joseph (of Nazareth), Judas, and Mary Magdalene. These four films effectively sever all ties with the earlier Bible Collection film Jesus. Whereas the role of Mary on that film was played by Will and Grace’s Debra Messing, here the role is taken by Maria Grazia Cucinotta. Likewise Jeremy Sisto has been replaced, by a Danny Quinn. Quinn’s portrayal is halfway between Sisto and Johnny Depp, and is arguably the weakest aspect of the film.

There is another, important but subtle, distinction that needs to be made between the two films. Whilst there is much in Jesus that is interpretative or fictional, those aspects are based on the historical texts of the gospels. One may disagree with how they have interpreted or extrapolated those texts, but essentially they have tried to fill in the gaps to address modern concerns with a historical figure. Mary Magdalene is quite different in this regard. Not only is there insufficient material to use as a reasonable basis for extrapolation, but the film deliberately avoids the Mary of the gospels. So the biblical scenes which include Mary, her exorcism (Luke 8:2), and her presence at his death (Mark 15:40) and resurrection (John 20:1f) are entirely absent. This contrasts strongly with other made for TV films about these characters, such as 2004’s Judas which attempts to construct a credible series of events leading up to the moment that would assure them of their place in history.

That is not to say the story here is entirely unwarranted. Whilst the exorcism scene is absent from this film, the minor details in the opening verses of Luke 8 are incorporated. Mary’s closest friends in this film are called Joanna and Susanna. This typifies the film’ approach – the focus is on Mary and her pre-conversion life, but it locates her at other places in the story where the gospels do not, most notably in the court of Herod. Interestingly, Joanna, here, is not the wife of Chuza, manager of Herod’s household, as in Luke’s gospel, (Luke’s inclusion of this detail suggests that she may have been the original source for the more private details of Herod’s dealings with John, such as Mark 6:20). But this detail - one of Jesus’s followers being intimately acquainted with aspects of Herod’s house – has been credited to Mary instead, which allows it to be explored more fully.

Mary also witnesses various examples of Jesus’s teaching and miracles, in a variety of locations, and the film treats these incidents with varying degrees of respect. For example at times Mary is simply the witness to a piece of teaching or of a miracle. It happens more or less as the gospels record, although obviously interpreted on a visual level. Yet at others Mary’s presence is more intrusive. When, early on in the story, Mary attempts to drown herself she is saved by Peter’s nets as he makes his miraculous catch of fish. Whilst it’s perhaps a playful literalisation of Jesus’s promise to make him a fisher of men, you cannot imagine the gospel writers leaving it out had it truly occurred.

Such intrusions are rare. What this film does do well is put the emphasis on Jesus’s original audience. In most Jesus films, Jesus is the main character. The very nature of having 12 disciples means that few of them get any real screen time, and too much exploration of their histories would disturb the flow of the narrative. An alternative approach is that taken by the fifties biblical epics which focussed on characters who lives were changed by Jesus. In most cases, however, these characters were changed by Jesus’ actions (particularly his sacrificial death) rather than his teaching. The one exception here is Salome (1953) a revisionist version of the deatjh of John the Baptist which ultimately shows the eponymous heroine being changed by Jesus’s words, and climaxes in the Sermon on the Mount.

Here, however, Jesus get a far greater screen time than in those fifties films (plus we get to see his face), but the focus of the film is clearly on one specific member of his audience. This allows the viewer to more readily adopt the position of Jesus’s original audience, and understand some of the exegetical subtleties involved through this fresh angle. For example, Mary’s hitherto idyllic life is brought to an abrupt end in the opening moments of the film when her husband gives her a divorce simply because she is barren. This draws attention to the fact that this was permissible at the time (although certainly under review), whilst also preparing the ground for Jesus’s teaching on it, rooted in equality, and limiting its acceptability. But, Jesus’s call to love your enemies fails to have any initial impact on an embittered and vengeful Mary.

This aspect of the film reaches its climax in the scene where Mary anoints Jesus. It’s a strange episode to choose. Whilst the gospels either leave this woman unnamed (Mark 14, Matt 26, Luke 7) or identify her as Mary of Bethany (John 12), church tradition somehow confused over the differing accounts and the various Mary’s in the gospels, and formulated a mythical Mary Magdalene. This Mary was a repentant, adulteress prostitute saved from a stoning to become Jesus follower, who expressed her gratitude through this dramatic anointing.

Whilst it is, therefore, questionable whether this story had anything to do with the real Mary Magdalene, the film uses its ahistorical perspective to good effect. This scene, coming near the end of the film, is easily its most powerful. By then we are so well acquainted with this Mary, that her freedom from bitterness, and her emotional response give this oft depicted scene fresh power. There’s also a clever touch here, as one of those outraged by Mary’s actions calls her a prostitute, a nod towards the tradition mentioned above which the film categorically avoids.

The film ends sometime after the crucifixion as it started, with a Mary bringing someone healing. There’s an interesting circularity here. The Mary of the opening scenes was happy, and sufficiently at peace with herself that she was able to and care for and heal those around her. Her divorce and her subsequent treatment transformed her into an angry, bitter and hurting woman. Renewed and restored by Jesus she is able to return to her initial calling, although this time in his power. In many ways, though, Jesus has only restored the equilibrium, rather than performed a transformation.

The fact of the matter is that we know precious little about Mary’s life, and I suspect if you asked the makers of this film they would happily admit that this is almost entirely speculation. At the same time, such speculation, if handled correctly, can shed new light on the gospels, and the impact Jesus’s words may have had on his original audiences.