Golgotha - Additional Comments

I recently re-watched parts of Julian Duvivier's Golgotha and was really struck again by what an impressive film this is visually (see my earlier review of this film). So I thought I'd discuss a couple of the shots in particular, as some of them are more than worthy of note. The picture quality on these isn't brilliant, mainly as I only have a DVD archived copy of this film from VHS, but hopefully they are sufficient to give you the idea. Click on images to enlarge them (as ever).

This first shot is the crucifixion from the disciples point of view. The crosses are only just distinguishable on the horizon, as the camera focuses its attention on the disciples who stick together even though they have deserted their master. There's also significance to their location high up and just outside the city's boundary. They may have deserted Jesus (temporarily), but they have left Jerusalem and that which is related to it.

One of the most striking scenes in the film is the trial scene in front of a huge crowd. Whilst this scene is arguably problematic from an anti-Semitism point of view, the film's latter association of the Romans with the pre-WWII Nazis (see my review for details) is a significant mitigating factor. There are two particular highlights. The first is this shot of Jesus foregrounded with Pilate washing his hands. The water temporarily obscures our view of Jesus, and there are various association that could be made with this imagery - it implicates us in the action, as well as evoking ideas of cleansing and approach to Jesus through the waters of baptism.

The second shot is the one that ends the scene. Having filmed the action in close up on the stage, the camera reverse swoops back across the crowd - implicating them visually in the scene that has just unfolded. Given that this film was made in 1935, the technical prowess required for such a shot is breathtaking.

The film also makes very interesting use of point of view shots. Aside from this film, Jesus films tended to avoid taking a shot from Jesus's point of view until the 1970s. Here, however, the road to the cross scene is littered with significant examples of Jesus looking at members of the crowd, the path ahead of him etc. This shot is taken just after he has fallen, and is particularly interesting because of it's low angle, and the dominance of the soldier over Jesus that it suggests.

Another interesting point of view shot occurs on the Emmaus Road at the end of the film. Jesus's approach to the two walking along the road has been shown with varying degrees of success in Jesus films, mainly revolving around the question of where exactly did Jesus come from. Here the issue is circumvented by showing the shadows of the two people on the road, and the gradual approach of a third shadow - that of Jesus.

The final point of view shot I'd like to discuss is this one taken of the temple as the curtain is torn in two. Here it's not Jesus's point of view that the camera adopts, but that of his father. It's a high angle God-shot, which then cuts to the despair felt by the priests that are present. At least one of them interprets it as a sign of God's judgement, but again this scene gives a somewhat sympathetic portrayal of the Jewish faith.

In addition to this film being the first to included shots from Jesus's point of view, it also appears to be the first to show the nails being hammered through Jesus's wrists rather than his hands. Today this is the more popular approach, particularly since it has been supported by archaeological evidence, but then it's a startling case of going against the text (e.g. John 20:24-27). That said, I think that the case for the nails through the wrists rather than the hands is based on more than that particular archaeological discovery since that was the discovery of an ankle bone rather than a wrist. If memory serves it is more linked to the hands inability to support the body's weight sufficiently.

Finally, I couldn't help but note the similarity between this shot of Judas hanging himself and that from DeMille's 1927 film The King of Kings. This could of course be due to both directors paying tribute to an earlier painted work (DeMille was particularly keen on this), but I've not been able to find one that this shot mirrors as closely as it mirrors DeMille, so I suspect this is something of a nod to DeMille's film.

If so, it's an interesting choice. These two films are seen very differently by critics today. DeMille is frequently mocked for his excessive, gaudy style, whereas the handful of people who have been lucky enough to see this film usually praise it quite highly. It seems, though, that Duvivier, at least, didn't consider himself to be above DeMille, at least not at this stage in their respective careers. It could, of course, be argued that it was only after The King of Kings that DeMille really moved in that direction.

As an addendum, someone recently contacted me asking how the Last Supper scene was composed. As can hopefully be scene from this screen grab, it's clear that the scene is not meant to reference Da Vinci's famous painting, which is the usual touchstone on this particular moment in the story. I've chosen this shot in particular as it shows Judas outside of the group - shot as if he his hesitating to be certain this is really the decision he wishes to make. It also suggests his exclusion from the party, and hints that this existed prior to his decision to betray his master.

Golgotha (1935) Scene Guide

I wrote a review for Julian Duvivier's 1935 Jesus film Golgotha when I first viewed it last year. As I hadn't started this blog by then I never got around to writing up a scene guide, but this weekend, I finally got around to it. Like the scene guide for the Indian Jesus film Dayasagar whilst it is a bit more of a challenge working out which episodes from the life of Christ, it is surprising how much of it one can decipher. As usual, this scene guide follows my citation policy.

Plot against Jesus - (John 11:45-57)
Triumphal Entry - (Mark 11:1-11)
Cleansing the Temple - (Mark 11:15-18)
Taxes to Caesar - (Mark 12:13-17)
Last Supper - (Mark 14:12-31)
Gethsemane - (Mark 14:32-42)
Arrest - (Mark 14:43-52)
Caiaphas Trial - (Mark 14:53-64)
Mocking - (Mark 14:65)
Pilate 1st trial - (Mark 14:66)
Herod Trial - (Luke 23:1-5)
Crowds reject Jesus - (Luke 23:6-12)
Scourging - (John 19:1-3)
Pilate 2nd trial - (John 19:4-16)
Road to the cross - (Luke 23:24-26)
Crucifixion - (Mark 15:24-32)
Death - (Mark 15:33-41)
Burial - (Mark 15:42-47)
Women at the tomb - (Matt 28:1-10)
Road to Emmaus - (Luke 24:13-35)
Jesus Appears to Disciples - (Luke 24:36-39)
Thomas - (John 20:26-29)
Restoration of Peter - (John 21:15-19)

Notes
The film appears to have originally released under the title Ecce Homo. The title was changed on it's release to American audiences.

I noted in my review of this film how unusual it is to see John 18:6 portrayed on screen, even claiming that as far as I was aware "no other film has shown this incident". I've since realised that another of my top ten Jesus films also depicts this incident - From the Manger to the Cross (1912).

It's interesting seeing Judas betray Jesus with a kiss in a French film. Firstly, the way Judas kisses Jesus is on both cheeks, in typical French style. Seeing this though placed the kiss in a new context, a more commonplace greeting, and probably closer to the original cultural practice than the more reserved "Men don't kiss" approach of Britain and America.

Another fairly rare scene is the restoration of Peter from the epilogue to John's gospel in chapter 21. This is obviously included in The Gospel of John (2003), as well as Dayasagar (1978). It is also referenced in The Miracle Maker (1999), but even so it's still relatively rare. I suppose in some ways it's a bit of a dramatic anti-climax coming after Jesus's resurrection, and it's difficult to include it without it becoming one of those films that has too many endings. That said, The Gospel of John in particular makes this scene a real high point.

One interesting detail I noticed was that the nails are placed through Jesus' wrists rather than his hands. This is generally held to be more historically accurate, but at this stage filmic depictions of the crucifixion always showed the nails going through the hands. Prior to seeing this film I had thought it wasn't until Campus Crusade/Genesis Project's film Jesus (1979) that a Jesus film had shown the nails going through the wrists (and from then on, it became the norm).

Top Ten Jesus Films

Peter T Chattaway has just had his list of Top Ten Jesus Films published by Christianity Today. We chatted a bit about the subject a while back and I've been meaning to post my list for a while. Peter's films are:

The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1902-05)
The King of Kings (1927)
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
Godspell (1973)
The Messiah (1976)
Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
Jesus (1999)
The Miracle Maker (2000)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Since Peter has now had his list published, and, as this is the last major post before Good Friday I thought it was probably about time I posted mine up as well. We actually agree on 6, although I'd be happy to swap 2 of those 6 for 2 on my list of honourable mentions further below. However, here are my Tope Ten Jesus films in chronological order:

From the Manger to the Cross (1912)
More of a film than The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ, more natural and genuine than DeMille's The King of Kings, This film, for me, stands out as the best Jesus film of the silent era. Controversial in it's day, for its very existence, (not to mention its ommission of the resurrection), Sidney Olcott's film has a quiet dignity about it, which is best captured by turning off the overbearing sountrack which was added later. The film was re-issued with a resurrection scene in 1916 as Jesus of Nazareth, and under that title again in 1932 with sound.

Golgotha (1935)
Golgotha was the first Jesus talkie, and set a high standard for those that were to follow> originally released as Ecce Homo. Julien Duvivier's use of the camera was way ahead of his time and he manages to capture the miraculous events in Jesus's last week as if they were the most natural thing in the world.
My review

King of Kings (1961)
The first Hollywood film about Jesus since the end of the silent era 34 years earlier. King of Kings remains enjoyable even though behind the scenes power stuggles destroyed the films promise. The Sermon on the Mount scene is still wonderful though, even if elsewhere Jesus is squeezed out of the film by the zealots.
My review

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964 - The Gospel According to St. Matthew)
Widely considered the masterpiece of the genre, at least among film critics, Pasolini's neo-realist style gave us a Jesus of the people, who delivers his pithy sayings with revolutionary urgency. The camera work draws the viewer into the story more, whilst the use of ordinary people cuts through the gloss of so many Jesus films both before and afterwards.

Il Messia (1975 - The Messiah)
The Godfather of neo-realism was Roberto Rossellini who ended his career with this film. Like Pasolini's film, Rossellini depicts a peasant Jesus, who continues his carpentry even as he teaches, and whose followers pass on his message at the same time he does. Of all the versions of Jesus in film this one perhaps focusses the most on his teaching. The film is also unusual for it's opening scenes from the time of Samuel.

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
One of my least favourite films in this list, and yet where would the genre be without it? In many people's eyes the definitive film Jesus, and a favourite amongst the faithful, Zefferelli does so much very well. Sadly, his leading character is dreary, and the film drags on without a charismatic compelling lead. That said the other performaces are wonderful and the period detail is impressive.


Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
A mixture of the good, the bad, and the dull. In parts Scorsese's film soars breathing new life into the character of Jesus and challenging the viewer about their cosy pre-conceptions. In other places though the film, is just bizarre and has offended many, whilst still other places seem to drag. For those looking for fresh insights and who like to judge films on their merits there is plenty to be mined here. For those who find whole films are spoiled by particular sections stay away, particularly if you are easily offended.
My review

Jesus (1999)
Jesus explores similar territory to Last Temptation, but in a safer more palatable form. Sisto's performance has many strengths, but it slightly spoilt by a few too many scenes of of him goofing around. That said the early scenes are particularly strong. Much of it is speculation, but certainly such that is within reason. It's also one of the few films to clarify that that it was the Romans, not the Jewish leaders that were in charge in Jerusalem in Jesus's time.

The Miracle Maker (1999)
The claymation version of Jesus's life is one of the genre's highs. Whilst clearly less arty than Pasolini's film, it is theologically, and historically strong, and surprisingly moving for a stop motion film. Ralph Fiennes does an excellent job as the voice of Jesus, and Murray Watts's scripts is excellent but the most credit must go to the team of animators who produced a wonderfully realistic and creative film.
My review

Passion of the Christ (2004)
Whilst there are several troubling aspects of this film Mel Gibson did plenty of excellent work with this as well. The film looked incredible, and whilst it starved us of insights into Jesus's earlier life, the few scraps we were allowed certainly aroused our appetites for more. And as filmic meditations on the stations of the cross go, I doubt it will be surpassed.


Honourable mentions
There are a few films which I had to exclude, for various reasons, but which really deserve a mention.

Son of Man (1969)
Son of Man isn't really a film, it's the filmed version of a Dennis Potter play. Nevertheless it remains one of the strongest visual portrayals of Jesus to date. Colin Blakely portrays a Jesus with fire in his belly, who speaks in the language of normal people, but in a manner that makes his collision with the authorities inevitable. The Sermon on the Mount scene again is amazing, and deserves repeated viewings.

Life of Brian (1979)
This is excluded form the list becuase it isn't actually a film about Jesus (although he makes a brief cameo at the start). Instead it's about the folibles of religion, and of humanity in general. Life of Brian does what all good films do - be excellent at something. In this film's case its comedy is hilarious hwilst remaining thoughtful. As a result it has gained a dedicated following, and appears time after time in those "best of" programmes.

Jesus of Montreal (1989)
Jesus of Montreal is another satire, only this time the target is modern day Quebec. The film follows five actors as they put on a controversial passion play which and finds the life of the groups leader mirroring that of Jesus whom he plays in the film. Perhaps the strangest scenes at a first viewing, is actually one of the best - where Jesus wanders through the subway proclaiming God's judgement in the style of Mark 13.

Book of Life (1999)
Hal Hartley's film stars Martin Donovan as Jesus returning to earth on the eve of the new Millennium, and finding that his love for humanity conflicts with his mission. Another sharply observed satire which explores form as well as content.

Golgotha (Ecce Homo, 1935)

During the Hundred Years War, the English soldiers, confronted with a French pope coined the (not-technically-accurate) chant "The Pope is French, but Jesus is English".1 Those who rallied to that particular call would no doubt have been horrified to find that the first words Jesus spoke from the silver screen were, in fact, in French. 

Eight years after Cecil B. DeMille’s definitive silent film about the life of Christ, The King of Kings, Julien Duvivier brought Jesus back to cinema screens. The difference between the two films, however, is far greater than mere language. The King of Kings typifies the stagey pseudo-piety that has typified most American cinematic Christs, whereas Golgotha like Pasolini’s more widely known Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (Gospel According to Matthew) captures something deeper, mysterious and more spiritual with its simpler feel.

That is not to say that Golgotha has not been done a grand scale. The opening scenes of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem are as vast as anything Hollywood has had to offer us; but the scene also typifies the difference. Jesus is almost entirely absent from it. Yet, even without subtitles or a knowledge of French it is clear what is happening. Duvivier teases the audience showing the hustle and bustle of the crowd, the Pharisee’s discussing what has been going on, the action at a distance, and even a shot of the crowd from Jesus’s point of view as he passes through, but delaying showing us Christ himself.2 It is an fascinating device, drawing the audience into the story, and making them part of a crowd that is straining to see Jesus.3

When Jesus (played by Robert Le Vigan) finally does appear, over ten minutes into the film, it is at a distance, and shot from a low angle. He is almost obscured by his disciples, and there is a moment of confusion as to whether this is really he. The effect is to give the viewer the impression of actually being there, and discovering Jesus for the first time. Caught in the crowd, nudging ineffectively towards the action to catch a glimpse of the man everyone is chattering about. Eventually you can make out his distant figure moments before he disappears through the temple doors.

Inside the temple Duvivier delivers the finest sequence in the entire film, and one of the most memorable scenes in any Jesus film to date, as Jesus drives out the money-changers. The sequence starts with several, quick, shots intercut in a way reminiscent of Hitchcock’s legendary shower scene in the later Psycho. The first shot prefigures the action to come as coins swept off an off-screen table crash onto the floor and scatter. It is quickly followed by swift series of action and reaction shots. The sequence culminates in a single long take, over 30 seconds long which is the most impressive of them all. The camera tracks through the palisades of the temple in Jesus’s wake, straining to catch up with him as he zigzags from stall to stall. However, the shot isn’t focussed on filming Jesus so much as capturing the moment. In fact, as the camera weaves its way around, Jesus is only occasionally in shot. The result of this shot is that it captures the action, and chaos of the incident, in a way that no other Jesus film, either before or after, has quite managed. Considering this scene was created 6 years before Wells supposedly revolutionised camerawork with Citizen Kane, it is all the more remarkable. It also, albeit unintentionally, created documentary style footage, years before the documentary genre would be invented.

Like Jesus Christ Superstar, and to a greater extent the most recent Jesus film - Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ - Golgotha returns to the roots of the Jesus film genre and focuses on the immediate events leading up to Jesus’s death. Hence the majority of the dialogue focuses on the political machinations both within the Sanhedrin, and between the Jewish leaders and Pilate. The centrepiece of the film is arguably the conversation between Pilate (played by French star Jean Gabin) and Jesus, culminating in the former declaring "Ecce Homo" (behold the man), which was actually the original title for the film.4

What is surprising is that despite this being the first Jesus film with sound, Duvivier focuses on these conversations, many of them fictional, and ignores nearly all of Jesus’s teaching. There are three main exceptions however. The first is at the culmination of the cleansing of the temple scene where Jesus offers his usual synoptic epitaph to the baying crowd. The action moves back to the disapproving Pharisees and follows their discussion, before cutting back to Jesus in mid-flow. We hear the well known dictum "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17 and parallels) but miss the first part of the confrontation. This is arguably the most interesting of the three pieces of "teaching" that are encountered as the third piece, Jesus words during the Last Supper, is rendered fairly unimaginatively.

What is curious about the tax question scene is the way it pre-supposes audience acquaintance with the story, and then uses that to give the impression of real time. More importantly, it also illustrates that which we are told is happening – that the question is being set as a trap under the watchful eye of the squabbling Jewish Leaders. It also causes the viewer to interact with what is presented, and fill in the gaps in a way that few Jesus films do – stimulating the imagination, rather than laying it all on a plate for a passive audience.

This technique is also another method of Duvivier emphasising the mystery around Jesus, and as a whole his divinity is presented very well. As noted above this starts with the mystery around his entry into Jerusalem – not only the way it is filmed but that the scene where Jesus is hailed as a king forms one of the bookends for the film. It sets the tone of this man being someone special. The vast crowd adds to the effect. Perhaps the most obvious device used is the miraculous events that are included. By restricting itself to the events of Passion Week the screenplay truncates a good source of the accounts of miraculous happenings around the life of Christ. Given how other films have included these and converted them into kitsch set pieces then this may very well be deliberate.

Instead of these grand spectacles Duvivier again presents three beautifully understated events, but invests them with a deep sense of transcendence. Incredibly, the first does not occur right up until Jesus’s arrest. Even then Duvivier shuns the more crowd pleasing healing of Malchus’s ear in favour of the obscure words of John 18:6. As Jesus identifies himself as the man the soldiers seek he simply says "I am he". John then records that as he did so the soldiers "drew back and fell to the ground" (RSV). As far as I am aware, in over 100 years of films about the life of Christ, no other film has shown this incident. Even the recent word for word version of The Gospel of John (2003), inexplicably left the soldiers standing despite the narrator reading out those very words. By contrast Duvivier shows a range of responses, with some soldiers falling, and others remaining upright, but he films it so astonishingly that it somehow captures the truly phenomenal nature of such an event.

Once he has been arrested Jesus is as usual passed from pillar to post, in a fashion that is broadly similar to many of the other depictions of Jesus’s death. There are however a number of places where the way Golgotha has been filmed really stands out. In particular, with The Passion of the Christ still on the cultural horizon there are a number of places where the comparison between it and Golgotha are especially interesting.

One of the flaws with The Passion of the Christ was that it failed to round out the Roman soldiers who sadistically inflicted so much suffering during the films two hours. Despite a shorter run time, Golgothaimparts the relevant scenes with a far greater degree of realism than The Passion, capturing, as it does, the sadism, but also the underlying insecurity, that drives such bullying. Harry Baur’s Herod typifies the approach. Herod’s ruthless mocking is interspersed by subtler indications that he is desperately trying to gain the approval of his all-too-pliant courtiers.

Duvivier also uses these scenes to commentate on the very real political events of that time. As the soldiers beat and ridicule Christ one of them mockingly salutes him with his arm fully aloft in a manner clearly reminiscent of the fascist and Nazi salutes. Golgotha was released in 1935 during the rise of Nazism, (the very month in fact that the notorious Nuremberg Laws were enacted). The following year the world would fawningly ignore the regime’s explicit racism and attend the Olympic games it staged as a monument to it’s own self-importance. Given all this then, such a salute could not have failed to go unnoticed and as such it offered a powerful critique of the Nazi movement. Historically speaking, the beating of Jesus has been a universally condemned act, even though Jesus’s Jewishness has largely been toned down to allow that to happen. The film plays on this by comparing the condemned Romans with the celebrated Nazis; beating and bullying Jesus, a Jewish man. Such interplay exposing the hypocrisy of the tacit approval of anti-Semitism which would continue for several years unchecked along the road to the holocaust. Too often Bible films have pandered to political ideologies. (DeMille’s pseudo-midrashic reworking of The Ten Commandments into a story that supported the US stance in the Cold War being only one example among many). Golgotha on the other hand (dangerously) challenges an ideology in such a way that it embodies the risky and prophetic spirit of its central character.

The film makes the effort, however, to show a range of reactions to Jesus’s torture. Whilst many in the crowd stand by to enjoy watching him whipped, it causes one onlooker to faint. Again, there is an interesting comparison to The Passion here. Golgotha shows the horror of it through the reaction of someone we can sympathise with, rather than the more "in your face" approach of Mel Gibson. Duvivier also shows the mixed reaction of the people to Jesus on the via dolorosa. Hassled both by the children throwing small stones at him and the sick who press for healing even as he stumbles towards the cross. Once there he is crucified, dies and is buried. The viewer is shown the sealing of the tomb from the inside, thus ending the main segment of the passion story as the film began – from Jesus’s point of view5

Over the years, the resurrection has proved to be one of the most difficult scenes for filmmakers to portray, with most of the literal depictions sliding into kitsch. As a result some filmmakers have opted either to portray it more cinematically (such as Martin Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ),6 or to replace the biblical episodes with extrabiblical scenes (The Passion of the Christ), or to leave it out completely (From the Manger to the Cross).

As with the earlier scene in Gethsemane, Duvivier manages to get it just right, skilfully combining the early accounts in Luke (the woman at the tomb, and the road to Emmaus) with the later events in John (appearance amongst the disciples, Thomas, and Peter’s restoration). In so doing, the viewer is given a unique position, having neither seen the risen Jesus like the majority of the disciples, but being too familiar with the story to be in any doubt about the truth behind their testimony (from a narrative point of view at least). Yet there is also something special about the first appearance of the risen Jesus as he materialises in the middle of the upper room. It is simple and effective, yet it also manages to capture the otherness of it.

It is a fitting end to the work, embodying as it does, the way Duvivier combines the ordinary with the extra-ordinary throughout the film. By downplaying the moments where many other Jesus films have opted to turn up the spectacle, he has invested them with a believability which touches the reality of the world in which we live.

--------
1 - This line was in fact incorporated into the 2001 film A Knight’s Tale, which is set in the time of the crusades, although the comment is relegated to pre-joust banter.
2 This appears to be the first time that this device would be used to give Jesus’s point of view. Although it could be argued that The Greatest Commandment (1941) also uses this technique, the point of view shot in a film about Jesus (and it’s accompanying encouragement to see things as Jesus did) would not re-surface until much later – See Peter T. Chattaway 'Come and See: How Movies Encourage Us to Look at (and with) Jesus' inRe-Viewing The Passion: Mel Gibson's Film and Its Critics S. Brent Plate (Editor), Palgrave, Macmillan, 2004
3 Incidentally DeMille also delays showing us Jesus, and he makes us wait considerably longer. The similarities, however, are fairly superficial.
4 In fact, it appears that the film’s original release title was Ecce Homo, only being changed to Golgotha after it’s American release.
5 This also compares interestingly with The Passion of the Christ where we are seen the tomb opening from inside the tomb.
6 Unfortunately, some overly literal viewers have failed to grasp what Scorsese sort to do with his ending, and have accused him of leaving the resurrection out altogether.