The Resurrection on FilmPart 3 - Luke's Gospel

This is the third in a series of short posts for Easter this year looking at film portrayals of the resurrection. The idea is to take each of the Gospels in turn and look at one or two films that have sought to portray the resurrection in a manner that fits with that particular Gospel. Yesterday I looked at the resurrection in Mark's Gospel and so today it's onto Luke.

There are three Jesus films that strike me as reflecting something of the ending to Luke's Gospel. Firstly there is the recent Lumo Project version The Gospel of Luke (2016). A few of the relevant scenes from this film can be viewed online. This time the narrator is Richard E. Grant, but it's obvious that much of the footage - at least of the initial resurrection is that we find in their version of Mark (and indeed John).

As I say in my review of Mark there's an interesting tension in this between reflecting the distinct portrait of these events that Mark provides and the purported historical events that stand behind them. But one of the disadvantages of this approach is the footage doesn't always act out clear stage directions from the text, so here there are no men in dazzling clothes and no-one puts their face to the ground.

The Road to Emmaus scene is new though and as with other films has Jesus half covering his face to explain why Cleopas and his companion don't recognise him. This seems to me to be a rather odd approach. If Jesus meant to conceal his identity surely he could have done it more effectively: If he meant to be visible then why not make it more plain and uncover his face?  This halfway house just makes it seem like a key test of faith is the ability to recognise faces in bad light.

The second film to mention when talking about Luke's resurrection is the Genesis Project's extended version of Luke's Gospel, from which the Jesus film (1979) was edited. This also employs the partial face covering tactic on the Road to Emmaus (pictured), but does present the other aspects more or less as directed. I don't really like the soft focus in the upper room scene though.

Lastly, as films go, I tend to think The Miracle Maker (2000), whilst a harmonised Jesus film is a fairly Lucan take on proceedings. That said after the resurrection the script seems to switch to John as the primary source, such that there are a further 3 episodes not found in Luke. However, the shape of the narrative at this point remains Lucan with the discovery by women, Simon seeing Jesus (24:34), the appearance on the Road to Emmaus, and then just a single appearance to the disciples in the upper room. The Johanine inclusions are more flourishes within that broader narrative than the text that defines the text of the narrative.

For whatever reason very few films feature the Road to Emmaus episode, although this has increased in recent years, but this is certainly the first film I think of when this episode comes to mind. Again we get the same tactic with face-covering. The one portrayal of this scene that does something different is the BBC's The Passion (2008) which uses a different actor in various parts of the resurrection episode - certainly a more interesting, and not necessarily a more controversial, way t solve the question of why Jesus was not recognised.

Genesis Project: Luke Ch.1-4

Having worked through Matthew's gospel a couple of months ago with the Visual Bible series, I've now moved onto Luke. (Last month was Mark for which there is no word for word version). I'm not going to have the time to write on this one as extensively as Matthew, so this will be in four or so parts (one per video cassette) rather than 14.

The story behind this film is rather complicated, and the signs of this complexity are most obvious in these opening chapters. Back in 1974 John Heyman founded the Genesis Project, also known as the New Media Bible (not in the sense New Media means today). He wanted to film the entire Bible, and began work in 1976, but only got as far as making chapters 1 and 2 of Luke before he realised he was going to need a lot more money. So Heyman decided to team up with Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ. Bright and his organisation would help fund Heyman's project and in return he'd make them a shorter Jesus film that could be used as an evangelistic tool. The film was to become known as The Jesus Film and it was released in 1979. Heyman figured the film would help promote his project as well as fund it. John Dart has written a more detailed account on the back story to this project and that film, and there's a 2003 thread at Arts and Faith where Peter Chattaway and I discuss how the two projects relate.

What's strange is that the two productions have different nativity scenes. By the time the movie came to being released, the films of the first couple of chapters of Luke had been around for three years. In the meantime the actress that played Mary was now unavailable and Heyman decided not to use the new footage to spruce up the start of the word-for-word film.

The series starts with Luke on a hill reading from a scroll. We get an establishing shot of Zechariah and Elizabeth so we know who he is in the following scene at the temple. Both Zechariah and Mary are visited by an angel with a big afro-style hair cut. This is shot quite effectively with the light behind him in order to give the impression of a halo.

One of the curious aspects of this film is that, in contrast to the later Visual Bible film, it appears to be entirely narrated. What's even more unusual is that we can here that the film also features a background track in Aramaic. So Mel Gibson was not exactly breaking new ground by using Aramaic in The Passion of the Christ despite what some people claimed at the time.

These comments aren't so much a formal review as just some extended notes on the film as I watch it, so I'll just chuck in a minor observation here that when Jesus is presented in the temple and meets Simeon and Anna, we also see Zechariah. This links nicely to the next scene where Zechariah's son, a particularly scraggly John the Baptist, in baptising people in the River Jordan. We see Jesus baptised, and an actual dove land on his shoulder. According to Brian Deacon (Jesus) this scene was horrendous to film as it involved him standing in cold water for hours whilst they tried to entice the dove to land on his bird-seed covered shoulder. That anecdote however does serve to highlight a subtle change that Luke makes to Mark (and Matthew's text). Whilst in all three gospels the dove is only a simile - the Holy Spirit descends "as a dove" - only Luke stresses that this happens "in bodily form". In the other three gospels the implication is that this is imagery, rather than an actual bird.

One of the biggest hurdles in filming Luke is the genealogy. True it's not as potentially problematic as in Matthew, where it's right at the beginning and so likely to scare some people off before they even get started. Nevertheless it's very easy to make such a scene deathly boring. What Heyman and Sykes do is narrate the list of Jesus' ancestors over an action shot of him walking. In contrast to the Visual Bible version only rarely do we see "Luke" and as this is our first introduction to Jesus and he is almost marching through a rugged terrain, it's actually fairly engaging.

Jesus' destination is the desert where he will be tempted. The devil is represented by a snake, which, it could be argued, is perhaps the best physical approach to portraying Satan in a Jesus film. It's not time bound, or so open to interpretation as many other approaches. That said I don't think I can recall a film which portrays this as all being in Jesus' mind, although Scorsese's take might be interpreted that way. The latter two temptations are depited by frosting in an inset of relevant images. It turns out that these are actually taken from the model of Jerusalem and the temple from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. As I've been using the stills of this model found at the IMJ's website it was strange to see the model pop up so obviously in the film. It's a good way of making this sequence more interesting at a very low cost however.

One of the best scenes in the Jesus film also occurs in these opening four chapters: Jesus delivering his gospel manifesto and his resulting rejection at Nazareth. I made some comments on this scene a few weeks back which I'll reproduce here for ease:

This film is an adaptation of Luke so it's not surprising to find that it's the one that most closely corresponds to that gospel. We see Jesus sitting on the floor and covering his head and kissing the scriptures before reading them. The wording here is pretty much as per the gospel. It even includes Jesus being brought to the cliff edge though whilst the narrator describes Jesus walking through the middle of the crowd we only see him walk away from them.

This film differs however in one crucial way. Whereas in the Jesus film an audience member links Jesus' words with a claim to be the messiah, in this production no such claim is made. The narrator sticks to the text which, in fact, doesn't link Jesus' declaration to a claim to be the messiah . In the text, Jesus causes an uproar not because of any messianic claim, but because he anticipates his rejection by the Nazarenes (and, by implication, the Jewish people in general) and predicts God working amongst the Gentiles instead.

The tape ends at the end of chapter 4 with the healings of a demon-possessed man, Simon Peter's mother-in-law and the crowds that come to Jesus when words of these miracles gets around.

(This production is only available on VHS, and it's pretty rare, although there is one copy for sale at jesusonscreen.com).

Comparison: Good Samaritan

Last week I looked at various Jesus film portrayals of Jesus' Gospel Manifesto from Luke 4, as part of trying to find a suitable clip for a session on Luke I'm taking. I also want to include a clip of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, so I thought I add a few notes here as well (times indicate the point at which the relevant clip begins).

Kings of Kings (1961) - 1:28:20
Whilst Ray's Jesus is one who speaks about "peace, love and the brotherhood of man", the story part of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is missing. All that is left if the question "I'm a camel driver, who can I call my neighbour?" and Jesus' answer "He to whom you show mercy and compassion, whether you know him or not. This is all part of the Sermon on the Mount scene.

Godspell (1973) - 35:08
One of Godspell's strengths is the way it creatively re-tells the parables, reflecting the fact that when Jesus first spoke them there was a freshness and vitality about them. Here the Godspell trope act out the story with their hands. There's a slight change to the characters here, We get a priest, a judge along with the Samaritan, rather than a priest and a Levite. Curiously however there's a suggestion that the Samaritan is drunk.

At the end of the parable, the Samaritan is then hoisted onto someone's shoulders and paraded along until Jesus interjects with Matt 6:2-5 ("So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...").

Il Messia (1975)
This is the only film to show Jesus telling the parable in standard fashion. In fact it's a fairly unremarkable sequence, in keeping with the off-hand way Rossellini has Jesus deliver much of his teaching. Sorry I didn't note down the starting time for this one.

Jesus (1979) - 60:48This was, for me, the most memorable moment. Initially we see Jesus being questioned as per Luke, but then there's a watery dissolve into a dramatised version of the story. It's wordless, accompanied instead by a incredibly memorable little jingle, before we dissolve back to Jesus and the crowd. A couple of points here. Firstly, all three of those who approach the beaten man do within a very short period of time. This keeps the story brief, but it does rather let the first two off the hook to a small extent. The road looks busy, so the hurrying by looks less like desertion and dereliction of duty than it looks like simply leaving it to someone else. Secondly, here it's a woman who asks Jesus the initial question rather than an expert in the law which makes the scene softer and less confrontational. Likewise it's a young girl, not the original questioner, who answers Jesus' closing question, leading Jesus into "suffer the little children" passage.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999)
This version has Mary telling Jesus the story as a boy in keeping with the high view of Mary the film has. Jesus ends by asking "so the Samaritan was good?" to which Mary, rather curiously replies "yes, even though he was a Samaritan". The scene following this one links in, showing Jesus getting beaten up by a group of boys but refusing to fight back.

Miracle Maker (2000) - 45:50
This is one of the sections in this puppet animated film that switches to 2D, hand drawn animation, and it's done in a rather angular spiky style, which might actually be quite scary to younger children. It also explains some of the cultural reference points such as how the priest believed it made him unclean to touch a dead body, the Jewish people's hatred of the Samaritans (even showing one the children shouting out that he hates them). In the context of the film this is probably my favourite portrayal, but for a free-standing clip I don't think it would work so well.

So none of these are ideal really. What I probably will do instead is show the Mitchell and Webb version of the story, which never fails to amuse me, and ties in somewhat with Mary's response in Mary, Mother of Jesus

Comparison:Jesus Gospel Manifesto

I want to use a clip to illustrate Luke's portrayal of Jesus' rejection in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). Luke is the only gospel to depict Jesus reading a particularly apt text from Isaiah which narrows my focus somewhat. Whilst a few more versions of this episode are out there I'm going to focus on those below as the quality of the other films overall is too poor to make them a serious possibility. So these are those listed in Staley and Walsh from which I will also cite start times and chapters in brackets (Region 1). The unbracketed timings are my own (Region 2). I've excluded Pasolini and Saville's films here as they are based on the accounts in Matthew and John respectively. I've also included the scene from Mary, Mother of Jesus which is not included in Staley and Walsh's book.

Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
From 1:33:30 (1:36:51)
Instead if shooting this scene from inside a synagogue, Stevens films out in the open air, next to a pool where a number of people have gathered. There are quotes from all 4 gospels, but particularly John (e.g. 10:24), and the critical quotations from Luke. When the confrontation is over Jesus walks away with his back to the camera and we see someone throw a stone at him that hits him squarely on the back

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
From episode 2 10:33 (1:43:00)
This takes the scene almost directly from Luke alone. There are a few dramatic flourishes, but the location of this clip (right at the start of Jesus' adult ministry) and its inclusion of the fulfilled OT prophecy both suggest Luke. After Jesus has made his statement, Mary repeats the key phrase "today in our hearing the scriptures are fulfilled". We also see Jesus being ejected from the temple and there's a similar shot of Jesus' back as was found in Greatest Story. This time however no stone is actually thrown. This is certainly the version that came to mind when I started thinking of portrayals of it and so I may well use this one.

Jesus (1979)
From 13:00(0:15:11)
This film is an adaptation of Luke so it's not surprising to find that it's the one that most closely corresponds to that gospel. We see Jesus sitting on the floor and covering his head and kissing the scriptures before reading them. The wording here is pretty much as per the gospel. It even includes Jesus being brought to the cliff edge though whilst the narrator describes Jesus walking through the middle of the crowd we only see him walk away from them.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999)
From 0:56:55
This film is usually pretty dreadful, but Bale is capable of turning any scene into something memorable so I thought this might be worth a try. And so it turned out. There's a bit of an underemphasis on the words Jesus speaks, but a few nice touches. For example, as Jesus is reading from the scroll another man moves a pointer along the text to help him keep his place. When Jesus begins to close the scroll in the middle of a section the man gives Jesus a shocked look. The confrontation that ensues goes on quite a bit, but it's still a fairly good scene. There's also a visual nod to Jesus of Nazareth as we see Jesus in the synagogue from behind the screen that separated off the women.

Overall it's interesting that other than Greatest Story all these portrayals are keen to show Jewish customs relating to synagogues. All 3 of these other films also join up the dots for the audience by explaining that Jesus was claiming to be the messiah.

Non-Lucan Dialogue in Jesus

It's often thought that Jesus (1979, aka The Jesus Film) is taken word for word from Luke's gospel. In fact this is patently not the case. There are all kinds of places where words are spoken / dubbed over that do not originate in Luke gospel. As I recently re-watched the film as part of my prep for my podcast about it, I thought I'd give a quick run-down on the five different types of non-Lucan dialogue that are found in the film. As there are various different versions of this film around now I should clarify that the following in based on the 2 hour version of the film that I believe was the original cut.

1 - Prologue / Epilogue
This I suppose is a little obvious, and some would not classify the opening and closing narrated sections as part of the film at all. But, to me, they are part of the film. Both sections are narrated and feature text from John even as the opening section notes how the film is based on Luke. The ending is longer, and whilst it starts off quoting John 3:16, it's the beginning of a mini-sermon and altar call.

2 - Narration
Whilst much of the film's narration is lifted straight from Luke, there are exceptions in addition to those already noted. For example, towards the end of the film the narrator tells us that Pilate was responsible for the "crucifixion of thousands".

3 - Background Comments
Perhaps the most frequent type of insertion is in the form of exclamations from the crowd. These occur in virtually every scene, and whilst they may be seen as background they are often clear enough to be distinct, and some are included in the subtitles. For example when the widow puts her mites in the offering we hear someone say "it's very little" or when Jesus is mocked the guards say "how does it feel to look up to somebody?". Given how this film is re-dubbed depending on the language of the audience watching it, I wonder how many of these comments are translated as well. I imagine, given their clarity, that many of them would also be included in the soundtracks for other languages.
4 - Dialogue from Major Characters
There are a few occasions when one of the principals says something that is not from Luke. For example, in the resurrection scene the women find the empty tomb and see the angels appear and then rush back to the disciples and recount what has happened, whereas as Luke only tells us that they recounted it. And as Peter rushes off to go verify their story Mary says "Peter, you must believe us". Perhaps the largest such insertion comes from Peter himself. When Peter hears the cock crow he prays the following prayer which is taken from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls of all places (see here):

Lord we beseech thee do as thou ought in accordance with the greatness of thy power. Thou who did forgive our fathers when they rebelled against thy word. Thou who was angry with them. Thou who did not destroy them because of thy love for them and for thy covenant's sake. Thou did spare them.

5 - Jesus's Dialogue
The most unexpected source of dialogue not from Luke is that spoken by Jesus himself. Examples of this are relatively few, but two notable examples are when Luke simply tells us that he prayed, without telling us what he prayed. The film makes its own suggestions. For example, both before the feeding of the five thousand and as he blesses the bread at the Last Supper, Jesus prays the prayer from the Passover Shema "Blessed art thou oh God who brings forth fruit from the earth".

I've been trying to estimate how much of the film's dialogue is imported, but without recording every word it would prove tricky. I would perhaps estimate somewhere in the region of 10%, but to be honest that's pure guess work. I should point out as well, that most of the footage used in Jesus is taken from a longer 4 hour word for word version of Luke's gospel.

Podcast: Jesus (1979)

There's a bit of a danger that my podcasts might be becoming bimonthly rather than monthly at the moment. In fact this month's nearly didn't happen either as my son is due to be born tomorrow! However, hopefully I'll be able to get back on track now.

Anyway, July's entry is up. This month it's Jesus (1979) aka The Jesus Film. I've also got a new (to me) laptop this month and am still perfecting the settings. It seems that it's better quality but a little too quiet, but I'd be interested to hear from listeners whether that is, indeed, the case.

The Jesus Film in Anime

I first heard about this a couple of months ago but was asked to keep it to myself. However, the two excerpts I was sent on DVD have now been posted on YouTube for comments from the general public, and as it's already being discussed at Arts and Faith, I think it's probably fair game. If I shouldn't be blogging this yet then please someone let me know!

The idea is this: Jesus was made back in 1979 and, as even they are admitting now, it has become somewhat dated visually. However, they already have language tracks for the film in hundreds of languages so some bright spark came up with the idea of re-working the visuals to give them something that's more up to date visually and can quickly and easily become available to people all over the world.

I believe the excerpts featured on YouTube are only 'concept videos', and so the finished product will look a little different. The DVD I received also featured some colour stills of what the final images might look like including one that had been rotoscoped and one that had been made to resemble King of Kings (1961). Even so I'm fairly impressed with what I've seen thus far. I really like these two short clips and the opening to the Demoniac scene is, in particular, very striking. It actually took me a while to work out that it was still using Brian Deacon's voice.On reflection, I think that it would be worth them recording a new English language version of the audio track. It's not only visuals that have changed since 1979 and for the relatively low cost I think it would be a worthwhile investment. It might even be worth them recording two English language versions; one with American accents and another with British. I know that both cultures find it distracting when Jesus speaks with the accent of the other.

I'm looking forward to finding out more on this project. I know that Barry Cook (who co-directed Mulan) is on board which certainly bodes well. There's already a webpage for the visual translation project which leads to another opportunity to see the clips and give your feedback. There's also an article on this project from Mission Network News.

Magdalena - Released From Shame - Review

My friend in Morocco was given a DVD of this film at a conference recently, although she couldn't remember which one. A quick search on Google, however, reveals that this has happened in a few places, and that the film has been screened at other conferences. I've got a fair bit to say about this film's use of material from The Jesus Film which I'll save for another post. For now, here's my review
========
The Jesus Film was finished 28 years ago, and in the intervening period it has gone on to become the most watched film of all time. Yet whilst missionaries all over the world continue to value it as an evangelistic tool others clearly seem to be aware that their beloved movie is starting to appear dated. As a result, the last few years have seen a number of different versions of the film be released, including a version made for children and a longer edition of the film featuring a brief introduction from Genesis.

Magdalena - Released From Shame is the latest, and most radical development in this tradition. In addition to incorporating its own extra-biblical scenes, it has also incorporated a number of additional stories from the gospel that were not included in the original production. Brian Deacon has reprised the role of Jesus from the original - vocally at least, but in order to avoid the inevitable continuity errors that would result from the passing of almost 3 decades, Jesus's face is not shown in these scenes - it may even be a younger actor. Close listening, however, reveals a slight difference in Deacon's voice: it is richer and more noble than it was in 1979.

This leads to a couple of interesting moments, when we see a more intimate conversation between Jesus and one of his audience. We see their face in close up with part of the back of Jesus' head in the foreground. But the expected, and usual, reverse shot (showing us Jesus's face and the back of the other person's head) never materialises. It's a little off putting, but it does focus the attention on the response of those who originally listened to Jesus, and recollects all those 50s Bible epics which were so reverent they didn't even show his face.

As well as inserting extra scenes / shots, it has also added extra flourished to the original. So the original angels were white men with 70's fros and a white bed sheet, Here they are more indistinct CGI figures. We also see the occasional piece of symbolism, most notably the snake who slithers amongst a pile of ropes during Jesus trial, but is seen dead shortly after Magdalene sees the resurrected Jesus.

The film also jumbles the chronology. We start in 40AD with Mary Magdalene telling a group of her friends about Jesus. She goes right back to the stories of creation and Abraham before jumping to the events of the Nativity and Jesus's baptism and onto her encounter with Jesus. At this point the film returns briefly to Mary and friends before proceeding with the story of Jesus's ministry and execution in a more linear fashion. From then, up until Jesus's ascension we occasionally return to AD40, but it's the Jesus story that by far predominates.*

Essentially then this film seeks to tell the story of Jesus in from the perspective of Mary Magdalene - the message of Jesus is mediated to the audience by her. In addition to the scenes from 40AD and those from Jesus's ministry that feature Magdalene, she also provides the occasional bit of narration. Unfortunately, the actress playing Mary Magdalene herself (Rebecca Ritz) is one of the film's greatest weakness. She is far too earnest and, as a result, comes across as somewhat patronising. Worse still, there's no real passion in her account of this supposedly life-changing encounter.

The film's intended audience is also made fairly clear. Mary is primarily telling the story to a woman who has not heard about Jesus, and who rather conveniently feeds Mary the exact questions she needs to move her monologue on to the next part in the narrative. Unfortunately, it's as forced and awkward as it sounds, and it's not helped by a wooden, unconvincing performance by Shira Lane as the the would-be believer.

The other major key to the production's intended audience is the selection of episodes it includes. Nearly every scene from Jesus's ministry - whether from the original film, or more recent footage - has a woman as one of the crucial characters. The promotional material for the film is clear that in addition to Mary Magdalene the film also covers the stories of the Widow of Nain, the woman caught in adultery, and the haemophiliac who touches Jesus's robe.

In addition to selecting these stories it also inserts shots of Mary and the other woman around Jesus's ministry. So when he delivers his Gospel manifesto to a packed synagogue in Luke 4 we see Mary and a friend in the women's enclosure at the back. Likewise when an adulteress is brought before Jesus for Judgement, it is Mary who observes that the man should also be present.

So this is very much a film made for women, who perhaps find the usual male-dominated Bible films alienate them. As such it could have been a worthy project, but sadly, it's been poorly executed.

Despite it's popularity with missionaries abroad The Jesus film has always been unpopular with film critics. Not only is it a not particularly well made film, but it's rubbed salt in the wound by going on to become the art form's most widely seen specimen. It's unfortunate, then, that the parts of Magdalena which stand out as being the most well crafted are those which have been cut and pasted from that original Jesus film.


*The end of this paragraph was changed to it's present form on 27/11/07 to amend an earlier error.

Magdalena: Released from Shame

Thanks to Thomas Langkau for tipping me off about this one. Nardine Productions are soon to release a new Jesus film - Magdalena: Released from Shame. It's currently in production (with a 2008 release according to the IMDB), but here's what the Nardine Productions website has to say about it:

An original film that traces Jesus’ interactions with biblical women as seen through the eyes of one of His followers, Mary of Magdala. In a beautifully emotive way, this 90-minute docudrama captures these historical accounts.

Magdalena: Released From Shame will be available in many of the world’s major languages in 35mm, DVD and VHS formats.

There's a fairly impressive official website which contains four clips from the film plus a theatrical trailer (although it's unclear as to whether this will actually make it into theatres, or just go straight to DVD). There's also a cast list, gallery, and the following synopsis:

A woman caught in the shameful act of adultery; a social outcast shunned in society for 12 years because of a despicable illness; a widow mourning the loss of her only son. An ugly thread of shame, sorrow and hopelessness painfully weaves its was through these women's lives.

After spending three years following Jesus, Mary Magdalene has seen it all - lives changed, miracles performed, the sorrow of death and yet the triumph of life. Mary has watched in amazement as Jesus taught a whole new way of looking at life and at people. Jesus radically transformed her own life when he healed her from demon possession, so much so that she became his follower.

Fast forward to A.D.40. Although Jesus no longer remains on earth, Mary Magdalene still lives a changed life. Despite his miraculous works and his surprising compassion, not everyone bought into the teaching of this man, Jesus. Skeptical about this supposed Savior, Mary's friend questions her, "The God who created all of this? I doubt He even sees me, much less knows me."

In response, Mary Magdalene passionately retells the details of Jesus' life - from birth to death, and eventually to resurrection - and how his life continues on in the lives of those who follow him...

It becomes obvious from looking at the various parts on the website that this is no ordinary Jesus film. My curiosity was first aroused when I noticed that Brian Deacon's name was mentioned amongst the cast. Deacon played Jesus in the 1979 Jesus film, but is in his late 50s now. I assumed it was simply an interesting cameo - after all the clips I had seen thus far were clearly very modern.

Then I watched the trailer and realised that what this film is actually doing is incorporating clips from the 1979 film (and, possibly, the wider "Gospel of Luke" project that was recorded at the same time) into a modern film. The Jesus in the newer sections of the film is usually seen from behind or in long shot. This is confirmed by the last of the 4 clips I watched where the action cuts from a newly recorded shot spliced with a clip from the 1979. I would guess the voice of the modern Jesus is also Deacon, and it may be him under that wig (although I suspect it is someone else).

I can already see potential parallels with this and modern gospel scholarship - some sayings going back to the original Jesus, others incorporated into the text in order to tell the good news - but I'll wait until I see it before I go down that route.

There are a couple of other points that I'd like to make at this juncture. Firstly, there's obviously a strong focus on the woman that Jesus encounters. Magdalene is clearly a separate women from the woman caught in adultery. The synopsis clearly mentions the widow of Nain and the haemorrhaging woman. The clips also include the Samaritan women. Since the story is told by Mary Magdalene to another woman it's certainly possible that the occasions when Jesus acts compassionately towards women are in the forefront of her mind. It will be interesting to see how far this focus goes and which other stories are incorporated.

Secondly, I was very pleased to see that this is the first Jesus film (at least that I've come across) that raises the point that "the very act of adultery" requires two people.

Jesus (1979) - Scene Guide

As I reviewed and discussed a few other articles about Jesus (1979) earlier this week, I thought I would finish off by posting the scene guide to the film. There are various different length versions of this film around, so this might not exactly correspond to the version you have. The list below refers to the 2 hour version, which I believe is the cut that aired in cinemas.

Annunciation - (Luke 1:26-38)
Mary & Elizabeth - (Luke 1:39-45)
Birth of Jesus - (Luke 2:1-7)
Shepherds - (Luke 2:8-20)
Boy Jesus - (Luke 2:41-51)
Baptism - (Luke 3:21-22)
Temptation - (Luke 4:1-13)
Rejection at Nazareth - (Luke 4:14-30)
Catch of Fish Miracle - (Luke 5:1-11)
Pharisee and the Tax Collector - (Luke 18:9-14)
Jairus - (Luke 8:40-42,49-56)
Calling of Levi - (Luke 5:27-31)
Calling of 12 - (Luke 6:12-16)
Beatitudes - (Luke 6:17-22)
Sermon on the plain - (Luke 6:27-49)
Anointing of Feet - (Luke 7:36-50)
Women with Jesus - (Luke 8:1-3)
Widow of Nain's son - (Luke 7:1-17)
John imprisoned - (Luke 7:18-35)
Parable of the sower - (Luke 8:1-15)
Calming of the storm - (Luke 8:22-25)
Legion - (Luke 8:26-39)
Feeding 5000 - (Luke 9:10-17)
Peter's Confession - (Luke 9:18-27)
Transfiguration - (Luke 9:28-36)
Demonised boy - (Luke 9:37-45)
Lord's Prayer - (Luke 11:1-4)
Ask & seek - (Luke 11:9-10)
Do not worry - (Luke 12:22-31)
Faith - (Luke 17:6)
Teaching on Kingdom - (Luke 13:18-20)
Money - (Luke 16:13)
Crippled woman/Sabbath - (Luke 13:10-17)
Rich Ruler - (Luke 18:18-30)
More on kingdom
Good Samaritan - (Luke 10:25-37)
Children and Jesus - (Luke 18:15-17)
Blind man - (Luke 18:35-42)
Zaccheus - (Luke 19:1-10)
Triumphal Entry - (Luke 19:28-44)
Clearing the Temple - (Luke 19:45-48)
Widow's mite - (Luke 21:1-4)
Authority - (Luke 20:1-8)
Parable of vineyard - (Luke 20:9-19)
Tax to Ceasar - (Luke 20:20-26)
Last Supper - (Luke 22:7-38)
Gethsemane - (Luke 22:39-46)
Arrest - (Luke 22:47-53)
Sanhedrin Trial - (Luke 22:66-71)
Peter's Denial - (Luke 22:54-62)
Pilate 1st trial - (Luke 23:1-7)
Before Herod - (Luke 23:8-12)
Pilate 2nd trial - (Luke 23:13-25)
Road to the Cross - (Luke 23:26-31)
Crucifixion - (Luke 23:32-43)
Death - (Luke 23:44-49)
Women at tomb - (Luke 24:1-8)
Apostles told - (Luke 24:9-12)
Jesus appears - (Luke 24:36-49)
Ascension - (Luke 24:50-52)

A Few Notes
1 - For a relatively short run time, this film packs in a lot large number of incidents, often by cutting parts within each story as well as excluding certain episodes. However, there is also very little time spent on developing the character of anyone but Jesus, and even his character is barely explored in the way that most films tend to examine their protagonists.

2 - The political sections of Luke's gospel are largely expunged, in particular the more challenging verses to the rich and powerful such as the reverse beatitudes (Luke 6:23-26), sharing with those who are without (Luke 3:10-14), the six woes Luke 11:37-54). It also excludes the passage where a demonstration of Jesus's power yields only a meagre respose (The Ten Lepers of chapter 17), as well as awkward to explain passages such as the Shrewd manager of Luke 16), and the mini-apocalypse of chapter 21.

3 - On the other hand, it is also the only Jesus film to include certain incidents such as Zaccheus, The Widow's Mite, and the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, and the Parable of the Vineyard / Wicked Tenants.

Jesus (1979)

From a worldwide perspective, Jesus is possibly the most influential image of Jesus in history. The film, made by Campus Crusade for Christ in 1979 to be a tool for evangelism, has apparently, been seen by over 5.4 billion people.¹ Whilst that figure includes numerous repeat viewers, and may not be that accurate, it is still incredibly impressive. Cecil B. DeMille, years after he directed The King of Kings claimed that his 1927 film had reached more people with the gospel than any other work except the bible. Today that position has been usurped by this film - an even more impressive task given how much bigger the world's population is today compared to 50 years ago.


What is strange, is that few people in countries that speak its original tongue would claim to have seen it. Yet it has been translated into 909 languages with another 232 in progress.² When a new translation is made native speakers of that language are asked to play the various parts. I can't help but wonder if one day they'll be a great Jesus actor re-union, where all the actors who've provided his voice in the different version meet up to exchange stories over fish and bread. The Papua New Guinean Jesus is explaining to the Mongolian Jesus how there is no word for lamb in his culture, whilst the Yup'ik Eskimo Jesus explains to the Swahilian actor that they have 15 words for snow and he didn't get to use any of them.

The film was originally made as part of The Genesis Project - producer John Heyman's (A Passage to India) plan to film the entire bible word for word. Heyman had already made Genesis but needed more financial backing and saw a film about Jesus as a good way to raise revenue to fund the rest of the project. As a result the entire gospel of Luke would be filmed, with the final film being edited together based on footage from that film. In the end there would be a few extra moments of dialogue that were not based on the gospel, but they are fairly minor. As well as being faithful to the biblical text, the film also aimed to be as historically accurate as possible as well, at least within the restraints of using one gospel. Hence all of the actors except for Jesus were Yemenite Jews - supposedly the Jewish racial group whose features have altered the least in the last 200 years. It was also only the second film to show the nails going through Jesus' wrists rather than his hands and him carrying a just the beam, rather than the whole cross.⁴ That said, when Mel Gibson stated his quest for accuracy by improving on the "bad hair" of other Jesus films, this one cannot have been far from his mind.⁵


It's too easy to judge a film 30 years later for how quickly it has dated. Whilst some films still look like they could have been made yesterday (e.g. 1977's Jesus of Nazareth), others, such as Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), that supposedly looked good at the time look awful today. Nevertheless, Jesus was made on a small budget, a fact reflected by it's poor budget. This is accentuated by the wooden use of the biblical text. It's hard to know who to blame for this - writer, actor, director, or all three - but the end result is that the written dialogue, from an undynamic translation comes across as stilted. At times the natural rhythm of the scene is ruined by the need for one of the characters to deliver the verse by rote. That said occasionally the film liberates itself from the text, such as the moment when Jesus stands up and is cast into darkness as he says "that is enough".

What is also unusual about the film's use of the bible is that the film ends on a quote from John's gospel, not Luke's. This actually epitomises relationship to that gospel as well as Luke's. Whereas Luke's motivations for writing are not entirely clear, John's stated intention for his gospel is that his readers "may know that Jesus is the messiah, the (S/s)on of God". This correlates with the film-makers' aim to create a film that is an evangelistic tool. Luke's narrative arc is more engaging, and as such was a wise choice, but John's influence is never far away.


That said, the film does also retain a strongly Lucan emphasis at points. This is possibly the only Jesus film ever not to have included the crown of thorns, which is absent in Luke.⁵ Actor Brian Deacon caught pneumonia during the baptism scene in order to fulfil the literal landing of a dove on Jesus's shoulder. In Mark's gospel this is only a simile. The film is also one of the only ones to tell the story of Zaccheus, and retains distinctly Lucan parables such as the Good Samaritan.

Jesus then, reflects the roots of its project. The film-makers were allowed more freedom to abridge, add to and shape the text of Luke compared to the later Visual Bible's Matthew and Gospel of John, and, as a result, the film is interesting on a literary level. However, film is primarily a visual medium, and despite the attempts at historical accuracy Jesus fails in almost every sense visually. Not only does it fail to exert any sort of cinematic vision, or use the camera in a distinctive or original manner, but it also offers a weak portrayal of that which is in front of the camera. Brian Deacon is a believable Jesus, and Luke a believable storyteller, but somehow the film fails the link the two in a credible cinematic fashion.

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

1 - From "The Jesus Film" website.
2 - - From "The Jesus Film" website.
3 - The first film to show the nails going through the wrists was 1935's Golgotha. The first film to show Jesus carrying just the crossbeam was Jesus of Nazareth (1977).
4 - Holly McClure - New York Daily News, January 26, 2003, reproduced at BP News
5 - Nevertheless the film was criticsed in some Christian circles for excluding it.

Ex Quo: "The JESUS Film" Is Now a Video Podcast

Ex Quo reported last week that "The JESUS Film" is now a video podcast.

The Jesus Film (actually, it's entitled Jesus, but everyone knows it as THE Jesus Film) is now being released as a video podcast. It is optimized for 5G Video iPods, but you can watch it through iTunes. As of today (Feb. 24, 2006), four chapters (usually around a minute each) have been released.

If you have iTunes, you can add it by clicking here.

If you do not, the news feed for this is: http://www.inspirationalfilms.com/av/jf/vp00373.xml

It's been available to download, in an dizzying array of languages, for sometime now. I'm going to review the film tomorrow, but just a few general links and points before I do.

Firstly, overall I tend to agree with Mark Goodacre's main question about "That Jesus Film" namely how can it "be so successful as an international tool of evangelism when it is so bad"? (He also comments on it elsewhere). The second question I have is. AS far as I'm aware, there are currently five major analyses of the major Jesus films - "Biblical Epics" by Babington and Evans, "Jesus at the Movies" by Tatum, "Savior on the Silver Screen" by Stern et al, "Imaging the Divine" (Baugh) and Walsh's "Reading the Gospels in the Dark". Of those only Tatum's volume actually discusses the film. There is some discussion of it in the reference works by Kinnard and Davis ("Divine Images"), and Campbell and Pitts ("The Bible on Film"), but in depth analysis is underdone. I'm not sure why this is.

A number of possible reasons suggest themselves. It could be because the film is so badly made. But given the genre this is hardly a reason to exclude it. In fact the question of why such a poorly made film has allegedly become the most seen film in history is interesting in itself. Alternatively it could be because the film wasn't a big box office film. Again, given many of the other films this shouldn't exclude discussion. It was actually the first Jesus film saw at the cinema, and in the intervening 18 years I've only managed that feat with 3 other films. It could be because it only focuses on one gospel. This is certainly what Tatum finds most interesting about it, particularly as really it's more like John (at least in its intent). There are various other potential reasons, but none of which seem unsatisfactory. Perhaps the Christian conspiracy theorists have the most plausible suggestion.

There was also a documentary made about this film which aired a couple of years ago. There's some discussion of that (as well as plenty about the original film) at Arts and Faith. My specific impression about the documentary are in this post. There are also a few other articles at BBC4, The New York Times and the BBC website, which accepts its claim to be "The most watched film in history". There's also a very detailed article about "The making of Jesus" at the Christian Century, and Mike Hernstein covers this over at Flickerings as well

Matt