Blocking and Shot Selection in Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

Last month I was discussing Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) and its use of touch to create an intimacy between Jesus and the various characters who encounter him, who are, generally speaking, a stand in for the audience (link here). But the filmmakers look to create this intimacy in other ways as well, most notably through their blocking (placement) of the actors and the selection of shots, and how those shots are conventionally used.

Whilst Zeffirelli is Italian, in many ways his the editing of his shots is typical of the classic Hollywood style. However, there are a few distinctive features of Jesus of Nazareth that I believe have made a significant contribution. Firstly this is a work made for television. The combination of the regular pattern of advert breaks, combined with the classic Hollywood editing is that each scene tends to land with a certain rhythm. Scenes tend to be a the same length.

Typical Hollywood editing begins with an establishing shot, but here Zeffirelli has several, practically wordless establishing shots. There might be a shot that partially shows the layout of the room, but this is intercut with some momentary details concerning a key element of the scene. When Jesus is about to heal a man born blind, we see the man being ignored on the fringes of the action in one of the se establishing shots. At Matthew's banquet we see glimpses of the prostitutes that typify the kind of company Matthew keeps (reminiscent of Fellini according to Peter Malone, ). The camera flits to another nearby location, to catch something similar several times giving the audience a feel for the wider scene.

The next key stage in these scenes is a shot that bridges these wider establishing shots, with the pattern of close-ups that is about to unfold. Sometimes it is a travelling shot, or some sort of zoom, but essentially it wraps up those disparate shots and swoops in towards a close up shot of Powell, or of the scene's main supporting character.

The main part of these scenes, however is the combination of 'two shots' which capture Jesus and the other character in the same frame with close-ups/mid-shots of Jesus and the "reverse shot" from the point of view of the other character. Sometimes the shots are point-of-view, sometimes they are over the shoulder but the effect is much the same, the two characters are staring deep into the others' eyes This pattern repeats several times: shot/reverse shot occasionally punctuated by a two-shot and eventually, towards the end of the exchange, Jesus actually touches the supporting character. Often the scene ends on one of these three shots (or a reaction shot to what we have just witnessed, as if informing the audience how they should react). At other times though it seems the character is meant to be a stand-in for the audience, placing the viewer starring into Powell's eyes in these intimate moments.

Watch the two clips in the YouTube video below and you will see what I mean. (The poster has created their own text intro, so the scene starts after 30 seconds)

If you read my last post on this subject you will also notice the moment Jesus reaches forward and touches him. Again the fact that the film was shot for television rather than for the cinema gives a greater intimacy to these shots - the emphasis is on the characters tightly composed and up close so they show-up on small 1970s TV screens.

Now this was just a convenient one I found on YouTube and not every element of the above description is in every occurrence, but of the 5-10 instances that have something like this sort of encounter, most adopt nearly all of the elements described above. But Zeffirelli is not creating his own language here, he is using long established patterns, particularly within American financed films. This established grammar is perhaps most familiar from moments of romantic attraction, or between a younger character who is being inspired by a wiser one. It's even occasionally used in situations where the feelings are as strong but negative (i.e. heat) rather than positive. These combinations of shots and placement are used time and again in American film to signify an intimacy, a special connection between the two characters.

Interestingly there are (at least) two major deviations from this formula. The first is in the encounter with the rich young man. Here most of the camera work is repeated, but his time, Jesus never reaches out and touches the man. He does not become a follower of Jesus. Even more dysfunctional is the frst scene between Jesus and Judas. Here Judas approaches Jesus, but Jesus has his eyes closed and, for almost the entire scene, is perpendicular to Judas rather than looking into his eyes. Here also the touch is emitted. And we all know how this turns out. Having identified the above pattern it seems odd watching these two scenes, as if Jesus is almost intentionally withholding. Perhaps with Judas you could argue  that's fair enough: The scene plays as if Jesus is gaining special knowledge at this point of how his relationship with Judas will pan out. But the scene with the Rich Young Man seems almost unfair - if only Jesus had reached out and touched him. it feels certain that he would have followed him. Perhaps that's just me.

In any case, perhaps this goes some way to explaining why people still feel so connected with the series. These filmmaking techniques creating intimacy, but backed up by a belief system and regularly confirmed on Sunday mornings and so on, it's not entirely surprising that for some this has formed a long term connection to this film in particular.

The Human Touch: Jesus' Hands in Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

I've been thinking quite a bit about Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) recently and been doing some close analysis on the shots. I'll write more at a later stage (maybe), but for now, I couldn't help noticing this time around, how in may scenes Jesus is surprisingly intimate with those who are coming, quite literally into contact with him. This is partly something that the camera does - more on that in another post, but also, it's noticeable how often he deliberately physically touches someone.

These moments are not just casual, irregular moments in the film, they consistently occur at the emotional high point of the scene: the moment when someone is healed; or the moment someone decides to turn their life around.

I think these are both of the daughter of Jairus, one as he is healing her, then one as if to comfort her afterwards.

Below is Jesus with Mary Magdalene at the house of Simon the Pharisee. This is the only shot that could be described as a two-shot, but they are common throughout these scenes.

This last one is (obviously) not Jesus, but two of his disciples, Peter and Matthew. This is from the end / emotional high at the end of Jesus' narration of the Parable of the Prodigal Son at a feast at Matthew's house. The two men, who previously were enemies, are reconciled. It's interesting that they have clearly been learning about this trait of Jesus' and have now started doing it instinctively themselves.

Life of Brian in discussion with Jesus of Nazareth

Mark Goodacre is currently teaching a module on Jesus in Film which is good news for the rest of us as it has led to him uploading his Celluloid Jesus pages again, as well as adding a substantial amount of new material and a few extra blog posts to boot.

This week he's clearly been doing the late seventies as there are a few blog posts on Jesus of Nazareth and Life of Brian including YouTube links to all the talks from last year's "Jesus and Brian" conference.

One post that particularly caught my eye was one where Mark discusses being "struck by several Brian - Jesus of Nazareth parallels". The one he discusses is a moment in Jesus of Nazareth when one of the villagers grumbles "What does Rome give us?"* It's memorable of course, because of the famous scene in Life of Brian where one of the leaders of the People's Front of Judea asks "What have they [the Romans] ever given us in return?" only for the group members to reel off an extensive list of benefits of living in the empire.

What makes it particularly interesting to me is the short time gap between the two productions (just two and a half years between the first broadcast of Jesus of Nazareth at Easter 1977 and the release of Life of Brian in the autumn of 1979. Indeed the two films were recorded so close together that Brian was able to use its predecessor's sets. On top of this when you consider that British TV had only 3 channels at this point, that Jesus of Nazareth was a much publicised production and that this line of dialogue occurred in the first episode, then it's fairly likely that at least one of the Python troupe watched it at the time.

Once you picture that, then it's not hard to believe that it's no mere coincidence that this line ended up in the Pythons' film, whether consciously or sub-consciously. Lloyd Baugh mentions Jesus of Nazareth's banalities and this is a particularly bad one - it's just not the way people express this kind of sentiment in real life. So perhaps the embryo of this scene was conceived then, whether spoken out at the time as a way of critiquing the programme, or something that just got lodged in the back of somebody's mind.

I guess what interests me in all this is the way that it faintly mirrors the kind of critique of the early gospels we find in some of the later ones. Much has been made of the negative portrayal of Thomas in John's Gospel. Not a few scholars think that this might be John casting aspersions about Thomas and, by extension, the movement or the Gospel that came to be associated with him. Or think of the many times that Matthew and Luke take a pithy statement from Mark's Jesus and transforms it into a whole scene that makes the original phrase far more memorable - The Parable of the Good Samaritan for example.

Those two example are from different ends of the spectrum. Many who would feel uncomfortable with the idea of John smearing Thomas in this way, would nevertheless be fine with Luke rearranging his material to make a particular point. But there are all kinds of these little interactions between the gospels, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, and given that they were written relatively close to one another it's not unreasonable to imagine those writing later taking their predecessor's words and enhancing, adjusting, correcting and, yes perhaps, even parodying some of what they had to say.

I've just left a comment on Mark's post asking if he can remember any of the other examples of these parallels and will be interested to see whether any of these parallels also happen to parallel how the later gospel writers used their sources.

=========

*Note Mark has this down as "What do the Romans give us?", but on a second hearing I beg to differ.

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.

Pop Clasics on Jesus of Nazareth

In between writing about Doctor Who, Rome and Xena: Princess Warrior, Juliette Harrisson has managed to find time to write about Jesus of Nazareth (see all my posts on this film). As always with Juliette's work, it's mainly focussed on the depiction of the Romans (or Greeks), and I was particularly intrigued by her final paragraph:

Zeffirelli is not out to depict the dirtiness, unpleasantness or even the violence of the ancient world. Rather, he wants to provide an 'authentic' background for the story he's telling which serves that story - it is violent or unpleasant where necessary, but for the most part, he wishes simply to show people getting on with their lives within their historical context. This is, of course, partly determined by his subject matter, since adding sex and violence to the story of the Gospels would make a rather different series and not give it the reverent air it has. But it is also, fundamentally, a different, perhaps an older, approach to the depiction of the ancient world, in which the director is more interested in showing the similarities between us and the ancients than the (sexy, violent) imagined differences.

Capitalism, Jesus of Nazareth and Michael Moore's Love Story

Last week was a bit of a crazy week, such that I didn't manage to blog a single thing. Apologies to all those who stopped by only to be disappointed. Almost as annoying as not having the time to blog was finding that there was so much to blog. So hopefully the next few days will yield various small tid bits of information, which, with a bit of luck, will pave the way for me to do more of the type of blogging I really like - doing reviews, making observations and so on.

For now, though, I'm going to have to content myself with talking about Michael Moore's latest film Capitalism: A Love Story/.

I only caught onto the film a few weeks ago when I saw that Moore had talked about Jesus being anti-capitalist. I wrote a brief piece on this for rejesus.co.uk a week or two back. I must admit that I'm one of those evil people who is suspicious of capitalism, largely, I guess because, as Moore says, it seems so out of touch with Jesus and the new community he founded.

Nevertheless, my interest peaked last week on discovering a write up in The New Yorker which includes the following excerpt:

He (Moore) uses old films, like Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth, for sarcastic fun: Jesus, dubbed, recommends not care for the poor but deregulating the banking industry as the way to salvation.

Given that Moore has been quite open that this film is inspired by his religious views and his appeciation of Jesus's teaching in particular, I'm not sure on what basis this is pigeonholed as "sarcastic fun", but then David Denby has seen the film and I have not (yet). It does sound a little cheesy though. I can't, at all, see how this could be done well. Even so it's interesting that it's this Jesus film that is used instead of one of the others, particularly given that General Motors were originally going to sponsor the film until religious groups pressurised them into changing their minds. Both this film and Moore's earlier Roger and Me cover GM in some detail.

New York Times Interviews Zeffirelli

I'm a bit pushed for time this week, but I just came across an interview with Franco Zeffirelli in the New York Times.

There's not a great deal of discussion about Jesus of Nazareth per se but a good deal about Zeffirelli's Catholicism which he describes as "open... theatrical... flashy." He is, apparently, still a 'devout Catholic', albeit with a few quibbles. '"There are some doubts about the Virgin Mary," he said ruminatively. "But not him."'

Thanks to Mark Pedro for the above photo and Peter Chattaway for the tip off about the interview.

Moses the Lawgiver - Review

In many ways Moses the Lawgiver is Jesus of Nazareth's forgotten older brother. Both are made for TV productions by Lew Grade's ITC Entertainment. Both have Italian directors, were written by Anthony Burgess and feature impressive star casts. The photography in the two productions is strikingly similar, and both films even had a glossy illustrated novelization to sit on the nation's coffee tables.

Given the many similarities, it's surprising to see how differently the two films have fared since their initial release. For many people Jesus of Nazareth is the definitive portrayal of the life of Christ – even those who have never seen it would identify Robert Powell's bearded face and piercing blue eyes as being Jesus. It was a role that made him a household name. It was the role he would always, henceforth, be identified with.

In contrast Moses the Lawgiver had chosen an existing star – Burt Lancaster – to play Moses, with his son Willliam playing Moses as a younger man. Ironically, it was Lancaster who Cecil B. DeMille had in mind when he began his hunt for the man to play Moses in his version of the story - The Ten Commandments - almost twenty years earlier. Initially Lancaster's presence made the series a success, so much so that the green light was given for Franco Zefferelli to make his famous Jesus biopic.


Thirty years on, however, Moses the Lawgiver is almost forgotten. There is a mound of information, analysis and reviews of Jesus of Nazareth, but Moses is mentioned only very rarely, and, even then, only in passing. Director Gianfranco De Bosio made just 4 more films over the next 20 years and today he doesn't even seem to merit a Wikipedia page. The last decade has witnessed a number of new movies about the Exodus, and on each occasion the film makers talk about showing a more human Moses, perhaps even unaware of De Bosio's film.

So it's pleasing, then, that Moses the Lawgiver has finally been released, uncut, on DVD, because in many ways it's the more interesting film. For all it's strength's Jesus of Nazareth is a fairly unimaginative telling of the life of its hero. Complexity, challenge, doubt and struggle are largely sidelined to make way for Powell's slow delivery, Zefferelli's admittedly beautiful iconography, or just more shots of those azure blue eyes.

DeBosio's film, however, is altogether deeper. Whereas God is made man in Jesus, here he is largely off screen. His words are mediated only through Moses. Even the viewer only hears him speak in Lancaster's voice. His (miraculous) actions are shown through subjective point of view shots, or meet, shortly afterwards, with a rational explanation.


In other places De Bosio toys with the idea of myth. We witness the staff turning into a snake when God first address Moses, but it's a sign that Moses never gets to perform. Once inside the palace Pharaoh seems to anticipate what Moses is about to do and he disparages it before his cousin gets the chance. Elsewhere Pharaoh lists and refute exaggerated claims about Moses which are, apparently beginning to circulate. They far exceed anything Exodus has to say about Moses.

Later in the film the visuals suggest contrasting versions of what really happened. The shots of the people crossing the Red Sea switch between huge waves and remarkably shallow water. Whilst some of this can be accounted for by the low budget, that explanation alone is certainly not adequate. Furthermore, the closing scenes seem to portray Moses dying twice. Initially Moses seems to have died in his tent in the same ordinary way that his siblings died before him. But then, Moses ascends the mountain overlooking the Promised Land and then lays down to die in the manner described at the end of Deuteronomy.

However, this is not purely modernist cynicism attempting to unstitch this great story. "Scientific" explanations for certain events may be voiced, but they are not entirely convincing. DeBosio refuses to give viewers (of any persuasion) the option of simply sitting back and having their viewpoint reinforced. He constantly challenges his audience to wrestle with the data and make sense of it.


Take, for example, the scenes where God's punishment is meted out. As a group of men picking firewood on the Sabbath are condemned to death, we sense Lancaster's struggles. Is he torn between his own feelings and God's will? Struggling with his own conscience? If Moses is making all this up why does he seemingly act against his own sense of right and wrong. If he's following God's orders, why do they seem harsh to him? If God is simply such a harsh God, then why is such compassion evident elsewhere in the film?

To present such delicate balance and such moral complexity in a film requires a great deal of skill, and it's a credit to DeBosio, Burgess, Lancaster, and no doubt many others that they manage hold it all together so remarkably.

Not all aspects of the film are handled quite as impressively. The series is a fairly low budget affair, and at times it really shows. In some cases this is the film's deliberate choice of aesthetic. As Lancaster explains in the DVD's bonus interview feature, the costumes are meant to look coarse, simple and inferior. The Israelites were slaves freed from poverty so they "deliberately tried to make it primitive", and it works well. At other times, though, things just look cheap, particularly the Egyptian sets and costumes. Admittedly DeMille style opulence is probably equally unlikely, but, as a result, the scenes in Pharaoh's court are probably the film's weakest.


The other weak point of the film is the acting in some of the crowd scenes. A great deal of this film is taken showing the opposition Moses faced from his people. Whilst some of this is crystallised into the complaints of a single figure Dathan (Joseph Shiloach), much of the moaning comes from the non-principals. As is often the case with such Bible film heckling it fails to convince, no doubt because the extras don't speak English so the voices are dubbed later.

Aside from those scenes, there are a number of good performances. In addition to Lancaster's own, as commented on above, Anthony Quayle (Lawrence of Arabia, Anne of the Thousand Days) as Aaron, and Ingrid Thullin (Wild Strawberries) as Miriam carry the series well. And you sense Lancaster would have been proud of the way his son William Lancaster played Moses as a young man.

Overall, then, Moses the Lawgiver is well worth watching. The few weaker aspects can easily be forgiven for the way in which it probes the Biblical accounts of Moses and the Exodus and compares them with modern understandings of the story. By playfully juxtaposing the supernatural with the rational, it refuses to allow viewers to take a comfortable position.

Jesus of Nazareth - 6hr Region 2 DVD Out Today

I've mentioned the DVD release of Jesus of Nazareth a couple of times already, but thought I'd give a bit more detail on the release as today is the release day.

As I've already noted this "special edition" comes in Steelbook^TM packaging, which is a nice bonus - it looks a lot nicer than plastic, and lasts a lot longer than cardboard. There aren't many other extras. This, I believe, is not uncommon for TV series' from 30 years ago - there just isn't that much extra material available to use.

The main menu is shown below, the two pictures to the right and left change, and the programme's title music plays as these pictures cycle. The episode/scene selection screen is also fairly nicely laid out, and lets you choose between episodes as well as between scenes.
Finally, I got a question from my first post on this release regarding image quality, which, according to that poster, isn't too great on the existing region 1 release. I don't have anything to compare it by, but I'm pretty pleased with the quality. I've posted a couple of images from the film. If you click on them you'll get the biggest size image I was able to create, and it's in Bitmap format, which I believe is higher quality than the JPGs I usually post. This second one is a more blurred than it looks on screen, I'll try and see if I can get a better image when I have a bit more time.Finally, just a reminder that I reviewed this film for my first ever Jesus Films Podcast.

Podcast 1: Jesus of Nazareth

After thinking about this for a long time I have finally published my first podcast. Because of the way I have built up this blog, I've yet to give some of the largest films much attention. This is one way of remedying that, whilst also contributing something different. The internet has lots of opinions about the most popular Jesus films, but few have anything in audio.

I've learnt a lot this time around so hopefully the quality of these will continue to improve. For now, however, here is my first podcast - Jesus of Nazareth (1977) The 6 hour version of this film will be released on region 2 DVD on the 16th October.

October: A Busy Month for Bible Films

I can’t think of a time in which more has been happening on the bible film front as this coming month.

One Night With the King - At Cinemas from 13th October
First up there is the cinema release of Michael O. Sajbel’s One Night with the King - an adaptation of Tommy Tenny’s novel about Esther. This is going to be one of the first film’s released by the brand new “Fox Faith” label. Its release has been delayed by almost 2 years. The cast list, however, is impressive. In addition to Tiffany Dupont as the lead, Peter O'Toole, Omar Shrif and John Rhys Davies are also involved.

Color of the Cross - In Cinemas from 27th October
Also of great interest is the release of Jean Claude La Marre’s Color of the Cross, which is the first historical life of Jesus film to use a black actor to play Jesus. It’s unclear whether or not this is another “Fox Faith” film or not – certainly they will be distributing the DVD when that is released.

Jesus of Nazareth - Full version DVD Region 2 Release 16th October
This month also sees the long overdue region 2 DVD release of Jesus of Nazareth (1977). Whilst the 4 and a half hour version has been available for a while it’s good to see the proper version get released at last. As a bonus, it’s going to come with a nice metallic case. I’ll be reviewing the film later in the month in my first ever Jesus Films Podcast, and post a brief review of the DVD shortly.

Mary - DVD Release on 3rd October
Having only received a very limited cinematic release the region 2 DVD for Abel Ferrara’s Mary goes on sale on the 3rd. Ferrara’s film sounds like it is very, much along similar lines to Jesus of Montreal in terms of approach to its religious subject matter, but of course its theme and form maybe completely different. The film is about an actress playing Mary Magdalene in a film whose involvement with the film inspires her to go on a spiritual journey.

The Nativity Story at Heartland Film Festival
As I mentioned last week, Catherine Hardwicke’s The Nativity Story will be getting it’s first public viewing at the Heartland Film Festival. A week or so later the album "The Nativity Story: Sacred Songs" will be available to buy.

So plenty to look forward too. I’m slightly envious of those of you in North America as One Night With the King and Color of the Cross won’t get released here, at least for a while. Whilst I hope that I get sent review copies for these films, I won’t know until nearer the time. That said Mary doesn’t look like it's going to get a region 1 DVD release for sometime so I guess I’ll have to take the rough with the smooth.

Full Length cut of Jesus of Nazareth comes to Region 2

UPDATEMy podcast about this film can be heard here

When I launched my scene guide last month I bemoaned the lack of a region 2 release of the full version of Jesus of Nazareth.

Well thankfully it looks like the wait is nearly over. ITV DVD, a new label set up to distribute programmes screened by ITV, is releasing a stack of new programmes, and a full uncut version of Franco Zeffirelli's film will be released in October. At this stage, it's not yet clear whether there will be any special features or not, but it's great that the full version will finally be available.

Prior to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth was generally considered the definitive version within Christian circles. Whilst, I have a number of quibbles with the film, it did make my recent Top Ten Jesus Films list, and has a great deal going for it.

I've been thinking for a while that I might do some podcasting related to this site, and when I get around to it (hopefully within the next month or so), this will probably be the first film I tackle.

(Thanks to Chip for the tip off)

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.