Jesus' Humour in Bible Movies

I got a question from a friend asking if I knew of any clips of "Jesus laughing or being funny in any Jesus films" and if seemed like it might be an interesting subject for a blog post. They mentioned The Chosen and I agree it's an obvious starting place, because Jesus' sense of humour is so much more fully developed in that series than any other production that I'm aware of. So maybe we can take that as read, or maybe we'll just return to Jesus' sense of humour in The Chosen because it's quite a topic in itself. Feel free to post any good examples in the comments.

The Comedy Jesus Films

An obvious place to start is comedies which feature Jesus as a character. However, in most of the obvious examples, Jesus is played straight, it's the antics around him where characters might be said to joke; or it's the fact that a non-joking Jesus is in an unusual context that provides the humour.

Take for example Luis Buñuel's The Milky Way (1969). Jesus appears a few times. The first time he is thinking of shaving his beard off. It's a funny scene, but the joke is about quirky juxtaposition. Moments later Jesus is running late – again, a normal element of being human that somehow feels at odds with how Jesus is traditionally portrayed

I covered 9 films that could be classed as comedic in my book, but most of them were based on the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless only one of them was written in that style of humour where one of the characters provides humour by saying intentionally funny things (e.g. Jerry in Seinfeld or Chandler in Friends), Hal Hartley's The Book of Life (1998). Here the 'funny' character is Satan even though Jesus (who has come to judge the living and the dead) remains the 'hero', though much of the humour comes from the quirky and surreal world to which Jesus returns.

Indeed the existing comedy Bible movies are mostly written in that style where the characters themselves play things straight despite the fact they exist in a funny / absurd world / situation or they are the absurd ones. None of these films play Jesus as absurd, though I've not seen much of Black Jesus (2014-19) yet.

Perhaps the most obvious example of the absurd universe model is the most famous comedic Bible Film Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979). Here Jesus only appears briefly at the start delivering the Sermon on the Mount in traditional fashion. The humour comes from the absurd conversations that happen at the edges of the crowd and then as the film pans out further we discover Jesus may very well be the only sane character in the entire character.

The other film that might qualify as a comedy Jesus film is Get Some Money (2017) directed by Biko Nyongesa. The original short film of the same name was billed as a comedy about Judas' suicide. As someone not really familiar with a Kenyan sense of humour I found it difficult to relate to the humour – suicide tends not to be played for laughs in Anglo-American culture. Some bits were still amusing though again Jesus himself was not making jokes or wry observations.

Lastly there's Jesus of Montreal (1989) which, as it is often observed, is not really a Jesus film at all as much as a film about Jesus which leans heavily on allegory. Interestingly Daniel, the character in the film who is portraying Jesus in a play, does have a sense of humour, but that's no something that carries over to his performance of Jesus. So the Christ-figure is funny, but not the Jesus figure. Indeed many of the classic Christ-figure films give their hero a sense of humour, but I'm going to resist going off on that tangent.

In short, while several films are funny about Jesus, none of those really portray Jesus as having a sense of humour. However, there are several of the more traditional-style Jesus films which do give Jesus a sense of humour, so lets turn to them now.

Son of Man (1969) 

Dennis Potter's play, Son of Man was groundbreaking in so many ways, but it was when Gareth Davies adapted it for the BBC that elements of Jesus' humour began to emerge. The actor Davies picked as his lead – Colin Blakely – gives an electric performance as Jesus and his version of the Sermon on the Mount is a particular highlight. There are a few changes to the script. I'm not sure whether Potter rewrote it for the television, or if that was down to Davies, or just the way Blakely delivered the scene. Perhaps a combination of the three, but it's there that a couple of little humorous interjections emerge. The potential is there in Potter's words, but Blakely injects the scene with the impression that not only does his Jesus realise humour is a useful tool, but that he is clearly revelling in using it. "It's easy to love those who love you" says Blakely with perfect comic timing "Why even the tax collector can do that". Later, he admits it would hurt were someone to strike you on the cheek and when Brian Blessed's Peter adds "Yes, especially if I were to do it Master!", Jesus roars with laughter along with everyone else. The signs of Jesus' sense of humour are brief, but very much there.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

Scorsese's interpretation of the story was different in so many ways from its predecessors that it's hardly a surprise that humour is one of the elements of Jesus' humanity (though perhaps it's a divine characteristic too) which it draws out. In some ways this is surprising as Jesus tends to be very intense and serious in this movie. The first flicker of a sense of humour here occurs in the stoning scene. Jesus is challenging the crowd about their own sin. When Zebedee steps forward claiming he's not done anything wrong, Jesus asks him his mistresses' name. It's meant rhetorically, but when another member of the crowd shouts out "Judith", Jesus raises his eyebrow wryly. At a recent screening, which I introduced, the audience laughed at that moment. 

Shortly afterwards the disciples arrive at the Wedding at Cana, which Nathaniel (whose cousin is getting married) is helping out with. When the wine runs out Jesus asks what is in the nearby jars. Nathaniel informs him that they're only water – he filled them himself. Jesus suggests he check anyway. Nathaniel is insistent, but eventually gives way, only to discover they are now filled with wine. Nathaniel stares back at Jesus open mouthed. Jesus – in what has become a much used meme, raises his glass with an told-you-so smile.

There's not much more to it than that, but certainly this was a development, and moreover it's perhaps the only moment in any Jesus production prior to The Chosen where I smile at Jesus' sense of humour. 

The Visual Bible: Matthew (1994)

If Scorsese's introduction of a Jesus with a sense of humour was a bit of an innovation then Regardt van den Bergh's Matthew was a revolution. Bruce Marchiano received instruction from his director to play Jesus as a "Man of Joy" (p.72) and inspiration from an 8 year old friend who remarked "Well I sure hope he smiles a lot because Jesus in the other Jesus movies never smiled, and I know that Jesus smiles all the time". Marchiano certainly delivered on that guidance, giving the most joyful, smiley portrayal of Jesus imaginable. Even the passages where it's hard to image Jesus smiling, Marchiano keeps going, for example the 7 woes of Matt 23. He later reflected that "Jesus smiled bigger and laughed heartier than any human being who's ever walked the planet". While it occasionally rankles with an old curmudgeon like me, many have found it life-changing.

But smiling and laughing are not the same as "being funny" and here van den Bergh and Marchiano were limited by the former's decision to stick to a word for word adaptation of Matthew's text. Yet while Matthew is not the kind of witty text that will instantly have you in stitches, it's important to remember even the deliberate examples of wit we do have from that period do not seem particularly funny to us today. 

In that context there are one or two moments of humour in Matthew that feel not out of place in that context and the film certainly tries to stress the point that this is meant to be humorous. The most memorable is when it comes to Matt 7:3-5 ("How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"). This bit of comic exaggeration often cited as an example of humour in the Bible and, as if to underline the point, Marchiano picks up a big piece of wood and holds it against his eye as he delivers the line. It's not the greatest piece of comic delivery, but it does, at least, make the point. 

Jesus (1999)

Roger Young's miniseries tries, as much as any previous Jesus film, so show Jesus having a laugh. There's the moment when he and his disciples rush to a water point, desperate for a drink and he playfully splashes them with the water and another similar moment later on. 

Perhaps the most memorable scene in this respect is when some street performers seek to get the crowd – which Jesus is part of – to dance. Jesus (played by a youthful Jeremy Sisto) is very keen and jumps right up. Thomas (of course!) is less entranced and so Jesus seeks to coax him out of his shell a bit. It plays as funny, but in real life I would hate it if someone tried this. Jesus! You don't need my compliance to validate your own joy at dancing.

Elsewhere Jesus' style of preaching is more open than in many films. When he preaches he doesn't just get the kind of questions we find in the Bible, also gets heckled, and his reaction is to laugh along. Jesus himself doesn't tell jokes in this film, but he certainly is shown to have a good sense of humour.

More recent productions

All of these examples are from the twentieth century. Are there any, more-recent examples? Casting my mind back, I remember Jesus being generally cheery and good natured in films such as The Miracle Maker (2000) and Risen (2016) and perhaps even a little self-depricating in such a way as to suggest he doesn't take himself too seriously. But neither contain laughter, humour or jokes. Meanwhile 2006's Color of the Cross, Son of God (2014), Killing Jesus (2015) and Last Days in the Desert (2016) probably reversed the general trend of getting Jesus to lighten up a bit from his earlier silver screen outings, and presented him as a more serious figure. Likewise other non-English language efforts such as Shanti Sandesham (2004),  Jezile (Son of Man, 2006), Su re (2012) and The Savior (2014) also have a more serious-minded approach. There is are a couple of exceptions and like Son of Man (1969) above, both are from British television...

The Second Coming (2003)

In 2003 Christopher Ecclestone, the (then) future Doctor Who, starred as the son of God come back to earth as a working class Mancunian. Northern humour was very much part of the mix. In one scene as he speaks to a vast crown he reminds them of scientific breakthroughs with potentially apocalyptic consequences and asks  "Do you think you're reading for that much power?...You lot?....You cheeky bastards!" 

The line that most stays with me comes from the end of the first episode. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it (it's currently on the Internet Archive), but even twenty years after watching it I could remember the episode's final line. "Well, maybe two".

Second Coming is far from a conventional Jesus film, and it's notable that this was an ITV production rather than something from the BBC. This is very much a Jesus who jokes, even if he's arguably more intense than many of the others. Moreover this is a Jesus who jokes and uses humour, but doesn't really smile and laugh that much (and when he does it's slightly unnerving).

The Passion (2008)

The Passion first broadcast by the BBC in 2008 contains a few humorous notes in its very first scene. Jesus and the disciples are attempting to buy a donkey and its colt and when their business is done the seller realises who Jesus is. Jesus asks him what he's heard and when the seller mentions overthrowing the Romans Jesus replies "Does this look like an army...apart from John and James". Later Jesus uses sleight of hand to inject a bit of humour into "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" and also to turn some of his questioners cynicism back onto them. 

This is also a Jesus who smiles and laughs as well. But the series is also keen to show those around Jesus laughing at the things he says, or more to the point how he says it. When Jesus is told "the elders instruct us" he counters "and you must listen to what they say...just don't do what they do". As Jesus, Joseph Mawle's delivery is good hear, his relaxed delivery and timing make many lines that read straight in the Gospels become funny. That is also due to Frank Deasy's script which rephrases the words from the Gospels making them more lively and immediate.

Over to you

That's all of the best examples I can think of, having mulled over this for a week or so. Did I miss any? If so, let me know in the comments below.

Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

N.B. My scene guide for this film is here.

"This film is not based on the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict". So begins the opening titles of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, a clarification that so many of its critics were seemingly unwilling to accept or understand. Hampered by the campaign against it, the finished film struggled to recoup its costs; meanwhile the American Family Association, the chief group leading the protests, saw an increase in their income for 1988 of around a million dollars (Lindlof, 284).

Just as Pier Paolo Pasolini saw his film as an analogy of the challenges facing those fighting for equality, so Scorsese and his script writer Paul Schrader see theirs "as a metaphor for the human condition". Just as Jesus agonises over the question of what it is that God wants from him, so Scorsese and Schrader - both from strongly religious backgrounds - continue to wrestle with that central question. Almost thirty years later these questions still trouble them. 2016 saw Scorsese release Silence the story of an emotionally, and then physically, tortured priest in 17th century Japan. The following year, Schrader's First Reformed depicted a minister caught in the midst of a crisis of faith.

Consequently, Last Temptation's opening image is of Willem Dafoe's Jesus writhing on the ground wracked in emotional agony, and as the film draws to a close almost 160 minutes later, the situation has only worsened. On the verge of an agonising death on the cross, Jesus' has drifted into the depths of his unconscious and become trapped by the lure of an ordinary, domesticated life. It's unclear whether this is a dream, an hallucination, or simply the last fantastical flickers of activity in his brain, but the entire 40 minute sequence occurs between Jesus' cry of "My God, why have you forsaken me", and the final victorious cry of "It is accomplished" just seconds later.

It's the visual and aural aspects of the transition to this sequence which many seem to miss. As Jesus hangs on the cross, the camera twists through ninety degrees, almost as if Jesus is lying down, the natural sound of the scene is muted and the sun brightens to warm Jesus' face. "It's clichéd" Scorsese would later explain, "but after all, it's a scam, it's the Devil" (Thomson and Christie, 143). These scenes are difficult and uncomfortable precisely because for the first time we experience in ourselves Jesus' disorientation - the bizarre shared life with Mary and Martha, the illogicality of Saul's empty preaching. It's as if, on the verge of death Jesus' mind is flitting about trying to make sense of this his most testing trial.

Only when he remembers his friends, the disciples, does he return to his senses. The bond of friendship has been a key theme in Scorsese's films, from Goodfellas (1990) to The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) often with a growing sense of fear and that the protagonists are getting in out of their depth. Additionally, much of the film employs Judas in a similar fashion to the "buddy" roles of Raging Bull (1980) and Casino (1995). The filmmakers even cast Mean Streets' Harvey Keitel as Judas. Yet whilst Jesus is emotionally dependent on Judas for much of the film, at various other points he takes on the mantle of the sexually-repressed loner, typified by Robert DeNiro's anti-hero in Taxi Driver. This occurs most notably in the scenes where Jesus faces the devil both in the desert, after his encounter with John the Baptist, and on the cross when he enters into the last temptation itself. Here Judas' role as friend and confidant is taken over by the young girl who is playing Satan. Many of Scorsese's films have been typified by the tension the lead character feels between the women in his life and his buddies. Here the devil removes Judas and the disciples from the temptation and encourages him to marry both Mary Magdalene, and then later Mary of Bethany. Only at the end of the 40 minute temptation do the disciples and Judas burst back onto the scene, make him see Satan's deception and inspire him do the right thing and see his sacrificial death through to the end. Jesus dies victorious and finally at peace. To quote the novel's closing words "He uttered a triumphant cry: It is accomplished! And it was as though he had said: Everything has begun" (Kazantzakis,575).

At this point in the film the image gets "edge fog" which then gives way to a series of flashing bursts of coloured light and the sound of ululations and church bells. The visual distortion was the result of light accidentally leaking into the canister, but the filmmakers were able to use it to create a modern way of expressing the resurrection. Indeed one of the aspects of this film that makes it stand out from the biblical films that had gone before it was its contemporary use of the camera. The earlier scenes feature a constantly moving camera giving the idea of things being spontaneous, yet also unsettled. Yet as the film moves on we find the scenes with Pilate and the in front of the crowd utilise long panning shots suggesting events are moving unavoidably towards an inevitable conclusion. Elsewhere we see the camera rushing past Jesus as he is pulled into Lazarus's tomb, and towards his destiny and inevitable death.

The dynamism of that shot is typical of the film's refreshing lack of reverence when people interact with Jesus. Whilst some of the ordinary people he preaches to accept his message, many are unmoved, and others resort to bristling insults. We're used to see Jesus charged with blasphemy, but are unfamiliar with him being accused of madness. When he disrupts a mob stoning Magdalene, someone throws a stone at him. When he preaches about love, people laugh at him. When he is brought to trial, Pontius Pilate (played aloofly by David Bowie) treats him with detached cynicism. Jesus is just another failed messiah that the governor has to dispatch.

Much of this is carried over from the film's invented opening. Jesus feels God's call and it terrifies him. In an attempt to dispel the voices in his head he makes crosses for the Romans, visits Magdalene in a brothel and ends up in a monastery. God has become another of Scorsese's complex father figures. Even for those who may be uncomfortable with this initial sequence or. indeed, its radical final act, the episodes most reliant on the Gospels have an unprecedented energy about them. Willem Dafoe's Jesus is unpredictable, and possibly unstable, but the energy of his performance is breathtakingly compelling. The sense of spontaneity when Jesus launches into the Sermon on the Plain, his forceful exorcisms and his playfulness when turning the water into wine are all memorable scenes, as are that of his fasting in the desert which has been copied so often in subsequent productions. The scenes are given extra dynamism by the actor's use of thick contemporary American accents and the way by Schrader's fresh paraphrasing of the Gospels liberates them from centuries of church tradition.

And of course, there's much more that could be discussed about Peter Gabriel's evocative soundtrack, Thelma Schoonmaker's editing, or simply the lighting, pacing, costuming that make Last Temptation such an original piece of work. What's disappointing is that more than thirty years later the film is known more for its controversy than its accomplishments. It's a strange reaction to a film that was made sincerely, and was born out of a desire "to get to know Jesus better" (Thomson and Christie, 120). Perhaps after thirty years it's time for the film to be appreciated for its attempt "to make the life of Jesus immediate and accessible to people who haven't really thought about God in a long time" (Thomson and Christie, 124).

==========
- Lindlof, Thomas R. Lindlof (2008) Hollywood Under Siege: Martin Scorsese, the Religious Right, and the Culture Wars. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky (July 1, 2008).

- Thomson, David, and Ian Christie (1996) Scorsese on Scorsese. London: Faber and Faber.

- Kazantzakis, Nikos (1961) The Last Temptation. Translated by Peter A. Bien, London: Faber and Faber. 

The Wolf of Wall Street vs Last Temptation of Christ

I finally managed to catch up with Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street last night and as I'm also preparing a talk on his Last Temptation of Christ I was looking out for similarities between Wolf and Scorsese's other work, particularly his Jesus biopic.

As you might expect, whilst the lead characters fall on different sides of the goodie/baddie threshold, one of the key areas of similarity is the plot. So both films are essentially buddy movies featuring a character from an ordinary background who early on teams up with a partner who will hold significant say in their vocation. The partner provides the rational scheming as a foil to the lead's natural charisma and sense of, for want of a better word, showmanship. The pair quickly gather a overly dedicated bunch of disciples - men who are prepared a high price to be followers of the lead - and their vocation develops rapidly, as they defy the status quo to provide a new way of doing things. Both stories are told very much from within the bubble of these communities. In neither case do we see behind the scenes of those establishments which have traditionally been seen as the trusted experts within Judaism/Wall Street. Their success is so great that both groups rapidly end up in over their heads, struggling to cope and drawing the attention of the authorities. The authorities deal with them swiftly, dispassionately but without really breaking stride. Kyle Chandler's FBI agent is no more bothered or threatened by bringing down The Wolf than he would be if he had all of David Bowie's Roman legions at his disposal.

There are other similarities as well. As with many Jesus films Last Temptation features a meeting with John the Baptists. Here it's a single conversation where the Baptists passes on all his wisdom. Here we have the Matthew McConaughey figure who functions in a similar fashion. In the aftermath of both encounters the Jesus/Wolf figure finds himself in a wilderness of sorts having to start from scratch.

Of course any director of note will also use the other tools at his disposal to reinforce his themes. The most obvious of which here is the Wolf's habit of adopting a cruciform pose, most memorably as he enters his office with a broad smile on his face and his arms spread almost as wide. Then there's the way that Scorsese uses nudity as a shortcut for decadence. And that both films rely on a voice-over from their protagonist. Indeed there are also moments when the audio stops being the "realistic" sound we would normally expect, or the soundtrack and becomes either silent or only some of the sounds that would be expected from the scenario - a more expressionistic audio channel if you will.

Scorsese's work also repeats certain visual ideas in many of his films. He's particular keen on freeze frames, and slow motion shots, both of which make appearances here although are used more sparingly in Last Temptation. But we do get the kind of accelerated swooping zooms in which accompanies Jesus' first voice-over.

I suspect the internet will full of other such similarities but these will do for now.

Last Temptation and Film Noir

Over the last year or so I've been getting into film noir and reading a couple of books on the subject as well. It's changed my understanding quite significantly. It's always been a genre that I've enjoyed, but previously my understanding of it was primarily centred around adaptations of Chandler-esque novels such as The Big Sleep rather than a more nuanced definition.

Indeed part of the problem seems to be that as a genre it almost defies definition. Some would argue they know it when they see it, but often they disagree. Is, for example, Spiral Staircase part of the canon or not? For those not that familiar with it let me dispel a few myths. Film noir does not have to be black and white, it doesn't have to be made in the 40s on cheap sets, and it doesn't have to be about crime.

The consensus seems to rest much more readily on aspects such as the use of a weak male anti-hero, who is known to us and through whose eyes we view the events unfold. Thus the audience associates with his viewpoint, in fact often he will be the narrator. Typically there is also a female character present, (femme fatale) but she is less known to the audience and the leading man. He cannot figure her out, yet nevertheless he is drawn to her. Thematically questions of guilt, paranoia and identity are paramount.

There's a great definition of the genre in one of the books I'm reading at the moment, Andrew Spicer's "Film Noir".

Noir's highly complex narrative patterning is created by the use of first-person voice-overs, multiple narrators, flashbacks and ellipses which often create ambiguous or inconclusive endings. Noir narratives are frequently oneiric (dream-like), where every object and encounter seems unnaturally charged….The noir universe is dark, malign and unstable where individuals are trapped through fear and paranoia, or overwhelmed by the power of sexual desire. Noir’s principal protagonists consist of the alienated, often psychologically disturbed, male anti-hero and the hard, deceitful femme fatale he encounters. But the range of noir characters is more complex than is usually thought. (p.4)

So one day I found myself pondering on which Bible Films have the most noirish elements and it didn't take me long to land on Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ. Noir is usually set in the present (although The Spiral Staircase is a much debated exception) which few Bible films are really, but otherwise most of the elements are present. Jesus provides the narration, we get to hear his thoughts but not even he understands why he is drawn to Magdalene, who remains alluring but unknowable throughout the film. Dafoe's Jesus is weak, paranoid, riddled with guilt and unsure of his identity.

It turns out that this is not coincidental. Turning to Spicer's book to find the above quote I'm reminded about the fact that one of the most influential pieces on the understanding of the genre is a 1972 essay called "Notes on Film Noir", written by one Paul Schrader.

Schrader predicts the resurection of interest in the genre, and nudged his prophecy along the way by writing the screenplay for Scorsese's 1976 film noir of sorts Taxi Driver. Spicer takes an in depth look at the film in his first chapter on Neo-noir. Twelve years later Schrader and Scorsese collaborated again, with Schrader penning the script for Last Temptation.

Before everyone thinks I've gone a little bit mad, I should qualify my point. I'm not saying that Last Temptation is a film noir, but certainly a great number of noirish elements are to be found in the film and knowing Schrader's expertise in the genre certainly suggests another lens through which we should view the final production.

Posted with Blogsy

The Sermon on the Mount in Film

Next weekend I'm due to do a talk on "Blessed are the poor in spirit" which has got me thinking about portrayals of the Sermon on the Mount in film. The different films emphasise different parts of the sermon, although obviously the Beatitudes get a good showing in a lot of different films. Anyway, I thought I'd list some of my favourite portrayals and give a brief explanation.

King of Kings (1961)[Pictured above]
In contrast to Matthew's arrangement, Ray uses the Sermon on the Mount as the climax of the movie's first half. The buzz has been building about Jesus so everyone gathers to hear him preach and check him out. It's a spectacular build up and the idea of Jesus moving through the crowd is good, if lacking in realism. Sadly the post-production overdubbing of Jeffrey Hunter's original vocals leaves this feeling stiff and forced. But the build up and the colours are spectacular.

Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)
Pasolini's filming of this part of the gospel is perhaps the most interesting, certainly from a scholarly angle. Most scholars believe that rather than their being a single key sermon Matthew 5-7 is a compilation of Jesus' teaching. Some films reflect this by simply splitting up the sermon into different parts and placing them throughout the film. But Pasolini stays true to the gospel by leaving all the material, but also acknowledges the scholarly angle by changing the setting, weather and background Jesus is speaking against as well his clothes and hair. Sadly whilst it's clever, it's also a little dull.

Son of Man (1969)
Dennis Potter's take on the Sermon is to excise the Beatitudes and focus on the "Love your enemy" part of the Sermon. The previous scene is critical here: a group of Roman soldiers have just attacked a local Jewish village and there is a seething contempt in the crowd Jesus addresses. Potter plays fast and loose with the wording, but certainly stays true to the spirit of the text. And Colin Blakely delivery is incredible. One of my favourite clips from a Bible Films ever.

Life of Brian (1979)
Life of Brian's take on the Sermon on the Mount is so well known that I knew all the best jokes before I'd even seen it. Still the timing and delivery are so perfect that even after all the times I've seen it, I'm still amused by "Blessed are the cheesemakers". It was perhaps the first time that anyone had ever considered what it was like to be someone at the edge of one of Jesus' sermons. We often wonder how he would have been able to address such a large crowd, but never consider what it was like for those on the edge. What's also impressive about the scene is how it nails so much of biblical interpretation: "obviously it applies to all makers of dairy produce". Of course if you missed it you may very well not understand the whole film. Not normally a problem unless you're about to be interviewed about it on national television as happened to Malcolm Muggeridge.

Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Like Potter before him, Paul Schrader plays a little loose with the original wording, and gets brilliant results, again thanks to the lead actor's delivery. Last Temptation opts for Luke's Sermon on the Plain rather than Matthew's Mount, and it fits well with the confrontational prophet that Scorsese portrays in certain parts of the film. The spontaneity of this portrayal has a real vitality about it, and the ending, which makes it a little controversial for church use, nevertheless highlights the issue that occurs again and again in the gospels of Jesus' original audience failing to understand him.

The Miracle Maker (2000)
The Miracle Maker makes little attempt to depict the Sermon on the Mount although it does include a few extracts of some of the less famous passages, at least two of which are animated. The "why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?" is played for great comic effect with the audience laughing in the background. But the best part is Jesus' twin similes contrasting the wise man building his house upon rock with the foolish man building on sand. It's a nicely stylised piece of animation, and rather memorable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rossellini's Il Messia also includes a segment of Jesus teaching the disciples the words from the sermon whilst they go about their everyday tasks, but I haven't got the time to check it out just now. Does anyone else have any favourites that I've missed?

The Atonement in Jesus Films

I've been struck recently by how few of the many Jesus films offer any kind of theological interpretation of the crucifixion. In a sense this makes sense for the big Hollywood films such as King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told which needed the broadest possible appeal to recoup their production costs, but even in films made by Christians this is relatively rare. In saying this I am, of course, setting aside the sayings of Jesus relating to his own death - aside from Mark 10:45, these are usually fairly cryptic.

Brief examples are found in From the Manger to the Cross (1912) and Jesus (1979) which both end by citing John 3:16 (thus offering a brief interpretation of the crucifixion as an act of atonement).

Only three films really stand out for me. The first is Jesus of Nazareth (1977) which obviously has a great deal more time to explore such issues. As Jesus is dying, the camera cuts to Nicodemus (played by Laurence Olivier) who quotes from the suffering servant portion of Isaiah 53 as a commentary on the events that are unfolding.

We also find Isaiah 53 in The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). Throughout the film Jesus is unsure of which path he is to take, but then the prophet himself (played by the film’s director Martin Scorsese) appears to him and shows him the suffering servant part of the passage and Jesus is persuaded that he has to sacrifice himself.

The film also uses the colour red a great deal, evoking blood as well as power. When Jesus is tempted in the devil he bites into an apple and ends up with blood on his face. Shortly afterwards is the infamous scene where he pulls his heart out of his chest, and to underline the point the scene is captured with red lighting. Later, during Jesus’ first visit to the temple, blood red smoke billows up around a statue of Caesar, whilst blood flowing from a nearby sacrifice is licked up by dogs. Then as Jesus throws a money-changer's stall into the air a Roman coin lands next to blood dripping from a different sacrifice. Here the old system is depicted as mixing the blood of Jewish sacrifices with Roman idolatry, whereas Jesus’ quickly actions mark "the end of the old law and the beginning of the new". In addition to all this, is the instigation of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Not only does the film portray the cup of wine literally becoming blood, but blood is also shown on Jesus' palms as a nod, not only to the stigmata, but also to Jesus own fate.

The film which explores the blood of Jesus in greater depth than any other to date is, of course, The Passion of the Christ (2004). The film also quotes Isaiah 53:5 this time just before its opening scene. This is the lens that the rest of the film should be viewed through, and the penal substitution theory of the atonement is present throughout. That said, as Mark Goodacre has pointed out:

There is no question that The Passion of the Christ focuses in a major way on a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but as I argued in my article in Jesus and Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ (38-9) ...it is not the only perspective on the atonement in the film, which also makes a great deal of Christus Victor and exemplary ("no greater love") atonement theories.

Whilst many have criticised the film for it violence, in many ways such objections miss the point - at least from Gibson's point of view. The film is intended to be a contemplation of the suffering that Jesus underwent in order to reconcile humanity with its creator, it's an extension of a long held Catholic tradition. Even the question of whether or not the violence is realistic is not strictly relevant from that perspective.

I have a worrying feeling that in posting in this I'll be reminded of numerous other films that give a far more detailed exploration of the theology of the cross earlier in the film, but for whatever reason, they are not coming to mind right now.

Slant Magazine on Passion of the Christ and Last Temptation

There's a great piece comparing and contrasting The Passion of the Christ and Last Temptation of Christ over at Slant Magazine. Essentially it's a conversation between Jason Bellamy and Ed Howard who disagree on various issues, in particularly the weightiness of The Passion.

It's quite long though so I hope to have time later onto read it in its entirety. Thanks to Ron Reed's Soul Food Movies for the tip off.

Refelctions on Jesus Film Sessions at Regents Theological College

I was privileged to take a couple of sessions on Jesus films at Regents Theological College yesterday. I'd been invited by Richard Hasnip (star of the The Follower and The King) as parts of Regents' Performing Arts Track, which includes an entire module on Jesus in Film.

I was lecturing on Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal, with 40 minutes on each. The technical set up was surprisingly quick and easy, and, a couple of minor things aside, that bit went fairly smoothly. I'm still trying to work out the best way of combining clips with PowerPoint, especially if the clips are from Region 1 DVDs. I'm not sure that what I did yesterday - flicking between a DVD player for the clips and a laptop for the notes - will really ever work that well, unless the clips start at the beginning of a chapter. Next time I think I'll either rip, trim and embed in PowerPoint (though my ancient version of PowerPoint can't really handle this that well), or perhaps look more closely at VLC and see if it's possible to utilise a more precise playlist or something.

Anyway... I was fairly pleased with how the session themselves went, particularly given the various computer nightmares I'd been having in the days running up to the event. It was a great group: friendly, interested, plenty of insightful questions and (surprisingly) the majority had seen more than 10 foreign language films.

There were a few notable observations. Firstly, someone asked me whether I thought that the alien sequence in Life of Brian was an obscure reference to Jesus' temptation because of the way the Jesus figure falls and is swept up by angels/aliens. It's an interesting theory, not least because I'm never really sure what that moment is about (aside from a nod to the then recent and hugely successful Star Wars), but my hunch is not. In honesty, it's too early to tell. At the very least I'll have to watch if before I can decide.

The other observation that stood out was from Last Temptation. According to one of the class, the filmmakers made it look like you can actually see Dafoe's hand underneath his skin as he pulls out his heart. I'm not sure I have a high enough definition TV/projector to be able to see this, but again, next time I'm watching I'll certainly keep an eye out for it. Incidentally, I also owe that man an apology. At one point I said that Last Temptation was an 18 certificate, which of course it was at it's time of release (and is on my VHS copy. He challenged me on it saying he thought it was a 15, but being the big-head I am I stuck to my guns. However, it wasn't long before I started to get the odd nagging doubt - after all I have the region 1 Criterion Collection disc for this film, not the UK version - and, alas, when I checked out the DVD cover on Amazon it appears that the DVD release has been downgraded to a 15. So, on the off chance you're reading this this morning, sorry!

The first session overran, even despite cutting down on quite a lot of what I had to say, but that seemed to work out for the best. Far more of them were familiar with Last Temptation than were with Jesus of Montreal, and whilst the latter film is fascinating in it's own right, I don't think it's as insightful or as interesting as Scorsese' with respect to cinematic portrayals of Jesus. It was a shame, though, that I only got to show one clip from Montreal. Having written my notes, prepared my slides and produced some notes for the session, it would be nice to have the opportunity to revisit these talks, not least to be able to tighten the content and delivery.

I may at some point record some of this session and put it on the podcast, though it's probably unlikely to happen until next year now. Obviously I'll post news of that here if I ever gat around to it.

Articles on Last Temptation of Christ

I've been searching for the picture above to complement an article I'm writing for ReJesus on the Gospel of Philip, and in doing so I cam across a couple of articles on Last Temptation of Christ that I thought might be of interest (or at least that I might want to find easily at some point in the future!).

The first, which I actually thought I had already linked to was the review by Matthew Dessem of the Criterion Contraption. There are a number of interesting reviews on that site, and they are usually pretty image rich as well.

Then there's the review is from the Images Journal, and it was here I found the above. Going to their, more attractive, homepage it seems that they have a special love for the other great cinematic passion of mine - the films of Alfred Hitchcock.

Lastly, The Screengrab features author Phil Nugent recalling his visit to the set in Morocco.

Review: Hollywood Under Siege:Martin Scorsese, The Religious Right and the Culture Wars

Hollywood Under Siege: Martin Scorsese, the Religious Right, and the Culture Wars
Thomas R. Lindlof
University Press of Kentucky (July 1, 2008)
Hardcover, 408 pages
English
ISBN: (978)0813125170
9.2 x 6.4 x 1.4 inches

Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ is one of the most written about of all Bible films, with the possible exception of The Passion of the Christ (2004). In the main, those books have largely focussed on the content of the film. 2005's "Scandalizing Jesus: The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On" added a more even handed look to the highly critical volumes from 1988 "Last Temptation of Hollywood" (by Larry W. Poland), "Facts on the Last Temptation of Christ" (John Ankerberg and John Weldon) and "The Last Temptation of Christ: Its Deception and What You Should Do About It" (Erwin W Lutzer). But two books have sought, instead, to examine the context of the film. Five years ago Robin Riley published "Film, Faith and Cultural Conflict: The Case of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ", and now, twenty years on from the controversial film's original release, Thomas R. Lindlof has cast his eye over the same events.

In fact, two of those authors (Poland and Ankerberg) are discussed in Lindlof's book "Hollywood Under Siege: Martin Scorsese, The Religious Right and the Culture Wars". It seeks to tell the story of events surrounding the film's release primarily from the perspective of the filmmakers. Drawing on extensive interviews not only with Scorsese himself, but also a number of the executives from Universal Pictures and parent company MCA, Lindlof gives what is almost an insider's view of proceedings.

Lindlof also interviewed some of the leading voices from the Religious Right, including Poland and Ankerberg, which brings a measure of balance to his work. Yet, whereas there is seemingly an intuitive understanding of the film's makers and producers, he's never really able to empathise with the film's opponents to the same degree. There do appear to have been fewer interviews with the leading voices in the Religious Right, but it's certainly possible that this is because they were less willing to reflect on these events than those making the film. Indeed, one of Lindlof's conclusions is that some of these characters had used this affair to bolster support for their, hitherto, struggling organisations. The film ultimately battled to break even, but the Christian organisations who had been the most outspoken in their criticism of the film saw their profits soar during the period in question.

The book's real strength is the way it shapes its account into a tightly wound narrative, even managing to build up a sense of dramatic tension as the US release date approaches. It feels almost like the election night episode of West Wing, as information slowly ebbs in from across the county.

This is made all the more remarkable for two reasons. Firstly because, as with any book based on true events, it's harder to create tension when the story is so well known. The vast majority of this book's readers will already know that, despite the odds against it, the film did eventually get made, and that the protests largely went off without major incident.

The second point here is that Lindlof is not attempting to write a novel, or a dramatised account. His intention is an accurate representation of the events in question. The 54 pages of endnotes should be sufficient to convince even the most sceptical reader of that. Yet Lindlof skilfully develops his characters in the earlier parts of the book to bring things to a engaging climax. Ultimately we not only care what happens to Scorsese, but also Sally van Slyke, Tom Pollack and many others.

Whilst the leading characters from Universal, and even Paramount (who passed on the film at an earlier stage) are well fleshed out, that's less true of the film's main opponents. One notable exception, is Tim Penland the man Universal employed to act as a liaison with leading figures in the Christian Right. As someone who ultimately jumped from Universal's ship and became a key figure in their opponents campaign, it would have been easy to demonise him. Yet here, he's somewhat sympathetically presented as a semi-tragic figure: a man who got in out of his depth in a sea battle he failed to anticipate.

Interestingly, despite this book's primary focus on the controversy in the United States, the film's most vitriolic opposition actually came overseas, culminating in an arson attack during a screening in France. The film's limited release overseas is covered in the final chapter. But, in a way, these events are somewhat tangential to the concerns of this book as indicated by its title - "Hollywood Under Siege". It seeks to flesh out what really went on inside Universal studios during what was a very real crisis. And, in no uncertain terms, it succeeds.

Ebert on Last Temptation of Christ

Earlier this month, the great Roger Ebert published his book on Martin Scorsese, simply titled "Scorsese". In it he includes a new piece on Last Temptation of Christ updating his 1998 article he wrote at the time of the film's release. Ebert is perhaps my favourite film critic, and he's been in the business a long time, so it's nice to read his thoughts on this, particularly as views on the film have altered over the last ten years. The new review opens by explaining why his earlier review had focussed on the theological controversy around the film, before looking at the film as a film. I particularly liked this section:

A key shot is when Michael Ballhaus' camera pushes past Jesus into the sepulcher of the dead Lazarus. It is black inside, contrasted with the blinding sun, and then blacker and blacker until the whole screen is filled with blackness, and held for a few seconds. I take this as an emblem of Jesus' experience of his miracles, during which he is reaching into an unknowable and frightening void.

Despite the fact that Ebert has published many books, he has always been good at making his work more widely available. True to form, a shortened version of this chapter is now available at his website.

Ebert also makes mention of my friend Steven D. Greydanus's article on the film. Steven and I disagree about the film, but I always come away from debates with him with plenty to think about. So it's not surprising that even Roger Ebert revised his thoughts on this film as a result of reading Steven's article.

(Hat Tip to Jeffrey Overstreet)

New Book on Last Temptation

Hollywood Under Siege: Martin Scorsese, the Religious Right, and the Culture Wars
Thomas R. Lindlof
University Press of Kentucky (July 1, 2008)
Hardcover, 408 pages
English
ISBN: (978)0813125170
9.2 x 6.4 x 1.4 inches

Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ was 20 years old last month and to mark the occasion Thomas R. Lindlof has published a book looking at the controversy that surrounded the release of the film. Hollywood Under Siege: Martin Scorsese, the Religious Right, and the Culture Wars looks to be a dense inspection of many aspects of the movie from filming in Morocco to the clashes with the religious right.

Here's an extract from the publisher's blurb:

Thomas R. Lindlof offers a comprehensive account of how this provocative film came to be made and how Universal Pictures and its parent company MCA became targets of the most intense, unremitting attacks ever mounted against a media company...The making of The Last Temptation of Christ caught evangelical Christians at a moment when they were suffering a crisis of confidence in their leadership. The religious right seized on the film as a way to rehabilitate its image and to mobilize ordinary citizens to attack liberalism in art and culture...Hollywood Under Siege draws upon interviews with many of the key figures—Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Michael Ovitz, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jack Valenti, Thomas P. Pollock, and Willem Dafoe—to explore the trajectory of the film from its conception to the subsequent epic controversy and beyond. Lindlof offers a fascinating dissection of a critical episode in the embryonic culture wars, illuminating the explosive effects of the clash between the interests of the media industry and the forces of social conservatism.

It's certainly an interesting premise and it sounds like it will be quite a different prospect to the other recent book on Last Temptation - Scandalizing Jesus? Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On. I'll be reviewing this latest book shortly.

Book Review: Scandalizing Jesus? Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On

Both the written and the cinematic version of Nikos Kazantzakis's Last Temptation of Christ caused controversy on their release, and (as I noted in my recent podcast on the film), it's still difficult to discuss either project today without getting bogged down in the strident objections that have been levelled at both works.

So news that Darren J. N. Middleton was pulling together a series of essays to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the books publication, was most welcome, particularly as it promised to offer a "balanced, critical assessment of Kazantzakis's novel and Scorsese's subsequent film". Indeed it's clear that in "Scandalizing Jesus? Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On", Middleton has done exactly that. His chapter "Satan and the Curious: Texas Evangelicals Read the Last Temptation of Christ", opens the second part of the book, and it is the only one which is primarily concerned with the outrage that has been caused by this story. It doesn't really bring much that is new to the table, but its balance and measured examination is certainly a breath of cool fresh air into an often heated debate.

Similarly, Middleton deserves credit for inviting one or two of the writers who very evidently disapprove of the works, For example, Lloyd Baugh's chapter "Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ:A Critical Re-assessment of Its Sources, Its Theological Problems, and Its impact on the Public" is effectively a re-working of his chapter on the film in his "Imaging the Divine". Thankfully, they respond in kind: their comments are measured and fair.

As would be expected, the first section of the book is the longer, featuring 11 essays on Kazantzakis's "Literary Lord". After a strong start by Last Temptation translator Peter Bien, Jesus film critic W. Barnes Tatum, and Kazantzakis expert Lewis Owens, the first section seems to lose it's way a little. Bien examines the impact of Renan's "Vie de Jésus" on Kazantzakis and Tatum picks up the thread looking at how the novel relates to the quest for the historical Jesus. His chapter is clearly laid out, succinctly concluded, and puts its point across very well.

In comparison the three chapters which follow Owens's are a chore to read. Lifelessly written and full of technical jargon they seem to take no account of the variety of backgrounds their readers will have. Essentially this book will find readers from across four disciplines: theology, philosophy literature and film studies. To repeatedly introduce philosophical terms, and leave them undefined for readers unfamiliar with philiosophy, say, is at best thoughtless.

It's difficult to decide where exactly the fault lies for this. Whilst some blame obviously lies with the authors, we obviously don't know what their brief was. Were they aware of the inter-disciplinary nature of the book? Even so, perhaps some blame rests with the editor. Middleton, at least, should have been aware at how impregnable some of these chapters are to outsiders, and suggest areas where greater clarity could have been brought.

Of course, it's possible that I'm just trying to excuse my own ignorance. And certainly, some ideas and concepts are far harder to communicate than others. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder how often legitimate criticisms are held back for fear of looking stupid. If, in a work of numerous authors, some chapters are lucid and eloquent, whilst others are confusing and impregnable, might this at least suggest that part of the fault lies with the authors of those weaker chapters?

Fortunately, just when I was on the verge of abandoning the literature section entirely, and just sticking to the "Screen Savior" part of the book, Roderick Beaton's chapter gave me fresh hope. "The Temptation that Never Was: Kazantzakis and Borges" notes similarities between "Last Temptation" and the work of Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges and philosopher Henri Bergson. Beaton makes the novel suggestion that Jesus's last temptation is simply Kazantzakis allowing Jesus to have "had it both ways".¹ It's one of the books most interesting essays although Beaton relies on ignoring Kazantzakis's prologue, which is somewhat problematic. Interestingly the film presents the "temptation" sequence in such a way as to rule out Beaton's oppositional reading.

The rest of the first section continues without ever reaching the highs or lows of the chapters that have preceded it. Jen Harrison's examination of "Women in Pre-Easter Patriarchy" voices the long overdue observation that the "there is only one woman in the world"² quotation actually comes from the mouth of Satan during the temptation sequence. She argues, therefore, that it should not be taken as an example of misogyny within the minds of either Kazantzakis or his leading man.

The second "half" of the book consists of only 6 chapters including Middleton's and Baugh's as discussed above. The last of these is by Martin Scorsese, and whilst it's a most welcome addition to this volume, at just over a side in length, it's little more than a footnote. Certainly anyone who bought the book because Scorsese's name appeared on the cover will be disappointed – they would be better off with the relevant portion of "Scorsese on Scorsese".

The remaining three chapters are by Melody D. Knowles and Alison Whitney, Randolph Jordan and Peter T. Chattaway. Peter is a good friend of mine, so I find myself unable to offer an objective position on his chapter. Nevertheless, it seems, to me at least, that it's one of the book's best entries. He looks at "Sexuality and Christ" in four different locations: Christian theology, art and film, Kazantzakis's novel, and Scorsese's Film with some great insights into each.

The other two chapters revert to the hit and miss pattern that is typical of the book as a whole. There's nothing wrong with Randolph Jordan's essay, but it feels slightly out of place here. It's not so much an essay about this particular film as one about the relationship between sound and film in general, which happens to use Last Temptation of Christ as a pertinent example. Jordan's observations are articulately expressed, and contain some interesting insights, but they would be best served in another volume - perhaps one examining the relationship between sound and image in cinema.

By contrast, Knowles and Whitney's chapter really hits the mark. Drawing on their experiences of discussing the film with seminarians they bring to the table a wide range of perspectives on the film – many of which could easily spawn essays themselves. This is one of the chapters of this book I can imagine myself returning to time and time again.

In addition to the book's two main sections it is topped and tailed by Don Cuppitt's Foreword and Austin S. Lingerfelt's Webliography as well as a further reading section. Like Scorsese's chapter, Cuppitt's introduction barely stretches over a side. The Webliography and further reading sections are far more extensive and offer a great range of writing on both the book and the film. One minor criticism here, however, is that the date of access for most of the web resources is in late 2003. Since the book was not published until November 2005, it was almost two years between the last date of access and the book's publication. Things change so swiftly in cyberspace that this seems an awfully long time. I don't imagine for a minute that this is Lingerfelt's fault – far more likely to be the fault of the publishers – but it does raise the question of how worthwhile such an exercise was if it was to be handled this way.

It perhaps sums up the book as a whole - a great idea, with some fascinating insights, but several disappointments along the way (strangely, this is also how I feel about Scorsese's film). In particular, too many chapters are either a little tangential, poorly communicated or unnecessarily verbose. Whilst fans of either the book or the film will no doubt appreciate the numerous new ways to look at these two works, they may well wonder at the end if it was worth all the effort.

=======

1 - Beaton, Roderick. "The Temptation that Never Was: Kazantzakis and Borges" in "Scandalizing Jesus? Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On" p.90
2 – Kazantzakis, Nikos. "Last Temptation of Christ" (1960), p.66

Podcast: Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

Didn't have time yesterday to post the details of my latest Jesus film podcast on Last Temptation of Christ. It's the ninth talk available on this podcast. The other eight (Jesus of Nazareth, Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus of Montreal, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Miracle Maker, Il Messia and King of Kings) are still available to download.

I've written several pieces on this film already, but having recently listened to the audio commentary on the Criterion Collection version of this DVD (as well as having viewed the other extras) I've been able to bring some new material.

Fans of this film might also like to know that a transcript taken of the film is available at Drew's Script-o-rama.

FilmChat: A tale of two 80s Bible movies

The 80s were a fairly thin time for Bible films. Over at FilmChat, Peter Chataway has a piece called A tale of two Bible movies from the 1980s where he compares the box office fates of 1985's King David and 1988's Last Temptation of Christ. Peter's main point is that these were the only two American films to get a cinematic release in the 80s that were based om the bible. (None of the following films fit into that category: (1980) The Day Christ Died, Wholly Moses, (1981) Peter and Paul, (1985) Hail Mary, (1986) Esther, (1986) Genesis, (1988) A.D., The Seventh Sign, (1989) Jesus of Montreal (Jesu de Montreal)).

Peter also goes onto note how despite the back of a major studio, King David ultimately did worse than Last Temptation at the box office. I do think Peter overlooks some of Last Temptation's bankability factors. Firstly, whilst King David did feature a star (Richard Gere), Dafoe and Keitel were also fairly well known by this point. Secondly, whilst King David had a major studio behind it, nothing sells a movie like controversy (just ask Mel Gibson). All publicity is good publicity etc.. Last Temptation had controversy by the bucket load, and as a result is still well known today whereas King David is all but forgotten.

Either way, as Peter has pointed out elsewhere, The Nativity Story is not the first Bible film to be released by a major studio in 50 years.

Thoughts on "Last Temptation" (the Novel)

Way back in February I started reading Nikos Kazantzakis's "Last Temptation" (in Greek "O Teleutaios Peirasmos"), the book that Martin Scorsese adapted for his 1988 film Last Temptation of Christ. I'd been meaning to read it ever since I first saw the film back in 2000, and the release of "Scandalizing Jesus?: Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On", featuring an article by my friend (and oft quoted) Peter Chattaway finally spurred me on to get a copy.

I must admit, one of the reasons it's taken me so long is that I wasn't particularly inspired by the first few chapters. Then what with a ton of books about babies to read (as well as a lot else), and never having been a great reader of novels anyway, it's taken me until the latter half of the summer to get around to finishing it off. I should add that I'm aware that I'm certainly no book critic, and so if I totally miss the point in anything that follows, please forgive me - these are only my initial impressions.

Overall I feel quite differently about the book and the film. The film in some places is fairly unpalatable, yet it also soars to places far higher than anywhere the book took me. Particularly significant in this is the characterisation of Jesus in both works. Dafoe's Jesus doesn't really seem to comprehend with the "Son of Mary" of the novel (who tends only to be called "Jesus" once his ministry gets going). Dafoe is far tougher and aggressive than his counterpart, not to mention far more Anglo-Saxon.

Another interesting contrast is between how the two works use their run-time. I tend to divide the film into three sections. The prologue (from the start to Jesus leaving the monastery in the desert), the ministry (from the stoning of Magdalene to the crucifixion), and the temptation. The opening and closing sections last for about 40 minutes each, whereas the middle section lasts for roughly twice that. So it's roughly 1:2:1

In the book on the other hand the prologue takes roughly 190 of 575 pages - about a third. But the temptation sequence lasts for only 60 pages - barely a tenth. So Scorsese significantly reduces the opening, and middle sections of the film to concentrate on the temptation sequence. Given both works are named after this sequence this is perhaps fair enough, but it does mean that Jesus comes off as weirder in the film than in the book.

There are a few characters who were left out of the novel. Matthew (the tax collector and gospel writer), and Simon the Cyrenian are both wonderfully presented, and my two favourite passages in the book are Matthew's call and Simon's carrying of the cross. I've always had an affinity with Matthew (due to being named after him I guess), and so whilst I recognise Kazantzakis's history is perhaps a little off here, I'd like to quote this passage anyway.

Matthew went inside, closed his ledgers, put a blank one under his arm, wedged his bronze ink well into his belt and placed his quill behind his ear. Next, he removed a key from his belt, locked the shed and tossed the key into a garden. As soon as he had finished, he approached Jesus with trembling knees. Should he go forward, or not? Would the teacher offer him his hand? He raised his eyes and looked at Jesus as if imploring him to have pity...Jesus smiled at him and offered him his hand.(p.363)

Sadly, there weren't many passages that I enjoyed that much. I found the dialogue quite clunky in places, particularly the spoken dialogue. Perhaps Kazantzakis was going for realism, or perhaps it's just a difficult work to translate, or the translation no longer captures what it once did. The strength of the novel is in it's concepts and ideas, combined with it's desire to take the humanity of Jesus seriously at a time when that was a risky business. Today such honest examination has been quickly bypassed in the rush to get to soulless, facile mocking. One only has to search for "Jesus" on YouTube to get the idea.

Two final observations. Firstly, my opinion on the film's view of Jesus is that he (a imagines himself to have been a sinner (as do others), when in fact he isn't. As far as I recall, the novel confirms this. Secondly, some have criticised the temptation sequence as showing Jesus actually sinning, before going back in time. In my opinion, this is incorrect, even though there is some ambiguity. The book, however, is quite clear that these events never actually happen. What is interesting is that many of the other objectionable parts of the movie, were in fact added by Schrader and Scorsese.

I'll hopefully get around to reading and reviewing "Scandalizing Jesus?: Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years On", in the next few months.

Silverscreen Beats: Last Temptation of Christ

The final part of BBC Radio 4's Silverscreen Beats series on Jesus films aired on Friday with a look at Last Temptation of Christ. It's a score that has gained wide acclaim, and many have cited it as composer Peter Gabriel's finest work. Certainly it gives the film a real edge, and whilst much of the music is more Arabic than Hebrew, the score's middle-eastern sound heightens one's awareness of the location, reminding the viewer that this story took place in a different place and in a different time.

The analysis on this episode of Silverscreen beats is possibly a little greater than for the other four programmes. I particularly appreciated the comments made by co-producer David Bottrill about the uplifting music used at the end of the film. It's one of my favourite parts of the film. Many have criticised the film for, amongst other things, its exclusion of the resurrection. However, this misses the point of what the sound (and indeed the visuals) do at this point. The intense flashing images and the up-beat music not only hint at the resurrection that is to come, but it is also practically the only film that celebrates the victory that Christians believe Jesus won on the cross. Most films only focus on the sadder aspects of the crucifixion, rather than those aspects that gave the day it is celebrated the title Good Friday.

One of the things that the programme mentions is how Scorsese actually cut certain aspects of the score, most notably in the scene when Jesus comes down off the cross. Even so, the score is not without its own controversy. In "Imaging the Divine", Lloyd Baugh objects to the way the film juxtaposes the most solemn ritual in the film, the jewish seder / Last Supper, with the Muslim call to prayer, calling it one of the film's "grotesqueries"¹.

What the programme didn't mention was how the film influenced the score for The Passion of the Christ. I remember how at the time a number of people were amazed that Gabriel was not credited in some way. For example, Jeffrey Overstreet wondered if it might qualify as "musical plagiarism", noting how "the themes and flourishes here are so similar that some will swear it’s exactly the same music. It would only have been fair to credit Gabriel’s influence".

1 - Lloyd Baugh, "Imaging the Divine : Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film", Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward (1998) p.59.

Music in Movies about Jesus

Peter Chattaway let me know about a feature taking place this week on BBC Radio 4. Silverscreen Beats is a regular programme, hosted by Miles Jupp, but this week they are looking at the music from 5 films about Jesus as follows:

Monday - King of Kings
King of Kings presents a treasury of tunes and surprising stories from behind the scenes. Composer Miklos Rosza reveals that despite winning an Oscar for the music of Ben Hur, this was the toughest score he ever had to write.

Tuesday - Godspell
Composer Stephen Schwartz reveals that he took five weeks to write the classic songs such as Day By Day. Another song, Beautiful City, became the unofficial anthem of the World Trade Centre disaster, and virtually all the words in Godspell are derived from the New Testament.

Wednesday - Jesus Christ Superstar
Lyricist Tim Rice reveals that the movie only came about because the stage show was such a flop, and how Tom Jones inspired the title to the film.

Thursday - The Life of Brian
Composer Geoffrey Burgon reveals how he wrote a traditional, serious score to counteract the comedy in a controversial film. Director Terry Jones admits that he was surprised that the song Always Look on the Bright Side became such a hit.

Friday - The Last Temptation of Christ
Composers Peter Gabriel and David Bottrill reveal insightful and surprising stories from behind the scenes of this controversial movie. Director Martin Scorsese admits to receiving death threats during production.

The series actually started yesterday, but fortunately you can listen to it online. I'm not sure how long they will be available though - the only Silverscreen Beats programme I can find to listen to is yesterday's King of Kings.

It looks like it will be an interesting series. Certainly today's had a number of pieces of information on King of Kings that was new to me, plus a couple of recording of Rosza himself (speaking not playing). There's also a story about Rosza finding out that not only did the actress playing Salome (Brigid Bazlen) have no dancing experience, but also that the choreographer, who was Nicholas Ray's wife, had no experience either. This fits fairly well with a number of other stories about chaos on the set that I mentioned in my review of this film. That said, I'm currently re-watching this film, for the first time in widescreen, and I find myself liking it more and more each time, even despite its problems.

As for the series as a whole, I suspect it is a repeat. Certainly before Mark Goodacre's brief quote he is introduced as being from Birmingham University which would make it at least a year old! If that is the case, it's a very much welcome one. There's precious little discussion about the music of Jesus films (Godspell, The gospel Road and Jesus Christ Superstar aside), so this is a much needed area of analysis. I'm surprised by some of their choices though. I suppose Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were obvious, and King of Kings is usually described as the finest piece from Rosza's incredible body of work. But Life of Brian is a (pleasant) surprise - comedy is often not taken seriously enough to be deemed worthy of any kind of analysis, let alone musical analysis. Hopefully it will go beyond simply discussing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". Last Temptation is an interesting choice too. Whilst not as controversial as many aspects of the film, the score still caused something of a stir in some quarters whilst generally gaining critical acclaim. So much so in fact that it clearly influenced John Debney's score for The Passion of the Christ.

Sadly though there is no analysis of Pasolini's amazing score for his Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew), which is easily my favourite of all the Jesus film music.
Silverscreen Beats is playing every day this week at 3:45pm on BBC Radio 4. Programmes can be downloaded after the broadcast from the BBC website.

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.