Visual Bible: Acts (1994)

Back in 2010 I went through The Visual Bible: Matthew a few chapters at a time. But, aside from the odd post here or there, I've never looked at the sequel to that film, Acts. It's been a while since I watched the whole thing through but here are a slightly random collection of thoughts I have about this production.

The first thing that strikes you when watching Acts is the tagged on prologue. Matthew has only a slight added on "this is the person who wrote this book" intro, and mainly promoted its theory that the Gospel was written by the similarly named disciple, by visual means, occasionally fading between the narrating Matthew, and the disciple years earlier, a wry smile by the older actor at certain points etc.

This is nothing like the prologue here, where we are introduced to a boat in a storm (which is certainly not on the level of Master and Commander), and then someone needs a doctor, and lo and behold here's Dr Luke - and we're told he wrote the gospel and Acts and was a friend of Paul. Given that there's far from universal agreement that the author of these two letters / accounts was Paul's friend, and that its unclear whether Luke was a medical doctor, let alone the kind who might respond to "is there a doctor in the boat- type requests, this all seems a bit silly. Given the licensing agreement for using the text of the NIV was that the film "literally be the Word of God" [emphasis original] this is somewhat surprising (Marchiano 30).

Visual Bible's 2003 Gospel of John pulls back from this type of approach. There's an opening title to put the potentially anti-Semitic material in context, and it closes memorably on the young John's face, but it never actually presents things in quite such a black and white way. I think I remembered liking the way it actually gave the film the same sense of mystery about the full identification of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as the gospel, but I would have to check. Whereas Richard Kiley played the aged Matthew, here we have Dean Jones playing Luke as an older man.

Whilst Bruce Marchiano (who played Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew ) retains a cameo here as Jesus, many, if not all, of the disciples are played by different actors. This film does seem to be trying to be a sequel, rather than a separate entity like John. Its feel and particularly the use of the same actor as Jesus seem to support that theory, even though the other actors are different. The most noticeable change of actor is that of Peter. In the original he was played by a terrible actor, but he did manage to convey something of the uselessness of the Peter that comes across in the gospels. But here not only have they replaced this actual actor (and there's many reasons why they could have done this such as unavailability or the weakness of his acting), but they've also replaced the type of actor. No longer is is he feeble and stupid, now he is played by James Brolin - an actor so charismatic he was at one stage lined up to play James Bond. In contrast to Matthew's Peter, Brolin's is a leader of men, smiley, confident and so on. He's also older, which of course carries a connotation of being wiser, and more authoritative.

Now this might be a deliberate attempt to show some of the difference between the gospels and Acts (and Luke does show Peter more positively than Mark, at least) but one of the most interesting dynamics in Acts is how the Simon of the gospels becomes the Peter of Acts and the early church. Even locating a radical turn around as a result of Pentecost would have been something, but Pentecost seems to have little effect on him, other than giving him an opportunity to preach.

Acts continues the process Matthew started of trying to model the early Christ movement into the image of the promise keepers (a 1990s male evangelical movement). So there's even more hugging and inane laughing. and whereas in Matthew this at least seemed to be Jesus trying to bring them out of their shells a bit, here it's just imposing cheesy Christian man type Christianity onto the early church. Aside from the general feel there's also the choosing of the replacement disciple, where Joseph congratulates his rival in his victory in the style of a disappointed Oscar nominee, and is then commiserated by the man who drew the lots, the victorious Mathias and various others nearby. Perhaps worst of all is when in Acts 5 the disciples are released after a flogging and skip away laughing! This certainly wasn't a flogging in the mould of The Passion of the Christ.

Another bit that grates with me is the part where Peter's shadow heals someone. The impression I get of reading this from Acts is that Peter's movement is experiencing growth, and as a result, he is more pressed, both physically but also for time. However, his anointing is being accelerated accordingly so that even as he walks past people they are healed. Instead, here they take a very literal approach, taking away the sweep of the past and the amazing healing, and reducing it to an alternative method of praying for someone that allows for a full hug later on. In other words, the means of conveying what is going on (the growth an popularity of the church) becomes the event in itself.

The special effects, are rather weak in the scope used to depict some of the more supernatural elements. I would have loved to see what Pasolini would have done with some of the material, but here they are terrible. Jesus's ascension is poor and lacking creativity - confined by the film's literalist interpretation. Pentecosts's tongues of fire are similarly disappointing - both something very literal on the one hand, but also akin to a high school play on the other. The conversion of Saul is a little better in this respect with a few whirring point of view shots capturing the moment's disorientation.

On another occasion though, when a more literalist, understated approach might have fitted the material, the films opts instead to cut back to Jones narrating. This is particularly disappointing for me as someone who has long found the Annias and Saphira  to be particularly significant. The text's lack of explanation for their deaths (it notes only that they dropped down dead) leaves room for speculation. Did God kill them? Peter? Or was it just a coincidence? Given all this, it was a bit disappointing that this was not depicted, particularly given that the most literal rendering of this would require no special effects at all. Perhaps they decided that it was too controversial to impress on people with a specific image, or perhaps they tried it a few times, and failed and budget didn't allow for more takes. This isn't the only time Visual Bible has copped out of dealing with an odd passage, I remember feeling similarly disappointed when Matthew narrated the passage after Jesus dies where random men in their tombs are resurrected and walk round Jerusalem. Having Kiley/Jones narrate these passages is a bit of a cop out - if you're planning to produce a visual Bible it feels a little like sweeping the difficult passages under a rug to just have them narrated.

The camerawork here does seem to be a little more interesting here than before, despite Marchiano's assertion that the film used "No great camera angles, no fancy acting, no dazzling effects — just Jesus and the word" (Marchiano 27)

Jones, Brolin and Henry O. Arnold who plays Saul/Paul generally do a good job playing their parts, but as with Matthew, the project itself makes things a little stilted. Matthew however had a groundbreaking performance from Bruce Marchiano at it's core - a Jesus whose smiling "Jesus in jeans" type Christ broke the mould of previous cinematic incantations and which has influenced to a degree most of the versions that have followed (Marchiano 16). But Acts lacks this crucial USP. Whilst being the only word-for-word production of Acts does mean it is still unique, it lacks the draw that Matthew had, and suggests that had Visual Bible had the funds to film more of the good book it may not have had the same reception as the original movie.

=========
Marchiano, Bruce (1997) In the Footsteps of Jesus: One Man's Journey Through the Life of Christ. Eugene, Oreon: Harvest House.

A.D. (2015) - Part 9

This is part 9 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here
Earlier in the year I was blogging the individual episodes of the NBC series A.D. - The Bible Continues (2015) or A.D. - Kingdom and Empire as it was known over here. For some reason, at the time I skipped over episode 9, so I've been meaning to return to fill in the gap ever since.

The episode starts with Saul escaping from Damascus via a basket over the city walls. The city is in turmoil after Saul has preached at the synagogue. He returns, with Barnabas, to the believers in Jerusalem, who are understandably not that keen to welcome him with open arms. Simon the Zealot is particularly sceptical about the validity of Saul's conversion, but Peter and John are a little more accepting and Peter gives him the kind of one to one meeting that the biblical Paul seemed to find it difficult to realise.

Meanwhile Gaius has become Caesar and the filmmakers are determined to make sure everyone knows he is a bit loopy. He gets one of his uncle's formerly loyal servants to kill himself to prove his loyalty, and when he announces his plan to erect a statue of his likeness to be placed in the temple, no-one bats an eyelid, even though they fear the worst. Even Gaius' best friend has his misgivings such that Pilate is able to encourage him to get Gaius out of the city. Before he leaves it's strongly implied that he forces himself upon one of the servants - Tabitha - who is comforted by Mary Magdalene. In a later scene we're also introduced to Joanna and her husband Chuza. Joanna is surprisingly upfront about her funding the church, despite her husband's notion that she is insane. And it's her forthright discussion with her husband - for which she credits Jesus giving her permission - that first leads Tabitha to ask "Who is this Jesus?". This seems somewhat out of keeping with Peter and Paul's advice to be submissive to husbands as a form of witness, but it does emphasise Jesus' radical (for his time) views regarding women.

Meanwhile Caiaphas' wife has heard about Saul's conversion and is appalled by it, so she sets out to find a way to get him killed. Herod's wife on the other hand also sees an opportunity, thinking that Gaius' rise to power will mean that Antipas will be put it charge of the region instead. Caiaphas' men close in on Saul and arrest him. Meanwhile Simon goes seeking Zealots and ends up in a red pill/blue pill scenario (he chooses the red, obviously) whilst Paul kneels in Caiaphas' jail to recite the Lord's prayer.

I can kind of see why I skipped this one in my earlier reviews. It's not a stand out episode, and there are few striking visuals, set-piece moments, dramatic turns, or portrayals of iconic moments in the story. Instead it's more of a solid piece of ground work for the final three episodes, setting the various plot devices in motion that will run through the rest of the series. I chose the image at the top because Barnabas' role is at its most interesting here. He's still learning to trust Paul here, and he's struggling to know quite how to control this maverick that Jesus has dumped on them to confuse all the disciples cosy ideas about what it means to be his followers. The crucial difference between him and the other is that, despite his misgivings he is convinced Saul's conversion is genuine. As a result, he spends most of the episode trying to broker agreement going between, Paul and the various disciples. A minor role in some way, but in other ways the kind of grappling with a faith that doesn't work out the way you thought it would, to which many will be able to relate.

More Old Thoughts on Peter and Paul (1981)

For a while now I've been meaning to post a few thoughts I wrote down after an early viewing of the 1981 film Peter and Paul, and seeing as Paul, Apostle of Christ was released on DVD and blu-ray last week, this seemed an opportune moment. As with the last time I posted some old thoughts on this film, the thoughts below date back at least a decade so they perhaps don't reflect what I would write about the film today, but I thought it might be of interest to some, and in any case I'm trying to gather up some of the bits and pieces I have written elsewhere on the internet that have subsequently disappeared. It's actually interesting to me how much I have moved on from the kinds of things I wrote then, and how the film then taught me, or helped me understand other things, that I've come to just take for granted in the meantime. These thoughts were originally posted at a discussion forum, so please forgive the change of tone, but (spelling mistakes aside) I wanted to preserve the original as much as possible.
====

I found it interesting that the film stresses the change of name being from the Hebrew Saul to the Roman Paul. I'd never really twigged that that was what went on. It certainly makes more sense of where the name change occurs in Acts, which was something that had always puzzled me.

I found the stoning scenes quite interesting as well. In Jesus films we never really see one (save Life of Brian of course which doesn't really help factually), only Jesus stopping one. Here we see a few, and there are a few interesting details. In one of them its actually a woman who throws the first stone which I thought was a curious twist on John 8. One thing I've always wondered is how come Paul survived so many stonings. I mean unless you run out of rocks or the stoners have a really bad aim, it's difficult to visualise. And the film did this well. (FWIW I'm sure that at one point the actor who plays Steven is an extra who throws a stone in another scene - irony). Also interesting that in some of the scenes the crowd gets stoned just for being there.

The way the restrictions get handled is thought provoking as well. I guess going into the film I thought Paul had agreed on certain compromises which he then seems to flout later in his letters. The film takes the view that the Jewish church rejects salvation by faith alone, but agrees with Paul pretty much, but then quickly goes back on it, leading to the argument with Peter and Paul from Gal 2. I presume their version of things sees Acts as airbrushing, or rather consolidating a longer debate into one incident.

I hadn't realised btw that Silas was being played by Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). And for British viewers the main Juadiser in the film is played by the guy who plays Howard (as in the legendary Howard and Hilda from Ever Decreasing Circles starring Richard Briers)

The slave girl of Philippi here is "gifted" rather than demonised, and this generally fits with the way the film downplays the supernatural elements of the story. So Pentecost occurs before the film, the visions are restricted to bright lights, Paul's sight is restored but it only looks like some dried skin is soothed or something, the death of Annanias and Saphira is ignored (again, a bible film that cuts out the troubling bits), Peter's escape from jail is an earthquake rather than an angel, the supernatural intervention surrounding the shipwreck is missed out and we just see them washed on to the beach. There are some supernatural elements, but they are generally sidelined. Its particularly interesting then that the film gives us the definition of a miracle as an "event that produces faith"

As I think I said above one of the things I liked about the film was the way it worked later themes in as if Paul is developing them, or coining them and coming back to them. I particularly liked the way it works 1 Cor 1 in there. (one day I might do a film series / or essay on the use of this passage - it also occurs in The Mission, Three Colours Blue and Four Weddings and a Funeral).

I was also surprised that Cornellius' vision was absent. It seems to me that Acts really hinges on ch 8-10. The execution of Stephen forces many members of the church to leave Jerusalem and thus take the message further afield, then Paul is appointed to the gentiles and Peter has his vision. This film makes little of the first aspect, and nothing of the last.

I also thought the dispute between Paul and Barnabas was handled effectively and the whole portrayal of Paul as a great man, but one who is flawed is the films real strength.

One other thing I though was interesting was how at times the film casts both Peter and Paul as Jesus, through certain scenes / shots that are very reminiscent of Jesus. Peter gets this early on in an upper room, and Paul somewhat later on as he stands silent before Nero.
====
Hope you found this trip down memory lane interesting

A.D. (2015) - Part 10

One of the delights of the 1985 series A.D. was the way the mix of biblical, historical and fictional material was blended together and allowed minor biblical characters to be developed a little bit, even if that was, at times, largely fictional. Early episodes of this version of A.D. The Bible Continues (a.k.a. A.D. Kingdom and Empire) didn't really seem interested in this approach. Taking the story right back to the crucifixion there were a host of male apostles, women followers and backers, and authority figures that needed introducing.

Recently, however, this facet of the series has really started to develop and, in particular, it has come to the fore in this tenth episode as the apostles who dominate the early stages of Acts (and who are known from their time with Jesus) begin to fade into the background a little.

Most notably for this episode is the introduction of James who, at the start of the episode, rather burst onto the scene a little like he does in Acts. The episode actually starts with a flash back as a way of introducing us to James as the brother of Jesus. Whilst some scholars speculate that this James had already been part of the twelve, this is not the case here where he is introduced as a new character. There's something a little off with the way he seemingly has access to the power structures in Jerusalem that the other apostles don't, even though he is the brother of an executed criminal and of no higher social class than Peter and the others, but nevertheless, it goes some way to explaining how James suddenly seems to come to prominence in Acts having played a minor, and perhaps slightly antagonistic, role in Luke and the other gospels.

Meanwhile Caiaphas, fearing - once again - that things might blow-up, is desperately trying to persuade Saul to tone it down a bit. He's not alone. Whilst Peter and the others largely recognise there's a certain something about him, fear he is putting their reputation, if not their lives at risk. Simon the Zealot is the most vocally unhappy with this and after a few complaints, both in the last episode and this, he accepts a meeting with Levi the leader of his old resistance fighter colleagues.. Simon seems to be trying to have it both ways, seemingly wanting to silence Saul, but without ever telling anyone to kill him This is slightly odd as the pre-Christian Saul most likely had zealot connections of his own. When he describes his "zeal" in Philippians 3:6 this is likely not just a metaphor. Like the zealots he saw people hindering the coming of God's kingdom and saw violence as a way to further the coming kingdom.

Other minor characters also get a good outing here as well. Joanna, to whom we were reintroduced in Episode 8, has now led another servant called Tabitha to become a follower of Jesus, but she's barely just prayed what, one assumes, is meant to be a version of the sinners prayer, when Claudia and Herodias burst in. Herodias is incensed and ignores Claudia's attempt to deal with the affair in a low key manner. She takes the issue to her husband in front of Pilate. The timing for poor Tabitha could not have been worse. Pilate, Herod and a high ranking Ethiopian official have become locked in a testosterone-charged struggle to see who can make their kingdom look most impressive. In the cold light of day it's a little silly, but deserves credit for depicting some of the dynamics of the power issues in that region at that time. Ethiopia was not subject to Roman rule, indeed at the time of these events its own Aksumite Empire was just starting to gain a footing in the country itself. Presumably then there was an uneasy trading relationship with Rome, both keen to project their power and independence to dissuade the other from attack whilst also recognising the mutual benefit of trade. Pilate invites Herod along, but it's really only to show how his Rome has subjugated Judea's king.

So when Herodias arrives announcing a Christian amongst her staff, Pilate sees it as an affront to his posturing and has her flogged. The scene is reasonably disturbing - we're used to see men flogged in historical dramas but not women but is that 19th-21st century piety or a historical reality (I have no idea if women were flogged, even occasionally, like this, but it's quite possible they were). Tabitha survives badly scarred, and is secretly ushered off somewhere. I have a feeling that she'll be popping up in Philippi, if this series ever gets there...

Also, lined up to appear in future episodes is the Ethiopian official (not sure I'm keen on the traditional use of "eunuch" in his title). In terms of biblical chronology he should already have had his encounter with Philip, but I guess that will feature in the next episode. Things have been nicely set out here though. The official has appeared in all his grandeur in Jerusalem which has left the ruling Roman powers feeling threatened enough to search his party upon entry and report it to Pilate, but canny enough to know they need to play things sensibly, hence Pilate's dinner party invite. The official visits Jerusalem's temple. He calls himself a "Humble believer" and he and Pilate discuss him celebrating Yom Kippur. When he meets Caiaphas, the high priest gives him a copy of the scriptures as a gift, which nicely sets things up for a later episode.

What all of this does is give a very positive portrayal of Africa which is still all too rare in western output. The Ethiopian official cuts an impressive figure, and his self-assurance, wealth and confidence in how he should be treated, do much to speak of the magnificence of his country and of his continent in general. Modern times have very much encouraged westerners to look down on Ethiopia, and patronising stereotypes persist. (This is not helped by the enduring popularity of the problematic Band Aid Christmas song and, in particular, subsequent re-releases). This is despite the fact that Ethiopia is one of the world's fastest growing economies and for a lot of history has exhibited a higher degree of civilisation than equivalent nations in the west. Anyway, the series has been good on race as a whole, and this is just another example. Pilate's attempt to impress his Ethiopian guest fails, instead he turns his head in disgust, again, setting things up for (I presume) the next episode. Things are even worse for Joanna - Pilate decides to have her killed.

Meanwhile, James (who looks like Christian Bale) has somehow negotiated a deal with Caiaphas, so long as the Christian's just "respect the temple". Peter, John and Simon seem to think it's reasonable, but Saul sees it as a compromise and preaches being "freed from the tyranny of the temple". But when Simon meets with Zealot he realises he cannot help his "brother" to be murdered just because they disagree on theology and approach. The zealots have been asked to murder Saul by Caiaphas' wife Leah and when they hear Saul preach against the temple for themselves they decide to act, asking Simon to deliver him to them. Simon is clearly unhappy with this and when he rejoins the disciples he finds Saul soothing Tabitha and reassuring her with an early version of Romans 8:38 and realises he needs to help Saul escape. The final scenes neatly intercut Saul saying goodbye to Peter, James, Simon, John and Barnabas in the desert with the scape goat being released at the culmination of Yom Kippur. The closing overhead wide shot of Saul walking into the desert leaving the Jerusalem disciples behind is a one of the series best.

Paul, Apostle of Christ (2018)

The film's title may be Paul, Apostle of the Christ, and its biggest star (Jim Caveziel) may be playing Luke, but as much as anything, this film is as much about Priscilla, Aquila and the ordinary Christians of Rome. As the film's closing dedication confirms, this is a film about those persecuted for their faith.

Paul is set in 67 A.D. as Nero's persecution are wrecking havoc amongst the Christian community. Paul is in prison and Priscilla and Aquila and their community are in hiding trying to decide if they should stick it out in Rome, or flee for pastures new. The impressive, but grim, opening shot tracks Luke as he arrives in Rome and is immediately confronted with the sight of his fellow Christians being burned alive in order to light up the city. He manages to dodge the Roman soldiers long enough to arrive safely at Priscilla and Aquila's house and spends much of the rest of the film going between Paul on the one hand and Priscilla and Aquila on the other.

Whilst Paul seems resigned to his fate others are less certain about their path in life. When one of their number is killed some of the Christians want to take Roman blood in revenge. The officer overseeing Paul's imprisonment finds his orders distasteful, but not to the extent that he is willing to risk his life to defy his emperor. His wife blames his ambiguity about religion for his daughter's illness, yet when it starts to threaten her life, she soon urges him to do whatever it takes to save her life. If only there were some kind of famous physician on hand...

Whilst several TV series have focused on Paul, films about the man from Tarsus are pretty rare. Of course he has brief roles in many of the Roman-Christian epics such as Quo Vadis? (1951) but Paul, Apostle of Christ is the first feature-length film about Paul to play in theatres since the end of the silent era. It's a little unusual, then, that the film focuses on the small part of Paul's life which we only know about from tradition (and even then, the differing accounts disagree) rather than the wealth of material that exists about thirty years of ministry.

This is largely by design. The film is in a very different mode from the traditional Roman-Christian epic. Rather than going for spectacle and grandeur, huge crowd scenes, life-changing miracles wooed on by the soundtrack and exciting battles, this is a far more sombre and mature affair. It's deliberately heavy on ideas and dialogue. This means that whilst the budget is, presumably fairly low, the money that has been spent on it has been used wisely. The cast is generally strong, in particular James Faulkner in the title role, but also Joanne Whalley and John Lynch as Priscilla and Aquila, and the sets and costumes hold their own.

Of course, part of the pleasure of watching Paul film is seeing which quotations the screenwriters will work into the script. Here the balance is fairly good between the biblical and the fictional and Faulkner does a great job of intoning some of Paul's most famous words. The problem is, that as Paul is more or less confined to his cell for almost the entire film it doesn't leave Faulkner a great deal else to do and we're not given as much insight into his character and personality as might be expected.

That said, for a faith-based film this reliance on dialogue is a sign of maturity. The film never feels like it is trying to grab your attention just long enough to swoop in with a sermon when you're least expecting it. Indeed it never feels preachy and it's meandering pace and use of dialogue make for a far more satisfying experience. Furthermore, director Andrew Hyatt produces a number of interesting and occasionally very impressive shots. There's the odd misstep - the sudden recovery of the Jailer's daughter is a little too saccharin, for example - but overall it's an interesting look at the problems of persecution faced by Jesus' early followers and a useful reminder of the early church's non-violent stance.

A.D. (2015) - Part 8

This is part 8 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here

Having spun out episode 7 with it's implausible Tiberius subplot, we finally come to Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus. It's one of those scenes such as the parting of the Red Sea, the defeat of Goliath and the raising of Lazarus that form a kind of set-piece in terms of portrayals of their particular character and a central moment in the films that portray them. So it's surprising, then that it arrives so early in the episode.

As depictions of Paul's Damascene conversion go, I'm not sure how I feel about it. As with these others there's a sort of mental checklist. For Paul's conversion this is made slightly more interesting because there are three accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-19; Acts 22:6-16 & Acts 26:12-20) which differ on some of the minor details, notably the precise words spoken and what those travelling with Saul do or do not, see and hear. The Acts 26 account also omits some details (no mention of the blindness, nor of Ananias) but without contradicting them.

In this version Paul is on foot, though in the previous scene one of Caiaphas's men rides up on a horse but dismounts to join them. The scene starts with the servant asking Saul as to why he hates Peter so much and Saul gives a curious answer about how he find their beliefs ridiculous, though he does eventually manage to call them apostates as well. In his fury Paul marches off, but is suddenly enveloped in shadow before a bright light shines on him and Jesus appears and asks "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?". Interestingly Saul is not thrown to the floor at this stage, but angrily holds his ground to ask "Who are you?", and he even aggressively marches towards Jesus when he replies "I am Jesus whom you persecute". Saul's line here - "No, no, no, no, no, No, NO, NOOOO!" - combines the worst elements of Vader's revelation in the Empire Strikes Back and Lockwood's ad-libbed dialogue in Singin' in the Rain, and is met by Jesus raising his arms and Saul being forced backwards and to the ground. At this moment the film cuts to Saul's companions and shows the shot from their point of view. In contrast to all three biblical accounts they are not affected in any way. They neither see the light nor hear Jesus' voice, nor are they thrown to the ground, they are not even in shadow though they are being buffeted by the wind. The camera then moves back to a close up of Saul, featuring the more dramatic lighting. Saul shouts "What do you want from me?" three times, with increasing volume, before Jesus finally says "Go into Damascus. You'll be told what to do." With that there's a burst of even brighter light and a sort of visible energy wave/pulse and Jesus vanishes, leaving Saul with his hands on his eyes. There's then an excellent PoV shot of Saul's vision fading out to black, which seems like an interesting reversal of the famous first shot of Jesus in The King of Kings from the PoV of a blind girl Jesus restores her sight. Now Saul's first sight of Jesus is the cause of him losing his sight.

Apologies if that is a very long, dull, account of the scene, but I do love to compare these set pieces.

If the last two episodes of A.D. have been relatively free of the dodgy special effects tha have plagued this series, then this episode seems determined to make up for them. On top of those described, in perhaps a little too much detail above, we also have the conclusion to the Simon Magus episode. One of the down sides of covering this series one episode at a time is that sometimes you write about something before seeing how it will pan out and here is a good case. Having liked the way the last episode seemed to end this part of the story with Philip seemingly wrapping things up without too much ado, in this episode everything goes full blown. Peter and John do turn up, Simon does make a grab for more of the Holy Spirit's power and it all ends in completely over the top fashion. Whereas the biblical account has Simon repenting when he hear's Peter's curse, here God goes all Old Testament on him. The clouds go dark, the wind blows and he starts bleeding from his eyes. Peter yells out asking God to "let him live" and the wind and eye-bleeding abates, but it's all a bit silly.

Having witnessed this gratuitous use of special effects here, it's rather disappointing that, when it comes to Saul's sight being restored by Ananias the CGI is rather low key. Yes Ananias does see Jesus in a special bright light, but when he puts his hands on Saul's eyes there's not a falling fish scale to be seen.

In and around all of this there is the backstory of Tiberius' visit to Jerusalem and using Pilate to try and keep Caligula and Agrippa apart. Certainly there's some historical basis for Tiberius' attitude to Agrippa changing. Having held him with some affection at one stage, even getting him to educate his grandchildren, Tiberius ended up imprisoning Agrippa when he was overhead wishing for the emperors death so his friend, Caligula, could become emperor. But I'm not aware of Pilate having any involvement in the affair or even any dealings with Caligula. Here, however, he tries to separate them as Tiberius' bidding and Caligula makes it clear that once Tiberius is gone, Pilate will not be viewed favourably. According to Josephus Pilate was deposed (by Vitellius) and it was around the time of Tiberius' death, but Josephus seems to suggest that Tiberius died whilst Pilate was en route not beforehand.

Here however Pilate's efforts at keeping Caligula and Agrippa apart is not only not particularly effective, it also backfires by making Caligula so furious with Pilate that he threatens him about what will happen when Tiberius dies. Nevertheless, Tiberius gives Pilate a promotion and he and his wife prepare to return to Rome. Pilate's wife, Claudia, then dreams that Caligula will murder Tiberius, and next we know Caligula returns with news of Tiberius' death. Unsurprisingly he also informs Pilate that the promotion Tiberius offer has been rescinded. It's not quite the way Josephus tells it. According to him, Pilate massacred a bunch of Samaritan pilgrims , an incident which does seem to have been covered by A.D. despite all the stuff it find time to make up. This is a real shame, as it provides such vital context when looking at the gospels' portrayal of Pilate's role in Jesus' execution.

Speaking of context, it's nice to see Joanna the wife of Chuza not only being depicted but actually getting a proper speaking role. She's mentioned twice in Luke's Gospel both times next to Mary Magdalene. In 8:3 she's listed as one of the women that Jesus has healed and who is now supporting him financially. But more significantly she is mentioned in 24:9-11 as one of the witnesses to the angelic appearance at the empty tomb.  Peter Chattaway has more on her role and of the fact that after years of neglect she finally got a speaking role in two different films on more or less the same day - the other being Killing Jesus (2015).

Here we're introduced to her being reunited with Mary Magdalene and Joanna refers to the way "Jesus cured us" but then says that she "had heard Jesus was dead" - which overlooks that second appearance in Luke 24. We also meet Chuza who is concerned that his wife has come under "bad" influences recently. Almost immediately Joanna is then subjected to a sexual assault at the hands of Herod Agrippa (almost anticipating the #MeToo movement) only to be saved by Agrippa's sister Herodias, who is the wife of Herod Antipas. According to A.D. not only is Chuza head of Antipas' household, but Joanna works for Herodias directly as well.

Incidentally, in researching this piece I cam across an extended feature on Chipo Chung, the actress who plays Mary Magdalene, in The Independent. I also came across this useful account of episode 7 from Cornerstone Brethern Church which features a useful family tree of the Herods. They have also covered some of the other episodes in the series.

That was far more than I intended to write on this episode, but I suppose it was the one I have been waiting for from the start and the tie in with Roman history and a minor but pivotal character getting (almost) her first speaking role proved too much to resist.

A.D. (2015) - Part 7

This is part 5 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here

Episode 7 of A.D. Kingdom and Empire picks up more or less where the previous installment ended with Saul rampaging his way through Jerusalem. Peter and the other Christians are, naturally enough, concerned, but decide to stay put at least for now.

Meanwhile Caiaphas and Pilate have other concerns, namely the impending arrival of Emperor Tiberius in Jerusalem. This seems a curiously carefree piece of historical licence. Appearances by Roman emperors in Jerusalem were relatively few and far between, least of all from the famously reclusive Tiberius who didn't even visit Rome for a ten or so year period in which this episode is set. That said, given that the casting team managed to secure the typically enjoyable Kenneth Cranham for the role, Tiberius' brief ahistorical departure from Capri is forgivable. Cranham is no stranger to roles such as this having played Pompey in Rome (2005) as well as kind of Pilate figure in 2003's Man Dancin' (a sort of Scottish reworking of Jesus of Montreal).

Philip meanwhile has headed to Samaria, been mugged on the outskirts of the city, and has fallen in with an associate of Simon Magus. Simon here is running a kind of early, open-air, stage show, but when he fails to produce a genuine healing, Philip steps up and performs a miracle. Unlike the Acts account, Peter and John don't turn up to steal Philip's thunder (which would have slightly undermined the positives of the series' multi-ethnic casting) and the focus is less on the fledgling church than on the unaffiliated population in general. Generally however it plays fairly close to Acts 8:9-25 and Philip's smack-down towards the end of the episode is welcome if only to put pay to Magus' hokey fakery (by which I mean his acting more than his magic).

What's strange about the episode is the way the Saul storyline seems to lose its way. Having established a strong base in episode 6, it loses its rhythm in this episode due to the Tiberius storyline. Moreover whereas one might have thought that what with Stephen meeting his end (Acts 7) in episode 5 by episode 7 we might have got onto Saul's conversion from just one and a bit chapters later on. Alas no. At this stage the filmmakers were still hoping for a second series. Hopefully episode 8 will contain the necessary sojourn to Damascus. Cranham aside, this episode was pretty poor.

A.D. (2015) - Part 6

This is part 5 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here

After the focus on and death of Saul in the last episode, this episode picks up the start of the story of Saul. In comparison to the previous episodes, this one avoids a lot of the usual pitfalls. There are no big special effect moments and the violence is relatively minor compared to the rest of the series.

Instead the episode rests heavily on the introduction of Saul and thanks to a great performance from The Fall's Emmett J Scanlan. Having watched various Acts films over the years Saul is often played as a relatively rational thoughtful man - he has to grow into the great Paul of Tarsus after all. Here, however, Scanaln is allowed to play it vert differently. Here Saul is the kind of privileged young hothead who has a bee in his bonnet about something but is so full of himself that he gets off on asserting himself violently. Saul is the kind of guy who writes angry aggressive tweets, or endlessly moans about feminists, or carries a torch in Charlottesville. He's unaware of the privilege of being a young white man in a culture where that cushions him from the reality of many people's lives. He has a massive sense of entitlement. When at first he isn't taken seriously he escalates his complaints and seeks an audience with the most powerful of his countrymen, Caiaphas. They should listen to him, right? After all he's confident and articulate, even if what he is raging about doesn't particularly form a strong argument.

Having grown up in London during the troubles in Northern Ireland, Scanlan's Irish accent also evokes the violent religious zealotry that troubled the area at that time. There's no doubt it shouldn't - I know plenty of people from both North and South Ireland who are wonderful, compassionate, thoughtful people. But the media has given a platform to a steady stream of religious zealots with that accent in my lifetime. They're by no means representative, but nevertheless, my mind makes that shortcut even if it, too, is irrational. For me, at least, it gives an extra note to Scanlan's unhinged performance.

I think what I most appreciate about this is that it makes me realise that the opening part of Saul's narrative has always felt a little iffy tome. The way he so quickly transitions from holding the coats during the stoning of Stephen to being the leader of a gang of thugs going round the country hunting down Christians seems disturbingly sudden. There doesn't seem to be a satisfactory reason why it is him doing this task rather than someone closer to Caiaphas or at least more prominent. The angry, yet privileged, young man driven by his irrational fears but critically left unchecked somehow makes sense of this to me. No wonder Peter and the others begin to flee.

Paul, Apostle of Christ set for 2018 release.

Regular readers may have noticed that I've been trying of late to keep to a more consistent posting pattern. The downside of this is that there are times when it's been tempting to bang out a number of posts in quick succession, but I've held back, and this is one post that has rather suffered.

Anyway, just in case hasn't already read about this at FilmChat, Affirm Films, who are the faith-based branch of Sony have announced that they are currently filming a new movie about the apostle Paul due for release next year. Affirm are also currently putting the finishing touches on The Star ahead of its 10th November release later in the year.

Paul, Apostle of Christ will star James Faulkner in the leading role, supported by Passion of the Christ's Jim Caviezel as Luke,  A.D. The Bible Continues' Joanna Whalley as Priscilla, and The Fall's John Lynch as Aquilla. Lynch also starred as Gabriel in the BBC's The Passion (2010). Interestingly the IMDb also lists Yorgos Karamihos as playing Saul of Tarsus, suggesting there might be a bit of a jump between Paul's ministry to the Jews and his ministry to the Gentiles. Here's the plot summary:

Paul, who goes from the most infamous persecutor of Christians to Christ’s most influential apostle, spends his last days awaiting execution by Emperor Nero in Rome. Paul is under the watchful eye of Mauritius, Mamertine Prison’s ambitious prefect, who seeks to understand how this broken old man can pose such a threat. As Paul’s days grow shorter, he feverishly works from prison to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and embolden his followers to stand strong in their faith against Roman persecution far greater than has ever been seen.

From the sound of the plot summary it seems to me like the earlier scenes will be shot in flashback from Paul's final days in prison, but perhaps I'm reading in too much.That would certainly correspond with writer/director Andrew Hyatt last film Full of Grace (2015) which covered the final days of Jesus's mother Mary.

As Peter points out this will be something of a first. Whilst Paul has appeared on the big screen many time before, not least in epics such as Quo Vadis (1951) and early silent films about him, I think this is probably the first time he's been the star of a feature length film that has gained a significant cinematic release.And of course this film was announced just days before the death of one of the more famous actors to portray him, Harry Dean Stanton (in 1988's Last Temptation of Christ).

So I'll be keeping an eye on this one. Hopefully it will get a UK release.

Silent Bible Film Mystery - #03The First St. Paul Film

"For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing." - Paul's letter to the Romans 7:19

I don't really know what Paul meant when he said this; but it at least sounds like something a procrastinator might say. The kind of person who is meant to be working on their book, but instead decides they really need to tell everyone about a new film about Paul, but then before they even start that, finds themselves up in the not-so-small hours leafing through books trying to find out if two, old, silent films are actually just the same film with different titles, or two separate ones...

So it turns out that the first film about Paul didn't come out until 1910 or thereabouts when two different Western European silent film titles were circulating, both of which were about St. Paul. But there - and granted it is quite a long way down the road - the similarities started to end.

The one I've known about for a long time was Milano films' 1910 San Paolo (Dramma Biblico), released in the UK as The Life of St. Paul. It was directed by Giuseppe De Liguoro, and according to the BFI archive Rodolfo Kanzler from Adolfo Padovan;sscript. As De Liguoro also took the leading role, it seems churlish not to mention the only other person credited, set designer Sandro Properzi. It ran to 453ft and there's a little bit more about it on p.114 of Giorgio Bertellini's "Italian Silent Cinema".

The BFI archive holds six prints of the work (although only two are viewable) and a couple of articles from Christmastime issues of The Bioscope, "Some Christmas releases" from page 9 of issue no. 216 (1st Dec 1910) and an untitled article from no. 219 (22nd Dec 1910). The BFI's description is as follows:

DRAMA. Biblical. Scenes from the life of St Paul the Apostle. The archive holds several versions: Paul, a merchant in Tarsus, hears of a Christian gathering in a pine forest. With a group of followers he attacks the Christians: Jacob the Younger is dragged away to be stoned. On the road to Damascus, Paul is struck blind and hears the word of the Lord asking why he persecutes Him. He is converted to Christianity and his sight restored. Years later Paul enters the Christian catacombs on the Via Appia. He converts Nero's slave girl and a Roman soldier. Paul and the Christians watch Rome burning. They emerge from the catacombs to be arrested by Roman soldiers (453ft). St. Paul is led by Roman soldiers to an execution site. He is made to kneel. [The execution is not shown]. Pilgrims bring flowers and palm leaves to the site (48ft). Note: The Archive also has DER HEILIGE PAULUS (75ft Joye 1925) dated 1910 and consisting entirely of German intertitles.

As I'm unlikely to stumble across either a print or the Bioscope articles anytime soon. I decided to see if any of the digitised, silent-era, film journals had a picture of it and whilst my search wasn't exhaustive, it did prove fruitless. Except, that is, from the fact that it seemed to uncover an entirely different 1910 Silent Bible film about St. Paul...

St. Paul and the Centurion (written"Centurian" more than once in Moving Picture World) was produced by Charles Urban's French company Urban-Eclipse, and distributed in the US by George Kleine. This one doesn't appear at all on the BFI site, but it does appear on the AFI site and on IMDb. There doesn't seem to be any record of a French title, however. By this point Kleine was also starting to distribute Italian films as well as French but the AFI lists this as French, as does Jon Solomon ("Ancient World in the Cinema", p.7, though it lists it as 1911). An advert in Moving Picture World featuring the above image declines to mention the film's country of origin.

An illuminating excerpt from Anthony R. Guneratne's "Shakespeare, Film Studies, and the Visual Cultures of Modernity" (p.141) and an entry from "The Oxford History of World Cinema" detail a little of Kleins involvement in the Italian industry seems to clarify that whilst Kleine distributed Cines and Ambrosio product, he was not involved with Milano, so all things here point towards this being two separate films. It's noticeable also that at 955ft this film is over twice as long as the Italian one above.

In addition to the above picture there's also a good summary from a July 1910 edition of Moving Picture World.

Metella, daughter of the Centurion Vicinius, loves one of her lather's slaves, Caius by name. This youth is a Christian and in the habit of frequently visiting the meetings held by them in the hills outside the city walls. Paul has gathered about him a small body of the faithful and preaches to them often in this secluded part of the forest. Metella, encouraged by her natural curiosity as to her sweetheart's secret excursions, one day follows him and learns her first lessons in Christianity. She leaves her hiding place and hastens to her father's palace where she finds Vicinius, her stern parent, in great rage because Caius is absent from his task. Vicinius now orders the slaves to take Caius to a nearby woods and there flog him. After the cruel chastisement Caius is left lying alone in the forest where soon after Metella finds him. She assists her sweetheart to the camp of his friends where she is so impressed by their lives that she accepts the belief and is baptized. When Caius has sufficiently recovered from his punishment he returns to his master and dutifully takes up his work in the household. Soon Vicinius, the Centurion, receives orders from Nero to arrest all the Christians who have been meeting in the hills outside the city. The soldiers are now called together and move upon the Apostle and his little band of followers. Although warned in due season, Paul refuses to flee, but engages in prayer while awaiting the arrival of Vicinius and his soldiers. Caius and Metella join their Christian friends, fully expecting to be imprisoned with them. When the attack is made upon the unarmed worshipers they are astounded to see the soldiers stop with their weapons suspended while they listen to the divine words. Gradually the swords and spears are lowered and the entire company with their leader drop to their knees.

Whilst it's not impossible that these two synopses are just very different takes on the same film, again it seems likely that they are separate.

Finally I decided to turn to Herbert Verreth and Hervé Dumont which is probably where I should have started. Whilst neither Campbell and Pitts, nor David Shepherd mention either film, Verreth and Dumont both mention both of them. Indeed Dumont expands the above by suggesting the Italian Sao Paolo comprised of two sub-films, 1. Paolo persecutoredei cristiani and 2. Paolo Apostolo (released in France as La légende de Saint Paul). It's possible that the 75ft, German version of the film in the BFI archive is equivalent to a complete copy of one of these two "sub-films". In any case, Dumont also includes this summary:

Du persécuteur de chrétiens à Tarse (la lapida-tion d’Étienne) au martyre sous Néron après l’incendie deRome. Tourné dans la banlieue de Milan sur un scénario de l’écrivain Adolfo Padovan. 

The persecutor of Christians from Tarsus (the stoning of Stephen) to the martyrdom under Nero after the fire of Rome. Shot in the suburbs of Milan from a scenario by writer Adolfo Padovan (translation mine).

So in the end it turns out that after 15 years of silence, the first two films about St. Paul (one of which came in two parts) were released, in America at least, just 5 months apart. Over the next few years films starring Paul would be released at the rate of at least one a year. Yet over a hundred years later we're still awaiting his big-screen, talking film debut.

Quotes on Atti Degli Apostoli (1969)

With A.D. The Bible Continues airing on NBC at the moment there's a little talk around about other films based on the Acts of the Apostles and, as it happens, today I received in the post a new book about Roberto Rossellini's whose own take on the book of Acts - Atti Degli Apostoli (1969) - is one of my favourites. There's not much in the book about the film but there are a couple of good quotes that I thought I would reproduce here.

The book is "Roberto Rossellini: Magician of the Real" and it's a compilation of essays edited by David Forcas, Sarah Lutton and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. However the final section of the book is a collection of six "documents" written on or by Rossellini during the 50s and the 70s. The one I'm quoting here is document C, "Letter from Rossellini to Peter H. Wood (1972)" and says the following

The Acts of the Apostles is the story of Luke the Evangelist, but also of the change in ethics in our history when the Hebrew idea of nature - a gift of God which man must us to distinguish himself from the animals - spread, thanks to Christianity, through the Greek-Roman pagan world, which had regarded nature as something inviolable, which men, through rite and ritual, tried to render benign. (p.164)

The other quote is from Adriano Aprà's chapter "Rossellini's Historical Encyclopedia" and is found on page 144.

Acts of the Apostles is, in my opinion, alongside The Age of Cosimo de 'Medici and Cartesius, the best of Rossellini's television films. It is also the 'hottest', the one where the emotional involvement he renounces elsewhere is most visible. There is a broad sweep: the film starts from the centre, Jerusalem, and a community of brothers, the apostles, then gradually the circle widens. The apostles set out on their journey (like the friars at the end of Francesco); the conflict between Jews, Greeks and Romans, initially contained within the city, echoes along the route which takes the apostles and later Paul to Palestine, Syria, Pisidia, Athens and Rome, where the last scene in the films opens with the same invocation as the first (Jerusalem! Jerusalem!") and the circle is closed. Acts is the film of harmonic totality. The itinerary of the abstract idea is a concrete journey where the characters are cocooned by the surrounding space; the male community of the brothers is constantly given warmth by the silent activity of the women, who are frequently highlighted by the zoom; the dialogue, more than in the other films, is used to establish contact between people and try and overcome differences. Rossellini takes liberties with the text of the apostle Luke, synthesising, expanding, cutting and inventing to good effect.

David Suchet: In the Footsteps of Saint Paul

The BBC's major religious programme this year was a two part documentary on the life of St. Paul presented by Poirot actor David Suchet. Suchet admits a long term fascination with Paul and identified himself as a Christian in an interview with Strand Magazine. It's perhaps not surprising given his work on various audio versions of books of the Bible and his role as Aaron in Roger Young's 1996 version of Moses.

The BBC has covered Paul a lot over the years, but the documentary that lives most with me is their 2003 documentary Saint Paul released in the US in 2004 (IMDb). I'm going to write more on my reminiscences of that documentary in a later post, but to summarise I found it really made the life of Paul come alive for me, despite some of the rather tenuous theories it also voiced.

Sadly, whilst this two-part documentary ran to approximately twice the running time, it seemed to contain far less insight and was rather dull as a result. To a certain extent I think Suchet is to blame for this. This was very much a film about his journey to find out more about Paul and so it very much rested on his personality. Suchet is a great actor, but without a part to play he lacks the force of personality required to make this engaging for its two hour run time.

Part of the problems also stem from the editing and Suchet's style of questioning. I've watched many similar documentaries but I've never really appreciated the skill that goes into interviewing biblical experts. Fail to clarify what's been said and you leave the audience behind, but as this documentary proves, clarify too much and you just end up repeating everything that's just been said. This may not be Suchet's fault, but a problem with the format which find him meeting expert after expert on location, and seemingly trying to take on what they are saying himself rather than enlightening the audience.

None of which is to say the film is without redeeming features. Its stress on Paul's experience on the road is a useful counter to the breathless nature of Acts, and Suchet presses this home by repeating the fact that Paul walked at least 10,000 miles during his ministry.

It's also interesting to hear about some of the pieces of information that the 2003 documentary was unable to bring to light - either for matters of time, focus or because they hadn't been uncovered nine and a half years ago. Take for example the early scenes of Suchet beneath the streets under Jerusalem, uncovering part of Herod's temple that had been buried for the best part of 2000 years. Some of the insights into the places Paul knew were interesting as well, tolerant Tarsus, philosophical Athens, or cosmopolitan Corinth for example.

Sadly, in spite of the long running time, other aspects of Paul's story were rather glossed over, most notably the Council of Jerusalem summed up as the church agreeing with Paul - a gross simplification in my book.

So overall it's a mixed, but rather dull, bag. Paul's life is a terrifically interesting story: The story of an actor's own voyage of discovery is rather less so.

====
There is a bit more on this programme on the BBC website.

Some Obscure Paul Films

Recently I've come across a number of lesser-known films about St. Paul so I thought I'd post a few bits and pieces about them here.

The first is Damascus (pictured above). It's a docudrama made in 2008 as part of a collaboration between Agape 4 Media (the team who distribute the Jesus film), Youth Arise and one or two others as part of the Pope's Year of St. Paul. It's shot in and around Damacus itself and uses actors from the region and at some point I should hopefully get around to reviewing it.

The next is Life of St. Paul (1949). According to the IMDb it starred DeForest Kelley, best known for his role as Dr "Bones" McCoy in Star Trek. Paul was played by Nelson Leigh who would reprise the role 8 years later in The Living Bible Series: Acts of the Apostles. Life of St. Paul was made the same year as The Pilgrimmage Play which also starred Leigh (as Jesus). Both films were made by the same director, John T. Coyle.

Then there is I Paul from 1980. IMDb contains a good synopsis of this one. It was essentially a soliloquy given by Fred J. Scollay as Paul delivers his final message from prison to Timothy using the words of the King James Bible. It's available on DVD in the States, but seemingly not in the UK, which is a shame given that this is the 400th anniversary of the KJV.

Dayamayudu appears to be a sequel to the Jesus film Dayasagar. It's about Peter and Paul and can be seen on YouTube in its entirety. (I assume given the advert that plays at the start and that its there in full that it's legitimate to watch it on YouTube). Sadly there are no subtitles.

Also online is Paul the Emissary which I've discussed in passing before and a long time ago at Arts and Faith. It's available through the producer's website TBN (you have to scroll down a bit as there are a number of other films you can view online including The Revolutionary.

Lastly, I posted a link on the Bible Films Facebook page to a piece on 1960's Paul of Tarsus. There's an article all about the 10 part series at Roobarb's Forum. According to Ian K McLachlan it still exists in its entirety in the BBC archives (as does 1956's Jesus of Nazareth. Another poster adds that there is a clip from the series in the Roger Delgado documentary on the Doctor Who Dalek War set. I'm not a great fan of Dr. Who these days, but I know a couple of readers of this site who are. Has anyone seen this documentary?

Whilst I'm mentioning the Facebook page, just a quick plug to encourage you to "like" it (which means all the news bits will appear in your News Feed) and to post your own links / opinions there. I really want the page to become much more communal and as so many of you know things that I don't it would be great to have your contributions direct.

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 4

The start of this episode is mainly concerned with the goings on in Rome. Claudius has defied the senate's expectations and found his voice, and wants the Jews driven out of Rome, whilst Herod Agrippa has now been appointed in charge in Judea. (There's some conflation here between the Herod in the first

Paul has made it as far as Antioch and there he meets a Greek physician called Luke and baptises him. At the same time Paul, Barnabas and Agabus discuss the coming famine in Jerusalem and Paul and Barnabas set off to gather a collection from the various churches for those in Jerusalem.

Priscilla (pictured) and Aquila leave Rome for Corinth whilst back in Jerusalem Peter is arrested by Herod. Whilst in prison he hears of James's execution prompting him to pray for his life. The scene showing his escape is quite effective. There's no angel, all we see is a bright light shining through the window in the middle of the night. But as he looks out through his open cell door he can see the streets of his city where previously there were only the walls of the prison. The somewhat comical scene of him being left locked outside the prayer meeting petitioning for his release is omitted however. We hear of Peter's escape as Herod is told. There's a brief reaction and then a cut to the next scene where we are introduced to Linus, a recent convert, destined to the the second pope.

The key moment in this episode is the council of Jerusalem, which is opened by Peter announcing that James is to be leader of the Jerusalem church. It's a rather low key affair
with Paul seemingly absent - he's shown in Corinth preaching and there meets Aquila for the first time. Aquila is a great character in this production in part due to Tony Vogel's warm portrayal, and partly due to the way that the script expands the references to Priscilla and Aquila's generosity and hospitality to make these central parts of their characters. That said it's very much Aquila who is to the fore here, which seems to contrast with the picture we get from the New Testament where, very unusually, Priscilla is names first on four of the six occasions their names appear together. Vogel is something of a Bible film regular also starring in The Day Christ Died, Jesus (1999) and Jesus of Nazareth, not to mention his appearance in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The three eat together and there's a passing reference to Paul's reception in Lystra and Philippi. It's somewhat surprising that the latter isn't shown. It's one of the more famous stories from the middle of Acts, and most other films about Acts show it. We're also not shown Paul's split from Barnabas which happens in between these other two incidents.

The second half of this episode is rather light on New Testament content, we see Paul preaching in an unnamed synagogue deftly summing up some of the places he has visited, and there's a scene of Priscilla and Aquila talking to three of the fictional characters in the story about how conversion can be quick or "a lingering slow sweet skill".

The episode ends however with Paul's return to, and arrest at, the temple. The episode ends on a bit of a cliff hanger in this respect. There's no mention of Paul sponsoring the ceremony of the 4 Jewish Christians, simply he and Luke appearing in the outer courts of the temple while his opponents round up the people they need to affect his arrest...

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 3

Saul may have been converted at the end of the last episode, but word has been a little slow getting around the Christian community, and even those who have heard are understandably sceptical. Leading the charge for the doubters is, of course, Thomas, who continues to be rather short in the joy department. In the meantime fear of Saul has driven the church further afield. The opening scene in episode three finds Peter (pictured) in Samaria, exorcising a man and scolding Simon the magician. The idea then comes to Peter that going around in threes isn't as effective as it might be, and so whilst Peter returns to Jerusalem, Philip is sent off to Gaza encountering the Ethiopian offical en route. Things are slightly different from Acts - the Ethiopian's chariot (a carriage really) overtakes Philip on the way. The scene is quite effective though and it's quite an interesting depiction of members of the early church coining fulfilment interpretation off the cuff. The baptism scene - shot from below - is one of the best so far, and it's the first time the emotional theme in the soundtrack fits rather than cheapening the moment.

Meanwhile Paul sees his companion on the road to Damascus killed by zealots and heads to Jerusalem to try and convince Peter and the others that he has been converted and to gain some instructions.

There's plenty going on in the Roman side of things. Caligula is continuing to be as mad a March, April and May hare, and the Jewish brother (Caleb) and sister (Sarah) are starting to fall in love with Romans. Caleb is falling for a Roman gladiator which doesn't really ring true, but it does bring some much needed sexual tension. Sarah is smitten by a prominent centurion who conveniently finds himself with access to Caligula, Claudius, Priscilla, Aquila and later on Paul. His experience watching Caligula order his army to collect shells on a French beach rather than invading Britain drives him to plot his emperor's assassination and it's not long until he and others carry out their plan and crown Claudius.

Peter then appears in Jaffa, and is called on to bring Tabitha back from the dead. There's a great scene of him and Thomas trying to remember what Jesus did in this kind of situation, and it's nice to see Thomas being the faith filled one rather than Peter. It all brings a nice angle to these events capturing the humanity of Peter which often seems absent in Acts. We also see him struggling with the fame that comes with his ministry.

The film's low budget (big name actors aside) is occasionally apparent, and it's here that it's most notable. We first meet Cornellius at the start of the episode in a sea side villa that looks suspiciously like the one in Capri Tiberius had retired to. Similarly Peter's vision is not shown, only his experience of it. Cornellius is converted and is baptised in a dirty looking rock pool by the lusciously blue sea.

Sarah's love (Julius Vallerius) is trying to buy her out of slavery and in so doing goes to Priscilla and Aquila for help (they have already helped him locate her). Aquila and Priscilla are two of the best characters in this production. Since not a lot is known about them from the New Testament, the scriptwriters have pretty much free reign in terms of how to use them and how to develop their characters, but there;s just enough in the pages of scripture to make their characters interesting. Not only is it through them that we see things such as the purge of the Jews from Rome, we also get to see them grow from a couple not really sure if they are Christians to people leading others to faith.

Peter's experiences in Joppa lead to another meeting of the church in Jerusalem where they try to come to a consensus on admission into the church and the relationship between them and mainstream Judaism. In the background here is Caligula's attempt to install a statue of himself of the Jewish temple. But the very next scene shows Caligula's assassination and the episode ends with the statue, which was still outside the temple, being toppled and destroyed in celebration of the news. Watching it today I couldn't help but think of a similar statue meeting a similar fate not to far away in Iraq. The fact that it's purely coincidental (unless this series was big in Iraq) is a useful reminder not to read too much into similar looking images.

A.D. (Anno Domini) - Episode 2

In terms of the events depicted episode 2 of A.D. is probably the most momentous. In Roman terms there is the death of Tiberius (at the hand of Caligula according to AD as with Tacitus), and Caligula's sucession. In Biblical terms we have the conversion of Saul, doubtless the most significant event in Christian terms since the resurrection.

Before all that however we start with Peter and John and all the other apostles up in front of the Sanhedrin as a result of what they said after healing the man at the temple. Most of the Sanhedrin are livid and wanting to persecute but Gamaliel (who is usually the tolerant, if Christo-sceptical, member of the council) making his famous argument that they should be left alone. Gamaliel also adds (here and elsewhere) that he is impressed with their deeds such as helping the poor.

Others however are less impressed. The Hellenistic Jews are shown complaining that they are being neglected by the disciples in favour of the Jerusalem Jews. This leads Stephen and Philip to go to Peter suggesting something be done. Peter names Stephen and Philip as two of the seven deacons and leaves Philip to choose the rest. He does rather more than that however, also talking about a mission to the Greeks. Peter is seemingly against this. Whilst he tries to laugh this off with a joke about having already spent too much time on boats, the film does a good job of highlighting both the rift between the Hellenistic Jews and those from Jerusalem and the shortfall in Peter's thinking.

Stephen takes his commissioning as carte blanche to preach as he likes, and even Saul has to admit he is incredibly good at it. In fact he's so good that many are following him and he is beginning to be seen as a real threat to mainline Judaism. Saul, despite earlier having been Stephen's friend, reports him to the Sanhedrin. Stephen is pulled up in front of them, and much of his sermon from Acts 8 is reproduced here. It doesn't go down well and Stephen is imprisoned and later stoned (without giving a sermon). The filmmakers add some fake tension into this scene by showing Gamaliel rushing to the execution to try and spare Stephen's life - this is not an official execution, the mob has broken into Stephen prison and dragged him off - but to no avail.

This incident and Saul's sudden turn to zealotry is a bit of a worry for the Sanhedrin. Concerned with stirring up trouble in Jerusalem they commission him to go to Damascus where it's thought his mission will cause less problems with the Romans. Saul is on his horse with only one other companion. There are some rather poor special effects here (copied in the Bible Collection film on this story) and we hear no voice. Paul is led to Damascus, is restored by a seemingly unafraid Ananias and tells his companion that his mission is over he has become a Nazarene.

Meanwhile Caligula gets straight on with being insane, and also seems to be having some kind of homosexual relationship with Herod Agrippa, whilst the budding Roman - Jewish relationship has moved onto Rome.

Old Thoughts on Peter and Paul

Over the next few weeks there will be a number of posts on films based on Acts, mainly the two 80s TV programmes, A.D. (1985) and Peter and Paul (1981). I've now seen the first episode of the former, but writing up my thoughts on that will have to wait until I have a bit more time. So for now I thought I'd edit and post a few thoughts I wrote back in December 2004. Please be warned this is not he best, or most well informed, writing I have ever produced!

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

Watching Peter and Paul is rather like reading the book of Acts. Obviously that's the intention - although the film is much more than a simple reproduction of Luke's second great work - but it also reflects the way Acts starts off well, but peters out towards the end (pun most definitely intended).

Hopkins is, as you'd expect, great value and he produces a really good mix of Paul the hothead that comes through so clearly from his writings. At the same time he avoids playing Paul as the kind of vitriolic bigot that he's so often caricatured as today. This view always seems a bit out of context, and casts him as someone who would be unlikely to achieve what he did. Hopkins does this better than any of the other actors I've seen play Paul, although surprisingly he delivers Paul's most vitriolic line ("why don't they just go and castrate themselves?") coolly and calmly, as if he's talking about removing a slightly annoying toenail clipping.

What I liked most about the programme was the way the script made constant biblical references like little extracts from the prophets, Psalms or now-familiar Pauline Hebrew Bible was pretty staggering when we consider that for him it wasn't all in one convenient little volume, he didn't have a concordance, and he didn't have the luxury of being able to leave a gap and cut and paste the quote in later. He seems pretty steeped in the Old Testament - I imagine he would have had to have memorised large parts of it to be able to pull out all the passing references and connotations he does - and the film portrays this rather well.

Paul is also shown referring to Jesus' teaching and here I was less convinced, particularly as he doesn't really do this much in his letters. We know he was familiar with bits of it, but he doesn't seem to use it that often and I'm not sure he would have known bits verbatim in their canonical form as the film suggests, particularly as some of those bits probably hadn't found this form when Paul was writing. But it is interesting how that as Paul goes on he uses Jesus' words less and less and starts to use his own words more. Perhaps this is suggesting that Paul's teaching started to drift from the message of Jesus, but it could simply mean that as Paul went on he had more and more confidence in his own material.

There are however a few moments in the second half, which particularly focus on Paul, which let things down. Dramatically the shipwreck in Acts 27 is potentially an exciting scene, but all we get is reference to a storm that is coming followed by a cut to a scene of the shipmates arriving on the beach clinging on to bits of driftwood. Likewise, the legal drama is left to the scene with Festus and Agrippa. I do find this a bit tedious in Acts, but I couldn't help wondering how much better these scenes might have been is they had been made by someone with good experienced of making legal dramas.

That said, the real let down is the depiction of Peter. Early on he seems to have decided he couldn't lead people despite a great Pentecost preach and called James in to do it for him. Peter then feels unhappy about the situation but tends to moan about it rather than getting on with the business in hand. He and Paul get on well and he seems to inspire Paul at the start but then doesn't speak to him for 8 years, and then there is the Council of Jerusalem and the clash of Galatians 2, and they never speak again. After this Peter wanders around going to Babylon (rather bizarrely) and eventually re-tracing Paul's steps, and only returning to real, on-the-edge, preaching once Paul dies. By this time it's only a matter of weeks before he'll die too, and it just seems like a dithering old man desperately trying one last attempt to make something of himself.

This is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly Peter is played into a weak role. It's not Robert Foxworth's fault he can't match Hopkins, but the script for Peter is poor too. Key Petrine moments are erased completely - notably Peter's last main solo narrative with his vision and Cornellius. But later on we delve into fiction (or perhaps its less well known legend with the closing scenes) whilst ignoring more popular "legends" such as the Quo Vadis moment. Fatally ending on the weak Peter, means that the film ends really badly. Once Paul goes, so does any resemblance of interest.

The Bible: A History, Part 6

Having courted controversy with last week's look at Jesus Channel 4's The Bible: A History moved onto safer ground this week with a look at St. Paul. Not that it wasn't controversial in it's own way - it was - but a largely unknown historian's look at the man responsible for the spread of Christianity was always going to raise fewer eyebrows than Gerry Adams' take on the Prince of Peace.

The historian in question was Tom Holland a prize-winning author who has specialised in classical history. His controversial point was that far from being an authoritarian oppressor, he was actually the archetypal liberator. "Look to the make the world fairer today" Holland explained in a tantalising introduction "and you owe a debt of gratitude to Paul". It was a point repeated as the programme began to draw to a close. It is Paul who has been most influential on western thinking not Darwin, Marx or Freud.

The problem is that aside from this introduction and conclusion, the middle of the programme struggles to flesh out Holland's point. He makes passing reference in his opening statement to how the ancient Romans and Greeks saw inequality as a virtue, but didn't really demonstrate the point any further. This comes, I think, from the "all things to all men" nature of programmes such as these. Before it could get onto subtler issues like this, the programme needed to explain who Paul was where he came from etc.. It was the right choice, but it did leave Holland's key point a little a little lacking in weight.

That said, Holland did explore two of the areas where Paul's reputation is blackest - his comments on women and homosexuals. Personally I find the criticism Paul gets in these areas distinctly lacking in context. Ancient thinkers will always be from a different culture than our own, and thus when their values are held under such scrutiny hundreds or thousands of years later we are, of course, not going to agree with every word. But I agree with Holland that such statements as "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one" (Gal 3:28) were utterly revolutionary, and to criticise Paul for failing to see the full extent to which his line of thinking goes is to be gravely uninformed.

Holland does go on to tackle those two issues in particular, finding himself in a gay bar to explore Paul's attitude to homosexuality, before talking to a female New Testament lecturer about Paul's attitude to women.

Holland approaches these two issues differently. In the first case he argues that while Paul, like his culture, prohibited homosexuality, he was always very "flexible" in his thinking. He was always challenging his own prejudices, and this too is something he has passed onto the western world. "His aim is always to push against the limits of preconceptions in the name of equality and love" Holland explains. In other words, had he had the time to work these thoughts through, or had he been born into our culture, he probably would not have spoken out against homosexuality as he did.

In honesty, whilst it may be a fair point, it also overlooks a lot of key evidence. Far from being disapproved of in classical culture, sex between males was rife, though only in certain contexts, few, if any, of which bear any similarity to what we think of today when we talk about homosexuality. Secondly, quite what Paul is speaking against is never that clear - at least not once you get into the original Greek. Again, I guess this was a time issue, but it would have been nice to see a little more explanation of this point, given Channel 4's typical audience.

What's interesting is that the programme took a very different angle on the question of women's rights. Rather than re-applying the same arguments, which would not have been inappropriate, he talks to Paula Gooder who explains that some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul were probably not written by him, including 1 Timothy with it's rules telling women to learn in silence, and forbidding them to teach. It's the perspective I came around to a number of years ago. These statements seem just too greatly opposed to Paul's words (as above) and his actions, working with women teachers, greeting women apostles and so on. Personally I think both issues hang on the translation of hapax legomenon which seem to weigh against the thrust of Paul's words, actions and lines of thinking, but I digress.

Having explored Paul's conversion and his ideas about taking the gospel to the gentiles earlier in the programme, it ends by looking at his death, taking the view that Paul was killed in the Neronian persecution of the early 60s AD. There was no mention of alternative theories, but again this is probably because of time constraints. That said Holland did refer to a legend in which Paul's freshly severed head bounces three times forming a spring of water in each place it hit the ground.

It's hard to sum up my feeling about this episode. In many ways it was one of my favourites. I agreed with almost everything it said, which always leaves one well disposed towards something, and particularly appreciated Holland's attempt to rehabilitate Paul, by explaining his cultural context and the impact his thought has had on 21st century thought. At the same time there were a few extraneous moments (like the footage from Holland's visit to speaker's corner) which should have been cut in favour of fleshing out some of the more important arguments.

Next week, it's the final episode of the series when Robert Beckford takes a look at Revelation. Given Beckford's track record, not to mention his personal history, I have high expectations.