Testament (2025): Rising Tides [s1e05]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

Episode 5 of Testament, "Rising Tides" picks up again a few weeks after the events of episode 4, because Saul has been planning how to 'get' the disciples. He's clearly been spending his time laying an elaborate trap for them by having a network of conversations with both Sadducees and Pharisees in an attempt to get them arrested.

There's an interesting reference, during an early gathering of the temple hierarchy, to the Essenes, a word which Saul uses as a bit of a slur. When Minister Alexander asks him if he's "come to grovel for the Sadducee vote", he responds "I think I'd rather join the Essenes" to which another colleague jokes is "a low blow". This is perhaps accurate, but it does make me wonder what the Essenes would look like in the world of Testament and where they would fit in, in this modernised world in which the show has constructed.

There's another interesting quote that caught my ear early on, when Saul describes the Jesus movement as "a far worse threat to our faith, a disease, and it's spreading, coming to take everything we have. It must be stopped". Given Saul has moved into full-on zealot here it would also be interesting to see what the Zealot movement looked like in this world. Some scholars consider them closely linked to a certain brand of Pharisaism, not least because of Paul's use of the term "zealous" to describe his former status (Gal 1:14).

Essentially, anyway, what happens is that the Sanhedrin give the order to arrest the disciples, and we see the Twelve being brought in. As the series, has tended to do each episode introduces new characters and develops those that were previously just in the background. Here we get to meet some of the other members of the Twelve that we haven't really touched on more before. We meet another James and we get to know Matthias a bit more. And there are additional lines for some of the other minor disciples. Presumably, the new James, is James the son of Alphaeus. He doesn't appear to be James, the brother of Jesus, and his small stature perhaps reflects the way that church tradition has come to refer to him as James the less, or "little James" as both The Chosen and this series credits call him.

Interestingly, James practically says the famous words from Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5:33-39 only in reverse, a kind of paraphrase "if he wants it to remain standing, then regardless of whether we are in the picture or not, it will remain standing". 

And then I think we get the most interesting moment of the episode, which is the angel coming and releasing them all through prison. She's portrayed very simply (see below), and as a Black woman who just appears in the midst of the disciples, without any fanfare or special effects. While they are just talking, suddenly a voice casually says "You could just leave". They turn around, and she's there. When Peter asks "Leave how?" She just gets up, opens the cell door and walks out of it before opening the doors of the other cells. After hesitating for a moment the disciples walk through the unlocked doors too. The guard doesn't even seem to see them go. It's really nicely done. 

This episode also does a good job of capture the concern around the ideas that other people are feeling. There's quite a lot here about the tensions that are being felt within the community at this point. There's a mix of fear and duty, whisked up with some joy and some concern. This episode firms up my sense of the different approach between it and The Chosen. The Chosen seems like it is simultaneously trying to help those people inside the church to get to know Jesus better, and show people who wouldn't consider themselves Christians, what (the filmmakers think) he was like.

Testament feels much subtler to me. It's a fascinating exercise in putting the text in a modern context. If it has a target audience and a point it's looking to express, I wonder if it's trying to challenge those inside the church to live like the early church did, only in today's world, rather than how the church often is now. As I have said before, the series makes parallels with certain types of churches that come through again and again. Some of the leadership ideas that come through are interesting, and if feels like it is putting out a challenge for a more radical form of Christianity. 

Yet having escaped, the disciples then head straight back to the temple courts to preach again. This is written into the text (5:17-21 -- the writers make a lot of material out of just a few verses here) but it's done in quite a straight fashion forward. The disciples end up getting imprisoned again and given the lash. It's not clear how many times they get hit with the lash, but it is shown as being very brutal, with some quite nasty seeming injuries afterwards. If nothing else it's a chance for the special effects and makeup department to do something more challenging. 

Underpinning all of this we have Saul who, from Gamaliel's perspective, is going off the rails. He's frozen out of the discussions about the Twelve with the Sanhedrin when he thinks he should be right there at the heart of it. Time and again he's reminded that he's not a member of the council, This would be bad enough, but then Gamaliel makes a the speech for which he's famous (Acts 5:33-39), urging a more laissez-faire approach to this emerging movement.

This puts him very much at loggerheads with Saul, who confronts him afterwards angrily. Saul foams at the mouth, with huge globules of spit literally flying out of his mouth. He completely goes off the deep end about Gamaliel's seeming compromise. I wonder if there sufficient motive for this. Is it going to get unpacked in future episodes, or is it just something that's assumed and read into the text, but not really explained. Either way, Gamaliel's response it to withdraw his support for Saul's candidacy for the Sanhedrin.

Meanwhile a couple of interesting subplots are developing and, as ever, the editors do a good job of layering the various overlapping story-lines to keep each one of these parallel stories ticking over. Susanna and Mary Magdalene continue to be quite prominent. We also get to find out Dana's backstory (pictured). In the previous episode it was suggested that she was a former sex worker who was try to escape drug addiction, ably assisted by Mary Magdalene.

Here she is revealed to be the estranged niece of Captain Rosh, chief of the temple guards, which eventually leads to a touching reconciliation scene between them. I'm curious to see how that dynamic is going to work out. She's tempted to walk away from the followers of Jesus, not because she wants to, but because she feels unsafe. However, it's the temple authorities she fears, but the kind of people that she had in her previous life. It's interesting so see this other potential threat here (and, of course, there are the Romans too). Conversely, Rosh is overjoyed that Dana is now "clean", but he also knows that it is a risk for him to be seen fraternising with Jesus' followers which creates quite an interesting dynamic.

The other major element that comes in this episode is that we get to find out a little bit more about the Hellenist widows. In Acts the demands of serving them is so high that seven leaders are appointed to focus just on that, including Stephen. This is where Stephen is first named in the text so obviously as we already know Stephen he acts as our way into the story of these women.

This is an aspect of the text that's rarely been portrayed well in Acts adaptation -- it's perhaps not as exciting to most filmmakers as all the preaching, persecution and miracles -- but here it's made into quite a moving scene. We're introduced to a new female character among the core followers. Initially, she seems a little bit mean, but this is more or less due to her being a little bit too bound to the rules, failing to understand and empathise and therefore missing the spirit of what the movement following Jesus is supposed to be about. There's quite a nice scene where she suddenly realises the full extent of the situation which is able to be resolved allowing the character to redeem herself. It was a satisfying little sequence, a complete little story on the periphereries of the main text, shedding light on elements of the story that are often missed.  

As per Luke's text, the followers ultimately have a vote to determine who the seven assigned to this task are going to be. It's the first thing in this series that feels a little overly macho, despite the presence of these twelve male apostles. I think this because Peter is quite quietly spoken, and has quite a gentle manner, Indeed, even the physically bigger characters like James have a gentle nature. Yet suddenly this process feels quite male -- there's quite a lot of loud cheering and yelping, and it's suddenly very apparent how absent the women are in this process. Mary Magdalene isn't even there. Susanna, who has been such a key part of the early movement in many ways, is not even in the running for one of these roles. What is her role exactly, and where does that fit in? So the series picks seven men (again), in addition to twelve disciples.

Given the modern context, this is a choice. It's a choice to stick very literally to the idea of seven men, where that could easily have included women without rocking the boat, particularly given many of those who are chosen in the text have names are not at all familiar to us. They could have been female. Indeed, some of the disciples could have been female. This is a modernisation after all. Perhaps some may say that that very idea of equality and the importance of women relative to men is only with us because of Christianity, but if so, I'm not so convinced by that. In the case of sexual equality, things have progressed and Christianity has sometimes been involved in the mix, but sometimes the church has pulled against it as well. If the filmmakers are advocating for a certain way of doing church, do they picture leadership as still just the preserve of men? 

There are a couple of interesting visuals in this episode. As mentioned above, just the anti-spectacle appearance of the angel is strong visual choice. There's also a scene (pictured at the top of this post) where the Sanhedrin are watching the disciples preaching to a crowd in the court. It's raining, and so we see them all with umbrellas, which makes for a really interesting shot, partly because of the composition (and the lowish camera angle) but mainly because we've not really seen umbrellas in biblical films much before. It makes for a very British scene in some ways, but it's quite good, because it breaks some of the standard ways of looking at these things, and really brings home that sense of the modern world that's at the heart of this adaptation. I like the series' commitment to this sort-of British context. It'll be interesting to see how this develops as the movement starts to spread more widely geographically.

Testament (2025): Fire Burns [s1e04]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

Episode 4 of Testament opens with a warning: "The following episode is about Acts 5:1-10 and contains scenes that some viewers may find difficult to watch". For those who don't know the text well, this might seems like a strange and perhaps intriguing warning at the start of the show. For those who are more familiar with it, it's intriguing for an entirely different reason. The story from Acts 5:1-10 is of Ananias and Sapphira, the couple in Acts who withhold some of their money from the disciples and pay the ultimate price. It's a story that has rarely been covered in biblical films. That's in no small part due the fact that Acts films themselves are none too common, and even more so because what we might mean by an "Acts film" is often a production more specifically about Peter and/or Paul rather than the early church as a whole. 

There are obviously exceptions, from Rossellini's Atti degli apostoli to the more recent A.D.: Kingdom and Empire (aka A.D.: The Bible Continues, 2015). What makes Testament's portrayal so particularly interesting is the way that it tackles what is often referred to as a 'problem text' in such an honest fashion. Typically problem texts in biblical films come with a certain amount of spin. The character who dies, or otherwise suffers, is portrayed as being far worse than they are when you look at the words found in the actual text. This means that when God takes actions that might otherwise seem extreme, the extremity of those things are somewhat mitigated by the behaviour of the character in question. This is something that at least as far back to DeMille's 1923 version of The Ten Commandments where the firstborn son of Pharaoh (destined to die at the end of the plagues) kicks Moses on the shin in one of the preceding scenes.

It would be easy for Testament to do something similar with Annas and Sapphira, perhaps making them otherwise objectionable as characters. Admittedly, they're not the kind of character that I would necessarily warm to, but that feels like it comes down to personal preference. Otherwise, the series plays it fairly straight. They don't do much less or much more than what the text tells us. They sell something, they withhold some of the total, yet still perform an act of incredible generosity, 'perform' perhaps being the operative word.

Perhaps Ananias enjoys the appreciation that comes with his donation a little too much, but again, this hardly seems like a personality flaw that merits him being killed. Moreover, it's Sapphira whose death we actually see. And she is made all the more sympathetic as a result.

The route into this story starts very early on with Peter sat doing the accounts. He's allowing Matthew out to do the preaching for a time, while trying to play a more serious role, not just doing the bits he enjoys (which is clearly preaching) and sharing out some of the less enjoyable responsibilities. Again this is an interesting perspective, recognising that some jobs are perhaps in church life more glamorous than others.

Indeed, this episode does really feel like the kind of lower-middle class, urban, evangelical church environment that you find in places in Britain these days, where some churches really do try and live out the principles we find in the early part of Acts. There's probably a soup kitchen that runs on Tuesday nights and occasionally training days and conferences take place in Barnabas's centre. Someone has a guitar. I feel like I've been in some of these rooms dozens of times.

This closeness to modern day expression of Christianity is also reflected a little in their Christology. There are a couple of moments where their view of who Jesus was and how they should respond to that feels perhaps a little further on than would have been the case. For example, in the penultimate scene Peter describes Jesus saying "our saviour is not just a man, he is God". There are faint touches of this in the later Gospels, but it's not clear that the disciples had worked all these things out so soon after his resurrection.

This idea about Jesus being fully equal with God is perhaps a little bit early. Likewise, we're introduced to a child character in this episode, Malachi, who is assigned to Stephen, perhaps as a way of keeping Stephen in the plot, but also away from the glare of the Ananias and Sapphira episode. Malachi was left at the centre by his mother for a week and has been acting up. 

Stephen is brought in as someone who is "good with kids" and tries to see through Malachi's mischievous behaviour to the hurting child behind it all. It also allows Stephen to reflect on his own relationship with his own mother – the two of them are still estranged from episode 1. Malachi's arc feels a little bit trite and clichéd, it's certainly not to the standard that we've come to expect from the show so far, but he's been impressed by what he's seen about this man he doesn't know, Jesus, or as he calls him, "that person everyone's been singing about". Again, the question of whether the followers of Jesus were worshipping him with songs at this stage in the church development is open to some debate. 

But then the show both demonstrates within itself that time is moving on. There's been a bit of a jump between episode three and four. The centre is now fully up and running and has been for a little while and fully in use. There are other indications too that time has passed. Mara's punishment is coming to a close. Saul is still in the records room but it's clear he's been there for some time. In his interview with Peter Chataway, director Paul Syrstad explains that they're trying to give a sense of these events taking place over many years even if the full 30 years isn't going to be an option. Ageing actors by that much is expensive, an the just don't have the budget. 

Speaking of Mara, it's interesting to see her character arc develop significantly in this episode. It turns out I was completely wrong about her, almost comically so. Previously I had wondered whether she was a spy masquerading as a follower of Jesus, or a would be follower of Jesus masquerading as a spy. By the end of the episode here her cards are very much on the table. She is opposed to the Jesus movement and an ally, if not a provocateur, of Saul. They both wish to take a more radical line with this new movement than is perhaps being proposed by the others among the temple authorities. 

Mara's duplicity as a spy is paralleled with that of Ananias and Sapphira. The two storylines are intercut as they are getting their moment in the limelight. Elsewhere Mara, who is known as Naomi when she is amongst the Christians. This is a sort of twisty reference to the Book of Ruth where Naomi changes her name to Mara – meaning bitter – when she finds herself back in Bethlehem mourning her family (Ruth 1:19-21). 

Here, it is Susanna who calls her out for not being genuine and warns her, just as events are playing out with Ananias and Sapphira. Susanna refers to the story of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-3 who God also killed for a minor infraction. And this is offered, perhaps as the show's only attempt to offer some kind of wider context to the awful and seemingly unjustified punishment meted out on Ananias and Sapphira. 

If I was wrong about Mara's feelings towards the Jesus movement being ambivalence, then Gamaliel's arc seems to go full circle at this point. At the start of the episode it looks like he is being uncharacteristically tough on the followers of Jesus, relative to how he is portrayed in the Book of Acts itself (5:33-39). Whereas, there he is a little more que sera sera, here we see him talking to other characters within the hierarchy, talking about using other methods to stop the church's advance.

It may not be upfront, confrontational action to hem them in, but it nevertheless feels like it's coming from a strong dislike of them and their movement. But is it, because later in the episode, Gamaliel follows John to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane (in their modern day London equivalents). He too seems to have some ambivalence about the movement.

John is naturally suspicious. But Mara / Naomi, also witnesses this and then reports it back to Saul. And this perhaps will go some way to explaining the way that their initial closeness, i.e. Paul studying under Gamaliel's (Acts 22:3), ultimately results in their very different approaches to the early Jesus movement – Gamaliel's laissez-faire versus Paul's outright hostility and persecution. 

Saul is also experiencing difficulties with another member of the Jewish hierarchy, one of a similar age, training and at similar points in their careers. I got the feeling that Saul and this character were rivals, but with only very slightly different outlooks. Having completed their training they see each other as rivals for getting the bigger jobs within the temple hierarchy. Nevertheless, there's clearly a similarity but also a kind of petulant rivalry there, perhaps as best indicated by this man firstly mocking Saul for being restricted to the library, and then petulantly flicking the pages of his notepad, as he walks away. 

So even from the little we've seen, it seems like one of those "frenemies" relationships such as Legolas and Gimli. Were Saul and this man to find themselves stuck together trying to save Middle Earth from destruction, they too would probably go through a story arc of initial hostility eventually giving way to the gradual realisation that they are quite similar to each other. 

Now at first I misheard this new character's name and thought it was Annas. Naturally, I suspected this night be a reference to Annas either the father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas (implying an older man than is portrayed here), or his son Annas ben Annas who might be a similar age to Saul as this character is. But then I saw from IMDb that the character is called Ananias – another one! Presumably, then, this man will go on to be the disciple in Damascus who prays with Saul when he first starts to follow Jesus. This makes a lot more sense. It also adds a bit of extra depth to what the Bible tells us about this second Ananias (who is presumably brought in at this stage to make it clear two characters have the same name but are different, and to draw a few other parallels) and will add extra flavour when Saul has to rely on Ananias to help him when he stumbling about with temporary sight loss.

Given that Saul is also about to go and go a future change, it's also interesting seeing a little bit more backstory about him and his mother. At the start of the episode we see him having nightmares about her (and about meeting Peter). And I guess there's some pairing here with Stephen, who also is feeling his mother's absence, and his mother is clearly feeling similarly. In fact, we see James go and speaks to her to try and heal that rift by letting her know that Stephen is missing her.

So it's an interesting episode. One line that particularly stood out for me as perhaps summing things up is said by Susannah to Mara, "Come as who you really are". It will be interesting to see how that theme develops through the next few episodes.

I dieci gladiatori (Ten Gladiators, dir: Gianfranco Parolini, 1963)

I actually sat down to watch I dieci gladiatori thinking it was a non-biblical Italian peplum as part of my research into Italian cinema. Having seen a lot of the biblical pepla, I've been feeling the need to ensure I understand the broader context. Imagine my surprise then when it began to emerge, even as early as the credits, that this was, if not a full blown New Testament film, it was at least a partially blown Roman-Christian epic.

The first clues are laid down during the credits sequence which indicates its determination to grab onto the coat tails of Quo Vadis (1951 but possibly 1913 also). Not only does it star Dan Vadis as the leading gladiator Roccio, but the filmmakers even seem to choose Vadis-esque English names for some of the other cast members, such as Susan Paget, Margaret Taylor (eerily similar to the stars of Quo Vadis, Deborah Paget and Robert Taylor). Neither name appears in the IMDb credits, which supports my suspicion that they were just featured so prominently to catch a glimmer of Quo Vadis's glamour.

The similarities with Mervyn LeRoy's 1951 epic only deepen the film continues. After some opening fight scenes between the titular ten and various Roman soldiers we're introduced to Nero and realise that while Gianno Rizzo's performance is a little more restrained it's only a matter of time before Rome begins to burn and the finger of suspicion falls on the Christians.

While none of the main characters are Christians we do get another staple of the Roman-Christian genre, a scene of a church meeting in the catacombs (pictured above). This is all part of plot by one of Nero's advisors Tigellinus to frame, and thus eliminate another, Lucio Vero. Vero, played by director Gianfranco Parolini himself, is a pagan (half way between Vadis's Marcus Vinicius and Spartacus's Crassus). Tigelinus and his men drag him to the catacombs and then accuse him of being a Christian so he ends up in the arena.

But there is the tantalising shot above of this church meeting. We're not told who this man is, but the implication (based on how the equivalent scene is put together in Vadis) that this is if not actually St. Peter, someone that will make you think of Peter. Perhaps a leader in Peter's mould.

The other thing that is interesting about this scene is the dialogue. The snippet of the church service we hear says (according to the subtitles) "Our consciences are full of our sins. And even if one day we still fall prey to human violence, we have to accept this violence." It doubtless sounds better in Italian, but it's not something that seems particularly reminiscent of anything. More interesting is Tigellinus's withering comment afterwards, "Filthy bums who worship a thief who died on a cross". Even on the lips if an enemy of Rome that's quite a shocking for an Italian film to say about Jesus. Remember Pasolini had been prosecuted for La Ricotta's lack of reverence to Jesus just a few months before

But there's another strange thing about the films portrayal of Christians. Later as a group of Christians are about to be sent into the arena we see another church-type meeting, again being led by an older man with white hair (above). Here the arrangement of the characters is less formal (more of a circle than in rows facing him as before) and he's speaking as the camera pans by, but it's a different man, (although, even more than before, he resembles Vadis's Finlay Currie). Is either man meant to be St. Peter? Are they meant to be te same man or not?

But perhaps the most explicitly Christian image of the film comes after this arena scene (which leads to the burning of Rome) Seeking to blame the Christians, Nero starts rounding them up and persecuting them. Caught up in proceedings is Roccio's friend Livia (it's a bit ambiguous whether the two are, or have been, lovers, or if they're just good friends). And so Nero and starts tying them and her to crosses and torturing them and so we get the rather striking image below.

Dieci gladiatori was released as Ten Desperate Men at one stage in the United States. It's super camp and there's a too much gymnastics, body oil and beef cake on display to give much weight to the proceedings even with some fairly graphic (for the time) on display. This gives the film a rather uneven feel, it almost feels like two different films. The ten gladiators seem far closer in spirit to the merry men in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) than the comrades in arms in Spartacus (1960). Those parts are fun, but seem so alien to today's portrayal of men in historical epics. On the other hand, the body count is quite high and the implied violence combines with the onscreen violence to bring a dark edge to proceedings. Nevertheless, the scenery looks good and the costumes, (aside from being a little skimpy) look splendid.

This mix of men pals and and even mix of violence, fun and gymnastics is not unusual for Parolini. Six years later he directed a war movie called 5 per l’inferno (Five for Hell) which featured soldiers with a number of gimmicks. He's best remembered though for directing two of the Sabata trilogy starring Lee van Cleef. The same year as 10 Gladiators, he also directed Maccabean epic Il vecchio testamento (The Old Testament), his second film with a somewhat misleading, biblical-sounding title following Sansone (1961).

=========

If you want to see this film, it's currently available to view with subtitles on Peplum Paradise's channel on YouTube. They've upscaled it which is gives a cleaner version of the film than has previously been available, (It does mean that some of the screen grabs I've used from the film look a little bit odd if you look too closely).

The Chosen (2019) s1e04

Having enjoyed episode 3 of The Chosen not quite as much as I enjoyed episodes 1 and 2, I'm a little apprehensive about sitting down to number 4. Will it return to the appeal of the first episodes, or has the novelty worn off? It starts bizarre;y enough with Peter on a rowing boat with a group of Roman soldiers when he "accidentally" directs them onto a sand bar – damaging their boat – one of them uses his sword to cut his ear. Presumably this is nod to the moment in the Garden of Gethsemane where Simon Peter (according to John 18:10, but not the Synoptics) cuts off Malchus' ear.

Of course, at this point in the episode he is only Simon, but this is the episode where Andrew tells him about Jesus, then he meets Jesus after a disappointing night fishing, Jesus produces a multitude of fish, Simon believes and decides to follow him and gains his nickname "Rocky". 

What's interesting is that this formula is fairly well worn in Jesus films, but it's not really like that in the Gospels. Without checking, I'm reasonably certain that Jesus of Nazareth (1977), Jesus (1999) and The Miracle Maker (2000) all follow this pattern. The Gospels however have it slightly differently. Mark and Matthew just have Jesus meeting Andrew and Peter at the same time at the Sea of Galilee and calling them without any miracle. Luke doesn't really have the story of Simon being called. Simon just appears in 4:38, as if everyone already knows who he is, with a mother-in-law in need of healing. 

The groundwork for the story of Peter's mother-in-law is foreshadowed in this episode. We're introduced to Peter's wife, who tells him that "Eema" is sick and rebukes him for not looking after her enough. Peter reveals he's in trouble. He has tax debts and has been fishing on the Sabbath (here called "Shabbat" throughout) and is in increasingly desperate need of "a miracle". He needs a big catch of fish. "Where is your faith?" his wife demands "You've not pursued the Lord lately. Not like the man that I married".

The miraculous catch of fish episode appears only in two gospels, and in radically different places. In Luke it appears at the start of ch.5, just a few verses after the healing of Simon's mother-in-law. In John, however, it's tagged on to the end of the Gospels, as a post resurrection appearance. Some claim these are two entirely separate incidents, perhaps even making the point about Simon's failure to learn, or that it gives the moment when he sees the miracle for a second time he knows this is Jesus even though he's a distance away.

John's other innovation is to change the role of Peter's brother Andrew. In the Synoptics he's a bit of an also ran. In John (1:35-42) he gets promoted to being one of the two disciples who initially follow John the Baptist (the other is not named, though Jesus films that include this incident nearly always make him John), until the Baptist points them towards Jesus and they then transfer their allegiance. Andrew then goes and tells Peter who meets Jesus and joins up. Jesus changes his name then and there (in Mark isn't mentioned until 3:16, likewise the other Synoptics).

As  with the three films mentioned above here we have these various bits harmonised into one story, that doesn't really match what any one of the Gospels says. Andrew, is the wide-eyed dreamer: Peter the practical based realist. Andrew returns excited about "the Messiah", Peter thinks he is just being naive. They go out to fish, catch nothing, but when they return Jesus tells them to try again, Peter points out this is impractical. Cue miraculous catch of fish, Simon's exclamation ("You are the Lamb of God. Depart from me. I am a sinful man... you don't know who I am and the things I've done") and his conversion and calling.

Here however, there's a far greater level of desperation in Peter's circumstances and far more severe character flaws than is typical for this soon-to-be-leader-of-the-(whole?)-church. He's been a gambler and got into trouble and now he's in trouble for tax fraud. There's suggestions of violence and drunkenness in there as well. And now he's working on the Sabbath.

The moment when the miracle happens is far more dramatic as well, and certainly wants to emphasise that this is a miracle. It comes as Simon is about to be seized for his tax debt - "its my last night as a free man and I'm fishing". The catch takes place in very shallow waters and the nets don't even seem laid out in such a fashion that a bunch of fish could get suddenly trapped. Yet here the pull from the net is so sever that the boat almost capsizes. There's also a God shot at this point - the first in the episode, and perhaps even the series.

All of which makes this quite a showy and dramatic way to present this story. The films mentioned above follow a similar structure and while they also suggest that this is a miracle by Jesus, these "enhancements" are absent. They all involve interpretation but whereas those other leave the door open for more natural/coincidental/God-working-through-nature interpretations, here only one reading seems possible. It's interesting too that the film's director, in the after the credits chat, actually calls the recording of that scene itself "a miracle". This is a step above Mel Gibson's claims about the "Holy Ghost" when he was making The Passion of the Christ (2004).

Several other named biblical characters also feature several times in this episode. Firstly I've already mentioned Andrew, but James and John appear in the background and get a few lines. There's also a role for Zebedee whose warm, avuncular, portrayal contrasts significantly with the spiky antagonist of Last Temptation of Christ (1988).

Nicodemus also makes a few appearances without really moving things on, I'm guessing they're positioning him as a character the audience can relate to, who can be converted as per the John 3:16 passage, relatively early on in the series. The episode ends with him seeking out John the Baptist to ask about "the miracles".

Matthew also makes another appearance. He's portrayed very differently to Simon. Yes he's a tax collector, but he's nervous and clearly not at all comfortable with his form of employment. It's interesting that whereas The Chosen is making Peter a bit rougher round the edges than the Gospels do, trying to remove that saintly edge, they seem to be semi-rehabilitating Matthew to lessen his complicity in Rome's oppressive machine. He's also fascinated by what is going on and Jesus in particular and the way Matthew always carries a pen and parchment and regularly jots things down, is clearly intended to mark(!) him out as an eye-witness Gospel author who can be relied upon because he was literally noting things down as they happened. 

Again this is a very conservative view point solidified a bit via the series' presentation of him. But then Christian history has spent a long time developing the romance of Matthew's character and his narrative arc. The opposite viewpoint – that Matthew was not one of the disciples who used other people's accounts and recalled sayings (and may even have written in Hebrew not Greek or Aramaic) has not really been retold with the same level of fond devotion. As a result it's far less appealing despite historical probability being in its favour. 

Lastly given the last episode took place seemingly before Jesus' ministry, it's a surprise that we've skipped over Jesus' baptism. But then the series is certainly happy with a jumbled chronology and seems to use it (well) as a narrative device a fair bit, so I imagine we will circle back to this moment later. I guess this enables the series to telescope a fair bit. I've no idea if there has been a crucifixion scene yet, but, in theory the filmmakers could keep this constantly within reach, without getting there for quite a long time.

I do like the way this episode manages to roll a number of episodes in together in a way that is dramatically satisfying, even is the theological positioning is a bit strong at time. It reflects, I suppose, the bite-sized way they Gospels are typically read and in some ways written. Chronology is a secondary concern to serving the narrative and the portrayal and the episodes work as relatively self-contained stories within a grander narrative.I'm interested to see if this is going to be a regular feature of the series.

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.

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 12

This is part 12 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode and are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here

So we arrive at the final episode in the first series of A.D.: The Bible Continues, which, three years after series 1 concluded, looks likely to be the last episode, leaving the series high and dry somewhere around Acts 11. It's a shame really because as the series has continued it has far out stripped my expectations, not only surpassing The Bible (2013) and it's spin off Son of God (2014), but also the series' earliest episodes which seemed to fall prey to the same weaknesses as its predecessor. As the series has moved further away from the Gospels, and as the biblical content has been diluted with the Roman/fictional content it seems to have improved. There's still been the odd dodgy special effect - and this episode's angelic appearance to Cornelius is no exception - but the over-emphasis on violence has been replaced by better storytelling craft, character development and pacing.

The backstory that has been building up through the last few episodes is that of the statue of Gaius (i.e. Caligula) that is to be erected in the temple. The portrayal here conflates things a little. Pilate was out of power in Jerusalem by about 37AD, but the incident with Gaius' statues did not occur until around 39-40AD (recorded in Philo). There was however an earlier episode which both Philo and Josephus record where Pilate tried to erect Roman standards bearing Caesar's image. This took place around 26-27AD, at the start of Pilate's governorship and at which the Jewish leaders and people "fell to the ground in a body and bent their necks, shouting that they were ready to be killed rather than transgress the Law" (Josephus, War II:175-203, 7). This earlier episode was portrayed at the very start of Jesus (1999).

The composite incident we are left with in A.D.: Kingdom and Empire has Gaius' statues being brought into the temple by a nervy Pilate. There the Christian's, led by James and Peter, join Caiaphas and the high priests in kneeling on the ground in front of Pilate's soldiers and bearing their necks. Pilate decides discretion is the better part of valour and withdraws to consider his options. The last scene in the series is someone coming to arrest Peter, presumably just in time for series 2 to begin at the start of chapter 12.

Before all this however Peter has been in Joppa. There he encounters Cornelius after both men have heard from God. Peter for his part hears a voice that simply says "Peter, these are looked on as unclean, but do not call anything impure that God has cleansed." and on screen we see a selection of brief shots of individual non-kosher animals.It's all over rather quickly. Cornelius however, sees his vision only after being overwhelmed by guilt for killing Joanna. He takes some time out from Jerusalem for a while and arrives in Joppa and whilst there sees a vision of an angel who tells him "Godly has looked kindly on your...repentance" and asks him to send for Peter. The two meet and talk, and then those present - including Cornelius's family - start speaking in tongues and we see tongues of fire.

This scene is notable for several reasons. Firstly, because whilst all the elements of the biblical version of the story are essentially present, albeit in abbreviated form, it feels rather deprived of the Jewish context. I think essentially Peter seems to lack any sense of disgust at the unclean animals and untroubled by the implications of what is now happening. It's more than that, though. Somehow despite the way the series has led the way in its portrayal of race in many ways, it doesn't quite get this right here. The incident just lacks the significance the Bible gives it.

Secondly, it's interesting to see the different characters speaking in tongues. This is straight out of the Bible, but it's interesting that we don't often get to see Christians speaking in tongues, except occasionally at Pentecost, and even then it's rather different. Here the characters are speaking tongues making a similar sounds and in a similar manner to how charismatic Christians do today. That's an assumption by the filmmakers, but it's interesting to see.

It's also notable that Mary Magdalene is with Peter when she meets Peter and she somehow discerns that Cornelius was responsible for killing her friend Joanna and is troubled by it. Again it would be easy to be sniffy about this, but there is a ring of truth about the way this unfolds. Cornelius haunted by the guilt of it. A discerning Christian able to somehow put the finger on the issue, which, in turn therefore deeply affects the person in question.

Lastly once their meeting is over Cornelius pretty much just returns to his old job. The show does quite a good job of exploring this. Peter and his friends expect Cornelius to join their ranks, just as previous Jewish converts have done. Cornelius however think he has to go back to soldiering, but with an expectation that roles will change. It's tempting to say the show is pushing for a world where faith has no bearing on your beliefs and actions in your day job, but actually this is not at all fair. Instead it leaves it open and we're unsure how it will resolve itself. Cornelius is clearly a changed man and that is impacting how he lives in all areas of his life, but for him it doesn't equate to leaving the army, at least not yet.

It would be interesting to see how these various things resolve themselves, both as the focus shifts away from Jerusalem and as the leading characters become less tethered to the biblical characters. Sadly it doesn't look like we'll get the chance. It's a shame though because whilst I had to force myself to watch the first few episodes, in the second half of the series I've found myself having to slow down the rate at which I watched it to give myself enough time to write it up. I believe Roma Downey and Mark Burnett would like to produce more episodes. Lets hope that, against all odds, they get the chance.

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.

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 3

This is part 3 of a series of posts covering A.D. episode by episode & are initial impressions not a review. You can read them all here.
Having ended the last episode with the Ascension, this one begins in Galilee with the rather odd sight of Peter watching his daughter from afar and explaining to John (and therefore us) that he's going to leave her with her grandmother so as not to endanger her by continuing to follow Jesus. It's a bit of a mixed bag as scenes go. On the one hand it's a cute reference both to the episode (Mark 1:29-31 and parallels) where Jesus heals Peter's Galilean mother-in-law and the fact that the gospel writers neglect to ever mention Peter's wife in her own right. The film's take on it - that Peter's wife has died - is not a bad theory.

The downside of this scene however is the oddness of the way that Peter sneaks off and deserts his daughter, rather than explaining to her what he's doing. Apart from anything Pater's daughter is effectively a grown up and it seems to me, at least, that if you can't even be honest with your daughter - however noble your motives - then perhaps being the head of a soon-to-be major religion perhaps isn't the best role for you? Put it another way various films over the years have been taken to task in some quarters for portraying Peter or Paul in a bad light. Whilst the gospels are fairly honest about some of their mistakes this somehoe juts seems a little off. Fortunately though this isn't the last we see of Miss Cephas. Turns out the moment she discovers he's gone she comes and finds him and joins the disciples.

Meanwhile the political scheming continues, this time with the introduction of Herod Antipas who is played by James Callis of Bridget Jones and Battle Star Galactica fame. Bible film swots will also recall Callis played Haman in 2006's One Night with the King. It's a piece of casting that does rather provide further evidence for Richard A. Lindsay that Antipas is typically portrayed as a "queer" character (p.105-112).

The added political/Roman angle was one of the things that made the 1985 version of A.D. a success, but in this series it's less effective. This is partly due to the series' overblown style. The Romans' domination over the inhabitants of Judea has to be rammed home, hence in this episode the recorded events of Pentecost alone are deemed insufficiently dramatic, so they have to be combined with Pilate deciding to strong-arm his way into the temple, and with Jewish freedom fighters looking to attack as well. The conflict ends when, rather ludicrously a Roman soldier corners one of the attackers only to drop his guard and have his throat slit. Perhaps it's a metaphor for western forces in the Middle East or something, but it seems a little silly. That said, it's not even half as silly as the moment when one character starts to re-enact Life of Brian's "what have the Romans ever done for us scene" without even seeming to realise.

As this series unfolds I'm starting to spot a pattern, in that each episode seems to contain one set-piece special effects moment. In episode 1 it was the earthquake accompanying Jesus' death. In episode 2 it was the ascension. Here it's the coming of the Holy Spirit. In all three cases it seems like these set pieces are meant to impress less committed viewers and keep them engaged, but their execution is poor. Rather than focusing on a single effective moment, the filmmakers stretch it out, spreading the budget too thinly and spending it in places where it's unnecessary. Here the moments inside the upper room are reasonably good, but the external shots of something akin to a comet circling the building before shooting down onto it are both unnecessary and poorly produced.

What's also strange about it is the lack of effect that this incident has on the disciples. Typically such films portray this incident as the fearful disciples being given their courage, but of course that is, at best, an interpretation. Here however, the disciples are already confident enough and ready to go, they are only holding back in obedience because Jesus has told them they need to wait for the Holy Spirit. It's less about empowering and emboldening a scared and unequipped people, and more a showy way of granting them permission. I didn't like this at first, but it has made me reconsider the passage and challenge my preconceptions, and that is when biblical films are at their best.

What is less commendable is the way that Peter's speech in front of the crowd is axed. Instead the events are mashed up with the healing of the lame man in Acts 3 and compressed into a single incident. This seems like a mistake, in Acts Peter's initial speech is such a pivotal moment. Speeches don't always make good telly, but even a greatly abbreviated version would have been better value than one of the ponderous fabricated speeches from Pilate, Caiaphas or Herod. Furthermore it means the thousands converting at Pentecost are doing so because they have witnessed a miracle, not because they are persuaded by an idea. Admittedly the miracle in Acts does bring in converts anyway, but I like the idea of people being persuaded by words and ideas, rather than power and spectacle.

Next time, I'm going to have to try not to be so formulaic with my next review and avoid commenting  every, single, time, on the series tendency to push everything (particularly the violence) to the extreme.

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

Lindsay, Richard A., (2015) Hollywood Biblical Epics: Camp Spectacle and Queer Style from the Silent Era to the Modern Day  Denver, CO: Praeger

David Suchet - In the Footsteps of St. Peter (2015)

The rise of Simon Peter is an unusual one. He shared more or less the same humble roots as Jesus, but whereas Jesus died in almost the same obscurity and with the same low rank as he began, Peter, if the traditions are to be believed, rose to become the leader of the church across the largest and most influential city of the Empire: Rome.

It's this unlikely rise that David Suchet charts in his latest two part documentary for the BBC David Suchet - In the Footsteps of St. Peter. Suchet starts in Rome with an introduction not dissimilar to the one above, before returning to the Holy Land for the rest of the first part of the documentary to examine Peter's life up to the point of Jesus' death.

Suchet starts his investigation in Bethsaida, where Peter, then still known by just his Hebrew name, Shimon, was reputed to have grown up. Culturally it was a very cosmopolitan town with a mixture of Jews and other traders from across the empire, indeed Suchet learns that the archeological evidence suggest a very mixed diet was consumed, much of it non-Kosher. Bethsaida was known for its fishing and we're shown fishing net weights and needles that fisherman such as Peter would have used, although the Sea of Galilee has now retreated from where it stood 2000 years ago.

From Bethsaida to Capernaum, the alleged site of Peter's mother-in-law's house and a far more Jewish settlement than Bethsaida though still one with a strong fishing industry. Suchet gets to visit the, so called, Jesus Boat and learns a bit about how fisherman like him would have clubbed together with others to go into business. Boats such as this needed crews of five and fishing licences and other expenses would have made the cost quite high. Somehow the notion seems to get accepted that Peter was a middle class business owner, but it does rather seem to beg the question.

Another key site on the Sea of Galilee is Caesarea Philippi where Peter, now a firm follower of Jesus declared that Jesus was the messiah and Jesus replies that on this rock he would build his church. But the rock Suchet stands in front of is a large, former pagan shrine. Suchet uses his experience as an actor to draw out some of the ambiguities of the raw text. Did he mean the rock behind him or the man in front of him? Was he pointing at himself or just referring to Peter's words.

It's one of the many strengths Suchet brings to his role. As well as his affability with his guests there's a real passion for the subject and an interest in the material. He carries a notebook around with him, but, as the camera occasionally reveals, it's more for sketching than writing, and there's an ongoing sense that Suchet is getting behind the character, trying to understand the character and pick out the drama and humanity in the story. There are some nice moments where Suchet offers a dramatised telling of the story.

But the success of this documentary also lies in the way it uses the visuals to make an impact. There is, of course, many a BBC documentary where a presenter goes around getting to see and handle the artefacts that accompany their story, but in addition to this, here the Galilean landscapes and the Roman architecture really add to the scene of this incredible transition. And in HD the overhead footage of Jerusalem looks incredible.

One particularly powerful moment in this respect is the visit to Mount Hermon. It's not a scene that appears in many Jesus films and most of those that do portray it were made on quite small budgets. So in my mind I picture a small hill at best. However, the footage of Mount Hermon really brings home the size of it and just as Suchet is dwarfed by the size of the mountain, seeing this new context makes me realise how the disciples must have been dwarfed by it as well, but also of the appropriateness of such a setting for a moment that so emphasises Jesus' divinity.

From the Mount Hermon to Mount Zion where Suchet hears about Passover, the temple and learns the context around that strange part in Luke 22:38 where Peter tells Jesus he has two swords and Jesus says that this should be enough. First century Jerusalem, and particularly the countryside around it, was not particularly safe so travellers would bring some form of self defence as standard.

Suchet then joins Shimon Gibson on the site of one of his current excavations - a house in Jerusalem. They're there to get a feel for Peter sneaking into the high priest's enclosure where he would deny Jesus. Both Suchet and I are struck by how small the courtyard area is. Whilst it's not hard to imagine the high Priest might live in a slightly grander house than this one, again I find myself having to recalibrate my previous mental images of the scene. Gibson points out that just entering such an enclosed, intimate, yet potentially dangerous space was an act of significant bravery.

The final, and all too brief, segment of the first part of the film looks at Jesus' death and burial and the empty tomb on the following Sunday. The key location here is a first century tomb, but there's no mention that being entombed was exceedingly rare for those crucified, and the mention of Peter and the empty tomb, particularly for a documentary running over Easter weekend is particularly lightweight. Part one ends with Suchet offering his thoughts and concluding with the question "so how does Peter get from this, the possible lowest point in his life, to becoming, what some people call, the Pope of Rome?"

The answer to this question would seem to lie with both the resurrection and Pentecost and, sure enough, part two opens with the story of Jesus appearing to Peter and six of the other disciples on the beach (John 21). There's a lovely shot of fish cooking over an open fire on shores of Lake Galilee, but he discussion about the resurrection is rather scant. It's true that Pentecost (which we come to next) was also very significant to Peter's about turn and that the encounter with Jesus on the beach was personally redemptive. Nevertheless, it's a shame the programme doesn't actually mention that the gospels claim that Peter witnessed the risen Jesus at least three times in the presence of the other disciples and once on his own. The veracity of that claim can be disputed. There are a range of positions on what "resurrection" actually means, and on the veracity and verifiability of those claims. I must admit that I personally am unsure what exactly is to be made of them. But surely the remit of a documentary like this that it should at least examine the crucial moments in the story, even if it ultimately finds them wanting, or, as it more often the case, concludes that whether you believe it all or not is a matter of faith.

Following the discussion of Pentecost we move onto Peter's encounter with the Roman centurion Cornelius - "a huge moment for Peter". There's a brief retelling of Peter's escape from Herod's jail before Suchet picks up the trail in Cappadocia (modern-day Turkey). There's some footage of the stunning frescoes carved into the rock in the old St Basil's monastery there and reflections on how the monks there followed the sort of approach that Peter advocated. A brief reference is made to the early chapters of Acts and 1 Peter 3:8-9 is recited.

From Cappadocia the story returns to Jerusalem and the council that debated Gentile admission to the church. This felt a little under done, but it's perhaps of less interest in such a visual documentary as this as those parts of the story where historical artefacts or artistic interpretations are quite so stunning.

Which brings things nicely to Rome and the Appian way. The focus here is very much on Peter's leadership of the Roman church. Was it likely and how might he have influenced things there? The programme's theological consultant Ed Adams suggests Peter didn't actually found the church in Rome, even if he led it at some point, so the programme moves to the most likely time for Peter's leadership of the church around the great fire in 64 AD. Various experts discuss this informing us that Nero was prone to scapegoating, that he liked making examples of the prominent leaders, but that any such reprisals were more likely to be by burning, beheading or garrotting than by upside down crucifixion. Furthermore, had Peter been upside down it may have been by his request or by the soldiers' own cruel initiative.

And so we arrive at the inevitable tour of the catacombs. It's easy to get blasé about yet another documentary trip around the tunnels and chambers underneath Rome. Yet it also seems that every documentary seems to somehow find a fresh part of this underground world that I've not seen before. It really brings home just how unfathomably large the catacombs are and Suchet certain finds some good points of interest in the bit he chooses on which to focus.

Having covered a great deal of ground on a horizontal axis, the film's final transition is vertically, back up to the surface and into St Peter's square. Here Suchet chooses to sum up, against the backdrop of Peter's most recent spiritual ancestor arriving in his pope mobile. Even with the current incumbent's drive towards a more humble faith, Suchet cannot escape the disconnect between the finery of today's Vatican and Peter's humble beginnings on the Sea of Galilee. He leaves us with the question that is already in our minds: "What would he have made of all this?"

Overall David Suchet - In the Footsteps of St. Peter is a strong and fairly enjoyable documentary owing to a combination of Suchet's affable enthusiasm, a strong range of knowledgeable experts, an impressive selection of interesting artefacts and some impressive photography. It's a shame that the events of the first Easter are rather short changed, but there's much here that even well seasoned fans of Bible documentaries will learn and enjoy.

=========
I've got into the habit of writing down all the experts' names when I watch documentaries like these and so, having done so here, it seemed a shame to exclude them even though there are so many of them that embedding them within the review itself would rather ruin the flow. The list is rather impressive, not least because I don't recall the majority of them appearing in one of these programmes before. And it has admirable breadth, encompassing archaeologists, theologians, fisherman, rabbis, seminary students and art historians. So here's the full list in order of appearance:

Part 1
Kate Raphael, Eugenio Alliata, Orna Cohen, Kurt Raveh, Menahem Lev, Claire Pfann, Karen Stern,Ronny Reich, Guy Stiebel, Shimon Gibson.
Part 2
Stephen Pfann, Joan Taylor, Gil Gambash, Daniel R Schwartz, Freda Barut, Helen Bond, Arnold Nesselrath, Edward Adams, Riccardo Di Segni, Thomas Cunnah, Ryan Day, Peter Stoddart, Valerie Higgins, Candida Moss, Jerry Brotton.