Shanti Sandesham - Scene Guide

I watched the Indian Jesus film Shanti Sandesham (2004) the other day and will be reviewing it shortly. In the meantime here's a quick rundown of the scenes and the equivalent scriptures. Here's how I use citations in scene guides. Please note - the only version of this film I've been able to find does not have English subtitles, so take everything with a pinch of salt. I am however grateful to Freek Bakker's overview which helped me fill in a few gaps (though he omits some scenes from the version I saw).

Shepherds (Luke 2:8-20)

Wise Men (Matt 2:1-11)

Slaughter of Innocents (Matt 2:16-18)

Jesus' Baptism (Mark 1:1-11)

[Extra-biblical episode - John confronts Herod]

Temptation (Matt 4:1-11)

Calling the 1st disciples (Mark 1:16-20)

Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11)

Call of Matthew (Matt 9:9-13)

*Healing of Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52)

Healing of the Lepers (Luke 17:11-19)

Healing of a disabled man (Matt 9:2)

Clearing of temple (Mark 11:15-19)

Jewish leaders discuss Jesus #1

Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42)

Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2-16)

Healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6)

Jewish leaders discussion #2

Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7)

Calling of the 12 (Mark 3:13-19)

Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-14)

Feeding of 5000 (Mark 6:34-44)

*Salome/Death of John (Mark 6:17-29)

Jewish leaders discussion #3

[Extra-biblical epsiode - Barabbas & Soldiers]

House of Mary, Martha & Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42)

Walking on Water (Mark 6:45-52)

*Children come to Jesus (Mark 10:13-16)

Exorcising a demon (Mark 9:14-29) 

Jewish leaders discussion #4

Woman accused of adultery (John 8:2-11)

[Extra-biblical episode: Barabbas attempts to kill Herod]

Who do you say I am? (Matt 16:13-21)

*Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-44)

Triumphal entry (Mark 11:1-11)

Jesus confronts the Jewish leaders (Matt 23:1-34)

Jewish leaders discussion #5

Magdalene anoints Jesus (Mark 14:3-9)

Judas agrees to betray Jesus (Mark 14:10-11)

Last Supper (Mark 14:12-31)

Foot washing (John 13:1-8)

Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-50)

Jesus before Caiaphas (Mark 14:53-59)

Peter's denial (Mark 14:66-72)

Judas hangs self (Matt 27:3-5)

Pilate 1st trial (Mark 15:1-5)

Mocking (Mark 15:15-20)

Pilate 2nd trial (Mark 15:6-15)

[Extra-biblical episode: Barabbas reacts to his freedom]

*Via dolorosa (Mark 15:20-22)

Women of Jerusalem (Luke 23.27)

[Extra-biblical episode:Veronica]

Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21)

Refuses wine (Mark 15:22-23)

Crucifixion (Mark 15:21-41)

Two thieves (Luke 23:39-42)

Mary and John (John 19:26-27)

Darkness (Mark 15:33)

Jesus speaks from the cross

Jesus dies (Mark 15:34-37)

Centurion (Mark 15:39)

Burial & Pietà (Mark 15:46b-47)

Resurrection (Matt 28:1-4)

Women at the tomb (Mark 16:1-8)

Mary sees Jesus (John 20:11-17)

Jesus appears to disciples (Luke 24:36-49)

Thomas (John 26:29)

Ascension (Luke 24:50-53)

A Few Notes 

1. As the version I watched was not in English and had no subtitles, I couldn't tell what was being discussed in the 6 or so scenes with Caiaphas and other Jewish leaders. I've not marked these down as "Extra-biblical episodes" because I suspect that they contain elements of Mark 11:18, 14:1; Luke 19:45, 20:19; 22:2; and John 7:32, 7:45; 11:45-57. There are slight variations here and I've excluded the parallel passages in Matthew as they don't add much. Needless to say this seems like a lot more conspiracy against Jesus than we find in the texts. Bakker notes that in one of these scenes "Caiaphas loudly declares his contentment with the death of John the Baptist and proposes to levy extra taxes from all who have been baptised by the prophet" (48).

2. Similarly, it was difficult to catch how many of Jesus' seven sayings from the cross were included, however, it seems to me that all seven were included, and in the traditional order. Certainly his first words are in response to soldiers mocking; then there are the dialogues with the two men eitehr side of him, and his mother and John in front of him. The nest time he speaks is in response to the skies darkening and would seem to reflect "why have you forsaken me". This is followed by a hosrt cry and something on a sponge being held aloft. Interestingly though this seems to be the soldiers mocking him as he seems unable to actually get a drink - perhaps tying in with the moment just before the crucifixion where he refuses a drink hen it is offered to him (which is hardly ever shown). Lastly he seems to make two more statements - certainly there's a pause and slight change of mood between them, so it seems likely this is "It is accomplished" and "Into your hands I commend my spirit".

*3. Finally, there are five songs in this film which take up a considerable part of the running time, but also cover several incidents (such as the healings of Bartimaeus, men with leprosy and a disabled man), I've used a* to indicate where these take place, but there's more detail in my review and in Freek Bakker's paper referenced below has a little more detail.

N.B. This post was edited several times after it was originally posted to add in greater detail.

=====

Bakker, Freek (2007) "Shanti Sandesham, a New Jesus Film Produced in India: Indian Christology in Pictures". Exchange. 36. 41-64. 

Il figlio dell'uomo - Scene Guide

One of the films I mentioned in last week's list of Italian Jesus Films is 1954's Il figlio dell'uomo. My review is here, but I noted down the various scenes as I was watching it, so I thought I'd post these as a separate scene guide. If you're a detail-y kind of person (and we love them round here), then here's how I use citations in scene guides. Please note. The only version of this film I've been able to find is this online one, and there are no English subtitles.

Creation and fall (Gen 2-3)*
Annunciation (Luke 2:1-3; Luke 1:26-38)
Birth of Jesus (Luke 4:21; Matt 2:11).
John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-11)
Teaching on Revenge (Matt 6:38-42)
Healing a paralytic (Mark 2:1-12)
Beatitudes (Matt 5:1-12)
Teaching about the law (Matt 5:17-20)
Bread of Life (John 6:25-59)
Plot to kill Jesus (Mark 14:1-2)
Question about marriage (Mark 10:1-12)
Calling the 12 (Mark 3:13-19)
Jesus predicts his death (Mark 10:32-34)
Triumphal entry (Mark 11:1-11)
Clearing temple (Mark 11:15-19)
Last Supper (Mark 14:12-31)
Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-50)
Sanhedrin Trial (Mark 14:53-59)
Peter's denial (Mark 14:66-72)
Jesus is beaten & spat on (Mark 14:61-65)
Pilate 1st trial (Mark 15:1-5)
In front of Herod (Luke 23:6-12)
Pilate 2nd Trial (Mark 15:6-15)
Jesus whipped & mocked (Mark 15:15-20)
Crucifixion (Mark 15:21-41)
Resurrection (Luke 24:9)
Mary & the gardener (John 20:11-18)
Breakfast on the beach (John 21:12-19)
Ascension (Luke 24:50-53)

A Few Notes
The film's opening credits are shown over various close ups of the people who will be playing some of the characters in the story, but once the film-proper starts then we see a close up of a Bible open on Genesis 2. There are then a number of intertitles, which only occur at the start of the film, with citations as follows:
*Gen 2:7; Gen 2:25; Gen 3:1; Gen 3:22.

At two points in the film, a few passages are mixed together. The first is during the healing of the paralytic. This is immediately preceded by Jesus being crowded by people needing healing. This occurs at various points in the gospels, and what happens here is a bit of a conglomeration, so I've gone for the reference in Mark 2:1 to cover that. We then go inside the house where the healing will occur where Jesus teaches on revenge (Matt 6:38-42) which is interrupted by the man's friends breaking through the ceiling.

I've put Jesus's death and crucifixion all down as Mark 15:21-41, but the sequence draws on a number of different gospels to include six of the phrases Jesus said on the cross. "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34), "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43), "Why have you forsaken me" (Mark 15:34); "Woman, your son..." (John 19:26-27), "I thirst" (John 19:28), "Into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). Having said that, my Italian is not brilliant and the sound quality here is pretty poor, so I'm not 100% certain the first one is there, nor that "It is finished" is absent.

La naissance, la vie et la mort du Christ (1906) - Scene Guide

For a long time I've been meaning to sit down and actually watch La naissance, la vie et la mort du Christ (The Birth, Life and Death of Christ, 1906) and last night I finally did. I'm going to save my proper review until I've done a bit more background reading, not least David Shepherd's Chapter on it in "The Silents of Jesus in the Cinema (1897-1927)". The film, which was directed by Alice Guy Blaché for Gaumont is 1906, is in many ways quite a different film from Pathé's various cuts, though interestingly it also uses intertitle cards to literally give the title of the scene we are about to witness, which makes compiling a scene guide relatively easy. It's been a while since I did one of these so you might want to refresh your memories as to how I use gospel citations in scene guides.

This is one of those films that's known by several other names as well so for the record it's also known as La naissance, la vie et la mort de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ; La vie et la mort du Christ or simply just La vie du Christ in French or The Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ or just The Life of Christ

Arrival at Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-7)
Nativity and Arrival of the Magi (Matt 2:1-11)
The Sleep of Jesus (Extra-biblical episode)
The Samaritan (John 4:1-42)
The Miracle of Jairus Daughter (Mark 5:22-43)
Mary Magdalene Washes the Feet of Jesus (Mark 14:3-9)
Palm Sunday (Mark 11:1-10)
The Last Supper (Mark 14:12-25)
The Olive Garden (Mark 14:32-26)
The Night Watch (Mark 14:37-42)
Judas's Betrayal (Mark 14:43-50)
Jesus before Caiaphas (Mark 14:53-65)
The Denial of St. Peter (Mark 14:66-72)
Jesus Before Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:1-15a)
The Torment (Mark 15:15b-20a)
Ecce Homo (John 19:5)
The Bearing of the Cross (Mark 15:20a)
Jesus Falls for the First Time (Mark 15:21)
Saint Veronica (Extra-biblical episode)
Climbing Golgotha (Mark 15:22)
The Crucifixion (Mark 15:24-32)
The Agony (Mark 15:33-37)
Descending from the Cross (Mark 15:46a)
Committed to the Tomb (Mark 15:46b-47)
The Resurrection (Matt 28:1-6)

A Few Notes
I can't quite remember where I got the version I watched last night from, but it's intertitles were in English, whereas some of the version on YouTube have French intertitles on charming cards complete with pictures of angels. I've kept these in English, which seem to be a pretty good translation.

In nearly all cases the scene announced by the preceding title card consists of only one shot. There are two exceptions. The first is "Saint Veronica" where the first shot captures the moment Veronica captures Jesus' image on her cloth, and then cuts to a slightly later mid-shot of her alone holding the cloth. The second is "The Resurrection" where the scene starts inside the cave where the tomb is while we see Jesus be resurrected and the guards react in fear. Then we move outside the cave to see the arrival of the woman, and then we are taken back inside the cave where the women witness the empty tomb.

Interestingly, if you were solely looking at the images in the resurrection scene, one might assume that the soldiers' fear is because they see the resurrected Jesus, but given how the angels work in this film, not least the way they appear and re-appear, it does leave open the interpretation that the soldiers cannot actually see the angels or the resurrected Jesus, they just see the empty tomb. It is only the audience who sees the full picture.

One of the interesting things about this film is that even though it came to be known as simply The Life of Christ there is relatively little "life" in comparison to the "birth" and "death" scenes which are also included in the full title. Of the 25 scenes, only three ("The Samaritan", "The Miracle of Jairus' Daughter" and "Mary Magdalene Washes the Feet of Jesus") are connected with neither Jesus' birth or passion. The first of these scenes was popular in the early silent era, but for many years was ignored, at least until more recent times.

What is noticeable about these three scenes is that they are three, relatively rare, episodes of the gospels where the main character, apart from Jesus, is a woman. That, combined with the way that the film includes Veronica and ends on the women finding the empty tomb without the male disciples are among the factors that have led to some to see this as a feminist picture.

It's noticeable as well how many of these scenes can be traced back to Mark's gospel. Whilst obviously my own citation policy prioritises Mark, it is striking, for example, that all of the incidents leading up to Jesus' death are found in Mark. Obviously the birth scenes are not based on Mark (as Mark starts with the adult Jesus)

Finally there's a really useful page here with lots of promotional material for the film and Alison McMahan - who has written one of the books about Guy Blaché - has a piece on the film at her own website, where she gets into the relationship between Guy's film and Tissot's work.

The Red Tent - Scene Guide

I reviewed Roger Young's adaptation of The Red Tent a few weeks back, but I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the way the scenes relate to the text in Genesis. However, in contrast to my usual scene guide format I'm not going to point out where there's extra-biblical material.

Part 1
Jacob and Rachel meet - (Gen.29:1-14)
Jacob marries Leah - (Gen.29:15-26)
Leah's sons born - (Gen.29:31-35; 30:17-20)
Birth of Dinah - (Gen.30:21)
Joseph's coat - (Gen.37:2-7
Jacob splits from Laban - (Gen.31:1-18)
Jacob reconciled to Esau - (Gen.33:1-17)
Move to Shechem - (Gen.33:18-20)
Rachel's idols - (Gen.31:19,30-35)
Dinah and Shechem meet - (Gen.34:1,3)
Dinah And Shechem marry - (Gen.34:2,4)
Hamor and Jacob meet - (Gen.34:5-19)
Shechemites circumcised - (Gen.34:20-24)
Shechemites slaughtered - (Gen.34:25-29)

Part 2
Jacob denounces Simeon and Levi - (Gen.34:30-31)
[A lot of extra-biblical material]
Joseph sold into slavery - (Gen.37:17-36)
[A lot of extra-biblical material]
Jacob reunited with Joseph - (Gen.46:26-30)
Death of Jacob - (Gen.49:29-50:14)

A Few Notes
As you would expect for a 3 hour film that is essentially based on a single chapter of Genesis Red Tent covers chapter 34 and those around it pretty comprehensively, albeit with a radically revised interpretation of the key verses in that chapter (34:1-4). A quick glance a above shows that all of the chapters between chapters 29-37 get referenced at some point, with the excuseable exception of Genesis 36 which is jus a list of Esau's descendants and the subsequent rulers of Edom.

That said a few key passages do get omitted and a couple of these are fairly interesting. Perhaps the most curious exclusion is that despite the numerous birthing scenes, we don' get to see Rachel giving birth (and if I remember rightly the same is true of Bilhah and Zilpah). This seems strange seeing the film's emphasis on sisterhood and motherhood, and given Rachel's particular expertise in midwifery i would have been interesting to see the roles reversed.

Another important scene from the Biblical story that is largely passed over here is Jacob wrestling with God the night before his confrontation with Esau. It's not hard to see why this is played down. The supernatural aspects of the whole story are largely in he background here. It's presented as a human story rather than one driven by a divine plan. An incident where God/an angel appears in bodily form to wrestle with God would seem somewhat out of step with the rest of the film. Furthermore, nothing in this parts of the origins of Israel narrative does more to underline Jacob's importance at the head of the tribe and to present him as the key figure. Again his goes against the grain of the story tellers' emphasis on he women of the tribe.

It would have been similarly contrary to the filmmakers' intentions to include the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38). In many ways this mini-series is about exploring a tangent to the Jacob story. The story of Tamar represents another tangent to that story, so the connection here is slight anyway. Furthermore the feint suggestion of disharmony between the leading women of Israel also would go against the narrative flow that is being presented.

In contrast to those omissions it's noticeable that the various episodes largely follow their biblical order. This is hardly unique to The Red Tent despite the fact that there's some evidence to suggest that the biblical order is not strictly chronological. Jacob's gift of the coat of many colours/special sleeves is brought forward a little, the disclosure about Rachel hiding her father's icons is moved back, but it's largely all in tact.

There are three other versions of this story that spring to mind. The New Media Bible Genesis is committed to following the story more or less word for word (although it misses out all of the Tower of Babel - go figure), so naturally this follows the biblical order. Roger Young's other take on this story, Joseph (1995), tells the earlier parts of Joseph's life in flashback, so the order is different, but it's not really subversive in anyway, it's just a narrative device. The fact that this episode appears in the Joseph entry in this series, rather than the Jacob section might be significant as some of the episodes there occur after this incident.

In contrast, Cheick Oumar Sissoko's La genèse rearranges things to emphasise a time of crisis for Jacob's tribe. When the film starts, Jacob is already mourning Joseph (Gen. 37), but he has not yet been reconciled with Esau (Gen.33). And the film's first major event is rape of Dinah (ch. 34). As Peter Chattaway summarises "Jacob is ineffectual in dealing with the rape of his daughter, and in making peace with Esau for that matter, because he has been mourning the apparent death of Joseph for 20 months, and he simply can't be bothered to leave his tent...". Compared to this The Red Tent's changes are just tweaks to make the story flow a little more easily.

The Bible (2013) - Part 7

I've been slowly posting a few bits and pieces on The History Channel's The Bible as I work my way through the blurays and I thought as this was the episode based on Jesus' ministry it was the one perhaps most requiring a scene guide, as this will hopefully prove useful for others searching for a particular part of this portrayal, or an illustration for a particular part of scripture. (If you're in the later camp and you've not seen my 30 film scene guide you should probably download it). As much as possible I try and follow the same convention in each of these. EBE stands for extra-biblical episode.

Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32)
Healing the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12)
Healing a leper (Mark 1:40-45)
EBE - Pilate arrives in Jerusalem
Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14)
Not for the righteous but sinners (Mark 2:16-17)
Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-8)
Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-14)
Women caught in adultery (John 8:2-11)
Plot against Jesus (Matt 12:14)
EBE - Nicodemus plans to check Jesus (John 1:46 cited)
Feeding of the 5000 (John 6:1-15)
Various sayings of Jesus:
Are not two sparrows (Matt 6:26)
Seek ye first (Matt 6:33)
Hunger for righteousness (Matt 5:10)
Ask and it will be given (Luke 11:9-10)
EBE - Nicodemus and Caiaphas discuss Jesus.
Who do you say I am? (Matt 16:13-18)
Walking on Water (Matt 14:22-33)
Jesus reads from Isaiah (Luke 4:16-23)
Rejected at Nazareth (Luke 4:24-30)
John the Baptist more than a prophet. (Matt 11:7-11)
EBE Pilate aqueduct.
Raising of Lazarus (John 11:17-44)
Plot against Jesus (John 11:45-58)

A Few Notes
The feeding of the 5000 incident is one of the few films that actually includes the ending in John where the people try and make him king. It's obviously in The Gospel of John, but few films include this detail, which is absent from the three synoptic accounts of the story. Incidentally, this story has been traditionally been described as a miracle, though various scholars have suggested that what really happened was that by highlighting the selflessness of the boy in offering his food everyone else was inspired to produce theirs. I always used to think this was a cop out, until more recently someone pointed out that it was was statistically improbable that out of 5000 men (and women, girls and boys) that only one of them thought to bring any food. Perhaps it was a bit of both. This film suggests the miraculous was involved, but it did send me back to the texts briefly, none of which explicitly state it was a miracle, though John does call it a "sign". It's still the implication of the text, but certainly the suggestion that at least some sharing went on could not be considered contrary to what is actually said.

This has doubtless been pointed out by numerous other writers elsewhere, but the film uses Pier Paolo Pasolini's method of displaying the Sermon on the Mount as taking place in a number of different locations on various different occasions. There's far less Sermon on the Mount here than there is in Il vangelo secondo Matteo so it feels like the filmmakers are particularly trying to make the point that Jesus used these words more than once. The staging is also more dynamic, and I do rather like it.

It's interesting to see that fairly early on in this episode (and therefore, at least by implication, Jesus' ministry) that Peter (or is it one of the others?) is speaking words the gospels attribute to Jesus. Speaking to an outraged Judas and Thomas (echoing the complaints of the one rather one-dimensional Pharisee who acts as the voice for the various Pharisaical complaints from the gospels) after Jesus has called Matthew Peter says "He has not come for the righteous but the sinners" (not a direct quotation). Jesus is absent. This throws up at least two interpretations. I suspect that this is the filmmakers, like Rossellini before them, showing Jesus' disciples learning his words and passing them on. But it could be taken as suggesting that some words that the gospel writers place on the lips of Jesus actually originated from Peter and other members of the early church.

The portrayal of Peter himself is certainly worthy of note. Peter Chattaway has made the point that only "one or two films...[have allowed].. the Peter who followed Christ around Galilee and the Peter who led the early church in Jerusalem to be played by the same actor". Furthermore, those films that do span both periods do so only partially. So in some Peter's elevation to the leader of the disciples at the start of acts forms a triumphal climax to the story of a blockhead come good, or in others his denial of Jesus forms a backdrop to how his life was difficult but incredible from there on in. No other film, that I can recall off the top of my head, portrays Peter from more or less the start of the gospels through to the point in Acts where he moves out of focus. The only two exceptions I can think of are The Living Bible series and The Visual Bible's Matthew and Acts, but the Jesus/Acts sections are actually different productions, and significantly whilst they use the same actor to portray Jesus in both parts, both change the actor who plays Peter. The Living Bible never really provides any depth, so it would hardly have made a great deal of difference, but the Visual Bible (despite being a word-for-word portrayal) adds a lot of interpretation, and that production's portrayal of the Peter of the gospels really captures the fallible Peter we see particularly in Mark. It's no surprise, then, that when they came to chose an actor for the heroic Peter of Acts they opted for someone else.

All of which is a long rambling way of saying that this is the first film to use the same actor to play Peter across all the parts of his story in the Bible. Sadly, though, The Bible blows it and takes the easy way out. This production's Peter is almost unrecognisable from the gospel of Mark. As noted above, right from the start he has grasped and is understanding Jesus' teaching. But also, most of Peter's foolish actions and poorly thought-through words from the text have been expunged. The impression of Peter I get from Mark is that of a loud-mouth who uses a loud and confident persona to mask an insecurity on the inside. Jesus' recognition of his potential, and his transformation of the flaws in Peter's character are a compelling and interesting story, so it's disappointing to see the way the film takes the easy way out and has Peter as pretty much sorted from the outset. I suspect he will still deny Jesus - everyone's allowed one mistake, right? - but he's not as yet said anything stupid, whereas Peter's positive moments have survived. It's still he who declares Jesus is the Messiah in Matthew 16, for example.

Most striking in this regard is the incident where Jesus walks on water. Here Peter doesn't ask the flesh and blood Jesus before him if he can join him on the water, he hears Jesus' disembodied voice in his head invite him out. In fact even before this, when the others have asked what they are doing on the water in such a storm, Peter says words to theeffect of "he wants us to trust him". And crucially when his faith falters (perhaps because of the disciples cries of "What are you doing") he doesn't begin to sink a little before feebly asking for Jesus to lend him a hand, he sinks, deep like a stone. In fact we never see Jesus rebuke him for his failure here. Peter seems to lose consciousness, and he hears only Jesus' disembodied voice rebuke him. This serves both to cast Peter and Jesus in a better light.

To finish, a couple of other things that caught my eye. Firstly no Jesus film would be complete without him getting to play the hero and save the Johannine damsel in distress (John 8). But here, it's interesting that the adulteress in question appears to have a son. This is a fascinating decision: most films portray the woman as a prostitute rather than a mother. Their portrayal of the moment focuses on Jesus, or the woman, or occasionally the baying mob, but none has, to my mind suggested that there were others who would not want the women to be killed. Including the child in the scene brings the barbarity of the practice into clearer focus, and makes Jesus posing as if he is about to throw the stone more striking.

Lastly, it was interesting to see Caiaphas carried around in a similar fashion to Pilate (or his wife) or Herod from other Jesus films, or various royal persons from other sword and sandal epics. This is a stroke of genius, conveying in an instant how Caiaphas is set apart from the majority of the Jews at the time. He is of a royal and priestly class, very much part of the rich, ruling elite. Caiaphas is a man who is carried around and this contrasts strongly with Jesus, who will shortly be carrying out his priestly duties in an utterly opposite manner. A moment of brilliance.

Scene Guide: The Passover Plot

Having reviewed The Passover Plot a couple of Mondays back, I thought it would be good to post a scene guide for the film. It's been a while since I did one of these (see all) so a reminder (for me if no-one else) of the reasoning behind my citations from the gospels.

[EBE - Text intro explaining political situation]
[EBE - Arrest of messianic/zealot preacher]
Jeremiah 33:15-16 cited
Teshua in the desert - Mark 1:12-13
Baptism of Yeshua - Mark 1:9-11
[EBE - Introduction to Pilate]
Healing of a blind man - Mark 8:22-25
Yeshua teaches - Mark 8:12, 11:22-24
Greatest Commandment - Mark 12:28-31
Beatitudes - Matt 5:3-12
Rejection at Nazareth - Mark 6:1-5
Yeshua recites the Shema - Deut 6:4
Are you the one? - Matt 11:2-6
Calling the disciples - Mark 3:13-19
[EBE - Romans in Zealot Meeting]
[EBE - Zealots and Yeshua's brothers]
Parable of the Sower - Mark 4:1-20]
Death of John - Mark 6:17-29
[EBE - Pilate and Herod]
Isaiah 53:7 cited
[EBE - Bartholomew's baby]
News of John's death - Mark 6:30-32
[EBE - The disciples complain]
[EBE - Jesus preaching]
Jesus fails to heal - Mark 6:5
[EBE - Yeshua meets the Zealots]
Isaiah 53:5 cited
[EBE - Yeshua Plans his Death]
[EBE - Pilate and Herod collude]
Triumphal entry - Mark 11:1-11
[EBE - Fire stars]
Cleansing the temple - Mark 11:15-19
[EBE - Temple uprising]
[EBE - Death of Bartholomew]
Last Supper - Mark 14:22-31
Gethsemane and Arrest - Mark 14:32-50
[EBE - Pilate and Herod collude]
Jewish hearing - Mark 14:53-65
Trial by Pilate - Mark 15:1-20
Crucifixion - Mark 15:22-39
"Burial" - Mark 15:40-47
The Empty Tomb - Mark 16:1-8
[EBE - Death of Jesus]

A Few Notes
The first that is noticeable from looking at this scene guide is how heavily the film uses the Gospel of Mark. Aside from a token nod to the Beatitudes, the extra-biblical episodes added to fill out the story and a few citations of the prophets, all the incidents in this film are found in Mark's gospel. Whilst this is highlighted by my policy of citing Mark even if the event occurs in all of the synoptic gospels, it's nevertheless fair to say that Millard Cohana and Patricia Knop's screenplay, which is presumably largely based on Schonfield's book, uses Mark the most.

There are a number of potential reasons for this. Firstly, close adherence to Mark gives Schonfield's work an air of authenticity. If Mark is the oldest gospel, then a supposedly subversive alternative version of the life of Jesus should probably look more like Mark than anything else. The film pre-supposes that at a very early stage there was a parting of the ways between its real history and the history told by traditional Christianity. Mark would be the most in touch with those traditions, and, from the film's perspective, the gospel least bent away from "what really happened". It's significant that the text at the end of the film stresses that Mark was written over 40 years after the events it portrays, and gives dates for the other gospels as Luke 85AD, Matthew 90AD and John 110/120AD.

Secondly, of all the gospels Mark is the one that is usually seen as portraying Jesus as a man of action. Certainly there are fewer words and those tend to consist of pithy sayings rather than long teaching discourses as found in Matthew and John in particular.

Thirdly, Mark's gospel does not so much include a resurrection as an empty tomb. The additional, and almost certainly forged, endings try to patch over this embarrassing omission (which may be deliberate or the result of damage to an early copy of the manuscript), but the genuine ending, in the form we now have it, only includes accounts of the empty tomb. (spoiler) The film also gives us an empty tomb - Jesus is woken up and taken away - but, as he dies shortly afterwards, no resurrection appearances. The film shows a single attempt to demonstrate this to someone not in on Yeshua's plot, but it fails.

Having said all that the film does not really portray a Marcan Jesus. Mark's Jesus may be a man of action, but his action is not so much a quest to be hailed as the messiah but as a healer and exorcist. There is only one "healing" in this film, and there's more about that below, and no exorcisms. I was struck in a recent read through of Mark quite how prominent the dealing with the demons aspect of Mark's gospel is. One of the things that is strange about the film is that Jesus does so very little. He's not a miracle worker, he's not a teacher and he doesn't rise from the dead. The film's alternative history fails to offer a compelling reason for why the Jesus story lived on and for why he didn't simply fall into the all-too-heavily populated category of failed Jewish messiahs. At least bar Kokhba minted his own coins. There's also relatively little talk of the Kingdom of God. This is Jesus' obsession in Mark, but is overshadowed by the film's emphasis on Jesus being the messiah. Indeed faced with Pilate's questioning Yeshua conspicuously does not even say "my kingdom is not of this world".

The one miracle that the film does portray is the healing of the blind man from Mark 8:22-25. It's this single miracle that persuades people to follow him and proclaim him the messiah. But the film suggests that Jesus does not perform a miracle at all. The blind man is in fact a fraud, seemingly pretending he is blind to make his appeal for money more compelling. Jesus sees through it and so spits in his face. The man momentarily gives himself away, and before he can cover it up, the disciples have declared a miracle and the crowd joins in. There are shades of "penny for an ex-leper" here. It's an intriguing reinterpretation of an odd text - after all, why does Jesus spit in the man's face - but if this was Jesus' sole miracle (and we later see him fail to bring Bartholomew back to life), it again raises the question of why anyone really found Jesus worth following.

There are two main asides from the time Jesus spends with his disciples. The first is the role of the zealot movement. They are seen as very prominent in Jerusalem and around, and there's an uneasy relationship between them and the followers of Jesus. In a key scene the two groups meet and Jesus lays out his agenda of peaceful revolution as opposed to violent overthrow. The result is a plan to have Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and then disappear to avoid capture by the Romans, reappearing in the temple shortly afterwards to re-take the city peacefully by sheer numbers alone. Recent situations in the Middle East at the moment come to mind as we have seen attempts at a similar peaceful movements result in varying degrees of success. There are certainly echoes of 1961's King of Kings whether intentional or not.

The other aside is the story from the perspective of the authorities. Donald Pleasance's role as Pilate is particularly to the fore, and its clear he is pulling all the strings, shown scheming with Herod, Caiaphas and his own soldiers. There's also a good deal of screen time given over to Caiaphas, reminiscent of BBC's The Passion. Caiaphas is hated by the zealots who mock him as corrupt, and pushed about by Pilate. Hugh Griffith's portrayal of Caiaphas taps into numerous aspects of the worst of Jewish stereotypes over the centuries and so its hard to sympathise with him. Yet, surprisingly, the body he convenes to hear Yeshua's case find "no cause" for a charge of blasphemy, and returns him to Pilate to see if he can get him under Roman law.

At the end of the film there is a lengthy note, the first part of which is as follows:

Yeshua of Nazareth died with his faith undimmed. Those who shared his faith were convinced that death could not hold him, and that he had gone to God until the day when the prophecies would finally be fulfilled.

Scene Guide for Friends and Heroes

Back in 2007 I wrote quite a bit about the animated TV series Friends and Heroes. I'm going to post some thoughts on series two and three shortly, but for now I wanted to relay a couple of useful resources I've been sent:

Story Order
Bible Order
Episode Order
Churches and Schools Lesson material
Stills from the series

I'm wishing I'd discovered these a little earlier. In particular, the story order one and the Bible order one are particularly useful when trying to find a clip to illustrate a given passage. The former lists incidents covered in the Bible alphabetically (giving details of the relevant episode) whereas the latter does the same only by the biblical order.

Caïn et Abel (Cain and Abel)

Henri Andréani, Pathé, France, 1911, 5 mins
I'm not going to be able to find stills for many of these silent films, so I'll use images from the Renaissance paintings instead. This is not entirely without merit. As I mentioned on Tuesday Judith Buchanan pointd out how these early Bible films will have been influenced, to some degree at least, by the paintings of the events they were portrying. This is Il Tintoretto from 1550-53. Thanks to Art and the Bible and Loving God Center for these.

The opening scene of Caïn et Abel is a cramped shot of Cain and Abel arguing and almost coming to blows but for the intervention of Adam and Eve. It's a shot that's significant in a number of ways. Firstly, because much of this film is shot in a closer proximity than was standard for the time. The film is heavily marked with Pathé touches. Both its general 'look' and the style of the angels and the manner of their appearance etc. are all very familiar from The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ. But whereas those films stood at a distance as if the viewer were sat watching the production in a theatre, here there are a number of mid-shots.

The claustrophobia nature of these shots, which may have been shockingly groundbreaking at the time, not only adds to the tension but expresses it in spatial terms. There's a real sense of cabin fever - these four people are the only humans in the world and they are starting to get on each other's nerves. The composition is interesting elsewhere as well, using foregrounding and backgrounding quite effectively.

The opening shot is also significant because it introduces Adam and Eve into a story from the Bible in which they are not really involved. They are, of course, present in the narrative's prologue and epilogue, but their absence during the story itself has caused some scholars to suggest that the story itself has been incorporated, into the "J" source. It's notable, for example, that Adam's line grows from Seth rather than Cain.

The third point of significance here is that all four memberd of the family are portrayed as cavemen, wearing animal skins - Eve looks like an archetype for Raquel Welch's One Million BC role for example - but also later we see Cain's murder weapon is a flint axe. For obvious reasons these four characters cannot really be located at a specific point in the accepted chronology, but [edit] Gen 3:20 describes God using animal skins to make clothes for Adam and Eve as they leave the Garden of Eden. (Thanks to Timothy D. Lee for reminding me of that one - see comments below). [/edit]

What's striking, though, is the contrast with the Bible's early descriptions of Adam and Eve's attire - "and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Gen 3:7). Here, however, dead animal has usurped dead fruit leaves, as Abel's animal sacrifice will prove superior to Cain's fruits of the ground.

Similarly, Cain is depicted as brutish, which is perhaps only to be expected, but also of low intelligence. Indeed, this is often used as a humourous device. And of course the timing is interesting given that the Cain and Abel story is currently doing the rounds in cinemas in Year One which is also a comedy.

So all in all, it's interesting to watch how the narrative unfolds from this opening. The intertitles for this print were in German: there are so few copies of films of this age that you have to make do with what you have. Some of them followed the practice of citing actual scriptures. Gen 4:4-5, Gen 4:10 and Gen 4:14 are all cited. There's a brief scene guide at the bottom.

God's rejection of Cain's sacrifice is shown by his sacrifice fire going out, whereas Abel's keeps on burning. IN contrast to the text of Genesis the murder takes place not in the field, but in the rock outcrop where the (attempted) sacrifices have just taken place. Cain goes and finds a flint axe and strikes Abel neither completely spontaneous, nor entirely premeditated.

As soon as Abel dies Cain is wracked with guilt. He covers the the body with stones, as if making an altar or a monument. There was something very Girardian about this. Girard's theory about sacrifice, which approach the subject via anthropology, talks about mimetic desire (the mechanism by which someone else having something makes another person want it), which is present to a degree here here in that the two sacrifices take place at the same time and in the same shot, though Cain wanted to make the sacrifice anyway. But more significantly it talks about how human sacrifice used to happen to heal discord within the community, and, crucially, how the graves (or the memory) of the murdered / sacrificed individual becomes sacred, and revered. I'm not sure I've explained that very well, but the manner in which the body was covered - far more elaborately than was stricly required to cover the body, grabbed my attention.

Of course God is not fooled, and an angel appears (accompanied by cardboard rays of light as in other Pathé films of the period, the line about Abel's blood crying out from the ground is given via intertitle and the body is revealed. Cain runs off, but then sees a vision of Abel's body, and then of the angel once more.

What's interesting about this is that Abel's appearance seems to be a demonstration of Cain's inner torment. I don't think Abel's body is meant to be physically present anymore than the dagger is physically present in Macbeth. This is the first time I have seen such psychologising in an early film - aside from that expressed in the faces of the actors. Does it also suggest that the angel he sees is also in his mind?

Lastly, there's quite a long shot at the end of the film of Cain dragging himself along the floor, through the narrow, muddy passageway between two rocks. It's fairly open to interpretation, but for me it symbolises both the journey he will undertake to Nod, and his now lowly status (he is dragging himself through the mud).

The scenes are as follows:

[Extra-biblical Episode - Cain and Abel argue]
Cain and Abel's sacrifices - (Gen 4:3-4)
Murder of Abel - (Gen 4:8b)
God confronts Cain - (Gen 4:9-14)
Cain flees to Nod - (Gen 4:15)

Campbell and Pitts only mention this film is passing (p.5) as part of their discussion of the 1910 film Cain and Abel by Gaumon. They also mention a third film on this story, also called Cain and Abel made in the US the same year (1911) by Vitagraph. The summary from the BFI archive, which formerly cited the film as 1909 is this:

The story of Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel and their parents, all dressed in skins, are standing around the camp fire. Cain argues with Abel but their mother, Eve, separates them and Adam sends him off (55). Cain and Abel both prepare to make sacrifices upon two stone altars. Abel sacrifices a lamb, which burns properly, but Cain's sacrifice of farm produce does not, and he throws it to the ground in disgust and envy. He makes threatening gestures towards Abel, who is praying at his sacrifice (129). Cain retreats a short distance and thinks about killing Abel, demonstrating how he will use his stone axe. Abel says a few words to him but when he turns his back Cain fells him with the axe, and covers his body with stone slabs (237). Cain is struck by lightning several times, and a shining ray appears from which an angel carrying a sword emerges. Cain cowers before the angel, who asks him what he has done. The angel points his sword at Cain, then causes the stones to fall from Abel's body. Cain rises and stumbles away (303). [Short section 297-298ft showing Cain rising to his feet, is repeated twice]. Cain clambers and stumbles over the rocks until he is stopped by a vision of Abel's body, which turns into the angel. The angel strikes Cain on the shoulder with his sword, and curses him, before disappearing (388). Cain crawls amongst the rocks, struggles through a wood, and falls to the ground (463). Blank. The end. (467ft. 35mm).

Jeremiah Notes on Scene Guide

I was a little pushed for time on Friday when I posted a scene guide for Jeremiah, so I postponed writing a few notes on it until today.

The first thing to say is that whilst the vast majority of the material is drawn from the book Jeremiah, there are a few places where the film draws on parts of 2 Kings to fill in the historical gaps.

It's also interesting to note that most of the material taken from Jeremiah, aside from the opening, is taken from chapters 20-30. There's not a single reference from chapters 40-49 (where Jeremiah is mainly cursing the other nations), and only one from 10-19 (Jer 16:1-4). This passage - where Jeremiah is told not to take a wife - and Jer 34:8-11 - where Mattaniah frees the slaves before reversing the decision some time later - are used to insert the film's only real extra-biblical sub-plot where Jeremiah falls in love. This is actually a fairly common device employed by The Bible Collection's films, and in some of the other cases the picture is severely derailed as a result. Here the filmmakers manage to keep it under control so it forms interesting speculation that highlights Jeremiah's sad and introspective character.

Working out this scene guide does give me more of a feel for just how jumbled the book's chronology is. Of course some of this is down to the filmmakers rather than the source material, but material from the siege of Jerusalem, for example, is really spread around in such a way as to make me wonder why. Is there a purpose to this ordering, or was this just not considered important or in any way useful?Overall I think the film does a great job of summarising Jeremiah and putting him in his historical context, and it manages to include most of the book's famous passages. One surprising omission, however, is the story of Jeremiah at the potter's house and the attached sayings (Jer 18:1–23). The film does include the vision of the upturned pot, and perhaps the writers thought that too many pot symbols might be confusing. Even so, I would have thought the potter's house passage would have been the one to be selected.

There are a few things I noticed about the call of Jeremiah. Firstly, the film enhances Jeremiah's call with elements from the call of Isaiah (Is 6). In the book of Jeremiah, there's no mention of a vision, and God touching Jeremiah's lips appears to be more of a metaphor than anything else. We're also not told where this call took place. In the film, however, Jeremiah also sees a vision, twice, and on both occasions it occurs in the temple. It's interesting that the second of these quotes part of Jer 5:14 "I have put my words in your mouth", but cuts off before the use of the word "fire". Instead this element is represented visually as part of Jeremiah's call.

There is actually a further part of Jeremiah's call - the vision of the almond tree, but I noticed that the interpretation of this vision alters some of the details of this vision. The text simply says that the sign means that God is "watching to see that my word is fulfilled". But the film expands this to say "as this tree is in a hurry to sprout, so God is in a hurry to carry out his work".

Lastly, I'm going to make a separate post another day to look at the way that the Jeremiah of this film prefigures Jesus, particularly the Jesus from the later film in the same series.

Jeremiah - Scene Guide

I've been working away on a scene guide for the Bible Collection's Jeremiah ever since I re-watched it a couple of months ago. Of all the scene guides that I have done to date, this has certainly been the most difficult to put together. Not only is Jeremiah the Bible's longest book (based on number of words), but it's chronology becomes increasingly unlinear the closer you look. Furthermore, an odd verse can carry a great deal of narrative weight, but trying to find it, even with the wonders of the internet, can be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As well as my guide that follows below, I would also like to recommend an excellent outline of this film by Neil MacQueen. MacQueen's outline gives timings and descriptions rather than verses like my own, so the two complement each other quite well.

Book of the Law Found - (2 Kings 22)
Jeremiah's ancestry - (Jer 1:1)
Josiah's Passover - (2 Kings 23:21-23)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Josiah enters Jerusalem]
Call of Jeremiah - (Jer 1:4-10)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Nebuchadnezzar crowned]
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's Girlfriend]
Prophecy of the Almond Tree - (Jer 1:11-12)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's first sacrifice]
Prophetic vision/2nd call - (Jer 4:22; 5:28-29, 14)
Jeremiah prophesies at the temple - (Jer 7:1-11)
Jeremiah beaten - (Jer 20:1-2)
Overturned pot - (Jer 1:13-19)
Jeremiah told not to take a wife - (Jer 16:1-4) (complains)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah meets Baruch]
Prophecy about fall of Jerusalem - (Jer 22:1-5)
King tears and burns the scroll. - (Jer 36:1–24)
Jermiah asks Baruch to re-write scroll - (Jer 36:28)
Babylon invades Jerusalem - (2 Kings 24:1-12)
Temple stripping & deportation - (2 Kings 24:13-17, Jer 27:19-20)
Jeremiah the ox-yoke and Hananiah - (Jer 27:1-28:17)
Jeremiah imprisoned in courtyard - (Jer 32:1-3; 36:31)
Jeremiah calls for surrender - (Jer 21:1-9)
Mattaniah frees the slaves - (Jer 34:8-10)
Jeremiah put in prison - (Jer 37:11–16)
Mattaniah unfrees the slaves - (Jer 34:11)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Judith killed]
Jeremiah's complaint - (Jer 20:7-9)
Jerusalem under siege - (Jer 52:1-6)
Mattaniah seeks God's word - (Jer 37:17-20)
Word against Jerusalem - (Jer 21:10)
Officials speak against Jeremiah - (Jer 38:4-5)
Promise of Return - (Jer 32:37-40)
Jeremiah calls again for surrender - (Jer 20:4, 38:17-20)
Jeremiah thrown in a cistern - (Jer 38:6)
Ebed Melech frees Jeremiah - (Jer 38:7:13; 39:15-18*)
Jeremiah confronts Mattaniah - (Jer 23:1-2, 38:17-21)
Jeremiah buys a field - (Jer 32:6-15)
Babylon capture Jerusalem - (Jer 39:1-3, 52:6-7)
Mattaniah captured fleeing - (Jer 39:4-5, 52:7-9)
Mattaniah's sons killed, blinded - (Jer 39:5-7, 52:10-11)
Jeremiah freed - (Jer 39:11-12)
Jerusalem destroyed - (Jer 39:8-10)
God promises to rebuild the temple and the people's hearts - (Jer 31)

Notes
I've chosed to call Jeremiah's primary royal opponent by his original name Mattaniah, rather than the name Zedekiah which was given to him by Nebuchadnezzar as this is what the film calls him throughout. Interestingly scripture mainly calls him Zedekiah.

I have a few more points that I'd like to make on this, but I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll return to this task next week.

Edit: This can now be found here.

The Passion - Part 4 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

The Passion has just reached its conclusion so it's time for me to blog my thoughts on the final episode. As with the previous three episodes I'm giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes. My overall review of this programme is here, though I hope to add some additional points now I have seen the whole series.

Joseph Asks for Jesus's Body - Mark 15:42-45
[EBE - Disciples Discuss Jesus's Death]
[EBE - Caiaphas Criticises Joseph's Decision]
Burial - Mark 15:46-47
[EBE - Holy Saturday - The Two Marys]
[EBE - Holy Saturday - Disciples Worry About What to do]
[EBE - Caiaphas's Wife Reassures him]
Soldiers at the Tomb - Matt 27:62-66
[EBE - Marys and the Disciples]
Magdalene at The Tomb - John 20:1
Caiaphas Told of the Empty Tomb - Matt 28:11
Mary, John and Peter Go to the Tomb - John 20:3-10
Jesus Appears to Mary - John 20:11-17
Mary Tells the Disciples - John 20:18
[EBE - Caiaphas and Joseph Argue]
Road to Emmaus - Luke 24:13-33
Jesus Appears in the Upper Room - Luke 24:36-49
[EBE - Pilate and his Wife Return Home]
[EBE - Caiaphas's Son is Born]
Jesus and Peter - John 21:15-19
I Will be with you Always - Matt 28:20

Spoilers follow:
I'd like to start by talking about the post-resurrection appearances, mainly because I've known about them for some time. I'd heard a good while back that this film was going to do something interesting with the resurrection, and I wondered then if it was going to use a different actor for the resurrected Jesus. My suspicions were confirmed at the première when Nigel Stafford-Clark accidentally let it slip that my hunch was correct. Fortunately, I managed to keep this all to myself, and settled for just giving it a passing mention in my review. But, suffice to say, I've been positively bursting to talk about it ever since.

What they did so well is keep the facts largely as they are. The gospels are nowhere more divergent than they are on the subject of Easter morning. Mark mentions some women, an angel and an empty tomb and precious little else (later additions aside). Matthew elaborates by having Jesus meet the woman and having a guard placed at the tomb. Luke omits Matthew's story about the seal, but adds the story about the Road to Emmaus, and an appearance to Peter, before bringing things to a climax with the resurrected Jesus appearing to all the disciples. Finally John gives an almost totally different account with Mary Magdalene alone finding the empty tomb, not seeing an angel, returning to tell Peter and John before she meets the risen Jesus for herself. We then two appearances to a room full of disciples and doubting Thomas, breakfast on the beach, restoration of Peter and a cryptic comment about John.

Of course many previous Jesus films omit the resurrection altogether, or give it a more spiritual interpretation, and even many of those that do include it skip by fairly quickly. Among those that do include it, a surprising number actually go on to show the one thing the gospels don't talk about - Jesus leaving the tomb. What we have here is the story as it is presented - albeit based on a harmonisation of the story - and not only that but it's one that seeks to offer not one, but several possible interpretations of what actually happened and leave the viewer to decide for themselves.The first such interpretation will be the one that pleases scholars such as Tom Wright. Wright holds that the failure to recognise the risen Jesus was because his resurrection body is a physical body, but one that is significantly different from his pre-resurrection body. This is the interpretation that I had been wondering if ever anyone would try.

But the other interpretation, that the filmmakers were keen to leave as a possibility was that actually Jesus wasn't resurrected. This is dealt with far more visually. Firstly the empty tomb, far from being somewhere that might require a gardener (John 20:16) is in the middle of the desert, and, at the crucial moment the soldiers leave their post. (Incidentally Matthew's account has the soldiers told to say that the body was stolen when they were asleep whereas here it occurs whilst they go off to buy food - a move that, in itself is open to various interpretations). Then we have the two appearances using the different actors which could be read to be fairly damning, and whilst Joseph Mawle eventually resumes the role these appearances are all shot from a particular character's point of view, rather than in a more objective setting.

A further interpretation is that the use of different actors is just to show the confusion in the disciples' minds and once they realise that Jesus has risen we see Joe Mawle back in more corporate settings. So there are at least three interpretations and I look forward to unearthing more over the next few days. Either way, it will be a talking point. Incidentally the two actors who appear here are listed in the credits as "Man at Tomb" and "Man on Road to Emmaus".There are a few other points to make. The final scenes are also very interesting, in particular the birth of a son to Caiaphas, and his evident relief and prayer of thanks. The point here is that Caiaphas, at least, seems to interpret this as confirmation of God's approval. He has done the right thing, his wife and child are safe and his line will continue. But other possibilities are possible. Perhaps it's just chance, or perhaps it is a reward from God for being a pawn in his master plan. What's interesting is the correlation between Caiaphas interpretation and those of viewers interpreting the rest of the story in accordance with their own beliefs. This also happens to a far lesser degree with Pilate whose house is beginning to take shape once more.

I also noticed a nice touch in one of the scenes between James and John. The portrayal of these two disciples has been one of the series' minor delights. John has for so long been played as a wet blanket, that it was great to see him acting more like he could be one of the sons of thunder. If I ever write up my Jesus Film Dream Team, Jamie Sives will be on it. Anyway, there's a nice irony at the point where a sceptical James tells warns his brother that if he carries on he's "going to get himself killed". Tradition has it that John was the only one of the disciples not to be martyred whereas James was one of the first to be killed..Following on from that, at the start of the episode John reports back on Jesus's death. It's interesting that this could be taken as the start of his traditional role as the disciple who wrote the fourth gospel. There's further intrigue, though, because John recalls Jesus's last words as "Your will is done" (variation on "it is accomplished" which appears only in John) whereas his last words were actually shown as being "I've loved you with all my heart". Whether this is intended to show John deliberately altering Jesus's words, or just that he didn't recall these things perfectly, or whether it was just a glitch in the production is, like much of this final episode, open very much to interpretation.

======

As with previous episodes a few others have blogged the final episode. Doug Chaplin at MetaCatholic continues his generally excellent coverage and Gerard O'Collins is the fourth author for Thinking Faith. I also came across Stephen Barton's Reformed Christian UK site which has also posted a few thoughts on all four parts (1, 2, 3 and 4). The BBC has also added an article on their portrayal of the crucifixion.

The Passion - Part 3 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

The Good Friday Episode of The Passion was also going to be the most critical. Moreover, this was the first episode I hadn't had the chance to watch in advance, which means I've not really had the chance to reflect on it before writing the comments below.

As with the previous two episodes I'm giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes. My overall review of this programme is here.

Last Supper - Mark 14:17
Washing Disciples' Feet - John 13:1-8
Love One Another - John 13:34-35
Peter's Denial Predicted - Mark 14:26-31
Judas's Betrayal Predicted - Mark 14:18:21
Teaching at the Last Supper - John 13:33,36; 14:15-20; 16:21-22; 17:7-9
A New Sacrament - Mark 14:22-25
Gethsemane I - Mark 14:32-34
[EBE - Judas and the Temple Guards]
[EBE - Caiaphas and his Wife]
[EBE - Pilate and his Wife]
Gethsemane II - Mark 14:35-42
Arrest - Mark 14:43-50
Pilate's Wife's Dream - Matt 27:19
Trial Before Caiaphas - Mark 14:53-64
Peter's Denial - Mark 14:66-73
[EBE - Jesus Put in a Cell]
Trial Before Pilate - Mark 15:1-5
[EBE - Pilate's Wife Pleads with him]
Barabbas Freed, - Mark 15:6-15a
Jesus is Condemned and Scourged - Mark 15:15b
[EBE - Disciples in Hiding I]
[EBE - Judas and Barabbas]
Via Dolorosa - Mark 15:20-22
Crown of Thorns - Mark 15:17
Judas Hangs Himself - Matt 27:1-5
[EBE - Caiaphas and Joseph]
Crucifixion - Mark 15:22-27
Priests Try to Change Jesus's Sign - John 19:20-22
The Two Thieves - Luke 23:39-42
Mary and John - John 19:26-27
Jesus's Death - Mark 15:34-37

Originally this show was to be stripped throughout Holy Week in 6 half hour episodes, and it was obvious that tonight's episode was originally intended to play on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. The dividing point was obviously just as Jesus was put in his cell. It'll be interesting to see how HBO broadcast this next Easter, as the natural scheduling dates, were it to be shown in 6 half hour episodes, would be:

Ep.1 - Palm Sunday - Triumphal Entry (1st half of our part 1)
Ep.2 - Holy Monday - Clearing of the Temple (2nd half of our part 1)
Ep.3 - Tue/Wed - More Teaching (Our part 2)
Ep.4 - Maundy Thursday - Last Supper / Gethsemane (1st half of our part3)
Ep.5 - Good Friday - Crucifixion (2nd half of our part 3)
Ep.6 - Easter Sunday - Resurrection (Our part 4)

Following on from that it's interesting to see how the different episodes can switch their emphases between the various gospels. Overall this production harmonises the gospel with the greatest emphasis on Mark and John. In tonight's two-parter it was interesting to see that the first half could have been taken almost entirely from John, but that the second part felt more like Mark, though unique elements from all three gospels were included.There were far fewer extra-biblical episodes tonight (only a quarter) and most of these were fairly brief. However, the ones which were given more time this evening were very impressive. The most interesting one was where Judas and a newly freed Barabbas end up in the same tavern but for very different reasons. It was quite unlike anything I've seen before in a Jesus Film. That's actually quite strange though because scenes where two characters who are unknowingly related to one another happen to be in the same place are very common in film in general. I guess this just shows how keen the film makers are to make this film more down to earth.

The other extra-biblical scene that was good was the one between Caiaphas and Joseph of Arimathea. I'd seen Joseph's lines in several places, but Caiaphas's retort was new to me and carried a real punch.

I also liked the scene with Judas and the Temple Guard. There's been a small amount in the press (mainly the Daily Mail) about how this film seeks to be more sympathetic to Judas. I have to say though that having now seen all of Judas' involvement, I don't think film has done much in that way that other Jesus films haven't done already. The idea of him being caught between two father figures was newish, and there was an interesting explanation as to why Judas took the money (the Temple Guard forced it on him to clear their own consciences clean), but there was no more sympathising with him than there was in King of Kings, Jesus Christ Superstar or Jesus of Nazareth. There was something in this scene that was reminiscent of Edmund and the White Witch's in 'The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe'.Likewise there was some talk about this version of Mary being less serene than previous incarnations. There was a scene in episode one between her and Jesus where this was in evidence, but I'd been expecting something more tonight. It never really materialise, although full credit to Penelope Wilton for here performance at the crucifixion. It was outstanding.

The other thing that has been in the papers was, of course, the position that Jesus was crucified in (as picked up by The Daily Telegraph). Having seen it, I didn't find it anything to get worked up about, but it did make me think about crucifixion in a new way. That said, it seemed strangely out of keeping with this production that Jesus got to hang onto his loincloth.

There was also some interesting camera shots. Michael Offer had described the way they were going to shoot the moment the cross was erected, but I couldn't quite see how it was going to be any different to King of Kings. It was.I should also mention Joe Mawle's performance here as Jesus. Both the crucifixion and the scene in Gethsemane were incredibly moving, and the subtler, arguably more difficult, scenes such as his two trials were played very well too. Likewise James Nesbitt really showed his pedigree in this episode as well getting the historical Pilate's petulance off to a tee.

Finally, there were various comments made about the shot of women showering Jesus with petals in Episode 1, and this scene is recalled by Jesus as he walks along those same streets in this episode in very different circumstances. I've been meaning to say that I think the petals shot is a reference to Last Temptation of Christ and the idea of Jesus flashing back to his triumphal entry on his way to the cross was, no doubt, commenting on a similar idea in The Passion of the Christ.

=====

There are also comments on this episode by Doug Chaplin at MetaCatholic, and Gemma Simmonds at Thinking Faith (how do they get them up so quickly?). I expect one from Michael Bird at Euangelion shortly.

The Passion - Part 2 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

Following on from yesterday's post on episode 1, I'll begin my thoughts on part 2 with my scene guide. Again, I'm giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes, those in normal brackets are where the characters themselves are citing other biblical passages, and I've used quotation marks for direct quotations from the script. It's proved quite hard to do as Frank Deasy rephrases familiar passages andMy overall review of this programme is here.

[EBE - Jesus and Magdalene]
[EBE - Caiaphas Questions Judas]
[EBE - Pilate Prepares for Guests]
[EBE - Pilate Sentences Barabbas]
Woes Against Pharisees - Matt 23:1-12
Teaching on Riches - Mark 10:23-25
Prediction of Fall of Temple - Mark 13:2
[EBE - Caiaphas Hears of Jesus' comment]
[EBE - The Syrian Prefect]
Jesus Predicts His Death - Mark 10:32-34
lost around 13 mins
(Is. 53:4-5)
Teaching on Discipleship - Mark 8:34-36
[EBE - Pilate and Claudia]
[EBE - Caiaphas and Wife]
[EBE - Jesus and Judas]
Plot to Kill Jesus - Mark 14:1-2
Jesus Anointed at Bethany - Mark 14:3-9
Sanhedrin Plots Against Jesus - John 11:45-53
Preparation for the Passover - Mark 14:12-16
[EBE - Caiaphas and Judas]

I'd heard someone say that each episode of The Passion was more gripping than the one before, and this is definitely so far. I'm not sure whether it's because episode 2 is only half an hour (rather than 60 minutes like part 1), but it seemed to fly by and there was definitely that sense of mild disappointment / frustration that we'll have to wait until Friday to see the next episode.

Whereas episode one sketched out the story's broader historical context, here the show starts to really develop it's major characters. So we see how threatened Pilate is by the the Syrian prefect en route to Rome; a bad report to Caesar is the last thing Pilate needs. Likewise we see Caiaphases predicament weighing on his mind as he constantly turns to his wife for reassurance. In fact both men's wives are given an important role in this production - arguably another plus point for it

On the downside, I did find Caiaphas's modernish scepticism a little suspect ("What look like miracles yes"). As far as I recall (and someone will no doubt pick me up on this) Caiaphas never really says anything like this. Everyone in the story seems to acknowledge that Jesus is doing some unusual things; those who reject him simply question whether his power comes from God or Satan. However, it's refreshing to hear Caiaphas specifically say that "Jesus isn't a bad man" he's just misguided.

Again there were some great lines, although the cryptic way which they reference scripture makes tying them down to a particular reference quite hard. So when Jesus says "all of you will be spared, I will be sacrificed", iut's hard to find a passage to link it to even though it evokes various passages. Likewise the line that has been with me all week (and that starts off the trailer) - "You'll witness a miracle, but not the one you expect" - sums up several little snippets even though we have no record of them being said together.

In yesterday's Times, Andrew Billen noted how The Passion "looks historically real but not historic: no one knows... that this will be the week that changes the West for ever". It's a great little summary and there were a couple of good examples of it yesterday. Not only the very offhand way in which Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem, but also the scene where Jesus predicts his death. Omitting the "get behind me Satan" line really allows the scene to open up, and focus on the reactions of the disciples. This is made all the more poignant by the way the scene starts with a wide shot which emphasises the seeming insignificance of this bunch of scruffy Galilleans.

Doug Chaplin (Metacatholic), Michael Kirwan (Thinking Faith) and Michael Bird (Euangelion) have also posted reviews on last night's episode - all of them beating me off the mark. Mark Goodacre also links to Simon Mayo's discussion of the programme, and is disappointed by viewing figures of 4.1 million for part one - a third of the audience for Dancing on Ice. Whilst it is disappointing that so many people would rather watch yet another celebrity dance programme than a quality historical, not to mention educational, drama I don't think that really reflects on The Passion in particular so much as the general state of audience viewing habits. Sad but true.

The Passion - Part 1 Scene Guide

See all posts on this film.

Having already written my review of this programme, I'm going to try and track each episode as it goes, giving biblical references in my usual scene guide format (citation guide). Passages in square brackets are extra-biblical episodes, those in normal brackets are where the characters themselves are citing other biblical passages, and I've used quotation marks for direct quotations from the script.

Disciples Find a Colt - Mark 11:1-6
[EBE - Murder in the Lower City]
(Zech. 9:9)
(Isaiah 43:2-4)
Follow me - Mark 1:15-17
[EBE - Pilate arrives in Jerusalem]
[EBE - A Dead Body in the Lower City]
Anything Good From Nazareth - John 1:46
"You'll Know God Like Never Before" - Matt 13:35
Triumphal Entry - Mark 11:7-10
[EBE - Caiaphas hears of Jesus]
Don't Worry About Tomorrow - Matt 6:31-34
Trust like a child - Mark 10:14-15
Jesus Visits the Temple - Mark 11:11
[EBE - Pilate and Claudia]
[EBE - Jesus and the Prostitutes]
[EBE - Jesus by the Pool]
Kingdom of God in our Hearts - Luke 17:21
[EBE - Pilate and Caiaphas]
The Law - Matt 5:17
Barabbas Murders - Mark 15:7
Clearing the Temple - Mark 11:15-18
[EBE - Caiaphas Hears of Jesus' Actions]
[EBE - Romans Go After Barabbas]
Question About Taxes - Mark 12:13-18
[EBE - Barabbas Arrested]
Good Shepherd - Matt 18:10-14
Question on Authority - Mark 11:27-28
Joy in Heaven Over Repentance - Luke 15:7,10
Not Come to Overthrow the Law - Matt 5:17
Greatest Commandment - Mark 12:28-34
Not to Judge but to Save - John 12:47
Children's Undestanding - Matt 11:25
Parable of the Wicked Tenants - Mark 12:1-12
[EBE - Caiaphas Told of Barabbas' Arrest]
Greatest Disciples - Mark 10:35-45, John 13:34-35
[EBE - Caiaphas and Joseph discuss Jesus]
Mary Questions Jesus - Mark 3:21
[EBE - Caiaphas Weighs his Options]
[EBE - Pilate Told of Barabbas' Arrest]
[EBE - The Two Marys]
[EBE - Jesus and Judas]

The thing that is immediately obvious from looking at the above, is just how much of the script is establishing the back story, even events such as Barabbas committing murder extrapolates a whole story from just a single remark. Much of this happens in order to fill in the blanks that would have been well known to the people at the time, but most viewers won't be aware of (including those in churches).

This film really is keen to improve Caiaphas's reputation. So the first time we see him he is being affectionate with his wife and children. Caiaphas is first and foremost a family man, whose closest confidant turns out to be his wife.It's also interesting how there are no miracles as of yet. In fact, in one added scene we see Jesus visit a pool in Jerusalem surrounded by the sick and dying. It suggest the pool that Jesus visits in John 5 to heal a lame man (Bethesda), but despite the multitude of people who Jesus could heal he opts to alleviate their suffering by way of reassurance, moping their brows and instructing the disciples to do likewise. The show's primary concern is to look at the story from an historical angle, so it's neither surprising nor controversial that there are no healings. However, the way that this scene evokes Bethesda is interesting. Jesus seems to only heal one person in John's account (despite the presence of many), here, instead of an impressive, yet isolated, healing we see a more widespread demonstration of compassion, but one that is seemingly not as powerful (for want of a better word).

Finally, the scene that caused most discussion at the première was from the scene between Jesus and his mother. Riazat Butt noted this when she covered the première for The Guardian. It was the line where Mary says to Jesus "You were in my belly before I knew it" that proved controversial, as it seems to suggest Mary didn't have a choice when in fact she did. At the time I was stunned by the criticism: it was a dramatic line, uttered amidst a tense confrontation not a carefully thought out statement about the incarnation. Having seen it twice since, I still don't really get it and, like those who answered the question, would not have thought of the line in those terms before it was raised by one of the audience members.Just wanted to add one unrelated point on The Passion that does contain something of a spoiler, so some of you might want to look away. Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph ran a piece of how this show will show Jesus crucified in an different pose from the traditional position. This is nothing new for Jesus films of course. Last Temptation of Christ (1988) and Jesus of Montreal (1989) both showed Jesus crucified in a foetal position (and naked to boot. Mawle has discussed wearing a loin cloth so I suspect this might not be the case in this film), and The Gospel of John (2003), showed Jesus with his legs nailed either side of the cross with his body hanging low. Jesus of Montreal (1989) even included some discussion and sketches on the issue. However, it does explain my earlier observation that there don't appear to be any photos of the crucifixion. The Telegraph's writer, Jonathan Wynne-Jones, did attempt to contact me on Friday, but after 6 phone calls and various emails we somehow failed to hook up. He did, however, speak to Mark Goodacre, who, it turns out was not hugely impressed with Wynne-Jones's final article. Now the Daily Mail has also run a piece on the story, although it seems to largely be a rehash of the Telegraph one.

The Telegraph does offer a positive review, however, along with The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Herald, Thinking Faith and The Scotsman.

Mark has also offered a quick round up of various bloggers including Michael Bird in Euangelion and Doug Chaplin from Metacatholic.