Goings on with The Gospel of John

Twelve and a half years ago I wrote about Bruce Marchiano's plans to film a new version of The Gospel of John. At the time, another word-for-word adaptation of the fourth gospel had only recently been made - and by Marchiano's previous employers, The Visual Bible. In the intervening period David Batty's team at Lumo have produced another word for word adaptation of John, and, I assumed that, given the delay, that Marchiano's project was off.

At least I did until I started researching The Visual Bible: Matthew for the book I'm writing and I happened to be listening to a podcast/interview with Marchiano from June 17th last year, where he explains that he is still involved with the project and where he is with it:

I'm in development...I'm very close to pre-production on a word-for-word film of The Gospel According to John. In fact right before we got online I was working the budget numbers to try to bring them in line...We'll shoot that probably within a year....So I'm raising money for a film The Gospel According to John and that's my main aim right now.

Since then there have been a few tweets by Marchiano. Firstly on the 12th December he tweeted:

"...for you who've donated to the making of "The Gospel Acc to John" please keep us in prayer as we're make some big product'n decisions--tomorrow morn we'll nail down location/date..."

Then the following day he posted this:

"...well, we didn't "nail it down" as far as location/date but we certainly narrowed it down. so JOHN is on the move!"

So after all this time it seems that this one is still ongoing. Credit to Marchiano, he is certainly tenacious and not one to give up easily! There is an official webpage for the film and the promise that those donating to it will get a screen credit. Marchiano's face is on the publicity, but I'm not sure whether he still harbours the desire to play the lead role himself, or whether he will be casting around for someone younger. In any case it seems like the project is hitting an exciting phase. I've been re-evaluating the influence of Marchiano's contribution, via Matthew to the Jesus film genre in general and with this project having been for roughly as long as this blog, I'm really interested to see how it turns out.

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.

Scene Comparion - Pentecost

My small group is looking at Acts at the moment and last week there was a bit of a mix up over who was doing what and so seeing as we were at my house I suggested watching the passage fr the day (Acts 2) in some different film versions.

Whilst there are quite a few film versions of a selection of stories from Acts a good number of them are Paul biopics and so are only really interested in Acts from the stoning of Stephen onwards. So films such as Paul the Emissary, Damascus, The Bible Collection's Paul and even, surprisingly, Peter and Paul all exclude this incident.There are however a number of films that do cover these events and here are some comments on a few of them.

Living Bible: Acts of the Apostles (1957)

If ever you want a stiff, very literal rendering of a story played out by men wearing tea towels, then  The Living Bible comes up trumps every time. The budgetary limitations area always obvious so for the start of Acts the Ascension is narrated and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the tongues of fire all occur off screen. The rest of the scene is dull in the extreme.

Power of the Resurrection (1958)
Peter is stuck in jail with a young Christian who is scared and so he tells the boy how he met Jesus and gained the courage he now has. So the retelling of Peter's life climaxes with Pentecost. It's strange, then, that there's no tongues of fire scene here either. We do see Annas and Caiaphas in the crowd as Peter preaches. The most interesting feature of this film, for me, is that both the younger and the older Peter are played by Richard Kiley, who would play another disciple turned writer Matthew in the Visual Bible's Matthew. What's most interesting is comparing how the film makers thought Kiley would look like as an old man, and how he actually does look. Had I not seen the latter production, I would have thought it a reasonably credible piece of make-up, but as things stand it looks more than a little naïve.

Atti degli Apostoli (1969 - pictured)
Overall I think Rossellini's film is my favourite of those that deal with Acts, partly because while it is still an obviously low budget piece it makes that into a virtue, rather than a constantly distracting flaw, but then I'm a big fan of Rossellini in general.

Again there are no tongues of fire, but the sky does momentarily go dark red before the disciples burst out into the public square. It's a wonderful moment, partly because it's been preceeded by a long and rather dry exposition of the story's cultural and historical context (from one Roman to another), which both give a better feel for that context but also because the disciples sudden arrival on the scene forms a striking contrast with the more stoic Romans. Furthermore there is something ambiguous about the moment. One the one hand it evokes Joel's prophecy about the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood, but on the other the disciples' absence from the moment distances them from it, as if to break the causal link. 

My favourite line in this story has always been Peter's "they're not drunk it's only nine o'clock in the morning: I remember laughing about that one as a ten year old at church. The majority of these films deliver it in a very po-faced and forced fashion. Here, Peter dismissively chucks it out over his shoulder as he marches through the crowd. It's reminiscent of Pasolini's Jesus making terse theological or political statements over his shoulder as the disciples struggle to keep up.

And then there's the climax, as Peter, the disciples and a bunch of keen to be new converts all rush in a state of high excitement to a watering hole outside the city. Are they ecstatic or just mad? Rossellini leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it. I imagine both interpretations happened at the time so it's nice to see this captured in the film and both sides thrown up for the viewer to pick over.

Incidentally, did I ever mention that this film is available to view (albeit without subtitles) here?

A.D. (1985)
Just as the series intercuts the story of the early church with tales of the Romans here we get the first Pentecost intercut with the Romans leading an execution. And just as the series often brings both stories together at certain critical points, so it turns out that the man who is due to be executed and is subsequently rescued is a friend of Stephen and other early Christians.

Inside meanwhile Mary seems to be taking a leading role within the early church - you don't have to interpret it that way but it seems to be the implication. On this occasion, Mary tells a story from Jesus' childhood. And then a very quiet wind starts up inside but someone notices it's not blowing outside. The effects look dated and the soppy looks on the disciples faces are rather comical, but Peter delivers his speech with real charisma, and it's probably the best delivery of that sermon of all of these clips.

Visual Bible: Acts (1994)
Whilst the special effect here will hardly have broken the bank it's actually very effective. In contrast to many of the other version - and my own prior visualisation - the moment of the Spirit's coming is initially very serene rather than ecstatic. Very little else works here though. Dean Jones' narration is more obtrusive than Richard Kiley's in Matthew, the word for word aspect feels very forces and
James Brolin is just to handsome, clean cut and all-American to pass for Simon Peter. It's interesting comparing his charismatic proto-TV-politician with the hapless dimwit played by Gerrit Schoonhoven in the Matthew film.

Where the forced literalism really doesn't work is during the crowd's lengthy response to what they are seeing, especially the various members of the crowd taking turns to recite a selection of the nations represented there. It wouldn't have been funnier if they had all done it together Life of Brian style ("Yes we're all individuals... from Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene.)

St Peter (2005)
The start of this film is so awful I've never been able to get past the first quarter of an hour or so, and the relevant scene here crops up about 35 minutes in. It's certainly one of the more interesting and creative explorations of the scene. The outpouring of the spirit occurs just at the very moment that the disciples are beginning to realise that language might be a barrier to the spread of the gospel.

Inside the moment is strikingly depicted with flames shooting up in the arches behind Peter and the other apostles. Outside however a shock-wave seems to strike everyone in sight. In contrast with the other versions Peter says very little of the sermon from Acts. So effectively this take on the story emphasises experience over explanations.

The scene ends on a rather sour note however. A Roman soldier - the very one who was present at the death of Jesus - wants to be baptised as well, but Peter refuses. I'm interested to see how this pans out: I have a hunch the soldier in question may appear later in the film.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.28

Just got time to make the final entry in my series on the Visual Bible's Matthew. After a fairly long post last time on the death of Jesus, this one will be comparatively short. I'm only covering one chapter rather than two, and it's a relatively short one at that (20 verses compared to 66 for chapter 27 and 75 for chapter 26).

The resurrection hasn't been covered all that often in Jesus films, and even when it is, it is often significantly different from what we find in the gospels. Often we see Jesus at and in the tomb (Pasolini's and Gibson's films) as opposed to the empty tomb, or the events reported in the gospel are interpreted more metaphorically (King of Kings, Godspell, Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal). One notable exception is the BBC's The Passion which not only shows the empty tomb but also the two cases of mistaken identity.

Here, things are portrayed with great fidelity. The women go to the tomb and find it empty, although we do not actually see the tomb itself. The reason for this is that the dramatic events that the author describes as prefiguring the moment of resurrection are here described rather than shown (with the exception of the earthquake which is portrayed by a shaky camera and a few rocks falling down). This is again probably due to the difficulty in portraying credible angels - nearly all attempts at this are distracting - as well as budgetary constraints. It does however also add to the sense that the narrator is using a metaphor rather than offering a literal description.

We then cut to the women returning from the tomb and meeting Jesus on the road. This is shot from a low angle and Jesus entering the scene from behind the camera. It's a nicely composed moment, which I suppose also catches the sense of not quite being sure who this is for a brief moment. It's a shame that it's followed up by a cheesy moment of a slow motion Jesus walking along accompanied by triumphant music. There are no nail marks on Jesus hands though for what it's worth.

That moment clashes particularly noticeably with the next scene where the Pharisees try to bribe the soldiers. There's no real sense that the soldiers have any fear of the consequences of them failing in their duty. Caiaphas however hides his face in shame, presumably at the deception these faithful Jews are now embroiled in. This is actually a complete contrast with the text which doesn't even mention the Pharisees, and lays the blame with the chief priests and the elders.

Finally we come to the Great Commission which takes place atop the same rock as the Sermon on the Mount. For a moment it looks like the filmmakers will resist having Jesus look directly in the camera, but then, seemingly unable to help themselves they close with Jesus smiling reassuringly straight at the audience. Artistically it's weak, but it's not hard to appreciate why the filmmakers chose to do it in such a fashion.

The film ends however with a sort of epilogue: after a long fade to black the camera follows Jesus as he walks towards a lake. He turns for a moment, again looks at the camera and beckons (us) to follow him. He turns on a walks a little further before repeating his "follow me" gesture. The shot freezes mid pose and the credits roll. This ending seems more in keeping with the end of John (21:19's "follow me") than Matthew. Matthew's more of a sending out. The difference is a speck rather than a log, but then I suspect that this series has been a far more examination than the filmmakers would probably have anticipated.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.26-27

For obvious reasons the depiction of these scenes is always particularly critical to the artistic success of a Jesus movie, and as a result it's more widely discusses by Jesus film scholars than most parts of Jesus' life. So I've got significantly more thoughts on these two chapters of this film than normal which is partly why the write up of these two chapters has come so far after the preceding 25 chapters.

Whilst the coupling of these two chapters is my own analytical device, it nevertheless highlights an odd pairing in the film: Jesus in his underwear. Obviously Jesus will end these two chapters wearing only a probably anachronistic loincloth, but interestingly he starts chapter 26 washing himself also in his loincloth.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of this portrayal is its failure to distinguish between the different types of Jewish groups we come across in the text. In an earlier post I mentioned their similar style of dress, and also the presence of one particularly notable Pharisee, who was put out by Jesus even more than his colleagues. Now however whereas Matthew doesn't mention the Pharisees in these two crucial chapters until after Jesus is dead, the film shows this particular Pharisee to be a close confidant of the Chief Priest Caiaphas. In fact, for a while I thought he was Caiaphas. Such blurring of the distinctions between the differing sects in Judaism of the period is a little unhelpful, bunching together all the Jews into one group.

Sometimes, this film fails to act out on screen the words that we hear from the narrator. Here for example (26:7, Jesus' anointing at Bethany) we're told that Jesus is "reclining at the table" but the pictures show him sitting upright. As with Pasolini's take on Matthew it is Judas who objects to the waste of perfume. The text of Matthew merely assigns this to the disciples. It is only in John's Gospel where Judas is named as the offender.

It does however lead nicely on to Judas' betrayal. The scene closes with a long shot of the 30 silver coins being counted out one by one. This stresses Judas' greed in contrast to an earlier moment whereby Judas' objections seem to be less driven by avarice.

We come then to the Last Supper. Jesus' identification of the one who has betrayed him ("Yes it is you") is made all the more explicit by Jesus embracing him for a long time after Judas asks "Surely not I Rabbi?". I can see the point that the filmmakers were trying to make, but it comes across as trying a bit too hard.

In a similar fashion Jesus' impassioned crying in Gethsemane is not very convincing. It's surprisingly overdone given some of the better acting which we've witnessed in the immediately preceding chapters. There's also an unusual moment when, as the soldiers come to arrest him, Jesus hands a woman his coat. It seems to be Roman soldiers who are sent to arresting Jesus, even though Matthew simply calls them "a crowd".

We get to the trial and it finally becomes clear who Caiaphas is, it's not the leading Pharisee of earlier chapters, though he is still present, but another actor. I use the word trial because the scene seems rather different in tone to the hearings before the Sanhedrin in other Jesus films: there's much more of a mob mentality. This reflects the way the text ends this passage with those present striking, slapping and mocking Jesus, but it starts a little earlier on. When Jesus answers "Yes it is as you say" the mob tries to grab Jesus, but the execution of this scene makes it seem a bit feeble. Ultimately they gather around him to hit and spit on Jesus, but again it's very unconvincing. Then suddenly we see part of Jesus' beard getting pulled out. This visual element references Isaiah 50:6 ("I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.") which many, including the filmmakers apparently, consider to be a prophesy that is fulfilled in the events Matthew describes here.

Whilst this is going on, Peter is denying ever knowing Jesus. It's far and away the best scene by Gerrit Schoonhoven playing Peter, and quite powerful. As he gives his oath he kisses his hand. I'd be interested to know if this has any historical basis as it's not something I've encountered before.

The most controversial moment in Matthew's Gospel, at least with regards to the question of anti-Semitism, is the trial before Pilate. The way the scene is handled in this respect is interesting. The trial takes place before a very large crowd (larger than the number shown during the feeding of the 5000 in fact) which tends to give the impression that this is a fairly representative sample of the population of Jerusalem at the time. I don't think that's the impression one gets from reading Mark in isolation, but the anti-Jewish rhetoric is greater in Matthew, and so it could be argued that this is in keeping with the text, even if personally I would have preferred a smaller crowd.

These problems are compounded by the poor handling of two other issues. Firstly, Pilate is portrayed very nobly. He's certainly not the vicious butcher of Luke 13:1, Philo and Josephus. The second is the line from Matt 27:25 when 'All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"' (a line which is worsened by the NIV's unnecessary use of an exclamation mark). This has been the principle verse used to justify persecuting Jewish people for being "Christ Killers". As a result many Jesus films omit it. Some may remember that Mel Gibson conceded to leaving it out of the subtitles although the words were still shouted by the crowd, just not in English.

This production rather has its hands tied in this respect. Having decided to produce a word for word adaptation, regrettably the verse had to be included, but perhaps to mitigate its unpleasant history the filmmakers have it shouted out by just one woman, in spite of the wording of the text.

In contrast, Jesus is then led away to be mocked by "the whole company of soldiers", but this is acted out by only a handful of soldiers, certainly not the whole company that would have been present during the troublesome Passover celebration. The soundtrack at this point takes a turn for the worst, opting for a synthesizer, which already appears very dated. Perhaps it's a nod to Jesus of Montreal, but I suspect not.

And so we come to the crucifixion. What's striking about this film is that, in comparison to other Jesus films, it highlights how briefly the text talks about this story. Because of its perceived theological importance the crucifixion is often given far greater attention relative to it's actual length in the text. In the end it's just 25 verses out of 28 chapters. For Matthew, at least, Jesus' death is only a small part of the whole story. It's interesting, for example, that this is one of the few places where Matthew doesn't insert a prophecy from the Old Testament into Mark's account. When Jesus is finally crucified there are only 7 brief close-ups and two long distance shots. I've not yet read the section in Marchiano's book where he describes the filming of this scene, but it doesn't appear he will have suffered to the same degree that James Caviezel did in The Passion of the Christ.

There are however a few interesting moments here. Firstly there's a shot taken along the ground as Jesus is having his hand nailed to the cross which is almost identical to one that appeared later in The Passion of the Christ. I've included them both below for comparison.

Secondly, the apostle John is present at the crucifixion. Again this is something that we only find in John's Gospel, although it's interesting that Pasolini also placed John at the crucifixion in Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo. Likewise John is also comforting Jesus' mother. Interestingly we are never shown where John and Mary are standing in relation to Jesus. In John's Gospel they stand "near the cross", but in Matthew they are "watching from a distance". By not showing their relative positions, the filmmakers leave it open to the viewer to interpret the images.

After Jesus dies we cut to the narrator explaining the tearing of the curtain and the events that follows. Whilst the text of Matthew does not quote from the prophets directly, he does add a description of "the bodies of many holy people" rising to life. My personal hunch is that this is a metaphor rather than a literal event, note for example the awkward way Matthew expresses the timing of the event. The film gives some credence to this theory. Instead of literally depicting these events, the narrator is shown describing them in a very exaggerated way.

Lastly we end the chapter with the chief priests and Pharisees requesting a guard for the tomb. This incident is seldom included in Jesus films so it's nice to see it included. No prizes for guessing which character leads the delegation asking for the increased security.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.24-25

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Matthew starts of narrating the beginning of chapter 24 and he also appears to have sacked his oft sleeping scribes and is now doing the job himself as he talks about the destruction of the temple there's a real sense of sadness, and that, along with Matthew's likely age suggests that he is writing after the fall of the temple has occured. Jesus however is much more nonchalant, particularly in comparison with his weeping over Jerusalem just a few verses ago.

Matthew comes in and out of this one. One notable example is that it is he who says "let the reader understand" rather than Jesus. Anything else I suppose would be somewhat nonsensical.

There's a shift in time as this discourse unfolds in contrast to the text which suggests this is all spoken in one go. Here they move from the night to the day and back again for different passages. The later parables such as the wise / wicked servants, the ten virgins and the Parable of the Talents are all dramatised, the first with workers in a field, the second with women by a stream for the ten virgins, and by the side of the master's house for the final of the three. There's no illustration for the story of the sheep and goats, which is again delivered with a sense of compassion for those that with be thrown out. Marchiano again does well here, personally speaking I prefer his more serious mode of delivery then when he's goofing around, not that a few of those moments aren't very welcome, but these mometns feel more natural.

Just a short one today as I'm really pushed for time.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.22-23

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Chapters 22 and 23 nominally take place in and around the temple. The section opens on a close up of a lion with red smoke pouring out from between its paws. I'm not entirely sure what this statue has to do with anything (I'm not aware of a lion statue known to have been present in the temple or even Jerusalem. There is a Lion's Gate, but the lion engraved on it is not like this as far as I am aware). It is however, reminiscent of Last Temptation of Christ where a statue of Caesar is surrounded by more copious amounts of smoke.

These chapters are almost entirely Jesus speaking, aside from a few points of narration and the questions from his opponents. First up is the Parable of the Wedding Banquet. By the time Jesus reaches the end, where he describes the inappropriately dressed man as being bound and thrown outside to weep and gnash his teeth, actor Bruce Marchiano is fighting back the tears. It gives a more compassionate view of Jesus, but it does raise questions about his God and his relationship to him.

At this point, Jesus encounters opposition from several different Jewish groups: Pharisees, Herodians, Saducees and perhaps the teachers of the law. Unfortunately, the film doesn't really distinguish between the different groups. They all look the same. There is one distinction, the Pharisee / Herodian who asks Jesus about paying taxes does so in a West Country accent (south-west England). This is very distracting, like listening to the video of Darth Vader in Star Wars before James Earl Jones re-did the voice. It's this man himself who gives Jesus the coin, and when he's done Jesus throws it back to him. It's not a big moment, but a nice touch nonetheless.

Jesus then deals with the question about the resurrection from the Saducees. Then there's a cut, another shot of the lion statue, before we move to a scene on the steps of the temple. This will be the setting for the rest of this chapter and all of the next. Jesus answers the question about the greatest commandment, and then replies with a questions about David's "the LORD said to my Lord". Jesus ends the passage and kissing the grumpiest (and seemingly leader) of the Pharisees on the cheek. The Pharisee does not react at all, except perhaps to look even more put out than he did before.

Then it's time for the seven woes. It's one of the harshest passages in Matthew's Gospel, and Marchiano really goes for it, yelling "You snakes. You Brood of Vipers", but with sadness and sorrow as much as with anger. If anything Marchiano is even madder here than Irazoqui is when he delivers this passage. Ultimately though it all ends in tears, as Jesus weeps over Jerusalem sat on the floor. Compositionally, whereas the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisee in chapter 21 saw them on higher ground and him lower down, this time Jesus is higher, stood a top the steps in what is presumably meant to be the temple whilst the Pharisees look on from below. They have already started storming off, but somehow stay to hear the end of Jesus' words. The grumpy Pharisee is getting madder and madder, but the reactions vary amongst his compatriots. One older Pharisee even cowers at one point, shielding his face as Jesus launches a fresh tirade. Strong stuff.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.20-21

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Thus far is this production, all of Jesus parables have either been delivered by him or acted out between him and the disciples. But for the first time we see one of his stories performed as if it was a real event. So Jesus begins the Parable of the Vineyard, but the scene cuts to a vineyard, an owner and a bunch of workers. Jesus still narrates, but the characters speak their own lines.

Jesus follows this and then we get the mother of James and John (as opposed to the men themselves as in Mark) asking if they can sit by Jesus in his kingdom. Jesus reacts in typically non-confrontational and accepting fashion. The text then proceeds to talk about the other ten being indignant when they hear about what the two have done, suggesting either that they are in ear shot, or that at some point following on from that the news leaks out. Here however, Jesus leaves James, John and Mrs Zebedee and goes and sits with the disciples. The narrator tells us that the other ten are "indignant", but the accompanying image undermines this. They barely seem to care. Aside from this however it also makes it look like Jesus is telling tales, which seems worse given his niceness to the two brothers. Is he acting nice and then going behind their back?

Jesus and his disciples approach Jerusalem healing two blind men en route. One of the actors just has his eyes closed, but the other's eyes are milked over. I was thinking this was going to be some kind of special effect, but when it comes to the healing we only see the man with his eyes shut open his eyes. Presumably, then, the other actor actually is blind. I can't decide whether this is a good thing involving such a man as an actor, or whether its a touch cruel. I suppose he knew what he was getting himself into.

There's also a notable change in the music here. Whilst the victorious sounding theme music is heard during Jesus' triumphal entry, immediately before and after the music is, for the first time, much more ominous. Likewise before Jesus turns over the tables, and when the disciples spend the night in Bethany different, but somewhat suggestively negative music is heard. We only see one donkey (as in Mark and Luke, but not Matthew where there are two), and at one point we get Jesus' point of view as he rides into the city.

There turning of the tables is filmed in slow motion. As with other Jesus films, no-one ever tries to intervene or physically restrain Jesus, and no-one seems to seek retribution. The reactions all seem a little unrealistic. The stall owners just get on with picking up their things, or occasionally shouting. Just for once I'd like to see someone attack Jesus, perhaps bloodying his forehead in a way that prefigures the crown of thorns.

The fig tree is cursed and the camera pans back and cuts to another tree in a way that is hilariously unconvincing, and Marchiano's almost gentle delivery makes this passage seem even odder than it appears normally.

Finally Jesus is involved in another confrontation with the Pharisees/elders and the chief priests. I say "confrontation", but again Marchiano portrays this moment in a very non-confrontational fashion, squatting down for the whole passage and looking up at his opponents, who are also on higher ground. There's an interesting discrepancy here, similar to what Mark Goodacre calls editorial fatigue, only in reverse. At the start of this passage (21:23) Matthew edits Mark's "chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders" (Mark 11:27) to "chief priests and the elders". There's no mention of the Pharisees. But in concluding the section he refers to "the chief priests and the Pharisees" (21:45), in contrast with Mark's simple "they". The Pharisees are much more significant in Matthew's Gospel than Mark's getting 30 mentions to Mark's 12, so it looks like when he came to the end of the passage the author of Matthew returned to one of his regular themes, the clash between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.18-19

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
When trying to think how to film Chapter 18 of Matthew's Gospel there's are a couple of problems. Firstly, many commentators consider the passage to be a composite of several shorter sayings, so how do you make them interact? Secondly it involves Jesus using some of his most violent imagery, in the presence of children. In spite of these difficulties it's presented fairly well. Jesus being grabbed by the children whilst saying "gouge it out" (or something) is a little jarring, but it does underline the hyperbolic nature of these sayings. This is followed by a cut to Jesus walking near some sheep as he delivers the parable of the lost sheep. My 2 year old spotted that one. Lastly there's another cut, this time to Jesus and the disciples by the side of a lake/pond, as Jesus discusses how to resolve disputes. When he comes to "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (18:17) he pauses before speaking the last 3 words, turning around to look at Matthew and give him a friendly touch. This portrayal clearly favours the interpretation that puts these words in the contexts of Jesus' actions, as opposed to the prevailing view of his culture.

These two chapters are littered with Jesus and his disciples having fun. In addition to wrestling with children earlier on, we see the disciples wrestling by the aforementioned pond, and then a wordless scene where Jesus bathes under a waterfall. Shortly he'll be grabbing a ride by jumping on the back of a cart. Before that though we come to the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. This is perhaps my favourite parable, and here Jesus and Simon Peter act it out. Jesus is much hammier than Marchiano. It does enliven the scene however and reminded me of Jesus' reputation for being a good story teller.

The chapters end with the rich young man (pictured). In a way it's a fairly unremarkable portrayal, but it does bring out the disciples incredulity at what Jesus says. Rather than instantly agreeing there seems to be some confusion, and in fact now I notice that Matthew records that they were "astonished" by Jesus' statement. I've mulled this passage over many times, and yet I've never noticed what the disciples were probably meaning was "(if even the rich will find it hard), who then can be saved?". If the prevailing view of the time was that riches were a sign of God's blessing then this would be just what they might be thinking. I'm amazed that I've never seen this aspect before, but then I guess one of the main things I love about Bible films is the way they enable you to see new things in familiar texts. Here's its done very subtly which makes it all the more impressive.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.16-17

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Chapter 16 opens with some discussion with and about the Pharisees and Saducees. Again Bruce Marchiano delivers a good scene, although I still wish he was a little less touchy-feely. That's a personal thing however.

The most significant part of of this chapter is Peter's declaration. It's a passage that Catholics and Protestants disagree as to how it should be interpreted. Is the "rock" that Jesus is going to build his church on Peter the man (as the Roman Catholics would argue) or the content of his declaration (as Protestants would contend). There's quite a significant cut to Matthew and his two scribes at this point, which comes after Jesus has told Peter that his words came from the Father, but before he says he is Peter and on this rock. Having the cut in this position leans towards Catholic take on hings. The more natural reading it seems to me is that Jesus means Peter rather than his words.

Incidentally Matthew and his scribes are now by the side of a stream. The scribes are writing on their laps, rather than on the modern-style table they were using earlier. Mark Goodacre would no doubt approve.

Chapter 17 is fairly uneventful apart from the Transfiguration (pictured above). It's a somewhat rare scene in Jesus films, tending only to be present in those films which are made by Evangelical Christian groups. Jesus appears to be leaning on one of the two men for support, it's not clear which of the two it is.

The remainder of the chapter seems a demon-possessed boy healed and the strange case of the fish with a four drachma coin in its mouth (although the text never tells us that things panned out as Jesus said). The composition and lighting of this scene is really nice. This chapter in general features lots of close-ups which is particularly noticeable to me having seen Pasolini do the same thing in his version of this gospel. I'll hopefully write up about that tomorrow.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.14-15

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
The second half of Matthew's Gospel picks up on the story of John the Baptist. The daughter of Herodias performs a particularly unsexy dance (only Ray's King of Kings manages to find any hint of eroticism in this moment as far as I recall) and soon enough John's head is served up on a platter. This is depicted (as above) fairly gruesomely, which I think is actually to the filmmakers credit. It's a shocking act, yet often it's under emphasised. And thankfully it went, um, over my kids heads. (Daddy hadn't expected it to be so graphically depicted). The film takes its time to show the impact this event had on Jesus. Marchiano does some great work here. Denied any words to express his grief, he manages to convey it all with his body without falling prey to hamming it up.

The South African influence on the production comes to the fore in these two chapters as well. Herodias's daughter asks for the "hid of John the Biptist on a Plitter", and a couple of the disciples deliver their lines with a similar inflexion, most notably Simon Peter. This is a relatively strange experience. As with English accents, South African accents only seem to surface in most films if someone is a baddie (with the possible example of Patsy Kensit in Lethal Weapon 2, and hers is put on). Here they are both the baddies (as with Salome), but also the goodies. It's nice to see a bit of balance, even if it takes a bit of getting used to. Chief amongst the South African actors is Simon Peter. Unfortunately his performance throughout the film, and particularly in these two chapters, is very poor and the accent only seems to highlight the fact. To make matters worse, Peter is often given the generic lines which the text records only as being spoken by "the disciples".

Next up is the feeding of the 5000 which seems to mirror the crowds gathering to listen to the Sermon on the Mount in the first half of the gospel. Twice the passage demonstrates some of the difficulties in reproducing an 'action' section of the text word for word. A disciple, bringing a basket containing the loaves and fish has to bump Jesus with it to get his attention (which I can't help feeling could have been avoided) and then when the gospel says "he directed the people to sit down" he has to rely solely on gestures whereas in reality you would expect at least some words to be used even if they were inaudible.

I don't have much to say about the walking on water scene. The effects are reasonably good for a low budget movie, but Simon Peter's acting somewhat spoils things.

Chapter 15 starts with debate about what is clean and unclean with Jesus and the disciples working in the field. Jesus is stripped to the waist, which is a bold and unusual move. It works well, emphasising the humanity of Jesus in a usually unexplored fashion. It mirrors the opening of Last Temptation I suppose, but it's somewhat more striking here, perhaps because this is a more conventional Jesus, but perhaps because Jesus is outside. Of course nearly all Jesus films end up with a largely naked Jesus, but then it is, once again, within traditional parameters, and emphasises his status as a victim. Here it is presenting Jesus as normal in a way which is somehow vaguely shocking. It even stood out to my 4 year old. "Why does Jesus not have any clothes on Daddy?"

We then get one of the more difficult incidents in the gospel - the request of the Canaanite woman. I've used this clip before for something but I'm not quite sure for what. The significance is that whilst the woman still cannot quite see him, Jesus indicates to one of the disciples (and therefore us) that what he is saying is not quite for real. Several commentators suggest at this point that Jesus is being ironic or questioning the perceive opinion in some way, so this seems to be the interpretation that is driving this portrayal. Personally it seems a weak theory, although the portrayal itself is quite strong. Marchiano makes the point well, but the actress playing the woman delivers a very moving performance in just a few lines. It's perhaps the most moving part of the film so far, which just goes to show how much of a difference good acting can make even in a low budget film.

The section ends with the feeding of the 4000. I don't really have any particular comments on how the filmmakers portray this, other than that it stresses my confusion as to why this story is included given that Jesus has just feed an even greater number. Even if the ordering were reversed it would make some sense (with the greater miracle following the lesser giving a sense of Jesus' ministry getting more significant). It's there in Mark as well. If this were the Pentateuch then I'd be tempted to suggest it's just different versions of the same story coming through in different ones of Mark's sources. But given John's (admittedly later) boast about the wealth of Jesus material, and Mark's desire to tell the story quickly, even if there were two different events this second one seems somewhat surplus to requirements. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.12-13

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Much of Matthew 12 is from the triple tradition. The parallel passage in Mark is chapter 2, which shows how much other material Matthew has incorporated into Mark's account. The section starts in the grain fields with the disciples in trouble not for stealing (the modern day equivalent of eating grapes in the supermarket) but for picking the grain on the Sabbath. It's shown in slow motion from a lowish angle and fairly close up. Matthew is the offender that the camera homes in on (for obvious reasons). I can't quite decide whether this works or not. The unfortunate thing is that it doesn't offer any indication as to how this confrontation came about. What were the Pharisees doing in the field?

This is followed by a long section in a synagogue. Jesus heals a man with a hand that is more distorted than "shrivelled" which is obviously far easier to film. He then cures a man who is blind and mute which is, for some reason, thought to be the result of demon-possession. The demon possession is critical to the following passage. Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan. Jesus suggests that "every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined". Whilst all this is going on the camera is lingering on a woman behind the screen in the synagogue. She's dressed in a manner that suggests she's a prostitute, but the chances of such a woman being allowed into the synagogue seems remote. In any case the filmmakers use a few point of view shots from her angle, obscuring the view with the meshed screen in front of her. I remember Peter Chattaway talking about this being a conventional way of suggesting romance, but I can't remember if this is exactly the kind of thing he was talking about. From the attention the camera gives to her I suspect that we will encounter her later.

We then cut to lakeside where Jesus starts to preach his Kingdom Parables (the third discourse). Having delivered the parable of the sower (and had Matthew and one of his scribes quote from Isaiah) Jesus and his disciples on the boat with Jesus at work tying knots. I always like it when films show Jesus doing something other than preaching.

The next parable is that of the wheat and weeds. Jesus and his disciples are on the move this time, and here they half act out the parable, with the disciples seemingly improvising some of the lines. It's somewhat reminiscent of Godspell. This time it's Judas who asks for an explanation of the parable which is a nice attempt to present him as a more rounded character.

Then it's back to Nazareth, at point at which many scholars consider the second half of the gospel to begin. This point acts as a hinge and its interesting that Jesus is back in Nazareth (where the story began) and a Herod is about to commit a violent act. More of that next time.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.10-11

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Chapter 10 of Matthew's Gospel opens with the calling of the twelve disciples. Jesus is particularly touchy feely here, even kissing Judas's hand as he names him. There's a chance that this more accurate than the more stoic calling we usually see in films about Jesus. I know, for example, from my own time in Morocco that men will happily walk down the road holding hands, and Judas's sign in Gethsemane (a kiss) cannot have seemed too out of the ordinary. The scene does feel a bit strange in some ways however because it's narrated, and only the twelve appear to be present. It doesn't feel like we are witnessing an occasion when their status is being confirmed just Jesus working his way around the group.

The twelve were, of course, called for the purpose of mission, not just as a status symbol, and so Jesus embarks on his second major teaching block in this gospel, telling them how they (and presumably Matthew's audience) should carry out their mission. This was my favourite section of these two chapters. Jesus does the voiceover to images of the disciples going around in pairs preaching the gospel. Sometimes they are welcomed into homes, sometimes they are chased out of the city. It's a nicely put together sequence, and not something I'm aware that another film does.

The mission completed we see Jesus encountering John's disciples who travel an awfully long way for a very short conversation. Somewhere along the line we also see Matthew having to wake his scribes up again. It's played for gentle comedy, but it seems a bit silly. The gospel isn't that long, and why does Matthew so often narrate late into the night? I'm hoping that this will link up with the disciples sleeping in Gethsemane somehow. We'll see.

Lastly we end with a few more disconnected sections of teaching, shot in a marketplace. Some of these feel quite authentic with piles of vividly coloured spices and more middle eastern looking faces. Different blocks of teaching are shot in different settings, again reflecting the composite nature of some of these teaching blocks. It's a good scene.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.8-9

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Having listened to 3 chapters of Jesus teaching, the next 2 chapters of Matthew's Gospel follow him in action. To start with there are a flurry of miracles, a leper is healed, as are the centurion's servant and Peter's mother-in-law, then a demoniac is exorcised. Jesus then offers a couple of pithy sayings to his would-be followers ("foxes have holes...but the son of man has nowhere...", "let the dead bury their own dead") before calming the storm, dealing with the Gadarene demoniacs and healing a paralytic. He pauses briefly to call Matthew the Tax Collector and offer the sayings about wineskins and patches on clothes before ending on another flurry of miracles, haling Jairus's daughter, a haemophiliac, two blind men and a man who cannot speak.

It's an action packed segment, but whereas the inaction of the Sermon on the Mount forced the filmmakers to plumb their creativity, here things are more standard. There are a few exceptions. Having healed the leper Jesus proceeds to roll on the floor with him. I know for some people this is a really good moment, but personally it leaves me cold. Perhaps I'm a Pharisee?

Another interesting moment is when the demons are cast out of the men from Gadara. The filmmakers swap their standard camera for a low hand-held one and give us the shot from the point of view of the pigs/demons. It works reasonably well, although the death of the pigs is less attention grabbing than it is in the text.

The key moment in this section however is the calling of Matthew (pictured above), and to underline the position outlined in the prologue, Matthew the narrator points to himself. The significance of the moment is underlined by the music swelling up at this point. It's a little over-sentimental, but it does highlight a key theme of the film, that the old man we meet at the start of the film had his life irrevocably changed by this encounter. Matthew's acceptance of Jesus' call doesn't go down too well with the disciples. Peter looks a little put out, but our attention is drawn to an, as yet unnamed disciple who positively glowers as Matthew begins to walk along with Jesus. This is the second time in as many chapters that this disciple has looked angry and bewildered at Jesus' actions. Looks like there could be trouble...

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.5-7

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Filming the Sermon on the Mount was possibly one of the greatest challenges in making this film. How do you take an acclaimed text, most likely composed of several pieces of teaching joined together rather than a transcript of an actual sermon, and make it interesting to a film audience? It's possibly the place where this production feels least like a film and more like what it calls itself, a visual Bible.

As Mark Goodacre has noted in his defence of the Farrer theory, most filmmakers tend to break up the sermon and distribute segments of it throughout their movies, just as Farrer theory proponents imagine Luke did. Not doing so makes this section rather tedious. The filmmakers introduce a number of measures to enliven the scene, and Marchiano enthusiastically delivers his words with heart, passion and humour, but they are only partially successful.

Indeed whilst Marchiano's smiling delivery hits the right note on numerous occasions, it's when Jesus, or Matthew, resort to something more goofy that things come off as false and somewhat corny. So for example, to illustrate "do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing", Jesus ours water over Peter's head. (This Peter takes it in good humour. Brian Blessed would probably have smacked him one). Later on Matthew almost sits on a child and Jesus holds a huge staff to his eye to demonstrate the speck vs plank passage.

The other technique that's used to aide the attention deficient is by swapping between Jesus delivering the sermon and Matthew recalling it. The Matthew sections don't work quite as well, partly because he's addressing only a handful of family members - a setting that isn't so well matched to delivering a grand sermon. That said one of the most impressive moments is when Marchiano's words ring out through Matthew's (?) house.

Covering the Sermon on the Mount also runs the filmmakers into another quandary, how do they resolve the places where their value of wanting to reproduce the book word for word clashes with the positive friendly image of Jesus they wish to portray. Whilst the sermon is rightly celebrated for view of a better humanity, it also talks about people being thrown into hell, somewhat at odds with the smiling Jesus the film wants to portray. The problems are resolved somewhat unsatisfactorily. At times Jesus or Matthew smile extra hard when delivering those passages. At others they wearily acknowledge them as unfortunate truths. This was never a problem that Pasolini's angry Jesus ran into.

Speaking of which, one of the things that is most often pointed about that film is the way in which is films Jesus speaking against different backdrops and weather conditions to draw attention to its composite nature. At first glance this film appears to be the polar opposite - Jesus delivers the sermon to the same crowd, in the same location, wearing the same clothes. But the weather changes quite significantly. Early on, Jesus is speaking under a azure blue sky, strongly reminiscent of Ray's King of Kings (1961). But by the end of the sermon three chapters later, things have clouded over and the ending of the sermon is rather lost in a thunderstorm. It helpfully illustrates the rain coming down on the foolish man's house, but is perhaps a little distracting. But crucially it suggests, perhaps unintentionally, that the sermon was in fact somewhat longer and that this is merely only edited highlights.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.3-4

(From a series of posts working through the Visual Bible's Matthew).
Chapter 3 of Matthew's Gospel opens not on Jesus but on John the Baptist. Like many Jesus films, the Baptist's appearance (see above) is significantly more alien to modern western eyes than the other characters. Here John has wild unkempt hairas well as the camel skin clothes that the gospels attribute to him.

The first shot of Jesus is usually a moment of some significance in Jesus films. The King of Kings (1927), for example, introduces him through the eyes of a blind girl as she gains her sight. The majority of films about Jesus tend to use his baptism as the moment he is first revealed and, given the nature of the project, this film is no exception. The sequence is actually very artfully put together. John's teaching seems to have finished, and we see children playing in the water. Then we see the feet of a man walking through the mud at the side of the river. The symbolism is fairly rich here. God has come down in human form and his getting his hands feet dirty. God is standing, quite literally on the earth. Next we get the image of a man reflected in the water. The Jewish Messiah seen only as a pale reflection is about to be revealed.

Jesus' baptism is by immersion rather than sprinkling, and as he emerges from the water the shot is slowed down as a jubilant Jesus looks to heaven. Matthew then narrates the arrival of the dove, but we are denied a shot of the dove itself. Instead we get shots of John's reaction. In a similar fashion, rather than representing God's voice (such as a detached, echoing voice) it is the narrator who delivers God's encouragement. This may simply be because the filmmakers have learned from other Jesus films where their star is left to stand in cold water for hours at a time whilst they try and get a dove to land on his shoulder. Brian Deacon, star of VB Matthew's close relation Jesus (1979) still recalls just such an incident in that film somewhat painfully. But it's also possible that this is a nod to the fact that in Matthew's Gospel (1:10) the dove is only a simile. Luke makes the simile more concrete by stressing the Spirit is descending "in bodily form". We are also never told whether or not the voice from Heaven is audible. Either way the scene is handled very well, leaving intact the ambiguity of the text.

Just as "Matthew" speaks God's part, he also delivers the devil's lines as well. I wonder whether, as we progress through the film the narrator will always deliver the lines that are more subjective, in a similar fashion to how The Miracle Maker switches to 2D animation at similar points. That said I seem to recall that in the opening chapter an angel speaks with an echoey voice at one stage. he director uses several cuts during this scene to emphasise the passing of time, in marked contrast to other Jesus film (such as 1999's Jesus) which show all 3 temptations as part of the same event. Here you get a sense that these three temptations are representative of many over the 40 days, rather than depicting the entire temptation incident.

There's a brief scene of Jesus calling his first four disciples. There's no discussion Jesus just waves his hand and the two pairs just follow him. It actually suggests though that these men are not strangers, and thus that Jesus' signal is more of an "it's time" than a call out-of-the-blue.

The chapter ends with a round up of Jesus' miracles realised on screen by showing a lame woman being healed. She hugs Peter (as well as Jesus) which raises the question as to whether this is his mother. I'll have to remember to look out for that when we reach chapter 8. We then cut to a very large and rather inaccessible rocky outcrop. Peter even slips as he ascends the mountain. A certain sermon is clearly about to begin (start of chapter 5), but strangely it seems doubtful that any of the infirm will be able to get there.

Visual Bible's Matthew:Ch.1-2

I had a job interview at the end of last week, hence the lack of output over the last few days. I do however have a bit of time of this week so I should be able to post more regularly. This post is the second in a series working through Visual Bible's Matthew.

==========

After the opening, unscriptural prologue, the film moves on to adapting the gospels proper. As soon as they begin it becomes obvious why the prologue was deemed necessary: opening with a genealogy would result in the dullest start to a movie of all time. As it is things are still pretty dull, despite the filmmakers attempt to liven things up by having some of Matthew's (spiritual?) grandson chip in the odd name or two. This is one of the drawbacks of doing Matthew's Gospel word for word and both filmmakers and audience breathe a sigh of relief when it's all over.

Essentially, the genealogy is the gospel's prologue, so by beginning the film by introducing Matthew we have now had two prologues; what follows will function, in many ways, as a third. Some would the historical credibility of the Nativity Story, and in a way, the film, no doubt unintentionally seems to back this up by leaving Mary and Joseph without dialogue. This is, of course, due to the dialogue in the gospel. But translating that to the screen outs these characters in a remote and unreal light.

The lack of dialogue also creates an interesting scene between Mary and Joseph. Mary communicates her pregnancy to Joseph with looks rather than words. This seems to be a nod to Pasolini's adaptation of this gospel, which opens in similar fashion. That said, in that film the possibility remains open that the two have already spoken, or that Jospeh has heard via a third party. Here however Joseph greets her with a smile, and only when he reads her looks does he learn that she is with child.

Like Jesus of Nazareth Joseph is depicted with a covered head and side curls. On the one hand, this indicator of Jesus' Jewish roots is commendable, if, perhaps, a little anachronistic. But it does raise the question as to why Jesus is not shown in such a light. We have no reason to suggest that Jesus was less devout in his religion than his father, for all his critiques of its current practice.

Perhaps the most interesting feature of this segment is that there are more than three wise men. The number doesn't seem to be completely consistent, the numbers riding on camels seem to be perhaps one or two more than the four that kneel and present gifts to the baby (rather than toddling) Jesus. Either way the filmmakers are at pains to distance themselves from the three wise men of our traditional Christmases.

Next time John the Baptist and the temptations.

The Mark of God: Is Visual Bible's Gospel of Mark Film in Production?

EDIT: Sadly it appears that I have been too hasty with this post. I've subsequently heard from François Perrier that the production was never finished, and Clayton Slaughter has heard the same from Kevin Sage. So it looks like this was a red herring. Apologies.
Ever since the 2003 release of Gospel of John there have been rumours about a word for word adaptation of Mark's Gospel. These surfaced most recently (to my ears) back in January when an email purportedly from Philip Saville (director of Gospel of John) was posted on YouTube with the throw-away comment "Maybe next year?"

But today Clayton Slaughter emailed me linking to the website of François Perrier, a "director of photography and steadicam operator". The production credits for his CV list the following entry:

Visual Bible
Feature Film
Dir : Jakob de Boer
Visual Bible
A Cam/Steadicam
DoP: Pierre Gill Csc

Now if you go to his images gallery you come across the picture above which is accompanied by this:

This was an amazing day, because we had 1000 people (extras) around us. This is the scene where Jesus (Kevin Sage) fed all the people with only 3 fishes and 3 breads.

There's also another image of F. Murray Abraham sat in a reconstruction of the Roman senate. Now it's possible that there are many actors named Kevin Sage, but this one lists a principal role as Jesus, made for "Visual Entertainment" on his CV in a film called The Mark of God. And if you look at some of his photos it includes a number of pictures from The Mark of God with Sage playing Jesus, including ones with him next to F. Murray Abraham, showing the holes in his wrists (note wrists -his palms aren't visible), at the last supper and preparing to wash the disciples feet. The photos note that these were shot in Morocco (where else? I really need to get a contact at Atlas Studios).

Having said all that, it appears however that Saville is no longer on the ticket. If François Perrier is correct, then the director of this film is Jakob de Boer, and what does a Google search on him turn up but this article from Peter Chattaway:

...The IMDB doesn't seem to have the names "Jakob de Boer" and "Bess Fotopoulus" in its archives, at least not with those spellings, but after snooping around a bit, I discovered that these people seem to have been involved in one of the various incarnations of The Visual Bible. In September 2000, Variety reported:

John Hamilton, CEO of Visual Bible, said the director Jakob Deboeris now in Morocco scouting locations for the next three films: "Mark," "Luke" and "John," which he will film simultaneously...

It seems to me, then, that there are two possibilities here. One is that The Mark of God is the long awaited adaptation of Mark's Gospel. The title is a little ambiguous though because whilst it does include "Mark" in the title, it doesn't explicitly call itself Mark or The Gospel of Mark.

The other possibility is that de Boer has found a new title for the film mentioned at the start of Peter Chattaway's article The Sword of Peter. According to a 2007 Variety article:

The Sword of Peter tells the story of the Galilean fisherman who founded the Christian church in Rome. The film explores the early days of Christianity under the reign of Emperor Nero and the burning of Rome in 64 A.D.

That would explain what F. Murray Abraham is doing in the senate, and presumably the use of Mark's name is just a nod to the ancient tradition that he was Peter's translator. But then what about the repeated mention of the Visual Bible name? Hopefully more will become apparent in the near future.

Visual Bible's Matthew: Prologue

The "Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years" course has reached the New Testament, which is being re-branded "Rough Guide to the New Testament". Matthew is obviously up first, so I'm taking the opportunity to visit the two films that are specifically based on that gospel rather than harmonising all four. I've written about Pasolini's Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo several times over the years, but I've not written a great deal about the 1995 word for word adaptation Matthew by "Visual Bible", so I'm going to do this as I work through it.

Visual Bible have claimed that their word for word adaptations were free of interpretation. "No scriptwriter's liberties. No interpretations. No dramatic license." Yet as soon as the movie starts it becomes clear that this is not the case. The opening words of the film are not from Matthew's gospel, but a prologue introducing the narrator.

Many years ago when I was a young man I lived on the shores of Lake Galilee in the town of Capernaum. At that time the Roman Empire controlled all of Palestine. Although I am a Jew I worked as a tax collector for King Herod of Galilee, who paid tribute to the Roman government. My co-operation with Rome made me an outcast in my own community. However, when Jesus the Christ looked at me and said "follow me" I left everything and became one of his disciples. My name is Matthew. I am writing this gospel to show through the writings of the law, the prophets and the psalms that Jesus of Nazareth is the long awaited Messiah.

The following is a word for word account of the Gospel according to Matthew.

Now this is a major piece of interpretation. The authorship of the first gospel is disputed. It's true that the traditional view is that it was written by the apostle of the same name, but it's also true that the text itself makes no such claim.

What I like about it, however, is the way it emphasises Matthew's use of the Hebrew Bible, and his agenda in doing so. It's not unlike the final verse in John 20(v31) which states that "...these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah".

Another nice touch is the way Matthew's talk of having been an outcast is contrasted with a shot of him walking along with several others (pictured above). Formerly rejected, in Christ he has found acceptance and community. That said, the execution lets it down a bit. The end product feels a little bit like a soft-focus promo shot from a 80s Christian holiday advert.

We then see Matthew sit down with what I assume is his grandchild and two scribes. As it will turn out, the grandchild has already learnt parts of the gospel, such as the genealogy, yet the formal aspects at play suggest that Matthew is about to dictate the gospel for the first time.

Next time I'll start at chapter 1 of the gospel, where the film's adaptation begins in earnest.

Visual Bible's Gospel of Mark

Mark Goodacre has raised the spectre of the Visual Bible's Gospel of Mark film. For those unaware a this film, it was due to be the next film by the makers of the 90s' Gospel of Matthew and Acts and 2003's Gospel of John before the latter film unfortunately came off second in a box office clash with you know what. Mark (Goodacre not the apostle) has been very good at following this story in the past - his earlier posts on the film are at this link - which had pretty much died before I even got started here.

However, an old teaser trailer for the film has resurfaced on YouTube. As Mark indicates, all that's really new is Chris Plummer voiceover (the rest is either from John or stock footage). What makes it newsworthy though is that the director of John, Philip Saville who was also lined up to direct this, has apparently responded to an email from the person who posted the trailer. He mainly confirms that the project isn't going ahead, but there's a note of hope which suggests that Saville, at least, still wants to make the project a reality. But I very much doubt it will take place under the Visual Bible label.