Will Trump's tariffs delay The Passion of the Christ sequel?

There have been rumours about a sequel to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ more or less since the film was first released in 2004. Then in 2016 The Hollywood Reporter revealed that Gibson was working on the script with Randall Wallace. There was still not much news about this in 2020 when I last wrote about the project. But stories have continued to emerge and the occasional quote has gained a bit of traction, until in March Deadline reported that the CEO Cinecittà in Rome had confirmed that filming was due to start in August 2026. (This was following on from a Joe Rogan podcast where Gibson had said he filming was due to start "next year"). [HT Peter Chattaway]

But now (once again) there's a potential fly in the ointment. Donald Trump has announced he is going to "...begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country" (sic.) not made in the United States. 

The movie industry has generally come out against the idea both in the US and around the world. The doubling of the price to make a film will leave many existing and planned project as unviable. So even if all things were equal, this would be bad news for Mel Gibson. If he is making his film in Italy he can either face said tariff, or suffer the higher costs of moving production back to the US.

But things are not equal because Gibson is one of three 80s movie stars who Trump has appointed as his "Special Ambassadors" to Hollywood (the others being Sylvester Stallone and Jon Voight). In the previous world of politics this would put Gibson in a bind: Not only would he have to lead by example and comply with this policy, but he's also have to try and sell it to others at the top of his profession. But then if values like this ever existed, they seem to have gone now. Perhaps Gibson will be allowed to skirt the rules, or be considered an exception. Or perhaps – having seen the success of The Chosen he will try and crowd-fund the film instead. Time will tell, I guess.

The trailer for Acts series Testament

About 15 months ago I met the producer for a series that was about to start filming a modern-day take on the book Acts of the Apostles for Angel studios (who had yet to split from The Chosen). It sounded like an interesting project and while I haven't posted about it here before, I've been keeping tabs on it. As with all these things these days there is A LOT of material produced during production to help raise the costs of making these things.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see the official trailer has finally been released, which you can see below.

Naturally, this expands some of the earlier footage we've seen. Overall the footage looks good, although I do wince a bit at the portrayal of the leaders. I'm not sure whether that's rational or just because recently I've been looking a lot at the portrayal of the authorities in 'historical' Jesus films. I'll reserve judgement on that until I see the series itself. 

The production values do look quite high, though it looks like it will have quite a grungy feel. It seems that it will be following the text of Acts fairly closely. I understand it's being released in time for Pentecost, so expect the odd post or two about this one soon.

Incidentally, I've grouped together here a bunch of posts I've made about different adaptations of Acts. There are few series of these for which I've covered every episode including The Living Bible (1957), Rossellini's Atti degli apostoli (1969), Anno Domini (1985) and AD: The Bible Continues (2015) although all of these are set in the past, rather than being a modernised take on the story.

-----

P.S. My friend Peter T. Chattaway has written some more extensive thoughts on the trailer at his Substack.

My interviews with The Chosen's Vanessa Benavente and Shahar Isaac

It's usually a busy few weeks for me in the run up to Easter and this year has been no exception with me trying to keep on top of three biblical dramas coming out and culminating in the same week (The animated film The King of Kings which had a strong opening weekend; Amazon Prime's series The House of David whose season finale dropped the previous week; and three instalments of The Chosen: Last Supper (season 5) which began the week before that).

As part of the build up to those releases I've been able to do some interviews, the first of which I posted on YouTube on Sunday, but I've not had a moment to share it here until just now. I got to speak to Vanessa Benavente (who plays Jesus's Mother Mary in The Chosen) and Shahar Isaac (who plays Simon Peter). Anyway, here's the video.

This is more or less the first time I've had the opportunity to interview actors, so apologies if I'm not yet at the level of Michael Parkinson / Oprah / François Truffaut. The set up threw me a bit and I need to work on how I deliver my questions, but hopefully you'll find what they had to say interesting.

I have another interview with James Arnold Taylor from The King of Kings coming shortly, so if you want more of the same, then subscribe to my channel, or keep an eye on the blog. 

The King of Kings (2025): Review

It's the busiest season of Bible films that I can remember and with The Chosen's latest cinematic instalment hitting number 2 in the US box office on its opening night, it's perhaps not surprising that other retellings of the Jesus story are also hoping to find an audience in the run up to Easter.

One such offering is The King of Kings, a 3D-animated film distributed by Angel Studios, the team formerly associated with earlier seasons of The Chosen. Officially it doesn't open in the UK until Friday (11th), but due, I imagine, to differing Easter holiday dates over here, many places are screening it from Monday, and on a similar number of screens to its better-known competitor.

While Angel are distributing it, it's been produced by Mofac studios and the creative team behind the film is South Korean, led by writer-director Seong-ho Jang. Up to now, he's been best known as a visual effects expert having established himself working with Park Chan-wook on Boksuneun naui geot (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, 2002). Given the current strength of Korean cinema in general at the moment, and the fact that over 30% of South Korea identify as Christian, in some senses it's only a surprise that this appears to be the first major Korean adaptation of the Gospels.

But that's if it can be considered an adaptation of the Gospels, because in many ways the film is an adaptation of a book by Charles Dickens "The Life of Our Lord" a work written in the late 1840s, but not published until 1934 upon the death of his last surviving child. To strengthen the association with the book, the opening scenes actually begin in 1840s London with Dickens on stage while trying to handle his feisty son Walter (voiced by Roman Griffin Davis). There will be a certain irony, happening up and down the country as parents in the flip-seats wrestle with their similarly-super-active children in an effort to get them to watch Dickens doing likewise.

Anyway, to placate his son, and finish the show before he entirely loses his audience, Dickens promises Walter to read him the story he's been writing about Jesus, but knowing Walter's predilection for King Arthur, he draws him in by telling him it's a story about the king of kings. And so that evening Walter,  Charles (Kenneth Branagh) his wife Catherine (Uma Thurman) sit down for its first reading and the action moves to first century Judea. Bethlehem first, to be precise. 

From then on, we occasionally flip back and forth to The Dickens family in a fashion which will be very familiar to anyone who's seen The Princess Bride, but most of the action centres on Jesus. There are however some interesting moments when the animation places Walter himself in the Jesus scenes, as a way of showing Walter's immersion in the story. It's a quirky way to do things, but I do like this in a way, not least because it reminds us of the gap between the story we have, and the events themselves. It's a way of breaking the fourth wall, I suppose.

What follows is a rapid fire trip through the main stories of the Gospels. It's been a quarter of a century since the last time an animated version of whole Jesus story made it to UK cinema screens,* but that film – The Miracle Maker – also opted for covering a lot of stories at a good pace. I plan to write a scene guide for The King of Kings so I can compare it to the Miracle Maker scene guide I created way back in 2006. 

Another interesting point of comparison, though, is with Dickens's book itself. I've only given "The Life of Our Lord" a quick look over, just to confirm that Seongho Jang's film broadly corresponds to the contours of the novel, but my friend Peter Chattaway told me in private correspondence that the specific content of the film's Jesus material diverges quite significantly from the book "you could almost argue that the film is a direct adaptation of the gospels that happens to use Dickens and his son as a storytelling device, without being *particularly* based on Dickens' book itself".

The stories that Branagh selects do form a fairly recognisable pattern. We get a nativity scene and naturally Jesus' escapades in the temple as a boy are included as it's the easiest story to relate to both for Walter (as a young boy) and the primary target audience in the cinema (or eventually streaming, I presume). There are a number of miracles – I counted nine prior to the resurrection – but only a bit of teaching before Jesus turns towards Jerusalem and is executed. 

There's a certain irony that Jesus is regularly called "Great Teacher" and yet so little of his teaching features. That's not really a criticism as this is a film squarely aimed at children. That puts a squeeze on running time and is hardly the right context for a pressing examination of Jesus' ethics. That said a few parables and the occasional famous saying might have fitted nicely. Given that, it's therefore interesting to see Jesus' message played out instead in the quotes from Dickens' A Christmas Carol as the end credits roll.

Nevertheless, this does point towards the film's presentation of Jesus. One of the key components of this, is the idea that he is exciting. This not only comes across in the way Dickens entices his son into the story in the first place, but also in how he describes Jesus. At one point he tells Walter that the King Arthur stores he adores are "based on this story". This is also reflected in the way the films opts for the more spectacular miracles. Just in terms of the medium of film, calming the sea, raising the dead etc., of course, make for good cinema, but they also make Jesus exciting in a way that perhaps the filmmakers are hoping will cut across prevailing ideas.

That leads on to the second element of the film's message: the importance of these miracles and their link to faith. At one point Dickens even summarises the purpose of Jesus' signs saying "they were miracles to  prove the power of faith". Following the feeding of the 5000 we hear "I think you're here because I fed you and you want more". 

There's a third aspect here as well, because occasionally the film parallels Jesus with Dickens himself, such as a rather protracted scene where Walter loses his cat. There are a few times where the camera cuts from Dickens to Jesus with the two men in identical poses (or vice versa), perhaps as if to convey the similarities between Jesus and a good parent. Perhaps it veers a little too far towards "My dad's a bit like Jesus", but that's a bit of a nitpick.

One thing I did find troubling, though, was the way the film portrayed Jewish involvement in Jesus' death. Someday, I will write up a detailed argument about this (beyond that which I wrote in my book), but essentially it would have been so clear to the Gospels' original audiences that Rome was the utterly dominant power that they didn't feel the need to really emphasise that: Jesus was executed by Rome on a Roman cross. Certain Jewish people are blamed in the Gospels for having some involvement with Jesus' arrest, but an overemphasis on this in the intervening years led to growing anti-Jewish sentiment and then into repeated violence by Christians against Jewish people. So how these events are treated really matters.

Unfortunately, the film leans far more into the idea that Jesus' fellow Jews were responsible for his death than the idea that the Romans were. The Romans are barely involved or shown until Jesus is dragged before Pontius Pilate, who is reluctant to allow Jesus to be killed, but gives in to the huge mob that has assembled in his courtyard.

In contrast, Jewish leaders frequently meet in darkened rooms to subversively plot against Jesus. Not only are they costumed far more religiously than Jesus and his disciples (we have little evidence as to what a Pharisees every day clothing was, but there's little reason to think it was much different from Jesus' clothing) but also some of the leading characters such as Caiaphas, for example, are caricatured in a fashion that draws on negative historic stereotypes of Jews ('hooked' noses for example). Of course, the story is being told by Dickens, whose own portrayal of Jewish characters was itself stereotyped and troubling at times, but I don't get the impression that this level of depth is what the filmmakers are exploring here. Perhaps, given the film's South Korean origins, these aspects of telling the story of Jesus' death are just not on the radar as much as they ought to be, and of course most western filmmakers fall foul of these issues too.

The appearance of the Jewish characters is not helped by the filmmakers adopting an extremely caricatured style of animation. It's obviously an artistic decision not to use life-like representations of the characters, but to go for a bolder more evocative style, and films such as Up (2009), Song of the Sea (2014) and Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl (2024) have all been successful, both commercially and creatively, by doing so. To some degree this is about personal taste and the overall style of animation that was used here didn't really appeal to me, but if you've seen the trailer you will know what to expect and you can make your decision on that accordingly.

That said, at times the animation is impressive. Perhaps as you might expect from a visual effects expert like Seong-ho Jang, some of the film's more spectacular moments are given a real boost by being able to draw on computer animation in this fashion. The scene where Jesus walks on water, and at the moment of Jesus' death are both able to 'move the camera' in a way that would be virtually impossible without CGI. Similarly the scene depicting Jesus' temptation is enabled to flow far more naturally than I can recall in any treatments of these passages by the way the scenery moves and morphs in the background.

There are also a few moments where 2D animation is put to excellent use. As part of Dickens setting the scene for Walter, he tells him about Moses and the Red Sea and the switch to a totally different style  of animation here really works and looks fantastic. Later, as Jesus wrestles with his emotions in the Garden of Gethsemane, there's another flashback to another Garden, Eden, and Seong-ho Jang opts again for a two-dimensional style, perfectly recreating Gustave Doré's "The Expulsion from the Garden of Eden" (1866). As an aside there's another reference to another biblical portrayal which I enjoyed. When Jesus heals someone's sight we see his face as their vision returns to them, through their eyes, as with the earlier silent film that shares its title with this film, Ceci B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927).†

One other interesting element of the film's use of the camera is the number of shots taken from a low angle. This, obviously, emphasises that these stories are being seen from the angle of a child. This does give these moments quite a different feel. It's not uncommon for characters to look up a little bit at Jesus in Jesus films. It suggests awe, or perhaps respect and admiration, and quite a few Jesus films employ a God-shot at crucial moments, but these ultra low angles really do give a sense fo the story being told from a fresh perspective.

As you might expect from a voice-cast that includes bona fide movie stars in their own right like Oscar Isaac (Jesus), Pierce Brosnan (Pontius Pilate), Mark Hamill (Herod), Ben Kingsley (Caiaphas) and Forest Whitaker (Peter) as well as experienced, proven, old-pro voice actors such as Jim Cummings and James Arnold Taylor in multiple roles, the vocal work is excellent in this film and it does a great job of compressing a large amount of material into a necessarily short running time. While the Dickensian book-ending device does eat into that running time, it makes up for it by allowing Branagh to explain the characters' motives at various points, without that feeling forced.

Overall I think how you react to the film will largely depend on how you (and any children who you'll be watching it with) feel about the style of its animation. That said, even as someone who didn't particularly appreciate that style, there were certainly a lot of interesting aspects to it and the way in which it introduces so many parts of the Gospels in such a short time is a strength. Moreover, the cast is excellent and there are some great visual effects to be enjoyed.

The King of Kings will be in UK and Irish cinemas from the 11th April – for more information and to book your tickets visit
www.thekingofkingsfilm.com

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

*There was, of course Sony's The Star (2017), but this only told the Nativity stories.
†There were a couple of other connections with Jesus movies I spotted, though these were either less deliberate or at least more incidental. Firstly, at one point Dickens calls his tale "The greatest story about the greatest king ever" which felt like a reference to The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965). Maybe that's a bit of a stretch. Secondly, the headscarves worn by some of the Pharisees and Chief Priests (who are actually differentiated in this film) have a very similar design to those in Jesus of Nazareth (1977) although this is hardly the first subsequent Jesus film to reproduce them. Lastly, the low angled shot of the woman accused of adultery was reminiscent of similar low-angled shots of this scene in The Passion of the Christ (2004).

House of David (2025) s1e08

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). There are some major spoilers in in what follows even though we all know the biggest one.

The difficulty for the makers of House of David is that its plot twist is arguably the best known of all time. The last 3000 years have witnessed stories, poems, paintings, sculptures, operas, plays and, more recently, movies and television series retelling a story that is referenced almost every time someone reaches for a metaphor for a little person/team/organisation taking on a big person/team/organisation. So while on the one hand adapting the story for the streaming age seems an enticing proposition, the challenge for this episode and, I suppose, the whole series is to fashion engaging drama out of everything that happens before that fateful moment.

At the end of the last episode, itself part 1 of a two episode finale, David, Mychal and Merab are all en route to the battle field where Saul, Avner, David's brothers and thousands of other Israelites have set up camp. Facing them is Goliath, the five Philistine kings and their army. But Jonathan and group of mercenaries are sneaking towards the Philistine camp in the hope of slaying Goliath while he sleeps.

Of course Jonathan's efforts fail miserably, thanks to a turncoat among his men who's received a better offer. It's actually this moment that provides the episode's best action sequence, as Jonathan, rather optimistically, tries to fight the whole Philistine camp single-handedly. No wonder he and David are going to be friends. The Philistines, who have tired of waiting for Israel to send someone out to fight their champion, begin to enact the second phase of their attack.

Having spared Jonathan, but killed his mercenaries. the Philistines first task is to pick off the Tribe of Zebulun, who decided at the end of the last episode to retreat home rather than stay and fight. As they trudge through a steep sided valley at night, Philistine archers appear on either side and pick off the tribe's army with flaming arrows. As far as I'm aware there's no real precedence for Zebulun – a largely unremarkable tribe descended from a not particularly remarkable patriarch – leaving the field early or suffering a significant military defeat aside from the other 12 tribes. Indeed Zebulun are not mentioned in either of the Books of Samuel. It does make for a spectacular scene though, with the arrows arching across the night sky and the fire from Zebulun's torches spreading as its army is gradually snuffed out.

Meanwhile Avner is also trying to put out a few fires, albeit more metaphorical ones. Saul's mental state means he's largely unaware of the problems he's facing, but not only has Zebulun left / been massacred and Jonathan has been captured, but now Adriel suggests he takes over if Saul is not fit to lead. Meanwhile, and unbeknownst to all of them Eshbaal (Saul's eldest son) has returned to Saul's palace to assume the crown.

Mychal and Merab's arrival at the camp works to restore their father and his spirits are further lifted when David arrives. David's fury at the lethargy and fear in the Israelite camp; his sense of Samuel's anointing and words of advice; and his surefooted confidence in God (they seem to have stopped using the name 'Hashem' in this episode) mean he puts himself forward to tackle the giant. An argument with his brothers, an unsuccessful armour fitting and a quick snog with Mychal later he's dashing on to the battlefield and we're back at the start of the first episode.

When we finally get back to it, the famous fight scene is handled pretty well. Martyn Ford's acting as Goliath has been on the weak side all series, and seems particularly exposed here. And the moment where the fight scene cut-off in episode 1, with David pinned to the ground by one of Goliath's spears, is milked a little too thoroughly. Otherwise, it's good scene. There's a nice wide shot with Goliath towering at the left hand side of the screen, with David on the far right. Samuel shows up on the ground high above the valley to add a sense of reassurance that things are going to go to plan. There's a nice slow motion shot as David dodges yet another spear while managing to fire off the celebrated shot, and a pause between Goliath getting hit (and the injury not being immediately apparent) and him finally falling. And then the Israelites charge forward while the Philistines fall into disarray.

The decision not to even get to the end of the battle is an interesting one. Now that the show has been given a second season, it will work really well with the structure of the next season: interest and familiar territory at the start, David getting to finally marry Mychal all of which can be going on while the story for the rest of the series is being developed. This matters because season 2 will inevitably be very different to this one. Here the audience has been drawn in by the familiarity of the well-known story bt that has presented a challenge in making it interesting. In contrast, season two will rely on having built up a committed audience and having developed the characters. The stories are less well-known, but handled competently there is plenty of material to make a great series. This season has been reasonably good – this final episode in some ways typifies the series as a whole – but much of how House of David is remembered will depend on subsequent seasons and the team's ability to get the pacing and structure right when it's down to a series of smaller decisions, rather than one major one as with these initial eight episodes. But certainly House of David has the potential material to make it work, has set good foundations to drive things forward and has now built a supportive a audience willing for it to succeed.

The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 1 [s5e01] (2025)

Image Credit: 5&2 Studios. See all my The Chosen posts here.

The arrival of The Chosen: Last Supper in cinemas will mean different things to different people. On the one hand there are the fans of the show, who have followed Jesus, his followers, and indeed his enemies, through four seasons and a couple of Christmas specials. Many have watched those episodes multiple times and the chance to see their favourite show on the big screen is something for which they’ve been waiting for quite some time. It’s almost a celebration of what the show has achieved. Or validation, having started all those years ago as a relatively unknown, crowd-funded venture now pulling up a chair to the table in the high temple of entertainment.

Yet its arrival in cinemas also puts it into a different bracket. To others, it’s just a film. Among its audience of enthusiastic Christians, there will be those who have no idea about The Chosen. They might be there as invited friends. Or as those who’ve heard the hype and are interested to see what is drawing in 250 million viewers. Or they might be fans of historical cinema, curious atheists, or simply people who are bored with nothing better to do. What might The Chosen mean to them?

I’m fascinated by this juxtaposition, because attracting that latter group seems to be, at least in part, the aim of the show's creators. Yes, given the show was being filmed anyway, it will also raise some money; money which Dallas Jenkins – The Chosen’s showrunner – has always been clear, will be ploughed back into making the remaining two seasons (and perhaps, beyond it, other entries in The Chosen universe). But Jenkins has always been equally clear about his evangelical beliefs and his desire to spread the message of Jesus. As I’ve heard him say more than once “I believe that if you can see Jesus through the eyes of those that actually met him you can be changed and impacted in the same way they were”.¹

So I want to look at the film from two angles, how does this cinematic presentation work as part of the show, and how does it work as a stand alone experience for people who are unfamiliar with the show and might only have a passing familiarity with the Gospels? I’m conscious of potential spoilers, but given the source material is nearly 2000 years old I’ll happily discuss things in the New Testament, as well as obvious things from the publicity, but I’ll exclude things from the world of the show that might spoil the experience for fans – particularly in the UK we still have another two weeks to go before it arrives in cinemas.

In this article I’ll start with the question of how The Chosen: Last Supper works as part of the show.I’ll return to that second question in a later post.

At the end of season 4 Jesus and his followers have just arrived outside Jerusalem with the scene set for Palm Sunday, but that’s not quite where the series starts. If you’ve been curious, like I was, as to how “The Last Supper” made sense as a title when the Last Supper was scheduled to be the last event covered by the series then the answer is 'flashforwards'. 

Both episodes that make up “part 1” (effectively s5e01 and s5e02) start at the Last Supper. Jesus and his disciples sit in the upper room. He quotes at some length from the account in John’s Gospel and its lengthy speech by Jesus. The layout of the table at the Last Supper in Jesus movies is much discussed, from those seeking to echo Leonardo’s favourite painting, to those seeking to subvert it, such as Nicholas Ray’s Y-shaped table in King of Kings (1961).

Jenkins himself got the ball rolling on this one, way back in July, proudly posting the show’s composition in the midst of the furore around the Olympics Opening Ceremony. It’s been reignited by the show’s arrival in cinemas, people liking it /disliking it for its similarity / dissimilarity from (and let's remind ourselves) an old painting based, at best, on earlier carvings of this scene. Anyway, I’m keener on this composition than I was at first. It both nods to the tradition / iconographic but also works on a practical level (for a large group eating together, but still wanting to chat) and also a cinematic one allowing Jesus to be the centre and unencumbered by people in the way. Also the lighting here is beautiful and getting lighting this low to work is a significant challenge from a technical point of view. 

The use of the flashes forwards at the start of both episodes (and possibly each episode in the series) is a brilliant way to solve a number of issues the series might have had. The most obvious of which is that Jesus’ speech in John is very long, in places quite dense and obscure, and frankly a bit boring. Presented in linear fashion, it doesn’t make for good cinema, as anyone who has sat through it in 2003’s The Gospel of John can testify. By breaking it up and using each segment as a way into the episode it not only makes the speech digestible, but makes it more relevant. There are probably those who will hate it for precisely those reasons, but there we go.

When this particular flash-forward comes to an end we are back outside the walls of Jerusalem again with Jesus sat astride a donkey heading towards Jerusalem. But before they get too close they are stopped by three Pharisees, one of whom is Yussif still sitting on the fence and nervous about publicly supporting Jesus.² They warn Jesus about entering into Jerusalem in that way and about their concerns about how the Romans will respond to it.

This again ties in with the much underappreciated verse Luke 13:32 where the Pharisees warn Jesus his life is in danger. I do think this is a critical scene, because, aside from Yussif there are now reasonable portrayals of Pharisees who are not frothing at the mouth because of his blasphemy. They disagree with him perhaps, but reasonably, and they certainly don’t want Rome to harm him. I was interested to come across a recent quote from Jenkins that says “Jesus was actually probably a Pharisee”.³ While that’s certainly contestable it’s increasingly one of the frames I approach the gospel stories through. What if this was all inter-family debate? I do wonder if Jenkins has shifted to this position as the series has progressed.

Jesus and the disciples carry on, unperturbed. The triumphal entry is also quite interesting, because the crowds welcoming Jesus are big, but not that big. “Over a million people are here” someone says later on. Josephus, somewhat prone to exaggeration, recalls there being 3 million in Jerusalem for the Passover in 66 AD (Wars, book II, 14:3) so that’s not unreasonable. There’s nothing like that many here, more like the 5000 we saw in series 3. Later someone comments that this is “double the number of pilgrims” there were last year, with the implication being that this increase is due to the news about Jesus.

The scene also seems to tip its hat to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973). It’s one of the few moments I recall the show using distorted electric guitars on the soundtrack, and here they have that relatively early distortion effect that was popular in the early 1970s. Moreover, part way through this moment, we also see Jesus’ mood change suddenly from relaxed and smiley to a bit more serious and perhaps concerned, something that also happens during this moment in Superstar.

Once inside, with the sounds of the crowd shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David” ringing in their ears, Jesus and his disciples eventually make their way in front of the clouds and we get one moment (that I shan’t spoil) that I can only really recall happening in one other Jesus film before, and even then it might have been narrated rather than shown more literally and discussed as happens here. The sets inside Jerusalem, particularly the huge one for the outer courts of the temple are really impressive. I can’t attest to their accuracy, but regardless it's an impressive feat.

As ever with The Chosen what is happening with Jesus and his disciples is only part of the story and here we’re treated to a meeting between Pontius Pilate and Joseph ben Caiaphas. There’s a deal of pageantry and ceremony to their meeting. Caiaphas is there to collect his ceremonial robes which he is only allowed access to on special occasions, and Pilate loves to taunt him, but he also knows the rules that the high priest lives by. Whether this school-bully type relationship is a fair equivalent of the power dynamics we can’t really be sure. Certainly Pilate had the power and what influence Caiaphas had (“... to the extent I have any control” he says at one point) derived to a significant extent from the position he had been given by Pilate’s predecessor. 

The other significant event to happen in the first section/episode here is that Jesus heads out during the evening undercover to sample the mood of the crowds. It’s nice to see a mix of ethnicities among the extras here, Acts of the Apostles after all lists a whole range of nationalities who were present in Jerusalem for Pentecost. 

Jesus is enjoying the festival atmosphere, he even gets dragged into dancing at one point. There’s something that rings true in Jesus getting distracted and caught up in someone else’s happiness for a moment and his joyful soul bubbling up. But then his shawl falls off his head and suddenly everyone recognises him and the moment is gone. 

Personally, I find Jesus’ response then a little weird. Returning to their accommodation for the week he asks Zebedee to take his mother back to Lazarus’ house. He doesn’t want her around for the next few days while he goes through what he needs to. But then he takes out the bridle that Joseph gave him in s3e03 – an heirloom that had been passed down since the exodus – and starts to fashion bits of it and fix them onto a whip he seems to have specifically brought with him.

Frankly, I was already finding the publicity’s fascination with this whip a little odd. It’s something only mentioned in John’s account of Jesus turning over tables in the temple, not in the synoptics. Yet it seemed to be one of the most prominent elements in the build up to the show with some seemingly getting quite excited at the prospect.⁴ The screen time devoted to this scene and its prominence (immediately before closing credits at the end of episode 1) just seem a little over-emphasised, as if they relish the idea of Jesus’ violence a little too much.

The turning of the tables scene itself occurs at the end of the second ‘episode’ and, again, it seems over-focused on the whip (not to mention Jesus’ exemplary whipping skills). Aside from his opening speech at the start of the 'episode', Jesus barely appears in this episode. That’s not something uncommon for the show, but again it raises a few questions. What was Jesus up to? Has he been pondering this action all day? Why wasn’t he making the most of his last day with the disciples? And in a clever way, it draws attention to the fact that there is so much the Gospels that we just don’t know, even in the most important week of Jesus’ life there are significant gaps. I’m reminded of that C.S.Lewis quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe “He’s not a tame lion you know”.

However, Jesus’ motives for his attack are made a little clearer by what some of his followers encounter during the day. Some of Jesus’ gentile followers who we have got know over the series now want to make sacrifices and so they try to exchange money and buy animals for a sacrifice. The disciples make it clear there is an extensive markup and that proves to be the case. That said, Tamar meets a fellow African store-holder who lets her have the animals she needs for free.

There are other potential triggers for Jesus’ actions. Zebedee and John try to bring their oil to the inner parts of the temple and in doing so they meet Malchus. Those who know the Gospels will recognise his name as the servant of the high priest who gets his ear cut-off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Again, he’s one of the characters who rarely gets a back story, and again The Chosen does a great job of crafting him as a three-dimensional person. John can’t accompany his father into the inner section of the temple buildings, due to him not being sufficiently pure (the implication being he’s had a nocturnal emission) and neither can Malchus, so the two men bond while they wait. From this, his sense of humour and the way he’s dressed more similarly to the disciples (and us) than the Pharisees and priests it does seem like he will eventually become a believer. The fact that he’s named in the Gospels perhaps also suggests that, but I wish the costuming didn’t suggest good Jews and bad Jews in this fashion. There are exceptions in The Chosen, Yussif wears a Pharisees headgear, but even then it’s only some of the time and he has the least imposing head gear of any person in religious dress in the show. 

Still, the question for me remains as to why Jesus acts in quite such an extreme way. For me the reasons the show presents us with, particularly these episodes don’t quite add up. The overcharging is bad, but is it that bad that it brings about such a violent swing in personality? Is Jesus even that concerned with the temple system? And are those who are invested in it doing that much more than following what has always been their people’s custom relating back to what’s revealed in the Hebrew Bible?

I’m aware of the theological answers that are often given to those questions, and that many historians consider this was the action of Jesus that got him killed. My question, though, is whether the show does enough to really explain its protagonist's drastic change of mood? The kind, loving patient, gentle (if also determined, focused and steely) persona developed in the previous four seasons is turned over so suddenly. And the whip, passed on from father to son going all the way back to the time of Moses, as if destined to be used for this? Yes, John's text has Jesus say “zeal for your house consumes me” but the show doesn’t really give enough motive, other than, I guess its own supersessionism. Perhaps the producers' also see something of themselves here, a desire to pop up in Hollywood's temple and tip over a few tables themselves.

There are a few other problems with these two episode, many of which are traits of The Chosen as a whole: the occasional burst of expository-laden dialogue; the idea that people really far away can still hear what you’re saying; the disciples having a hugely impressive ability to interpret any minor inflection of something Jesus does that relates to previously obscure bits of the Hebrew Bible, but miss the most obvious elements of what Jesus says.⁵ But it feels like the way show has built up this moment of confrontation, but not really explained it through character and drama is a significant flaw. Perhaps parts two and three may backfill some of these spaces.

For fans of the show, though, even if this bothers them, few will be put off. The show has been consistent enough to merit giving it the benefit of the doubt.⁶ And there is plenty to appreciate in this part of the saga, including the opportunity to see those sets, those crowds on the big screen and consistently good performances. In terms of the series as a whole, things are left at an interesting juncture. There’s quite a lot of Jesus’ words still to get through, including the Olivet discourse; the odd fig-tree to curse; the people’s reaction to Jesus’ actions in the temple; and of course Judas’ betrayal. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the season balances these various elements from here.

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

1 - “Why THE CHOSEN was Created and How God Made It Possible” Praise on TBN -Matt Crouch YouTube Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecaT5_As1Gs

2 - This seems to be Joseph of Arimathea, which may have been confirmed in season 4, but I’ve not yet seen it.

3 -  Rich Tenorio, “Just in time for Passover, Jesus biopic ‘The Chosen’ premieres Season 5 in US cinemas” Times of Israel 28/03/2025 - https://www.timesofisrael.com/just-in-time-for-passover-jesus-biopic-the-chosen-premieres-season-5-in-us-cinemas/#:~:text=“Jesus was actually probably a Pharisee

4 - See for example this post and the responses to it - https://www.facebook.com/InsideTheChosen/photos/its-a-bit-more-like-chopped-or-hells-kitchen-than-chefs-kiss-but-yes-jesus-is-fe/1199537415072006/ 

5 - To be clear, the latter is a key element of Mark and to a slightly lesser extent the other synoptics, and to a certain extent John too, but it’s the way someone always catches the subtle things that Jesus does, even when they don’t really fit the specifics of the context when you look at them carefully that has eventually become a little jarring.

6 - As mentioned above I’ll cover how those less familiar with The Chosen might react in a separate post. 

House of David (2025) s1e07

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

The penultimate episode of House of David's first season sees the stage being set for arguably the most famous fight in history. Goliath enraged by Doeg's murder of his mother unites the Philistines and heads up their army in a bid to defeat the Israelites. Saul, bolstered by past victories is confident Israel can overcome, until he spies Goliath.

The, um, big reveal, is a really nicely put together. One by one the kings of the four other groups of Philistines, ride forward and defiantly thrust their standards into the ground. Then there's a pause. Saul sees it as a good sign -- the Philistines are not even united. But we all know what, or rather who, is coming and it's not good news for Saul.

But that's not the only reason that Saul's confidence is misplaced. As viewers we already know Saul's mental health is making him unstable. He could slip at any moment and his grasp on his kingdom with it. We discover another issue for Saul in this episode though as well: he has never been that much of a confident fighter. Moments before going out to face the Philistines, he has a quiet word with Avner and has to beg him to give him a pep talk, just as Avner did in the past. He needs Avner to tell him what a great warrior he is before he can perform on the battlefield.

Naturally, the moment Saul spies Goliath his confidence, and his sanity evaporate. He falls from his horse and his crown portentously falls from his head onto the floor. This is not the moment of losing his kingdom which he has been haunted by, but the audience is privy to his inner world and it feels to Saul like that moment has come to pass.

The other major setting for this episode is back on Jesse's farm in Judah. David is now alone with his father and angry about his dad's reticence to explain why he won't let him fight. And then Samuel turns up, has a heart to heart alone with each of them and then leaves them so that they can reconcile. I won't spoil the details of why Jesse has been acting the way he has, but I don't imagine it will come as a great surprise to many. By the end of the episode David is heading off to the battlefront to bring supplies to his brother. Perhaps the most significant of Samuel's words, here, are that Hashem (God) chose David because of his passionate, free-spirited heart -- one that reflects Hashem's own. 

A couple of other moments of note in this episode. Firstly, as Saul flees back to his tent he makes some rash promises about how he would reward anyone willing to fight Goliath and, as per 1 Sam 17:25, includes the hand of his daughter in the list of potential prizes. In the Bible David and Mychal have not yet met, but here we know that they are already sweet on each other. As if David wasn't fired up enough it looks like there might be a way for him to be with Mychal after all.

Speaking of Mychal, when she hears of Goliath and her father's relapse she, in a deft pairing with David, realises she must do something despite a reluctant parent. Here, Mychal's mother has given up all hope in Hashem taking action to save Saul. She only seems to have faith in witchcraft, and not even much of that. So Mychal secretly heads off to the battlefield to support her dad as best she can, bringing along Merab for moral support and company.

I imagine she's also hoping to support Jonathan, but by the time she arrives he'll be long gone. Remembering Jonathan's earlier guerrilla victory against the Philistines (1 Sam 14) he again finds an elite group of champion mercenary warriors from the surrounding nations who will ride with him to find a way to slay Goliath off the battlefield. Given we more or less know how the David vs Goliath confrontation will pan out, this is the most intriguing part of the story. Will Jonathan's elite team have any bearing on the battle, or will they become another failure of the established dynasty to protect Israel. Next week's season finale should be a good one.  

The King of Kings (2025): A Korean, Animated, Jesus Movie

It's a busy time of year for Bible films and this is even more true this year than normal. One that has caught my eye is the animated film The King of Kings which will be in cinemas from the 11th April 2025 (in the UK, the USA, Ireland and Canada at least).

In many English-speaking parts of the world it's being distributed by Angel Studios (who were involved in the early stages of The Chosen) but it was actually produced by the Mofac company from South Korea and its director/writer Seong-ho Jang is also from South Korea, as is, I believe, cinematographer Woo-hyung Kim.

This is exciting for me because when I was writing "100 Bible Films" I had really hoped to include a Korean Bible film as I know there is a strong Christian Community over there, but I wasn't able to track one down. This was a shame because a key part of what I tried to do with that book was cover cinematic version of the Bible from around the world not just America and Europe.

Anyway, I'm hoping to get the chance to interview Seong-ho Jang in due course.

The English language version of the film has a stellar cast, Oscar Isaac as Jesus, Pierce Brosnan (Pontius Pilate), Mark Hamill (Herod), Ben Kingsley (Caiaphas), Forest Whitaker (Peter) as well as some great voice actors such as Jim Cummings and James Arnold Taylor in multiple roles. 

Two other big stars rounding out the cast are Kenneth Branagh and Uma Thurman playing Charles Dickens and his wife Catherine. If that causes you to do a double take then allow me to clear things up! The movie is actually an adaptation of Dickens private retelling of the life of Christ "The Life of Our Lord" and if frames the subject with footage of Charles and Catherine as they tell the story to their son Walter (Roman Griffin Davis). The story was only published in 1934 after not only Dickens but also the last of his children had died. It's an interesting approach and I'm looking forward to reviewing it in due course. I'm also hoping to share an interview with James Arnold Taylor who plays at least six characters in the film including the 12-year old Jesus and a quarter of the disciples.

House of David (2025) s1e06

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

Good news for House of David fans this week: Amazon Prime have confirmed that the show will be given a second series, according to a Facebook post on the show's official page. I'm pleased about this. It seems fairly clear now that the present season is only going to get to just after David slays Goliath. That means there's an awful lot of the story of David's life still to go (not to mention the fact that with the title being House of David it could go on into the reigns of Solomon right through to Zedekiah. I suspect it won't last that long. Nevertheless, it's could to have at least one more season.

Episode 6, Giants Awakened starts right back in Genesis 6:1-4 with the account of the Nephilim and how giants came to be on the earth. These scenes are narrated and shot in a different style to the rest of the programme, more similar in feel to the narrated opening of episode 1 and return the show to that more mythical fantasy genre-feel that the show launched with. It's apt, I suppose as this episode is going to be primarily about how come Goliath came to be on that battlefield in the Valley of Elah.

But before we get too far into that we switch to Saul's court again. He's even more troubled now, so much so that David has played his harp until his fingers are bleeding. This is presented as an insight into Saul's character (and to an extent it is) but it also gives us a glimpse into David's soul as well. He's far tougher, more determined and steely than he looks, particularly when he believes he's undertaking what he thinks his god is calling him to do. Saul however is concerned partly because he's mistaking David for Jonathan. For a while he talks to David as if he knows he's going to be king, only for his mix-up to gradually become clear. David's also having issues controlling his feelings for Mychal, not least after she tells him she knows about him being illegitimate, but he has now also declared his love for her. He keeps putting himself at risk like this so eventually he leaves the palace and returns home. Surprisingly Jesse is pleased to see him.

Jonathan has his own issues. His warnings to his father about the possibility of giants fall on deaf ears and then Saul's sorceress tells him he will never be king, so he decides to try and track down Samuel. Jonathan eventually finds him camping out on Mount Sinai with his wife. The two fight intially, as Samuel fails to recognise the heir to the throne -- the veteran doing a remarkable job fighting with such a seasoned warrior. Jonathan also has the vision of the deaths of he and his father, that Saul has had already. Samuel confirms that he has anointed another, "a king whose reign will know no end" a reference not only to DAvid, but also to Jesus.

But back to Goliath. King Achish makes a formal offer to Goliath and his brothers to join him which looks set to go ahead until Goliath's mother refuses his terms. When Achish says he can enable them to live like Kimgs, she responds "Kings? They are already gods!" Terms are refused and Goliath has to quit chucking Achish's soldiers around for fun and go back to their cave.

Goliath though is not happy with the decision. Then Deog the Edomite (Ashraf Barhom) stabs Goliath's mother leaving his Hebrew-style dagger in her chest and saying he's from the House of Saul, leaving her just enough breath to be able to pass that information onto her distraught son. He decides to throw his lot in the Philistines and soon their army is marching towards the Valley of Elah for a showdown, while Goliath casually kills a handful of unfortunate camping Hebrews en route.

This episode felt a little slow, and didn't cover much actual biblical material. That's not really a complaint, more of an observation. This episode has certainly set things up nicely for the double-episode season finale.

Mark Goodacre on The Last Supper [This is the 2025 film NOT The Chosen: Last Supper]

There's a such a lot of attention on The Chosen: Last Supper (as the special cinematic release of episodes 1 and 2 of The Chosen have been called), that I'd missed the fact that another, evangelical / faith-based Jesus film is showing in cinemas at the moment. At least it is in the US. I'm not sure we will get the opportunity over here in the UK.

Anyway, my friend Prof. Mark Goodacre who has been discussing Jesus movies for even longer than I have, got to saw it yesterday and as he also runs his own podcast NT Pod, he's done a special episode reviewing it.

It will reach all the usual platforms in due course, but for now you can find it on the NT Pod page:

NT Pod 109: The Last Supper (2025)

Mark's done a few other podcasts on Jesus films before so if you some how haven't discovered his podcast before you might also like the following episodes:

NT Pod 72: Son of God Movie
NT Pod 74: Jesus The Movie (1999)
NT Pod 75: The Passion (BBC, 2008)
NT Pod 93: From Juvencus to Jesus Christ Superstar
NT Pod 101: 100 Bible Films: In Conversation with Matthew Page (me!)

House of David (2025) s1e05

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

I spent quite a bit of time in my write up of the previous episode talking about how Saul's kingdom fractured (initially) after his death, with David becoming King of Judah and Saul's son Ishboseth/Ishbaal taking over the rest of the Kingdom ("Israel") until his murder seven years into his reign. So it's notable that the writers made this episode (The Wolf and the Lion) the one where they develop that theme a little further.

Saul's mental health is still a matter of some concern, and while Queen Ahinoam, Avner and other court officials are trying to keep it under wraps, or spin the story where it comes out, it's also making Saul paranoid. He finds himself worried about the threat from Judah: he's heard rumours of an anointing and is unsure how involved Adriel (Stewart Scudamore, pictured above left), the head of the tribe of Judah, is in what may or may not have happened.

The relationship between the two men is awkward, even without Saul's mental health deteriorating. Despite his humble origins, Saul is keen to distance himself from them, playing an ancient version of the self-made man fallacy. Now he is king he sees himself as above everyone else, and perhaps the security of his position (the first king in not only a new dynasty, but a new form of government for the nation) requires this: after all if he is no different than anyone else then why should his family get to be the ruling party? Saul actively looks down on Adriel, perhaps never more than when Adriel seeks to ingratiate himself to Saul.

But Adriel is hardly an overly compliant doormat. Yes he cannot risk losing favour with his monarch, but he's also proud of being the leader of the largest Hebrew tribe, and realises this gives him a certain amount of clout. He tries to ingratiate himself to Saul, but only so far and often he offers flattery as a way to get what he wants, which might be something like a scroll from Saul's extensive precious library which demonstrates that he holds some share of the power too. Plus he's aware that as the leader of the largest tribe, Saul needs him.

So there's plenty of tension, but Saul, in one of his more lucid moments, decides to adopt the Michael Corleone position "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". He welcomes Adriel into his palace and seeks to marry one of Adriel's sons to one of his own daughters. So they hold a big speed dating event after which the most promising combination gets a special prize of getting married, like some kind of reality TV show, Married at First Sight: Ancient Israel. 

This bothers David, who properly yearns for Mychal. She is heartbroken too, but everything seems to point towards her being the one who is going to get married knows her fate. Meanwhile her elder sister actually seems to hit it off with one of Adriel's son and somehow in the midst of this Saul realises a chance to both make her happy and to forge the political alliance he needs to firm up his kingdom.

And then the demon strikes. The calm, rational Saul goes and suddenly he becomes erratic. But in case you thought I used the word "demon" metaphorically I should clarify that I didn't. Because suddenly a diabolical figure in vaguely human form appears, seemingly seen only by Saul and starts to taunt him and draw his focus (see above image).

I think the visual depiction of this demon might be the show's first major misstep. So far the series has been a mix of epic, peplum, historical drama and family intrigue. This sudden use of horror tropes feels a little unwelcome. I get that it might be intended to be jarring: there are, after all, other flourishes in these scenes to help us identify with Saul's disorientation, such as the camera losing focus or reverb effects when people talk. But it doesn't feel terribly well executed. The character is hamily acted. The whitened-out eye, white blotches of face-paint and generally tatty appearance make him seem somewhat ridiculous. It's a big jump to leap from epic/family drama to horror. Even Mel Gibson, who used a variety of horror effects in The Passion of the Christ (2004), did so by starting with the conventions of the horror genre and gradually slipping into something more realistic. This is neither scary, or unnerving and it doesn't really help us identify with Saul's suffering. It's just a bit, well, silly.

On the plus side, though, most of this episode takes place in Saul's palace and it looks fantastic. I don't suspect it's particularly historical, but in this episode they do, at least, explain that before Saul it had been a Philistine palace, so that explains a little about how such an impressive structure could be built by a relatively new nomadic nation. But given that you have to admire the set design. Credit to Dimitris Ziakis and his team.

Not only is the design and the detail fantastic, but it's been created in such a way to give dramatic contrasts of light and shade. Furthermore, the design and the light is put to great effect by Simos Sarketzis's cinematography. I guess the obvious point of comparison is the kind of Baroque/Tenebrist art that is most associated with Caravaggio, and one of Caravaggio's most famous painting is his "David with the Head of Goliath". But another reference might be Rembrandt, who did a number of paintings related to David including " David Playing the Harp in front of Saul" (1630-31), "(Farewell of) David and Jonathan" (1642), "Saul and David" (1650s).

The final point I want to make on this episode is about its speed. Having covered a number of key stories in episode 3, the pace has slowed right down again. In terms of the pacing of the story, I don't mind it so much. However if, as I suspect, the series is only going to get to the battle between David and Goliath, then that leaves an awful lot of David life story still to be told. I hope that Amazon will stick with it long enough to allow it to come to a natural end, but longer-term David stories tend to get cancelled after a bit. Given the similar fates of Kings (2009) and Of Kings and Prophets (2016) then it will do well even to get commissioned for a second series, and those shows both had established actors in the cast (Ian McShane and Ray Winstone, respectfully).

That said there is hope. According to Forbes, the show has reached number 2 in Amazon Prime Video's ranking, and even in the UK when  checked my account it was at number 8. Hopefully this will justify a second season and perhaps a bit more publicity.

House of David (2025) s1e04

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

Having anointed David in episode 3, Samuel now finds himself on the run. This isn't something that is specifically mentioned in Samuel/Chronicles, but it's an interesting idea: Samuel's relationship with Saul ends dramatically after Saul's victory over King Agag and the Amalekites and Samuel's prophecy against Saul and his line. Indeed the passage ends saying "Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again" (1 Sam 15:35). Moreover, Samuel fades to the peripheries of the book that bears his name, appearing in only one other incident (1 Sam 19) before he dies unceremoniously at the start of ch.25. His final appearance is as a spirit in ch.28.

In addition to this Samuel remained a popular figure. When he dies, the text says "all Israel had mourned for him". It's reasonably likely, then, that someone so openly opposed to the king could only survive by going on the run. That said Saul also seems scared of Samuel, so perhaps he left him alone and hoped he would not stir things up further.

The idea of a prophet being on the run from his monarch have spoken truth to power in this way, also evokes another prophet from the Hebrew Bible: Elijah. I think the series will want to keep Samuel alive a little longer, for continuity purposes, so it'll be interesting to see if any more parallels are drawn between Samuel and Elijah as things continue. Samuel's fears are soon realised when his companion is murdered. He and his wife go into hiding.

Samuel is not the only one who fear's Saul's reprisal. Jesse is concerned, especially given the family's outsider status. But it's Eliav who truly realises the danger that Samuel's words have brought to David, and seeks to protect his brother. I like Eliav's portrayal in this series, he's in many ways a better father than Jesse, tough but sensitive and compassionate.

Meanwhile, David is being rapidly integrated into Saul's court. Saul's mental health is continuing to decline so his people are trying to find ways to soothe him. It's actually Queen Ahinoam who brings David in as a musician, though it's clear that Mychal has recommended him. The chemistry between them is still strong and they get a scene alone later on where Mychal reads him the words from The Song of Moses in Deut. 32. Here wish to have it made into a song soon comes true as David sets an-oldie-but-a-goodie to  a a new tune that not only impresses Mychal but also her dad, who calls it "beautiful".

Incidentally David's costume here is interesting. The blue sash over the white undergarment is something Jesus is often shown as wearing in religious art (most recently in The Chosen).

At the same time, Eshbaal, Saul's second son (apparently only 10 months younger than Jonathan) starts trying to help his father regain his popularity by suggesting a rather bread-and-circuses approach, only with less emphasis on the bread. No sooner has his suggestion been rebuffed when an elder of the tribe of Dan breaks into the throne room enraged because Eshbaal has "defiled" his daughter "Dinah"

This passage has stoked a bit of debate on the show's Facebook discussion group and there are a few different points here. Firstly, Eshbaal/Ishbaal is an alternative name for Ishbosheth, another son of Saul who briefly becomes King of Israel (but not, apparently, Judah) after Saul's death. Translations tend to choose one or the other, but there is a split with the more liberal/scholarly NRSV (and variants) going with Ishbaal and more conservative translations (KJV, NIV, ESV) going with Ish-bosheth. Given that the show seems like more of a faith-based/ evangelical film it's interesting to see it go with Eshbaal, because that version of the name is obviously some kind of acknowledgement to one of the Hebrew Bible's rival gods and its use here suggests Saul allegiance, on some level, to Baal.

It's fascinating how the Bible deals with Baal worship through the Hebrew Bible narratives. It's clear that at the time many works within it are being editing down, worship of God (Adonai or Hashem as the series prefers) is the dominant position and is in the ascendency, with God's proponents trying to exorcise worship of other gods entirely. Yet at the same time we see this tendency across hundreds of years of history. Perhaps it waxed and waned, but it's clear from the Bible that worship of Baal and other deities ran (to some degree) alongside worship of Hashem for centuries. This isn't something people are always keen to acknowledge, perhaps reflected in the translation choices, so it's interesting to see it play out here.

Another name that carries certain resonances is that of Eshbaal's victim (in the show), Dinah. For those not familiar with the murkier sections of Genesis, in the Bible Dinah is the daughter of Jacob who gets raped and has to marry her rapist, only for her brothers to kill him and massacre his tribes people (Gen 34). Some have worried this might be confusing, or just seems inappropriate, but personally I like this callback, deliberately connecting the two stories in viewers minds. I'm curious as to why they are trying to get people to recall the biblical Dinah story, though. Perhaps it's to subtly suggest that Esh-Baal has actually raped this woman. Perhaps all will become clearer as the show progresses

I also think it's great that Eshbaal is being developed as a character here because so often things are just presented as David taking over from Saul with a fairly straightforward transition, whereas that's not the case in the Bible. Ishbosheth is King of Israel for two years before David (who is simultaneously the King of Judah) takes over. There's actually a neat moment here where David & Eshbaal – unaware of their futures – pass each other on the road and acknowledge each other.

Is it significant, then, that Eshbaal is being portrayed as "the black sheep of the family", (and possibly even worse than that, a rapist). Making Eshbaal bad might make David's takeover of the northern tribes more acceptable, although David himself calls Ishbosheth "righteous" (2 Sam. 4:11) and executes his murderers, so somewhere along the line there may be some theological gymnastics. Surprisingly, there's little if any mention of any wrongdoing by Ishbosheth, in the Bible. His fate in this episode is also interesting. How will they resolve this?

House of David (2025) s1e03

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

If episode 2 was content to take it's time to build up the characters, the this third episode ("The Anointing", directed by Alexandra La Roche) is where things really get going. There are some of the key moments in this and La Roche's direction really delivers some great imagery to underline everything that's going on.

It all starts with Saul having nightmares about the fate of Jonathan. Of Samuel saying he won't be king and then a premonition of Jonathan being killed in battle. Even here there's a great moment where Saul's crown falls to the ground and he goes to pick it up, only for Samuels' staff to prevent him. Saul still half lost in his dreams throws a spear and kills a young servant. The family make up a story to fob his family off and to prevent news of Saul's madness from spreading, but they know they're in trouble.

Alternative religion

Keen to save her husband (and perhaps herself) from his demise, his wife Queen Ahinoam (Ayelet Zurer) turns to alternative spirituality. She speaks first to Abner, who we discover comes from Endor (a place whose name will be familiar to some as the place name attached to the witch Saul uses to try and contact Samuel later int he story) because his mother has been known to dabble in the dark arts. But Abner steadfastly refuses: Saul has banished religion other than worshipping the one true God.

Ahinoam, is tapping into the witch-wife archetype here, channelling other biblical wives such as Jezebel, (and perhaps Eve/Lillith) whose devotion to gods other than YHWH causes their husbands to wander from the true faith. And, of course, she soon wears down Abner. Despite his protestations that he has turned his back on all his prior association with other forms of religion, he manages to locate someone (another woman, never the men in these things!) who can help and pretty soon the three of them are indulging in a occult-cliche mishmash ceremony to undo Samuel's curse on Saul.

I'm in two minds about this scene. On the one hand we have very little idea about what actual ceremonies might have gone on in dark alleys and backrooms in ancient Israel. We know, from both archaeology and the Bible itself, that other forms of religion existed among the Hebrew people for centuries after when David was supposed to have lived. At times they were clearly rife and while the writers of Samuel-Kings and of Chronicles try and paint a world where everyone accepts that YHWH was the one true god, it's also equally clear that theirs is often a minority report: Kings keep popping p and not being faithful to God.

Yet on the other hand we do know a bit about Baal worship (and Baal is specifically cited here), but without really getting into the sources I'm not sure it looked much like this. I think this is forgivable though, because this ritual is not presented as in anyway mainstream, and it's just fictional elaboration. And seen in that light it's over-the-topness is kinda fun.

Goliath

The same could also be said about how we encounter Goliath in this episode. And, in a way (because we've only really seen him briefly in a flash-forward right at the start of episode one) this is our introduction to him. 

Tired of getting routed by King Saul and the Israelites, the five Philistine kings got together in the last episode and now we see one of them, Achish (Alexander Uloom), entering the Valley of the Giants to try and persuade the giants to join them. There are some striking visuals here. Here first as Achish and his companion stand atop the mountains before entering the Valley of the Giants, the scenery looks spectacularly rugged, huge and forbidding. Then as they approach the giants' fortress he passes a cone of skulls, perhaps a little too neat to be the handiwork of someone who rips bodies apart with his bare hands, but it's memorable nevertheless. Then the gated / walled entrance to the giants' lair which captures a little of the start of The Return of the Jedi (1983)* and then finally the moment when Achish finally meets Goliath. I was tempted for a moment then to write "comes, face to face with Goliath", but of course he doesn't because Goliath is roughly twice his height (as pictured above). There's some great lighting in this scene as well. I also kind of like the dialogue as Achish tries to enter the lair/fortress/cave, essentially if you really want to come in you can, but nobody ever really does.

The Anointing

As it happens, Achish is not the only one who is recruiting. Samuel has also heard from God and heads over to Bethlehem to visit Jesse's children. this is the first solidly biblical incident we've had for sometime, but the series has put a lot of backstory into making these scenes work. Firstly there's the way Samuel is viewed both with respect and fear. Secondly, Jesse being an outsider among the village elders because of fathering a son (David) outside of wedlock, and David being an outsider among his family, for being that son. It's an elaborate back story with little precedent in the text itself, but it does work to make the biblical story of David being left out of the original line-up make sense. Moreover, it doesn't do that by smoothing over the cracks and making everyone see heroic because they're faithful to God and in the Bible. Jesse is not, so far a good character in this. Yes the death of David's mother has hit him hard, but the show is not prepared to let him off for that and Samuel's unimpressed.

It's actually fairly rare to have a proper scene of Samuel anointing David. David's integration into the royal family is kind of awkward in the Bible. Is he brought in as a harpist to soothe Saul's moods, or as  boy dropping off lunch to his brothers who is so incensed by his people's inaction that he signs up to fight the giant? Plus also the part of the story that the filmmakers usually want to tell is elsewhere, so this disjointed start, often doesn't quite fit into a smooth story arc. Nor does the fact that David's most famous moment happens at the start of the story. So some filmmakers show the Goliath scene in flashback, or as stripped of the other part of David's origin story.

Here though, they have a whole series, which I suspect is going to end on the fight itself, which means that this season is really about how David gets onto that battlefield. Set in that context the multiple origin stories could kind of work.

Anyway, there was something about the way this episode, and indeed the programme so far, builds up towards this moment that really made me appreciate the contours of the story. David really is an outsider, he's a boy compared to his tall, warrior-king-like sovereign. The line about "man looks at outside appearance but God looks at the heart" (1 Sam 16:7) has both a spiritual resonance, but also a dramatic/literary one about the rise to prominence of someone who goes against the grain of previous post-holders. The long-overdue recognition of the person who has been rejected for so long.

The scene itself is interesting as well. Eliab as the oldest, most experienced fighter has been brought more into the spotlight by the series-makers than his siblings. We know that he, like his prince, is tough but fair. He's sometimes brusque with his kid brother, but he takes a shoulder to the arrow while trying to help him sign up. When Samuel sings his praises, it strikes me that this is how I feel about this character, to some degree at least. David's other brothers get a rather shorter shrift. Sons 2 & 3 get a mention and some suggestion that they've done OK, surviving in the army and so one. Son 4 though doesn't even get mentioned. When the camera briefly cuts to him I wonder if I've even seen him yet in this series. He looks like a cross between a male model and a Chippendale and Samuel skips past him as if he hasn't even joined the army yet as he's so busy on shooting assignments.

Anyway, by the time Samuel gets to the end of the line he realises that the one he is looking for isn't there. David is sent for and once we get to the moment we know the momentum slips a little, but this sequence did make me think, or at least, feel differently about this part of the story.

Wrapping up

There's another sub-plot that I won't go into here, but again we do see here how the show's strategy of leaving the worst of the violence to the imagination is really effective. Anyway, just as David is being anointed there's a bit of a surprise: Saul is back on his game again. While there's a hint to the viewer that perhaps he's not as well as he appears, he's now back, clothed in stately gear and striding through a crowd of his supporters in his courtroom. There are some anxious looks, but whatever Ahinoam and Abner have bought into seems to have 'worked', at least to some degree. The scene more or less ends with the above shot: Saul, on the throne, seemingly being endorsed by the light streaming through the windows. And so there's a parallel, or rather a conflict, being set up between the existing king and his chosen and anointed rival, though neither man has seriously considered their relationship to one another.

The final point I want to make is that in the original release (at least) episodes 1-3 were released together on the first night, and then one episode was release per week after that. I'm keen to know at what stage that decision was made, because the way these three episodes pan out perfectly fits that structure. At the end of this original trilogy the stage is set, we know who these characters are and how some of them think and feel and act, and groundbreaking developments have set the platform for the rest of the series. And while they are all quite good on their own, it's the way that these three quite differently-arranged episodes combine to work together, that really consolidates a good start to the season. It creates a suitable launching pad for the rest of the show as it now starts to arrive at the reduced rate of one episode per week.

==========

*There was another moment that seemed to evoke something of the original Star Wars films, but I can't remember what it was now.