tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-205283302024-03-23T17:57:37.737+00:00Bible Films BlogLooking at film interpretations of the stories in the Bible - past, present and future, as well as preparation for a future work on Straub/Huillet's <i>Moses und Aron</i> and a few bits and pieces on biblical studies.Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.comBlogger1564125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-86786689221612674752024-02-11T09:32:00.002+00:002024-02-11T10:06:14.187+00:00Which Bible Films Celebrate a Significant Anniversary in 2024?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKe44hwmMDJ-XzG33bLOSYAtzazJsYZPBHZWDOp3hlheVVXVhIJoDzl7OpVMZNhMy9sVGX2mtHFmAYiPZS9vJPcUD95HGby3sMZfISOgAPjzZJHSLyRDD72ArJnFQcCyoASUa_8Jb6AByG4plR18pJtYqKptZ5-CYDXrOAyosPn18OutoliviZA/s1280/1964%20Il%20vangelo%20Jesus.jpeg"><img border="0" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKe44hwmMDJ-XzG33bLOSYAtzazJsYZPBHZWDOp3hlheVVXVhIJoDzl7OpVMZNhMy9sVGX2mtHFmAYiPZS9vJPcUD95HGby3sMZfISOgAPjzZJHSLyRDD72ArJnFQcCyoASUa_8Jb6AByG4plR18pJtYqKptZ5-CYDXrOAyosPn18OutoliviZA/s320/1964%20Il%20vangelo%20Jesus.jpeg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;">This should really have been a start of the year post, but I'm thinking about possible screenings I could introduce or films reaching significant milestones this year that might be good to write about / talk about at festivals / discuss on podcasts etc. so I thought it would be good to create a (non-exhaustive) list of the main ones.</div><h3 style="text-align: left;">100 years (1924) </h3><i>Die Sklavenkönigin</i> (<i>The Moon of Israel</i>, Michael Curtiz)<br /><i>Quo Vadis?</i> (Gabriellino D'Annunzio & Georg Jacoby)<p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">75 years (1949)</h3><i>Samson and Delilah</i> (Cecil B. DeMille)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>70 years (1954)</b></h3><i>Day of Triumph</i> (John T. Coyle & Irving Pichel)<br /><i>Demetrius and the Gladiators</i> (Delmer Daves)<br /><i>The Silver Chalice</i> (Victor Saville)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>60 years (1964)</b></h3><i>Il vangelo secondo Matteo</i> (<i>The Gospel According to Matthew</i>, Pier Paolo Pasolini)<br /><i>Saul e David</i> (Marcello Baldi)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>50 years (1974)</b></h3><i>Moses the Lawgiver</i> (Gianfranco De Bosio)<br /><i>The Story of Jacob and Joseph</i> (Michael Cacoyannis)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>40 years (1984)</b></h3><i>Samson and Delilah</i> (Lee Philips)<br /><i>Second Time Lucky</i> (Michael Anderson)<br /><p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>35 years (1989)</b></h3>Jésus de Montréal (Denys Arcand)<br />Visons of Ecstasy (Nigel Wingrove)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>30 years (1994)</b></h3><i>Al-mohager</i> (The Emigrant, Youssef Chahine)<br />Genesis: Creation and Flood (Ermanno Olmi)<br />Jacob (Peter Hall)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>25 years (1999)</b></h3><i>La Genèse (Genesis, Cheick Oumar Sissoko)<br />Jesus</i> (Roger Young)<br /><i>Mary, Mother of Jesus</i> (Kevin Connor)<br /><i>Noah's Ark</i> (John Irvin)<p></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>20 years</b> <b>(2004)</b></h3><i>The Passion of the Christ </i>(Mel Gibson)<br /><i>Shanti Sandesham</i> (P Chandrasekhar Reddy)<br /><i>Judas</i> (Charles Robert Carner)<p></p><p><b>10 years (2014)</b><br /><i>Exodus: Gods and Kings</i> (Ridley Scott)<br /><i>Noah </i>(Daren Aronofsky) <br /><i>The Red Tent</i> (Roger Young) <br /><i>Son of God</i> (Christopher Spencer)<br /><i>The Savior</i> (Robert Savo)</p><div style="text-align: left;">I guess there are three that really stand out for me at least. Firstly, the 60th anniversary of Pasolini's <i>Il Vangelo secondo Matteo</i> (The Gospel According to Matthew, 1964). It's a film that has interested me for a long time and one I've written about both here and in print many times, particularly last year when I contributed a (extra-long) chapter on it for Ken Morefield's book "<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2023/10/film-as-expression-of-spirituality-arts.html" target="_blank">Film as an Expression of Spirituality: The Arts and Faith Top 100 Films</a>".</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Then there's the 75 year mark for Cecil B. DeMille's <i>Samson and Delilah</i> (1949) a film which really kick-started the 1950s revival of classical era historical movies in general and of biblical films in particular.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The other is the 20 year anniversary of Mel Gibson's <i>The Passion of the Christ</i> (2004). The milestone is much smaller, but the film still looms relatively large in the collective mind and has been quite significant in its impact it's had on what has come to be called "faith-based" films. The experience of that film being released was formative for me -- I learnt so much from the debates and the scholarship that surrounded the movie.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, if you're a cinema/church planning on screening any of these films; a festival organiser wanting someone to discuss them; an editor looking for an article on them; or a podcaster who'd like a knowledgeable guest to chat about them, then <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2005/09/contactme.html" target="_blank">it would be great to hear from you</a>.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Lastly, there are obviously a bunch of films I've missed off (some due to debatable dates, but are there any major ones I've not included?). </div>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-69911417585172807292024-02-04T09:40:00.007+00:002024-02-04T09:53:20.325+00:00Two new biblical shorts announced:Jael Drives the Nail and Our Child<p><img alt="Jael and Sisera (Artemisia Gentileschi)" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Giaele_e_Sisara_%28ca.1620%29_-_Artemisia_Gentileschi_%28Museum_of_Fine_Arts%2C_Budapest%29.jpg/640px-Giaele_e_Sisara_%28ca.1620%29_-_Artemisia_Gentileschi_%28Museum_of_Fine_Arts%2C_Budapest%29.jpg" style="max-width: 640px; width: 320px;" /></p><p>Two weekends ago I had the privilege of being a judge for <a href="https://www.enterthepitch.com" target="_blank">The Pitch film fund</a>, which offers production finance, support and training to filmmakers, particularly those based on stories from Bible. At stake were two opportunities to get £30,000 funding each to make their short film – one for comedy and one for drama. </p><p>This year we were spoilt for choice and so it's really exciting to know these two films will soon be made, possibly even in the next year.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><i>Jael Drives the Nail</i> <br /></h3><p>The first is <a href="https://www.maddie-dai.com/" target="_blank">Maddie Dai</a>'s <i>Jael Drives the Nail</i> a comedy that takes place in Jael's tent in the moments leading up to Sisera's death (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges 4%3A17-24&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Judges 4:17-24</a>). The story has been a long-term favourite of mine and I was so glad to be able to include the only other major treatment of – Henri Andréani's <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2019/03/jael-et-sisera-1911.html" target="_blank"><i>Jaël et Sisera</i></a> (1911) – it in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/100BibleFilms" target="_blank">my book</a>.</p><p>Dai is a New Zealand-born, London-based cartoonist, screenwriter, illustrator and filmmaker, whose <a href="https://www.maddie-dai.com/#/cartoons/" target="_blank">cartoons</a> – many of which play with religious/classical ideas – <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/maddie-dai" target="_blank">appear in "The New Yorker"</a>. As a writer she contributed to the second series of <i>Our Flag Means Death</i> (2023) and wrote the very funny short film <i><a href="https://www.showmeshorts.co.nz/2023-programme/films/ministry-of-jingle" target="_blank">Ministry of Jingle</a></i> (2023) [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23DScPs261s" target="_blank">trailer</a>] which was also her first film in the director's chair.</p><p>Dai's degree was in religious art and hopes to make a feature on the <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2013/02/judith-films.html" target="_blank">Book of Judith</a>, so expect that to influence proceedings, although The Pitch's <a href="https://www.enterthepitch.com/the-fund/current-fund/" target="_blank">announcement</a> promises a "modern dark comedic twist" on the subject, which seems to me a perfect way to approach it. I cannot wait to see the final result.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><i>Our Child</i></h3><p>I'm also excited to see <a href="https://www.anatolesloan.com/" target="_blank">Anatole Sloan</a>'s <i>Our Child</i>, a modernised take on the story of Hagar, Abraham and Sarah (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+16%2C+21&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Genesis 16 & 21</a>) relocated to modern day Hong Kong. My favourite take on this story is a comedic one (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search?q=Real+Old+Testament" target="_blank"><i>The Real Old Testament</i>, 2003</a>), so it will be good to see a more serious approach to it, brought into the modern day. Having contributed to an entry for the Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception on this subject and written a <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2013/04/ishmael-in-film-part-2.html" target="_blank">blog post</a> detailing some of the other takes on it and Sloan's approach seems like an excellent way to approach the story.</p><p>Sloan is of mixed British-Chinese descent and <a href="https://www.enterthepitch.com/the-fund/current-fund/" target="_blank">he has explained</a> how his take on the story, which will revolve around a young surrogate mother, will reflect "issues that I saw growing up in East Asia". Sloan has also professed his desire "to draw on the cinematic language of that region".</p><p>Sloan's previous work has been on documentaries, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciY7PmIJiCg" target="_blank"><i>The Speeches</i></a> which enabled him to work with an array of household names including Idris Elba, Glenn Close, Woody Harrelson, Olivia Coleman and King Charles III.<br />====<br />There's a further snippet about these films at the end of this <a href="https://variety.com/2024/awards/news/rebel-wilson-harry-connick-jr-aacta-awards-1235881485" target="_blank">article in Variety</a>.<br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-25447599839274458952024-01-28T18:36:00.001+00:002024-01-28T18:36:39.652+00:00The Chosen (2021) s2e01<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1PBlhIJvPBfoT1Gu-aPetuInmYWpTfFS7YtxU7Ra4azVsA8KfqBOQfSkqt-EUI04lU04hKEnuecc4edCqzchtl-LFAmknxsZw43yBwB3D-vqZ9zLpvr0SDB5w-MF3ezKBiZCSeY__cDBHFKF2zCGXTldrItYZ97PtCNgNCTFkGI4DLFlgz-NfQ/s2154/7D411C41-DF48-4CBD-AE8F-654715A30A66.jpeg"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="2154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1PBlhIJvPBfoT1Gu-aPetuInmYWpTfFS7YtxU7Ra4azVsA8KfqBOQfSkqt-EUI04lU04hKEnuecc4edCqzchtl-LFAmknxsZw43yBwB3D-vqZ9zLpvr0SDB5w-MF3ezKBiZCSeY__cDBHFKF2zCGXTldrItYZ97PtCNgNCTFkGI4DLFlgz-NfQ/s320/7D411C41-DF48-4CBD-AE8F-654715A30A66.jpeg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>
<p>I was hoping, as I sat down to watch this episode, that it might be the kind that I could watch, find a couple of interesting things to say and then dash off a few quick words, content to be moving towards the new season while it still might be fresh. But alas, no. It turns out that this is one of those episodes about which there really is lots to say, partly down to my own quirky interests, partly down to things that I have read fans of the chosen writing about (shout out to anyone from any of <i>The Chosen </i>Facebook forums I've been visiting recently).</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Writing the Gospels<br /></h3><p>The episode starts with a number of the leading characters seated and speaking directly to camera. Indeed the first few shots here have an almost documentary vox pops feel about them, like Peter, or Mary Magdalene are experts being consulted by a enquiring, neutral mind. But eventually the shots edge out and we realise they're speaking to a person, not just a camera, who is writing things down, rather than video recording them.</p><p>It's clear that, these shots are set several years after we last left these characters. Peter's beard is a little greyer, as is Thomas' hair and there's talk about them missing Jesus, even while they are still preaching his message. Moreover, the actor playing Big James has changed completely (OK, we've already told that's just a casting change) and one or two of the characters are now displaying large beards.</p><p>One particularly comical such new beard is being sported by Matthew. Matthew relays his details with typically meticulous. "It doesn't need to be precise" interrupts his interrogator. "Why wouldn't it need to be precise...mine will be precise" he says and while at first it seems he simply just means the account that
he's giving then and there, to this as yet unseen character, the implication is that he is actually thinking of the Gospel that he has already begun planning. Next up is Mary, whom the interviewer calls "mother" and our growing suspicions are confirmed. It's John, researching his Gospel.</p><p>Then the dialogues begin to flow, in typically Chosen-esque fashion, dripping in traditional belief into contemporary dialogue. John explains he's "not in a hurry to write a whole book", but that he just wants "to get the eye witness stories now. While we're together." "Isn't Matthew going to write something?" Mary counters. "He's only writing about what he saw and about what Jesus told him directly, but I was there for things that Matthew doesn't know about. I was in his inmost circle. He loved me."</p><p>"I prefer to treasure the things in my heart" Mary says recalling Luke 2:19. "You know that if you tried to write every single thing he did, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." "Hmm" says John "a disclaimer. That's good. I'm going to say that... If I do not write these things down they will be lost to history." (see John 21:25)<br /></p><p>This all feels like a certain line has been drawn in the sand. Up to this point the focus has been on the person of Jesus – even if that aim has been furthered by inventing an entire scene, or even a whole episode. This sequence, though, feels like the first time the series has really tried to assert an evangelical apologetic on its audience. The reliability of the Gospels is being bolstered by presenting them as eye-witness accounts from two of his closest followers. </p><p>Admittedly this is the traditional view and probably the one that it most common among regular churchgoers. Yet the evidence for it is fairly flimsy. Matthew may have been an eye-witness, but far from the impression given here, he relied on Mark's Gospel for the majority of his account. Neither book identifies their author.Yet there's a certain romance to the idea of Matthew having "left everything behind him except one thing – his pen" [1] and John enigmatically referring to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as he wrote his Gospel. It plays well in sermons and in the imagination. Indeed variations on these traditions show up in numerous Jesus films and the occasional other New Testament story as well.</p><p>What I do find unusual, though, is that often people who otherwise tend to favour a <i>sola scriptura</i> approach so readily abandon that position when it comes to the authorship of the Gospels. Suddenly what a few early church fathers say about the Gospels' authors seems to outweigh the internal evidence of the texts themselves.</p><p>But I digress. While this opening sequence is a little heavy-handed, it's done with the series' trademark humour and in-jokes for those who know the text well, and it's certainly an interesting way to start the new season.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Sons of Thunder</h3><p>Of course, the introduction with John is not just a device to kick off the whole series, but also an introduction to the episode – titled <i>Thunder</i> – which will give a particular focus to John and his brother James. Indeed it's clear from the opening sequence that it takes place in 44AD, shortly after James' death. "Mother" Mary expresses her concern for John telling him he "needs to mourn big James" and so the sequence forms something of a coda to James' life following Jesus. </p><p>The change in actor (after Behrad Tarazi left to star in <i>Legends of Tomorrow</i>) is a little unfortunate at this point, but it does, at least, form a good way for us to get acquainted with Abe Bueno-Jallad in the role and for him to establish himself in the role.</p><p>But the initial focus here is John (George Xanthis). The conversation suggests that even though James is about to learn an important lesson in humility, even by 44AD he still sees himself as more important than the others. Of course, on the one hand this aligns with the Gospel of John's use of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and the typical association of that figure with John son of Zebedee. What really interested me, though, is the way that Mary challenges this as objective truth. When John says "I was in his inmost circle. He loved me." she counters with "he loved all of you. You just feel the need to talk about it more often".<br /></p><p>Just as the opening sequence charts the end of the sons of thunder, so its closing scenes show us how (<i>The Chosen</i>) the brothers got their nickname. Jesus and his followers are still in Samaria after the closing scenes of season one. Photina (the woman the well from John 4) has told the whole village about her encounter with Jesus, so he is spending a few days meeting people, preaching to crowds and evading the disciples attempts to keep tracks on him. </p><p>Nevertheless, this is Samaria and the episode repeatedly reminds us that Jews and Samaritans hate each other. There are racial tensions, xenophobic grumbling and minor conflicts all culminating in a scene where Samaritans, throw stones, verbally abuse and spit at Jesus, James and John. Enraged, the sons of Zebedee tell Jesus that their abusers "deserve to have bolts of lightning rain down and incinerate them... fire from the heavens".<br /></p><p>Instead Jesus turns his 'fire' on James and John, rebuking them surprisingly harshly for their outburst. "...because a few people, from a region you don't like, were <i>mean </i>to you. That they're not worthy? What? You're so much better? You're more worthy? Well let me tell you something, you're not!". The two hang their heads in shame and apologise. </p><p>There's a brief silence and then finally Jesus breaks the tension with humour. "You wanted to use the power of God to bring down fire to burn these people up?" He puts his arms around them, jokes again and says "that's what I'm going to call you from now on. James and John, the sons of thunder".<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit63m-TAJPGv5mJBKfJwE1B-Fo9KbCvGIfnnEPtoA2RhZhcFUk7ufCHWYuiyWuKwrqjiBXUoyp2RXKc57f2KP5tE-Y7zrsnZ0C8Ij8tDqZJKOwZI5fYaGwajUgsxWF0fRD-WhFDkdYwcaoPnIJUEvwdBL7yiNAEqIXGtWLfSF599ELsHnn0AyjEw/s2160/2021%20Chosen%20s2e1%20sons%20of%20thunder.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="1072" data-original-width="2160" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit63m-TAJPGv5mJBKfJwE1B-Fo9KbCvGIfnnEPtoA2RhZhcFUk7ufCHWYuiyWuKwrqjiBXUoyp2RXKc57f2KP5tE-Y7zrsnZ0C8Ij8tDqZJKOwZI5fYaGwajUgsxWF0fRD-WhFDkdYwcaoPnIJUEvwdBL7yiNAEqIXGtWLfSF599ELsHnn0AyjEw/s320/2021%20Chosen%20s2e1%20sons%20of%20thunder.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Humour <br /></h3><p>This is far from the only moment of humour in this episode. Indeed when I recently asked a group of <i>The Chosen</i>'s fans what their favourite moments of humour from this series were, two of the most frequently cited moments came from this very episode.</p><p>It starts early on with those interviews. Part way through Andrew's recollection about first encountering Jesus, the frame extends a little as Peter clarifies that when Andrew says "John" he means "crazy John" (i.e. John the Baptist). Later we see James and John ploughing a field and one of them does an impression of Jesus (The only other time I can recall this is G.W. Bailey's character in Roger Young's 1999 <i>Jesus</i>).</p><p>There's already some humour in the disciples interactions with each other, particularly the bickering with one another and the jostling for position as to who is the greatest <br /></p><p>But the two incidents that were repeatedly cited were both things Jesus says. The first takes place just after Jesus has praised James and John for how well they have ploughed the field. It turns out the field is owned by Melech, an impoverished Samaritan friend of Photina. Jesus turns up with his friends and some food and invites himself to dinner.</p><p>The conversation continues and Melech eventually confesses to having beaten up a Jew on the road to Samaria. As Melech's account continues it becomes apparent that his story is part of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He was one of the men who robbed the story's victim on the road. Personally even in my most conservative days I've never really thought of the parable as a true story. To me it's a fable, a story with a point. So it's strange to see it literalised with actual robbers. Moreover Jesus is able to reassure a guilt-laden Melech (who is literally and emotionally broken by the incident) that the man did not die. "I promise you. He did not die". The link between Melech's physical and emotional problems is emphasised further when Melech wakes up the next day to find his leg has been healed.<br /></p><p>I'm in two minds about the use of the Good Samaritan story here. On the one hand it seems a bit of a waste to have one of Jesus' best-known miracles reduced to being reportage. Over the centuries, the story's inspired a multitude of selfless acts of kindness and compassion and the absence of this aspect of it seems a bit of a waste. Yet, on the other hand I like the way Dallas Jenkins and his co-writers Ryan Swanson and Tyler Thompson have found a new angle on the parable by telling it from the thieves' perspective. Interestingly Jesus ends up by tying it in with another parable, that of the lost sheep – a story he has already drawn out with a crowd earlier in the day.</p><p>Anyway, less than a minute after Melech's confession has finished Jesus and the disciples get up to leave before it gets to late and Jesus says in deadpan fashion "We never know what sort of men may lay in wait along the side of the road". Then there's a pause. Melech looks crestfallen momentarily onlky for Jesus to crack a smile and asks "Too soon?"</p><p>The second of these scenes occurs in the scene that immediately follows as Jesus and his followers arrive at Photina's house. Welcoming them in, Photina's faux-curmudgeonly husband informs them "One of the rooms is haunted, by my dead grandmother". "Ooh" says Jesus, with a hint of excitement. "I'll take that one!" It's one of those lines that I'm sure some of the show's opponents criticise, but again it's in line with the show's decision to portray Jesus as both the joker of the pack and its leader – a difficult path to tread.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Thomas and his Father-in-law <br /></h3><p>Another subplot in this episode involves Thomas, his fiancée/wife (Ramah) and his (would be?) father in law Kafni. Thomas was not with the disciples when they left for Samaria, indeed we have not seen him since <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-chosen-2019-s1e05.html" target="_blank">season 1 episode 5</a> where he was the caterer for the Wedding at Cana. However, he's now decided – at last – that he does want to follow Jesus and so he, Ramah and Kafni head off to find Jesus in a remote spot in Samaria.</p><p>As with Thomas' previous appearance, again we're treated with more telegraphing of his forthcoming and infamous doubt. This time Thomas is caught in indecision about his route. It does seem a bit one-dimensional, but I suppose there is a precedent for this in John's Gospel. There Thomas only opens his mouth three times and on each occasion he seems to put his foot in it.</p><p>Aside from the best -known example we also get <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011%3A16&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">John 11:16</a> where Thomas (bravely) blurts out to his friends "Let us also go, that we may die with him" moments after Jesus has explained (admittedly confusingly) that he's not at risk of getting stoned. Then, three chapters later, he's at it again in John <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014%1A4%2D6&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">14:4</a>, completely failing to spot a metaphor when Jesus uses one. (Given my comments about this episode's use of the Good Samaritan, he's perhaps in good company).</p><p>In the three other Gospels Thomas is just one of the unremarkable disciples who make up the numbers. It's only in John that we find him presented as a foolish doubter. This has led some scholars to suggest that this is because the author of John's Gospel is trying to stem the growth of the brand of Christianity that gave us the Gospel of Thomas and so includes these episodes to cast doubt on their key apostle. I only mention this because, in a way, the series perhaps intends to do this too. Those occasional moments when it slips into poorly concealed apologetics (such as the opening sequence, here) all remind us that <i>The Chosen </i>is not intended as simply entertainment, but that, like <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A31&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">John 20:31</a> is created to persuade people to follow Jesus.<br /></p><p>Having said all that, this episode does bring us Kafni (Thomas' father-in-law, of sorts), here highly concerned who is daughter is choosing to follow. There's two things I particularly liked about Kafni's scenes here, and this is the only episode in which he features.</p><p>The first occurs as he, Ramah and Thomas arrive in Samaria Jesus welcomes and suggest they stay the night so he and Kafni can talk in the morning. When Kafni agrees Jesus thanks him, grins and puts a hand on his shoulder. It's just a brief moment but as Jesus does this, Kani just gives a side eye down to Jesus' hand on his shoulder.</p><p>I guess like this because Jesus has already praised Kafni for doing his due diligence about who his daughter drops everything to follow. So Kafni's more reserved nature is legitimised as a good part of his character. Moreover, Jesus is just a bit over-familiar here. I'm fascinated as to what led to this reaction being included. Perhaps I'm just over-analysing it (he says 2½ thousand words into a single episode...) but it seems just a tiny bit against the grain. <br /></p><p>But what I particularly like is that while Kafni has two reasonable, rational discussions with Jesus, he ultimately doesn't decide to follow him. That might seem a small thing, but Jesus films (and creative adaptations of the Gospels in general) have almost unanimously failed to give us neutral Jewish characters. In most Bible movies Jewish characters either become followers of Jesus, or they are close-minded, blinded by religion and become his opponents. Yet Judea and Galilee were full of such characters. 5000 men (plus women and children) may have been fed that day, but only 120 gathered even after he had been resurrected. </p><p>That portrayal of the Jewish people who didn't decide to follow Jesus being portrayed as being driven by hatred or other irrational motives have over the centuries, led to antisemitism, particularly given that its these same characters who later become responsible for having Jesus killed. If you're not aware of how church history is riddled with examples of Jewish people being cast as Christ killers and attacked for it, you should really read up on it. </p><p>So this is exactly the kind of scene that it's really good to see <i>The Chosen</i> include. Kafni is not a future Christian, but he's also not blinded by hate. He's just a diligent father who, for various reasons, hangs onto his own religion rather than deciding to follow Jesus.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Final Points<br /></h3><p></p><p>The final section of this film finds Jesus and his followers arriving at the Samaritan place of worship, following the invitation from the village's religious leader. We see the men and women moving to separate sides of the "synagogue" which apparently – and contrary to popular belief – there isn't really much evidence for, certainly not within Jewish synagogues.</p><p>Anyway the final moments of that opening sequence are now about to come to fruition. There John ends the sequence musing with Mary about how to begin his account. He wants to go back beyond Abraham, perhaps even further than Adam, but he's not sure which. And then Jesus stands up and reads from Genesis (one of the books that various Jewish groups and Samaritans agreed was scripture) and the account of creation.</p><p>As he does so the scenes flick between John smiling / crying as he begins to realise that Jesus is part of the Godhead and the future John who realises this is how he should start his own narrative. And as Jesus reads out bits from Genesis 1 we see the John from 44BC narrating the opening from John 1. It's completely ahistorical, in multiple sense, but it's a deft way to tie up the episode and bring the first entry in the new season to an emotional climax. <br /></p><p>============</p><p>1 - Barclay, William (1956) <i>The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 1</i>, Edinburgh: St Andrew's Press. Fully revise, third edition (2001), p.6. <br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-68318492169543926232024-01-09T03:37:00.005+00:002024-01-09T03:39:32.380+00:00La Fille de Jephté (Jephthah's Daughter, Henri Andréani, 1913)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgFXtgEeiQ7NkVaqm1gcG3rd9t3dSf2_a8TB3tHW3eKFHf7tHDpf4ssBdn90V32bKE17XES_OybfxZ2Oon0KwuZiYhRbEeJPteUO50tl89pn0K_GjbpjCLfeVtDbXJyyrVgtaTXHDifVU5VEAu5WJRvoWxWBHEdYP_xvoEXfjC8_HV0O84tlYiQiQ"><img alt="" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="957" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgFXtgEeiQ7NkVaqm1gcG3rd9t3dSf2_a8TB3tHW3eKFHf7tHDpf4ssBdn90V32bKE17XES_OybfxZ2Oon0KwuZiYhRbEeJPteUO50tl89pn0K_GjbpjCLfeVtDbXJyyrVgtaTXHDifVU5VEAu5WJRvoWxWBHEdYP_xvoEXfjC8_HV0O84tlYiQiQ" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p><a href="https://www.smu.edu/Dedman/Academics/Departments/Religious-Studies/People/Graduate-Students/Rob-Kranz" target="_blank">Rob Kranz</a> was kind enough to let me know that copy of Pathé's 1913 film <i>La Fille de Jephté</i> (Jephthah's Daughter, 1913) is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhhmiDjKVNQ" target="_blank">available on YouTube</a>. It's not actually the full version, which according to the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20221031171649/filmographie.fondation-jeromeseydoux-pathe.com/14275-fille-de-jephte-la" target="_blank">old Pathé archive site</a> ran to 405m (~30 minutes), but the Pathé Baby version which (on YouTube) runs to only 4m57s.</p><p>Despite it's short running time the film manages to pack in most of the essential elements of the story from <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Judges 11</a> with one glaring exception. The Gileadite leaders plead with Jephthah, previously a social outcast, to lead them in a battle with the Ammonites. He accepts and vows to God that if he wins he will burn as an offering the first person to leave his house. When he gets home the first person through the doors is his own daughter, who then submits to her father's sickening vow.</p><p>Two of the most notable omissions are Jepthah's long speech (11:12-28) and his daughter's two months weeping and wandering in the mountains (11:37-40), so it would be interesting to know what was in the 20-25 minutes left on the cutting room floor. Given that the intertitles are fairly long and appear quite often in this print, it's not unreasonable to assume Jephthah's speech may have been included in part, or even at length, likewise with the trip to the mountains.</p><p>However, the really puzzling omission is the actual sacrifice of the daughter, here called Leïla and played by Jeanne Bérangère. According to a rather old page at <a href="http://www.cineartistes.com/fiche-Jeanne+B%E9rang%E8re.html">cineartistes.com</a> Bérangère was a theatre actor before the Pathé's tempted her into cinema where she worked until 1928. She starred (though not as the lead) in Andréani and Zecca's Shakespearean adaptation <i><a href="https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0001117" target="_blank">Cleopatra</a></i> (1910) among other roles. She was born in 1864 meaning that at the time of filming she was around almost 50, which is probably rather older than we would typically assume the daughter of a warrior to be (Henri Etiévant who played her on-screen father was six years her junior).<br /></p><p>Instead the closing scene features Bérangère kneeling (pictured below) before two handmaidens cover her with a bed-sheet-sized veil obscuring her face from view. This is a fascinating piece of imagery. Shorn of an actual scene of the sacrifice, this acts as a replacement. The veil is reminiscent of the sheets placed on bed placed over dead bodies, but also a simple of way of obscuring her from our view as if she is no longer present, gone but not forgotten. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhba-W6OXP2GWzSFzKaOcF8cj0mz43OfHB_sfgQvemttMKSBBoRdtL9lQll19fuHEuSR16nmEQG87xm0_Cv7IB_ufmd5R5Xxix2M7txo8MrFOsrjTHdGr23y82VJPH_Snih6J80qaH3AzZ6mgpo2mD6tfsufStZKxh16t3VGBEtzzkAKI3aq1ohqA"><img alt="" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="957" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhba-W6OXP2GWzSFzKaOcF8cj0mz43OfHB_sfgQvemttMKSBBoRdtL9lQll19fuHEuSR16nmEQG87xm0_Cv7IB_ufmd5R5Xxix2M7txo8MrFOsrjTHdGr23y82VJPH_Snih6J80qaH3AzZ6mgpo2mD6tfsufStZKxh16t3VGBEtzzkAKI3aq1ohqA" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>Moreover it could also be read as a comment on the way that the name of her idiotic father has been passed down to us, while she has been obscured from history, forever nameless and therefore, in a way, faceless. An then there's also a sense of holiness, like the veil between the majority of the temple and the holy of holies, or (more pertinently) the veil that Moses wears after his encounters with God in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+34%3A29-35&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Exodus 34:35</a>.</p><p>As I've <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2013/10/jephthah-in-film.html" target="_blank">mentioned</a> <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2016/04/more-films-about-jephthah.html" target="_blank">before</a>, films about Jephthah and his daughter are few and far between, but occur mainly in this early silent period around the turn of the decade. Prior to this one (and it's longer sibling) J. Stuart Blackton made one in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/jephthahs-daughter-1909.html" target="_blank"> 1909 for Vitagraph</a> (which I included in my book) and Léonce Perret / Louis Feuillade did the same for Gaumont in 1910 (there's more on that one at the excellent <a href="https://betweenmovies.com/movie/the-vow-or-jephthahs-daughter-1910/" target="_blank">BetweenMovies</a>, including a writing credit for a certain Abel Gance). That one was also known as <i>The Vow</i>.<br /></p><p>However, 1913 saw not one but two films titled <i>Jephthah's Daughter</i>, as J. Farrell MacDonald produced another 25-30 minute version of the story for Warner (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2013/10/jephthahs-daughter-1913.html" target="_blank">my review</a>). This one was directed by Henri Andréani, whose name I will always associate with melodrama, following David Shepherd's chapter about his work in his monograph "The Bible on Silent Film". Here there is plenty of melodrama, especially from Mr Etiévant as Jephthah. (In addition starring in roughly 66 movies, Etiévant ended up as a director himself taking charge of around 27 films starting that same year, having co-directed <i>La fin d'un joueur</i> (1911) with André Calamettes). <br /></p><p>One area where Andréani's thumbprint seems clearest is his staging of the battle scene. This large scale scene, featuring a huge crowd of extras looks so similar in composition and camera placing / movement looks so similar to the battle scenes from Andréani's earlier <i>Absalon </i>(Absalom, 1912) that I was convinced he'd simply reused the battle footage from the earlier film. Close inspection reveals this not to be the case. Perhaps he was reusing spare footage he shot on that day, or perhaps he knew how (and, I think, where) he liked to film these shots. Either way it's not hard to imagine that in the fuller version of this movie, the scene is as impressive as it is in <i>Absalon</i>.</p><p>Of course with any Jephthah movie the key issue is not the battle scenes, but how it handles the terrible twist in the story. Do they try and justify Jephthah's actions or excuse it. Certainly the absence of the sacrifice scene itself removes some of the horror of the actual story. This needless death happens off-screen. Moreover the absence of the daughter's last days in the mountains also misses the chance to humanise her and to bring her centre stage. Bérangère becomes a rather peripheral figure. Her father is presented as the hero. </p><p>Moreover it's he who is permitted a horrified reaction (again allowing the audience to sympathise with him). Bérangère remains placid and unaffected, calmly accepting her awful fate. The one point I will note in the film's favour in this respect is that the intertitles clearly say that Jephthah's vow (<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/11/1/s_222001" target="_blank">Judges 11:31</a>) was made with human sacrifice in mind. Jephthah promises to sacrifice "<i>la première personne</i>" (the first <i>person</i>) that leaves the house, rather than "whatever" as most English translations render it. The NRSV, my preferred translation, goes for "whoever", though as do the two French versions I checked. It's seemingly one of those passages whose translation is largely determined by your prior convictions about what you think happened.</p><p>Perhaps this cut ending where it does leaves such questions open ended, in a similar way to how some argue the sudden ending of Mark might intend to. It leaves. us with questions. Given the vow he has made, what <i>should</i> he do. Would God mind if he broke his vow to avoid such a horrible outcome? So much of Judges plays like a series of cautionary tales, and perhaps this is a good way to translate that sense back into a 'modern' context</p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-18081334367069553262023-12-31T10:43:00.006+00:002023-12-31T10:43:57.338+00:00Journey to Bethlehem (2023)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCqBVMsZD4Hjcj2VVp-Uh-ZltEM6f9fSVlZ2toUeaCkvDDa246-T8EV1VW5fhnTX60px4mStF5bIq-4zRB_hh_-g61lkXdoWiusNpsV693SKM3HZLtyX19tjtl31S4m0kYY6mHNE-qfiyowYF6mrJ0rNu5HStMwQ9tm-fXKWcIRrCjraaL3QDDLw/s500/2023%20Journey%20to%20Bethlehem%2001.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="206" data-original-width="500" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCqBVMsZD4Hjcj2VVp-Uh-ZltEM6f9fSVlZ2toUeaCkvDDa246-T8EV1VW5fhnTX60px4mStF5bIq-4zRB_hh_-g61lkXdoWiusNpsV693SKM3HZLtyX19tjtl31S4m0kYY6mHNE-qfiyowYF6mrJ0rNu5HStMwQ9tm-fXKWcIRrCjraaL3QDDLw/s320/2023%20Journey%20to%20Bethlehem%2001.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>I was in the middle of teaching my "Italian [Cinema] for Beginners" course when I got to see this, which on top of various other commitments (such as the day job) all rather piled up. So unfortunately, now not only is it also several weeks after this film's limited cinematic run, but I'm still going to have to settle for an "initial impressions" type post rather than something approaching a proper review. Apologies, then, if my recollection is a little sketchy.<br /><p><i>Journey to Bethlehem </i>is the first Bible film to get a wide-ish release in the UK since I finished writing <a href="https://www.amazon.com/100-Bible-Films-Screen-Guides/dp/183902352X/" target="_blank">my book</a> at the end of 2020. In that time <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Chosen%20%28The%29" target="_blank">The Chosen</a></i> has taken over the world; its parent company Angel Studios have debuted a few other biblical films which have only really screened in the US; and Jeymes Samuel has debuted <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/book%20of%20clarence" target="_blank">The Book of Clarence</a> </i>at London Film Festival, even though it doesn't go on general release until January. So it was nice to be in a cinema seeing any kind of Bible film, but particularly a Nativity-themed one as I've had a soft spot for them ever since having a chapter on recent incarnations published a few years ago.</p><p>Tonally, <i>Journey to Bethlehem</i> is very different from the most widely seen live action nativity movie, Catherine Hardwicke's 2006 <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/nativity%20story%20(the)" target="_blank">The Nativity Story</a></i>. The start of Hardwicke's movie tried to present an authentic context for the story: houses were ramshackle; clothing was plain and rough looking; the food and way of life appeared primitive. There was love, life and joy, though it's perhaps fair to say that Hardwicke's attention to detail did not always equate to historical accuracy, and that the movie strayed to become more schmaltzy as the film went on.</p><p>In contrast, <i>Journey to Bethlehem</i> directed by Adam Anders, wears its sense of razzle-dazzle on its sleeve right from the very start. Its a musical, released in the run up to Christmas. Why would we expect anything else? Any sense of painstakingly trying to recreate a credible version of the past is blown out of the water with an opening number brimming with bright colours, a burgeoning cast of singers and dancers, and swirling camerawork and choreography. This feels much closer to <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jesus%20Christ%20Superstar" target="_blank"><i>Jesus Christ Superstar</i> (1973)</a> – an obvious point of comparison, I suppose – though more optimistic in tone. It's bold and full of energy and unafraid to break convention or to loose itself from the shackles of historical accuracy. <br /></p><p>Yet for all that, Hardwicke's film certainly seems to have been an influence. Particularly in the early scenes, several of the shots and compositions echo Hardwicke's despite the sharp contrast in styles. Shots of Mary and her friends running in the open spaces around the village, or the lighting and tight compositions inside Mary's family home. Then there's both film's use of the Magi/wise men for comic relief. British viewers will enjoy seeing Omid Djalili (<i>The Infidel</i>) and Rizwan Manji (<i>The Dictator</i>) as Melchior and Gaspar respectively and they are funnier than their slightly lame counterparts in the earlier film. </p><p>Another similar element to Hardwicke's film is the way it uses King Herod, played with great enthusiasm by a slightly over the top Antonio Banderas, this film's biggest star. In both movies he is set-up as the primary antagonist and features early in the film to add a sort of framing narrative to the events that will unfold.</p><p>The way that Herod relates to one of his sons is also similar. The historical Herod had at least nine sons and five daughters so it's striking that he's shown having such a close relationship with just one of them. Here the son is named as Antipater, Herod's first-born (known as Antipater II) who was one of three sons Herod had killed. Indeed, Antipater was executed for plotting to murder his father, the same year that Herod himself died, 4 B.C. – often seen as the latest viable date for the birth of Jesus.</p><p>While most of the characters are given significantly expanded roles from their counterparts in the Gospels, Antipater most benefits from this as his character is not even in the Bible. I can't help wondering if the use of the name Antipater is connected to one of
Herod's more famous (surviving!) sons Antipas, who is the Herod who
kills John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel and tries Jesus in Luke's
Gospel. Is this possible conflation deliberate? Antipater here is played by Joel Smallbone, one half of Australian Christian pop duo For King + Country along with his brother, and starred as Xerxes in the 2013 film <i>The Book of Esther</i>. </p><p>All of which brings me onto some of the movie's possible musical influences. Antipater's solo "In My Blood" takes his rebellion against his father in a new direction as Antipater begins to realise what a tyrant his father is, and various comments on the song's YouTube video have noted the similarity in style to the US rock band Imagine Dragons. Elsewhere, even I noticed the similarity between Banderas' solo "Good to be King"and "El Tango de Roxanne" from <i>Moulin Rouge </i>(2001).<sup>1</sup></p><p>These points of comparison are hardly surprising. Anders made his name as a writer/producer for the music on High School Musical 3 (2008) and the TV series <i>Glee </i>(2009-2015) as well as working on films such as <i>Hannah Montanna</i> (20012) and <i>Captain Underpants </i>(2017). Indeed he has been nominated for for Grammy's for his work on <i>Glee</i> and other productions. So one would naturally expect <i>Journey</i> to be very youth-orientated. It's both firmly in line with the modern pop-musical, created by an experienced practitioner, and family friendly as befits this kind of Christmas movie. At the same time the translation of that niche into a first-century climate in an arid climate leaves the lively, swirling choreography of "Mary's Getting Married" feeling as close to Bollywood as to Hollywood.</p><p>Interestingly, Anders also has Bible film credentials to his name having worked on both <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/evan%20almighty" target="_blank"><i>Evan Almighty</i> (2009)</a> and <i>Son of Man</i> (2014) and it's easy to draw the lines between these films – a contemporary take on one of the Bible's most famous stories and a evangelical attempt to retell the story of Jesus set in the first century – and see how he ended up making a film like this. <br /></p><p>Yet Anders is not afraid to tear up the rule book, and he makes several bold decisions, most of which pay off. The biggest example of this is perhaps the way the story is portrayed of one of attraction and love between Mary and Joseph. This is not exactly novel, but the relationship between the holy couple is most commonly portrayed as being driven by duty and faithfulness to God. Here it works, in no small part due to good performances between Fiona Palomo (Mary) and Milo Manheim (Joseph). There's great chemistry between the pair in the first scene where they meet. Both are unaware of who the other is. Joseph flirts. Mary rebuffs him on grounds of propriety, while still being a bit flirty in return. Incidentally, Manheim is Jewish and I can't help wondering if he is the first Jewish actor to play the role. <br /></p><p>Another of Anders's bold decisions is his portrayal of the angel Gabriel, performed by Black rapper / singer Lecrae. Anders gives him piercing, azure blue eyes, white stripes of make-up on his face, and ditches the traditional white bed-sheet in favour of a costume that captures both ancient battle and modern glamour. The shoulders, chest and arms of Gabriel's garment is covered with glimmering metallic scales that both seem like armour and sequins. As scales they also seems reptilian a reminder that angels are not simply humans with wings, but something more, and that they have often been depicted very differently from humans, an idea at least flirted with in 2021's <i>Midnight Mass</i>. <br /></p><p>This is also reinforced by the way Gabriel towers over Mary during the annunciation scene. While this is primarily due to Lecrae being 6'5" compared to Palomo's 5'3", the fact that the two occupy such different ends of the normal curve for human height gives the impression that he is significantly bigger than the human characters in general. Yet Manheim's Joseph is only two inches shorter than Lecrae and he never remotely seems to tower over Palomo's Mary in the same way. <br /></p><p>Another of Anders's interesting decisions is conflating the magi and the shepherds such that ultimately the wise men end up in the fields, along with (only a handful of) shepherds witness together the choir of angels arriving to announce Jesus' birth. There's a debate between some New Testament scholars at the moment as to whether Luke is unaware of Matthew's (magi-focused) version of the Nativity story , or whether he is an simply prefers, changes even, Matthew's version to his own with the shepherds. This choice was probably not inspired by that debate (more likely a way to include the shepherds without drawing focus from the magi), but it's interesting to see them combined (brought back together?) in this way.<sup>2</sup> <br /></p><p>In the grand scheme of things, however, despite the number of changes to the original texts, I would argue they make little difference to the overall thrust of the story. Indeed while there are one or two interesting divergences, the majority come from translating a couple of ancient texts into a modern pop musical designed for a broad audience.<br /></p><p>As such it makes for a pretty decent piece of entertainment that celebrates the story of the first Christmas and honours the original while repackaging it for a contemporary audience in a way that is rarely achieved. Strangely while I love the opening scenes of <i>The Nativity Story</i>, I think I prefer <i>Journey to Bethlehem</i> overall. At least I might find myself more likely to recommend it. Somehow the fact that it is more consistent makes all the difference. Adam Anders knows the kind of film he is trying to make, goes all out for it and delivers a far better movie than I was expecting. </p><p>Indeed there's such an obvious sense of (if you'll pardon the pun) glee in Anders's handling of the material, particularly given the movie's high production values.<sup>3</sup> It's his first feature film as director and his joy at being able to step out of others' shadows and make the film he wants to is palpable. You really get a sense of his love of colour, his costumes; the energetic way he moves and spins his camera to enhance the choreography, combining drone footage with zooms and pans and close-ups; the moments he stops to show off the landscapes of his chosen locations. This feels every inch like a labour of love and it's hard not to get caught up in such obvious enthusiasm. </p><p>I'm intrigued to see how is received in the longer term. It's already made back its tiny budget,<sup>4</sup> but largely passed under the radar first time around. However, word of mouth and the right streaming platform might make a major difference in years to come. Moreover, on the evidence here, Anders has great potential which might cause future fans to revisit it in years to come. I hope so. I think it does a great job of telling these pivotal and important stories in a way that will make them come alive for future (and present) generations. <br /></p><p>================== <br /></p><p>1 - That said TikToker <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@montescreations/video/7318311946795666734" target="_blank">@montescreations</a> also finds a similarity, a subversion even, of Albert Hay Malotte's "The Lord's Prayer".</p><p>2 - I'm largely persuaded by the Farrer theory, so think Luke knows Matthew, but not quite sure whether he's accessing a separate tradition or making radical changes to Matthew's.</p><p>3 - This despite a low budget, particularly for a historical movie, of just <a href="https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Journey-to-Bethlehem-(2023)#tab=summary" target="_blank">$6 million</a>.</p><p>4 - As of today, <a href="https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Journey-to-Bethlehem-(2023)#tab=summary" target="_blank">thenumbers.com</a> is reporting a $7,350,569 box-office take worldwide from that $6 million. <br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-78670448995158554292023-12-16T23:55:00.003+00:002023-12-17T00:12:26.369+00:0030 Million Hours Watching The Chosen<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTizQDQkfFKxZri1QfjIvIfBARK3ul9Y0R0hY8P7gjyE7Dr7fhDci83Z7fElCFu2LmbD_5zrpXPtydPQRMudTcQqqEgUICcyuLSs78SOa5DI69GHoauUicLrWIyeELY3sWiptkI5Olkurrz0Rug0_sRdy9EGUtRyNAgL_RrFsW9zRY8rSG6donCg/s1627/2019%20The%20Chosen%20disciples.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="761" data-original-width="1627" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTizQDQkfFKxZri1QfjIvIfBARK3ul9Y0R0hY8P7gjyE7Dr7fhDci83Z7fElCFu2LmbD_5zrpXPtydPQRMudTcQqqEgUICcyuLSs78SOa5DI69GHoauUicLrWIyeELY3sWiptkI5Olkurrz0Rug0_sRdy9EGUtRyNAgL_RrFsW9zRY8rSG6donCg/s320/2019%20The%20Chosen%20disciples.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>Netflix just released its annual viewing statistics for the first time. This is naturally very interesting for stats geeks like me, and naturally it wasn't long until I started seeing the figures for various biblical productions.</p><p>Most strikingly, 2023 saw 30.9 million hours spent watching <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Chosen%20%28The%29" target="_blank">The Chosen</a></i> on Netflix, 27.6 million in English, with a further 3 million hours spent viewing the series in Spanish. It's perhaps not surprising that Dallas Jenkins' crowdfunded series, which has been running since 2019, was the highest placed biblical show on the list. </p><p>The English and Spanish versions are counted separately meaning that the <i>The Chosen</i>'s 27.6 million hours viewed puts it in Netflix's 728th position for 2023, but given there are 18,215 productions in the dataset, this is a good performance. Darren Aronofsky's <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Noah%20%282014%29" target="_blank">Noah</a></i> (2014) did slightly better, coming in 653rd based on 29.5 million hours – fewer than <i>The Chosen</i>'s overall total but higher than the English language version alone.</p><p>Other Bible movies and shows fared less well. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the lowly 1,800,000 hours spent watching <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Life%20of%20Brian" target="_blank">Monty Python's Life of Brian</a> </i>(6259th). I'm not sure whether this shows that the film is far less popular overseas than it is in the UK, or that fewer of its traditional fan-base are watching it than before due to it playing the trans character for laughs, or perhaps both. <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Paul%20Apostle%20of%20Christ" target="_blank">Paul the Apostle of Christ</a></i> (2018) had 200,000 hours, leaving it at 12,061st place and Davis's <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Mary%20Magdalene%20%282018%29" target="_blank">Mary Magdalene</a></i> came in 16,337th and Youssef Chahine's <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2008/06/al-mohager-emigrant.html" target="_blank">The Emigrant</a></i> came in at 17,457th despite both gaining 100,000 hours viewed. </p><p>If Netflix repeat this exercise it'll be interesting to see how <i>The Chosen </i>performs next year, given its fourth series is being released on February 1st. I'm not sure if it will appear on the platform from that date, or whether it will take a little longer.</p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-39335312852026070452023-10-28T21:13:00.002+01:002023-10-28T21:13:42.852+01:00Sansone (Samson, 1961)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN5yRqVUq3L2dk7wru_0OzZTrf4mfT-0TCl5vAaU-_qPLPf-1XKs6G2dYTR1292hvq1G3WQLFtUFD4KLbV8_W8xt3nL__3VTtpravOdSev1gTMsTEtzO3HCK2S5DTjtdZ7FWesmIRJrz-S_4ao_vo8ebnhQISkwz7c7PiJ43AE5DoaLC_TNI8qig/s1004/1961%20Sansone%2014.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="437" data-original-width="1004" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN5yRqVUq3L2dk7wru_0OzZTrf4mfT-0TCl5vAaU-_qPLPf-1XKs6G2dYTR1292hvq1G3WQLFtUFD4KLbV8_W8xt3nL__3VTtpravOdSev1gTMsTEtzO3HCK2S5DTjtdZ7FWesmIRJrz-S_4ao_vo8ebnhQISkwz7c7PiJ43AE5DoaLC_TNI8qig/s320/1961%20Sansone%2014.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>I'm writing on, reading about and teaching on Italian cinema at the moment and have a session on the 1950s <i>peplum</i> films in a few weeks, so I thought it was time I watched Gianfranco Parolini's <i>Sansone </i>(Samson, 1961) as I've never seen it before. It was a film that I had looked into a little when I was compiling my book, but couldn't remember all the specifics of why I decided to include <i>I grandi condottieri</i> (Samson and Gideon, 1965). It was practically the only film to cover the story of Gideon and that was all I remembered.</p><p></p><p>Turns out that another big factor is that, despite the title, Parolini's <i>Samson</i> has nothing, really, to do with the biblical strongman, aside from the characters' mythical super-strength. As I mentioned in my <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2006/09/films-about-samson.html" target="_blank">list of films "about" Samson</a> many of the Italian-produced Samson films from this era "have very little to do with the Book of Judges". </p><p>Indeed these <i>peplum </i>films all play pretty fast and loose with the original stories of their heroes, even to the extent that the names of the title characters changed from country to country. For example, the strongman hero of Giovanni's Pastrone's <i>Cabiria</i> (1914) – Maciste – was then made the star of many of his own films,[1] such as <i>Maciste nella valle dei re</i> (1960) and <i>Zorro contro Maciste</i> (1963), but these titles were changed in English language regions to <i>Son of Samson</i> and <i>Samson and the Slave Queen</i> respectively. <br /></p><p>In this case, the title in English regions was a straight translation (Samson) but in France it was released as <i>Samson contre Hercule</i> – Samson against Hercules. That would clue most people in to the fact that this is very much a new story spinning off the mega success of <i>Le fatiche d'Ercole</i> (Hercules) three years earlier in 1958, the film which is usually credited with sparking the <i>peplum</i> trend in Italian filmmaking. Hercules does not feature in the Bible. Interestingly, in both English and Italian this character is called Hermes (these days renown as a popular mail delivery service) but not generally regarded as a legendary strong"man" who might be passed off as Hercules (as he was in Spain as well as France). Ironically one of the traits if Hercules in these films is his association with pulling huge chains. Here though, it's Samson (played by Brad Harris, who starred in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2018/08/il-vecchio-testamento-old-testament-1962.html" target="_blank"><i>Il vecchio testamento</i> (1963)</a>) who gets that particular task (see below).<br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwPx8BC2x2ykLIAmddOUnr6YBe9XLQrUSjIo4m6bh-9saAX1tzNpvxWICZqQwihFE8_z6VJsvN09-JtYWz6GBA-CYYjzfUVjPzsr7_4633Iw4q3sLmy3qTPZzob7FsuextIxIJ7iA7FmW0RBvgmkKU9XfmNh_wcoQODCSBiyZpAlk2dU157eqawg/s1004/1961%20Sansone%2003.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="437" data-original-width="1004" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwPx8BC2x2ykLIAmddOUnr6YBe9XLQrUSjIo4m6bh-9saAX1tzNpvxWICZqQwihFE8_z6VJsvN09-JtYWz6GBA-CYYjzfUVjPzsr7_4633Iw4q3sLmy3qTPZzob7FsuextIxIJ7iA7FmW0RBvgmkKU9XfmNh_wcoQODCSBiyZpAlk2dU157eqawg/s320/1961%20Sansone%2003.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>So in fact the film has nothing really to do with the biblical story. There's no Delilah, lion-wrestling, woman from Timnah, honey riddle or jawbone of an ass, or even a mention of God or the Israelites, just a super-strength hero running around in little more than his underpants. </p><p></p><p>Plot-wise the film is fairly conventional, fitting neatly into the broad plot summary given by Robert A. Rushing in his book on the <i>peplum</i> "Descended from Hercules" </p><p></p><blockquote>A cruel, unjust, and foreign ruler has usurped the throne and oppressed the people. There can be minimal variations in this setup – for example, the unjust ruler may not be foreign but instead may be manipulated by foreign agents; he may be the proper, just ruler, but under a magic spell (cast by a foreign agent); or the unjust ruler may be an evil, seductive (often redheaded) queen – but the basic structure is always the same. Hercules must depose this cruel oppressor and free the people by restoring the legitimate ruler to the throne. The strongman is almost always a disinterested outsider with minimal or no ties to the throne in question; any suggestion that he could be a political threat or represent the forces of instability and anarchy is completely absent.[2]</blockquote><p></p><p>Here there is a seductive queen, Romilda (Mara Berni) who is being manipulated by Serge Gainsbourg's "weasel-like" Warkalla who as Barry Atkinson goes on to point out never really convinces you that he "could boss whole legions of hard-bitten soldiers around.[3] Samson and Hermes (peplum regular Sergio Ciani aka Alan Steel) team up along with two of Samson's sidekicks and after seeing off scores of soldiers many, many times, manage to return the kingdom of Sulom to its rightful (boy) king.<br /></p><p>There are a few good moments. Samson's tug of war across a fire-pit with a whole troop of soldiers (pictured above) sticks in the memory. As does a scene where the spiked walls on Samson's cell gradually close in on him (powered by a group of soldiers working a slave-powered mill - similar to that Victor Mature pushes at the end of DeMille's 1949 take on <i>Samson and Delilah</i>). Simultaneously, the mechanism also stretches out Samson's female friend Janine (Luisella Boni). It's tempting to think this scene may have inspired the walls closing in scene from the original <i>Star Wars</i> (1977), but that seems a stretch even if it's impossible to to think of that scene when you see this one. </p><p>Speaking of Janine, there's very little chemistry between she and Samson, or between him and either of the other two significant women in the film, even though he has scenes alone with all three of them. Indeed the only real chemistry seem to be between Harris and Steel. Otherwise it's all fairly lacking in interest. The scenery and cinematography look good though.</p><p>Incidentally, I kept going back and forth about whether to watch this one in the Italian dub or the English one (<i>pepla</i> rarely use live sound and often actors recorded their lines in the own language. There is no "original" version so to speak), and eventually went for the English which paid off. Although Harris gets surprisingly few close-ups or even mid-shots, he does get a sizeable chunk of the dialogue and I didn't find the dubbing of the other characters as troubling as it is sometimes.</p><p>So this isn't required watching for Bible film enthusiasts, but it's a reasonable example of Italian <i>peplum</i> even if it's hardly the sub-genre's finest.<br /></p><p>=====<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">1 - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciste#The_silent_film_series_(in_chronological_order)" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> currently lists 29 Maciste films (including <i>Cabiria</i>) in the silent era and a further 25 during the 1960s as well as a couple by Jesús Franco in 1973.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2 - Rushing, Robert A. (2016) <i>Descended from Hercules: biopolitics and the muscled male body on screen</i>, Indiana University Press, pp.13-4.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">3 - Atkinson, Barry (2018) <i>Heroes Never Die: The Italian Peplum Phenomenon 1950-1967</i>, London: Midnight Marquee Press. p.133 & p.134.</span><br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-49453156111688112372023-10-22T14:29:00.002+01:002023-10-22T14:47:37.498+01:00The Prince of Egypt: The Musical (2022)<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgncPWfYjMMErbVgWhsdjzaQW5-EndbPCMDJowvSBtF0vmCjZFmZZVvuooshkEULUc6QLsBqAizv1B_BLIai2GXUzqbMEXUUKCreLKPD5nWOm9e6VLdW-C7n5wxWdGGYRR4xsEM0JG-XJf8HKILeNMudbwpQD-iWBewxA5qn_1rgHmcTT1oRzAcbQ/s1360/2022%20Prince%20of%20Egypt%20musical%20cast.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1360" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgncPWfYjMMErbVgWhsdjzaQW5-EndbPCMDJowvSBtF0vmCjZFmZZVvuooshkEULUc6QLsBqAizv1B_BLIai2GXUzqbMEXUUKCreLKPD5nWOm9e6VLdW-C7n5wxWdGGYRR4xsEM0JG-XJf8HKILeNMudbwpQD-iWBewxA5qn_1rgHmcTT1oRzAcbQ/s320/2022%20Prince%20of%20Egypt%20musical%20cast.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></p><p>Shot in London's West End, the film of the stage production of the musical of the film is showing in UK cinemas at the moment. It's billing itself with a quote from Stefan Kyrias that "musical theatre doesn't come bigger than this" and even though it's been a hit on the West End where it played to packed out audiences, I'm surprised to see quite such a crowd turn up to see it on a damp Thursday evening in Leicester, with tickets twice the price of watching a standard movie.</p><p>Dreams works' <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Prince%20of%20Egypthttps://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Prince%20of%20Egypt" target="_blank"><i>The Prince of Egypt </i>(1998)</a> was a massive hit when it launched 25 years ago. The studio was just starting out, hadn't yet been defined by the <i>Shrek </i>franchise and the promise of <i>The Prince of Egypt</i> was quite something. The blend of traditional hand-drawn animation and restrained-but-tactical use of the emerging CGI made for some spectacular scenery and action sequences. </p><p>Of course stage musicals, even filmed ones, are a very different medium to cinema and while there was an <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-ben-hur-premiere.html" target="_blank">arena version of </a><i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-ben-hur-premiere.html" target="_blank">Ben-Hur</a> </i>some years ago the director of this musical, Scott Schwarz (son of the film's composer Stephen Schwarz) decided to take things in a different direction. Instead of simply compensating or making-do Schwarz leans into musical theatre's strengths, particularly dance and more expressionistic use of the stage and props. At the same time the stage's backdrops are video projected. </p><p>Both the choreography and the backdrops produce rather mixed results. The opening number, "Deliver Us!" is strong and merges seamlessly in to "Hush Now my Baby". This ends with an incredible piece of chorography where the dancers reproduce the effects of the waves with incredible grace, energy and unpredictability which is simply astonishing. </p><p>But then, as with the movie, we're introduced to the adult Moses and Ramses in the chariot racing scene. Yet instead of the whooshing, fast-cut action of the movie, Moses and Ramses are hoisted up by some of their fellow cast members and they bump around occasionally leaning left or right to indicate turning or avoiding obstacles. Compared with the opening number this is a major disappointment. I should add here I know little about stage-musicals or choreography, so if you do know about those things don't listen to me. I'm writing this just as a punter.</p><p>The video backdrops fare likewise, the room with the hieroglyphics, which created such a memorable scene in the movie is decorated entirely differently. This is a wise move because that scene is re-enacted with a mix of minor backdrop motion and (primarily) choreography and it works very well. But the detail of these decorations is nicely executed. At other times if feels much is lost from the days of traditional backdrop being pulled up or down behind the curtain. The changes are smoother, but it feels like the level of artistry has dropped. Also if there's an artistic reason why one of them looked like the screen ratio was wrong (an oval-shaped sun) then it escaped me.</p><p>These are some of the changes the musical (and specifically this production of it) makes to the film. The most notable is a number of new songs which again vary in quality, though they've not had the benefit of a quarter of a century of getting ingrained in my consciousness. There's nothing as instantly transfixing as "There Will be Miracles" (which is still great here), but one or two feel on par. </p><p>We also lose "Playing with the Big Boys", which I was never particularly enamoured by. This is in part because the twin roles taken by Steve Martin and Martin Short in the movie are condensed into one. Hotep, played with real menace by Adam Pearce also has a greatly enhanced role. Rather than comic relief (although he does produce some, as well as a touch of magic) he's portrayed as more of the power behind the throne. His endorsement of Seti and his father's reign as Pharaoh has proved decisive and can easily be withdrawn. Pearce absolutely makes the most of his build and unsymmetrical features, effortlessly moving between contrasting moods like his voice which performs both some of the lowest notes in the production and some of the highest among the male cast. Apparently he's done <i>Sweeney Todd</i>, my favourite musical, in the past. I wish I could have seen that.<br /></p><p>Another fantastic performance is Christine Allado's as a surprisingly sexy Tzipporah. Exhibiting both fierce and tender sides she is captivating in almost every scene she features in. And again, her role is enhanced from that in the movie where she pretty much disappears once Moses gets God. Here it's her and Miriam that provide Moses emotional support in the latter stages of the film. Aaron is relegated even further into the background. Alexia Khadime's Miriam brings real excellence to her songs, by far the stand-out performer. Luke Brady as Moses are Liam Tamne as Ramses are fine, and their emotional heft grows surprisingly as the film goes on, but it's the supporting characters who really steal the show.</p><p>The other two changes are around the burning bush scene and the plagues. Here again the choreography does a lot of the heavy lifting, but it feels like too much weight is put on its shoulders. The idea of having a chorus of voices speak as the voice of God is theologically and artistically interesting, but somehow feels underwhelming. In similar fashion the plagues rush by, it's difficult to really discern when one ends and the next starts. Perhaps that's not a major issue, and perhaps the intent is to leave the audience experiencing a degree of disorientation to convey the experience of the ordinary Egyptians, but for me it fell a little flat, that is, at least until the final plague.</p><p> The initiation of the Passover and the death of the first-born Egyptians is always a tricky moment in Moses dramas. How much sympathy can you give to Ramses and the ordinary Egyptians without making God seem like the villain? How much joy can the Hebrews experience without minimising the Egyptian suffering? Here the balance is stuck by the women of Egypt walking on stage cradling what look like their now lifeless babies. Then each in turn shakes out the blanket their baby is wrapped in and it cascades down, but the baby is gone. The blanket is laid out of a block before them and they fall to their knees behind it. It's an emotionally powerful scene, and a reminder of the suffering that happens to the ordinary people, and particularly the women and children behind the scenes of this conflict and countless others up to the present day.</p><p>I must admit I was a little caught off guard by the film's emotional impact on me. I sat on the front row of quite a big theatre and could therefore see even very subtle tears from the performers. This was one of the strengths of watching this as a film. I can't imagine most of these tears would be visible for those watching the event live in the theatre. Of course even though the film was shot while the play was being performed to a live audience, obviously the actors <i>knew </i>that it was also being filled. Were the tears part of their method, or a little extra for those of viewing in close-up ion a big screen.</p><p>With a filmed theatre experience like this, it's hard to know where the line falls between the responsibilities of Scott Schwarz as director of the play and Brett Sullivan's as director of the film. Most of the ones discussed so far will be down to Schwarz, but that still leaves an awful lot to Sullivan. </p><p>Take for one example the one shot that really surprised me. Presumably it was Schwarz's decision for children of Israel to move down the aisle as part of the Exodus, but presumably it was Sullivan's decision to film this in a panning shot from in front of the audience. As the film audience we'd been aware of the live audience throughout, clapping and cheering in between numbers, for example, but the frontal pan revealed something else: they were all wearing covid-masks. This added a major note to the context of the film. We thought the audience were like us. But they weren't. They were those poor people struggling to put normal life back together again after the worst global health crisis of our lifetimes. Our past selves, perhaps attending a public event for the first time since lockdown. Perhaps nervous (as I was in my first post-covid theatre trip) of catching or spreading something. And that this happened at the moment the Israelites also finally received their (real and far more viral) freedom certainly added something.<br /></p><p>That nuance is made all the more interesting given how the filmed-stage musical compares with the original movie. In the original, Ramses acts the way he does because he feels the weight of his father's warning not to be the weak link, but it's nevertheless framed as <i>Ramses</i>' decisions and the theme of personal responsibilities – particularly the different ways that Ramses' and Moses handle them. Here however, it's different. The musical lessens Ramses' responsibilities for his actions by putting additional pressure on him. His father's warnings not only relate to maintaining continuity with the past, but also to his present situation and his family's future. Seti's dynasty's hold on power is fragile. He and Ramses rely on the political good favour of Hotep and the priests as well as other Egyptian aristocratic families such as that of his wife Nefertari and the people in general. For a while the emphasis shifts from personal responsibility to problematic power structures.<br /></p><p>As anyone who has seen the musical will know <b>[Spoilers: select text to read]</b> <span style="color: #eeeeee;">faced with hunting down the Hebrews as they flee across the bed of the Red Sea, Ramses decides to let them go free, his kingdom will survive without them. Hotep and some soldiers charge on in ahead, As a result Ramses survives, and lives to rule without Hotep's malign influence. It's interesting how this changes things. Historically we know that Ramses was capable of political spin, but there's no evidence on the Egyptian side that an exodus of slaves did his rule any real harm. Moreover, in the original story Ramses is the representative of Egypt and is the bad guy. Earlier retellings of the story, including the 1998 film, have maintained that, but sought to makes a key element of the story an Anakin→Vader-type narrative. Now we're back to the uncomplicated bad guy again, only this time he's just an </span><span style="color: #eeeeee;"><a href="http://en.wikipeida/org/wiki/Anubis" target="_blank">Anubis</a> in sheep</span><span style="color: #eeeeee;">'s clothing.* It's interesting to see how this appears to favour the benevolence of monarchs above that of priests.</span><b> [End of spoilers].</b></p><p>Overall, while it seems unlikely those who disliked the original film will be any more taken with this boomeranging adaptation, except perhaps for Sean Cheesman's at times inspired choreography. But for those who loved the original, or who are just intrigued by fresh adaptations of the biblical narratives, then this is certainly an interesting take on the original, both capturing enough of the essence of the original across the change of medium, while also bringing some fresh and distinctive elements.</p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-72513291396710438372023-10-14T20:12:00.004+01:002023-10-14T20:13:35.355+01:00Review: The Book of Clarence (2024)<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivQRhPr52Vcs8JE-GqO8z7fNW5kkg8Pxo1UrOyAcX6O-nsvpKMvWJ4eOBCiV6BxmzV7KCh0yBG4VvwWcuqYSpqX9iDcnFxDwXXTDoMRHbLfMxbZFckKM8SPRS31JeV5kxoSBn4vuXPaHBQa1aWhRo2VQkluuoCxpfW-VHKzVX0znVYUlqDmZDqkA/s1360/2024%20Book%20of%20Clarence%2002.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="569" data-original-width="1360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivQRhPr52Vcs8JE-GqO8z7fNW5kkg8Pxo1UrOyAcX6O-nsvpKMvWJ4eOBCiV6BxmzV7KCh0yBG4VvwWcuqYSpqX9iDcnFxDwXXTDoMRHbLfMxbZFckKM8SPRS31JeV5kxoSBn4vuXPaHBQa1aWhRo2VQkluuoCxpfW-VHKzVX0znVYUlqDmZDqkA/s320/2024%20Book%20of%20Clarence%2002.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p><i>The Book of Clarence</i> premiered on Wednesday at the London Film Festival, so while it won't be on general release until January I paid to see it at the festival yesterday and there was even a brief introduction by director Jeymes Samuel beforehand.</p><p>Samuel is best known for his 2022 western <i>The Harder They Fall</i> which told a fictional story based on real life Black characters from the wild west.<sup>1</sup> This time around the approach is slightly different. The Jewish characters in the story, including minor roles for Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Jesus' parents are Black.<sup>2</sup> The Romans are white. <br /></p><p>Moreover the intention was slightly different too. Whereas with <i>The Harder They Fall</i>, the aim was to create a new story to bring together real historical characters, here he was more focused on capturing the essence of the majority Black areas of London he grew up in. "I wanted to tell a story around that environment but translate it back 2000 years".<sup>3</sup> It's a subtle, but significant difference. This is the 'world' that the real life characters (including Jesus) are inserted into. The film is not intending to recreate historical reality.</p><p><b><i>The Book of Clarence</i> and the biblical epics</b><br />Just as important to note is the change in tone and genre. On one level the earlier film was a more serious dramatic film, albeit with occasional moments of humour. However, <i>Clarence</i> is more of a comedy drama. It's not an out and out comedy like <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Life%20of%20Brian" target="_blank"><i>Monty Python's Life of Brian</i></a> (a film to which it be forever compared, nevertheless), but the tone is lighter, zany and more comic.</p><p>Genre-wise Samuel the film is an assured move from one popular 1950s Hollywood genre – the western – to another, the biblical epic.That this is firmly the territory that Samuel (also known as The Bullits) has entered into is clear from the opening 30 seconds which tips the hat to an array of biblical epics in quick succession. The opening shot starts with not three crosses as in most Jesus films, but a sea of them as in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2010/05/spartacus-jesus-and-moses.html" target="_blank"><i>Spartacus</i></a> (1960) and <i>Life of Brian. </i>Then the credits begin <a href="http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2018/12/quo-vadis-1951.htmlhttps://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2018/12/quo-vadis-1951.html" target="_blank"><i>Quo Vadis?</i></a>/<i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-robe-1953.html" target="_blank">The Robe</a></i> style with gold 3D lettering on richly coloured, cloth-texture background. Then as we cut back to Jerusalem a subtitle tells us, <i>Python</i>-style, the time and place with unusual precision. Moments later we're witnessing a chariot race through the streets that not only evokes <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Prince%20of%20Egypt" target="_blank">The Prince of Egypt</a> </i>(1998) and the 1959 <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2015/12/ben-hur-1959.html" target="_blank"><i>Ben-Hur</i></a> but the <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2016/09/ben-hur-2016.html" target="_blank">2016 version</a> too (though that may not be so deliberate). It's so purposefully and precisely executed that it makes the Coen Bros. <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2016/03/hail-caesar-2016.html" target="_blank">Hail Caesar!</a> </i>(2016) look like the work of fake fans. The tips of the hat continue as the film progresses. There are two references to <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Passion%20of%20the%20Christ" target="_blank"><i>The Passion of the Christ</i> </a>late on in the film one of which is hilarious and audacious, the other of which is understated and bold.</p><p>The other aspect of the film which will stand out to Bible film aficionados is its extensive use of Matera in Italy. This was the historic site which Pasolini used for his Jesus film <i>Il Vangelo secondo Matteo</i> (1964) which at the time was neglected and underappreciated, now an UNESCO heritage site and popular location for biblical movies. <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2014/02/king-david-1985.html" target="_blank"><i>King David</i></a> (1985), <i>The Passion of the Christ</i> (2004) and <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Mary%20Magdalene" target="_blank"><i>Mary Magdalene</i> </a>(2018) are just a few of the films that were shot there. Here, though, it appears that barring the occasional interior, the entire film was shot in Matera. This gives a far greater feel for the city itself, it's layout and stunning surrounding geography and that gives a sense of continuity to the film itself. It captures the isolated nature of the story itself. A community translated back 2000 years.</p><p>One further way that the film recalls the biblical epics is the way it shifts the action so that Jesus is not the centre of attention but rather a fringe, and in this case fictional, character. Here that character is Clarence (LaKeith Stanfield), whose twin Thomas (also has already left their ageing mother to follow Jesus. Clarence is hardly a pious moralist, but he's annoyed by this. Now he has to provide for her on his own and having resorted to increasingly desperate measures to find income, including racing chariots against Mary Magdalene, he now finds himself in debt to local boss Jedediah. </p><p><b>Faking miracles</b><br />Sensing safety in numbers he tries to join Jesus' followers, but finds his followers unwelcoming, even after freeing the gladiator / slave Barabbas (<i>Lupin</i>'s Omar Sy). So he hits on the idea of forming his own mass movement. Believing Jesus to<i> </i>be a fraud, who fakes his miracles, Clarence decides to do likewise. It's not long before his phoney miracles (using his friends as stooges) and his slickly-rehearsed sermons are starting to pay off.</p><p>Much of the discussion about <i>Clarence</i> has been around whether the film disrespects Jesus, not unlike the controversy around <i>Life of Brian</i> 44 years ago. This time around, it's even more clear here that Clarence is <i>not </i>Jesus. The two appear at numerous points in the film and even speak to one another on a few occasions. It also becomes clear that despite his unwelcoming and posturing disciples and Clarence's initial low opinion of him, Jesus does have the power to perform genuine miracles. That might be true of the Jesus of <i>Brian </i>as well but here it's far more clear and explicit than just the claims of an "ex-leper".<br /></p><p>Yet this is hardly a conventional portrayal. It's a quirky comic-drama with fantasy elements such as light bulbs appearing above Clarence's head when he has an idea and various characters floating when they puff on a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah" target="_blank">hookah</a>. The miracles of Jesus we do see are significantly differently to how they happen in the Bible. <b>[Spoilers - select text to read]</b> <span style="color: #cccccc;">One happens when a woman, is being stoned and Jesus stops the rocks in mid-air, with a healthy nod to the <i>Matrix</i>. Another, which is shown somewhat misleadingly in the trailer sees him enable Clarence to walk on water.</span> <b>[End of spoilers]. </b>Nevertheless it's clear that Jesus (Nicholas Pinnock) is not a fake messiah, he's the real deal, preaching an important message and walking the walk. He even stands up to the Romans. </p><p><b>Jesus' parents<br /></b>While still hoping to learn how Jesus is faking his
miracles Clarence visits Jesus parents, making this one of the few films
that show both Mary and Joseph at the end of his life. Interestingly
one of the few other films to do this is another Black Jesus film, <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Color%20of%20the%20Cross" target="_blank"><i>Color of the Cross</i></a>
(2006). This is perhaps my favourite scene in the film. Alfre Woodard's
portrayal of Mary is possibly my favourite of Jesus' mother, certainly
once her son has become an adult. It's sympathetic, warm and wise, while
also capturing a credible mother-adult son dynamic that few takes on
Mary and Jesus seem to manage. She loves him, and so lets him lead his
life without feeling encroaching too far into his work.</p><p>Joseph's
role (Brian Bovell) plays against that of Mary, interjecting every so
often with a cutting contempt for Clarence and his cronies contrasting
Mary's compassionate outlook. He gets the film's best lines: "If you
were a tool in my carpenter's box, you wouldn't be the sharpest" he
sighs as Clarence struggles to grasp that their son is not faking. They
even tell him the story (found in both the non-canonical Infancy Gospel
of Thomas and the Qu'ran) of Jesus making a clay bird come alive. <br /></p><p><b>Turning it around</b><br />All of this forms a key part of Samuel's journey to becoming a better person. Yet it's certainly not just Jesus and his parents who push him in this direction. Clarence is also besotted by Jedediah's sister Varinia, who, disliking Clarence's scheme, urges him towards living a more selfless life. As Peter Chattaway has pointed out, in the 1960s version of <i>Spartacus</i>, Varinia is the name of Jean Simmons character.<sup>4</sup> It's perhaps not surprising, then, that soon Clarence finds himself using his ill-gotten wealth not to save his own hide, but to buy freedom for all the other gladiator-slaves. </p><p>Sadly, it's just as Clarence decides to come clean. This does raise a few questions which the film rather skips over. While buying back the slaves is a good and selfless act, that might not be how those he tricked into giving him their money see it. Secondly gang boss, Jedediah has a remarkably low key change of heart, but then that is perhaps due to the fact that just as Clarence is about to confess that he's not the messiah (just a very naughty boy), then Romans begin tracking down the city's various messiahs. <br /></p><p><b>Questions of race</b><br />For all the film's humour it nevertheless wants to take on more serious issues too around race, religion and society. As noted above there's a clear dividing line between the Black Jews and the White Romans. Firstly this reinforces, more clearly than any other film, the fact that the Romans and the Jews were different races and both viewed the other as inferior (though this was not primarily about race as such). Part of the reason for this clarity is the almost complete lack of priests, Pharisees, teachers of the law etc. There's a brief tracking shot of a party of (Black) men dressed similarly to Pharisees and priests in other Jesus films, but that's it. It's the Romans that are hunting down messiahs and who execute Clarence and while Jesus' death is still three days in the future, there's not even a shadow of a doubt it will be down to Roman initiative. And given the genre's tendency towards reinforcing antisemitic tropes of the past blaming the Jews for Jesus' death, it's very welcome to see a film steer clear of that so deftly.</p><p>Secondly, before that final part of the film we've already witnessed how patrols of Roman soldiers casually interrogate Clarence and his friends,
and indeed Jesus, on the flimsiest of premises. Biblical epics have always been as much about the present as about the past and it's easy to draw parallels between these scenes and the numerous videos of White police officers harassing Black people on the similarly flimsy grounds. </p><p></p><p>The only real exception to the Black Jews / White Romans racial divide is Benedict Cumberbatch's minor role playing someone homeless. There's an extreme close-up of Cumberbatch shortly after the credits clad in grime so thick it's impossible to tell if this is just dirt, or meant to represent some critique of black-face performances. Cumberbatch role stays around the peripheries until <b>[Spoilers - select text to read it]</b> <span style="color: #cccccc;">Clarence gives him the money to get a proper wash. When he emerges the salon staff put him in a white robe and now his hair is unmatted and his skin clean and white suddenly we, and the salon<i> </i>staff realise he now looks like Jesus. Suddenly everyone forgets that Jesus walks among them and starts bowing and praising this White saviour. This seems like a bit of a dig about how we have so readily accepted a fake White Jesus (even though we know that is historically inaccurate) even though we know the real Jesus was a person of colour.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cccccc;">This becomes particularly interesting during the latter stages of the crucifixion where Samuel repeats a long shot from Gibson's <i>The Passion of the Christ</i>, taken behind the cross with Matera in the background. While it's Clarence, not Jesus that's the focus of this shot, nevertheless it feels like it's echoing to Black members of the audience the experience White people had watching <i>The Passion. </i>Meanwhile to White people its a reminder that Black people matter just as much and stand shoulder to shoulder in contexts such as this.</span><b>[End of spoilers]</b></p><p><b>The Book of Samuel<br /></b>This is undoubtedly a film that White and Black people will view differently. It's also a film that will resonate differently for those with some kind of faith and those without it. While there are some cursory similarities with <i>Life of Brian</i>, they are two quite different films. In <i>Brian</i>, the humour became more pointed as the film wore on. Here it's almost the opposite. <i>Clarence </i>ends on a more positive note, one that recognises the possibility and importance of change and self-sacrifice. And it does this without being overly saccharin or giving simplistic answers, not least the ambiguity of the final scene which will fuel discussions after the credits have rolled. </p><p>It's incredibly difficult to do anything in this genre that feels genuinely innovative. Yet <i>The Book of Clarence </i>does that. Not for its use of a Black Jesus surrounded by Black followers, films such as <i>Color of the Cross </i>and<i> <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jezile%20(Son%20of%20Man%202006)" target="_blank">Jezile </a></i>(both 2006) and the TV series <i>Black Jesus</i> (2014-9) have already done that, but as much for its social critique and the way its humour is not generated solely by cynicism. It's not perfect, by any means. Some gags don't quite land and some will struggle with the changes in tone, but nevertheless it's well worth watching, even for those who dislike traditional biblical epics. And for fans of biblical movies or of Samuel's work, it's a must see.<br /></p><p>Indeed, this is clearly a hugely personal film for Samuel. The musician turned director
has been mulling this film over since 2003/04 and it shows. My hunch is that in a few years time when he has a string of movies behind him, this will be the one that his fans come back to as best encapsulating his themes and outlook. <br /></p><p>==============<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">1 - Kelley, Sonaiya (2022) "How ‘The Harder They Fall’ corrects Hollywood’s historical record of Black cowboys", <i>Los Angeles Times</i>, Nov. 3. Available online – <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-11-03/harder-they-fall-netflix-jeymes-samuel">https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-11-03/harder-they-fall-netflix-jeymes-samuel</a> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2 - There's one notable exception , but it comes I won't spoil the </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">3 - Quote from pre-screening introduction by Jeymes Samuel at the Southbank Centre, Royal Festival Hall, 12th October 2023. Words transcribed by me at the time without the chance to play them back so may contain minor errors. I believe Samuel may have misspoke and said 3000 years rather than 2000 years, but as I wasn't certain that was exactly what he said and so as it was clearly his intention I have put 2000 above.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">4 - I was reminded of this connection by Peter Chattaway in this post on his Substack – <a href="https://petertchattaway.substack.com/p/the-book-of-clarence-the-world-premiere">https://petertchattaway.substack.com/p/the-book-of-clarence-the-world-premiere</a></span><br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-68589522106883214592023-10-09T19:41:00.008+01:002023-10-09T19:45:16.699+01:00Film as an Expression of Spirituality: The Arts and Faith Top 100 Films<p><a catch="" e="" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGoI58w9ZaBNqZIKiQ5budVoEdq-K_yH67Tr3OF-Q93q6mOWSx9COKrTMgKb6hu3bcstFZ0-TwYfYwUk5P8_NXXQA8p_cGPoqlvfK9S6sb8PIaQOKxvgf_uTbjyl9K1lXn352kqQvMh5-_7KYQI2JoBFOMfwZiFiQ6rR7G4xv9pbysPAKOPKQo-w/s2499/Arts%20and%20Faith%20Book%20cover%20large.jpg" parent.deselectbloggerimagegracefully="" try=""><img alt="" border="0" id="SILENTS OF JESUS" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA32A0IcCUv9d2Lmq9p5Bz6J10w8cnLaBedftU7jJTcqVLjX2hXKLkc2NXpRXMLoK71iafJ5x4rl98nCXKRWHqXpoF8sEZZmCkR9ueS6xcu9NB8Nj0hp_6mqwGbP0agjiu6_Y9R5FVKrUfJHD5js1Owy6f13IgTDDfZMpkJVW8_dyYqHfgS79K4w/s200/Arts%20and%20Faith%20Book%20cover%20small.jpg" style="float: left; height: 195px; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; width: 127px;" /></a>
<b>Film as an Expression of Spirituality:<br />The Arts and Faith Top 100 Films</b><br />
<i>Edited by Kenneth R. Morefield</i><br />
<br />
Cambridge Scholars Publishing<br />
242 pages - Hardback<br />
ISBN 978-1527550841<br />
Publication Date: 02/10/2023<br />
<br />
I've just had a chapter published in this new book which brings together a series of essay on some of the films in the Arts and Faith top 100 lists."<a href="https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-5084-1https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-5084-1" target="_blank">Film as an Expression of Spirituality: The Arts and Faith Top 100 Films</a>" features essays by 12 authors some of whom I met on the A&F site over 20 years ago. I was a regular contributor to the forum for a number of years and it was there I met a number of inspiring writers on film including Jeffrey Overstreet and Steven D. Greydanus. Both have been very generous to me over the years and I have learned an enormous amount from them both. So I'm really pleased they both have essays in here. And it's nice for something so permanent to have emerged eventually from all that went into that site.<br /></p><p>My essay is on Pasolini's <i>Il Vangelo secondo Matteo</i> (The Gospel According to Matthew, 1964) and despite studying it and discussing it for all these years I don't think I've ever struggled with writing something as much as I did here. I'm grateful to editor Ken Morefield (whom I also met at A&F) whose support and flexibility got me through.</p><p>It's currently available online via the <a href="https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-5084-1" target="_blank">Cambridge Scholars website</a> where there's a healthy sample available to download as well as a little more information. I've posted a list of the contributions below which hopefully gives you a sense of the films covered. It's priced with libraries in mind, so if you'd like to read it, then perhaps you could encourage yours to get a copy. </p><p>If you want to find out more about the various iterations of the <a href="https://artsandfaith.com/top-100/arts-faith-top-100-2020-list/" target="_blank">The Arts and Faith Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films</a> then Ken has put together a <a href="https://artsandfaith.com/" target="_blank">great website</a> that brings things together nicely.<br /></p><p>==================<br /></p><p>1. Carl Theodor Dreyer and the Problem of Christian Realism – Kenneth R. Morefield<br />2. Loving Someone in Darkness: <i>The Silence</i> and Voice of God in the Arts & Faith Top 100 Films –Brian Duignan<br />3. Love, Lust, and <i>L’Avventura</i> – Domenic Cregan<br />4. <i>Il Vangelo secondo Matteo</i> – Matthew Page<br />5. Beyond the Infinite: The Transcendent Vision and Religious Forms of <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i> – Aren Bergstrom<br />6. Empire and Incarnation in <i>The Mission</i> and <i>Of Gods and Men</i> – Benjamin Sammons<br />7. Reverse Rumspringa: Peter Weir’s <i>Witness </i>as “Cultural Kamikaze – Will Underland and Jency Wilson<br />8. A <i>Sacrifice </i>of Praise – Evan Cogswell<br />9. Right and Wrong?: Binary Opposition in <i>Do The Right Thing</i> – Douglas C. MacLeod, Jr.<br />10. To Love and Be Loved in Return: Thirty Years of Discovering Kieślowski’s <i>Blue </i>– Jeffrey Overstreet<br />11. Faith, Reason, and Interpretation: Belief and Doubt in <i>The Song of Bernadette</i> and <i>Lourdes </i>–Steven D. Greydanus<br />12. Put on the Full Armor of God: Faith and Radicalism in <i>First Reformed</i> – Matthew Spencer</p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-7590888790659859592023-10-03T00:59:00.002+01:002023-10-03T01:05:00.466+01:00Giudetta e Oloferne [Head of a Tyrant], (Fernando Cerchio, 1959)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggt20r0UgHmj9SUG1frGcCMtH6d4j_ePJtw3VKhwqEoMt8XSFZ37kPrsufsgCHROJUSDxnXgybthVQ_pX2X4a3o5ytgWy4t-nCzjXltai-xFD0BT4xgfN5dFASztfDHQs3K_b77s2hhzapaPX3DgntCwr-rqsYyFmTsyijlGcaCzqYYRo-Xdm5RQ/s1360/1959%20Head%20of%20a%20Tyrant5.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="650" data-original-width="1360" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggt20r0UgHmj9SUG1frGcCMtH6d4j_ePJtw3VKhwqEoMt8XSFZ37kPrsufsgCHROJUSDxnXgybthVQ_pX2X4a3o5ytgWy4t-nCzjXltai-xFD0BT4xgfN5dFASztfDHQs3K_b77s2hhzapaPX3DgntCwr-rqsYyFmTsyijlGcaCzqYYRo-Xdm5RQ/s320/1959%20Head%20of%20a%20Tyrant5.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>Not sure why it's taken me so long to watch and review this one before. I've written quite a lot about <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Judith" target="_blank">Judith films</a> and this is, I think, the longest cinematic adaptation of the deuterocanonical book. And while it's known as <i>Head of A Tyrant</i> in the English speaking world, it's an Italian <i>peplum</i> film shot just after the genre exploded with the release of <i>Le Fatiche di Ercole</i> (<i>Hercules</i>, Pietro Francisci, 1958).<div><br /></div><div>Judith is played by French actor Isabelle Corey who had starred in both <i>Bob le Flambleur</i> and <i>...And God Created Woman</i> within a few months of one another in 1956. Opposite her Oloferne is played by Massimo Girotti who was still almost a decade away from his most famous performance as the dad in Pasolini's <i>Teorema</i> (Theorem, 1968) screaming into the deserted landscapes of Mount Etna. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's unusual for a peplum film to rest quite so heavily on its performances, and Corey and Girotto do a good enough job of portraying the tensions both of them feel. On the one hand they feel inextricably pulled towards the other, but she is torn between her love of him and the love of her people, he on the other hand knows she might be trouble but chooses to let her into his heart regardless. </div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfpLXQisX8EOiNC3ZtDNKSzQt2Wv7T_B7LGBfuMvjNMfH71XyarTazoXZtd_qArCKzw13vMPoFa3KSmjyJhxjUq6eL7ieab3rZw5VSzYje69K8hdzLA0I2ESM4DPOR2SP954fwZE5QkqZhTJj3CLGA07tbhN_EGy2ZNiYHEEQrF_oOeAxHSSQ7bQ/s1360/1959%20Head%20of%20a%20Tyrant6.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="650" data-original-width="1360" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfpLXQisX8EOiNC3ZtDNKSzQt2Wv7T_B7LGBfuMvjNMfH71XyarTazoXZtd_qArCKzw13vMPoFa3KSmjyJhxjUq6eL7ieab3rZw5VSzYje69K8hdzLA0I2ESM4DPOR2SP954fwZE5QkqZhTJj3CLGA07tbhN_EGy2ZNiYHEEQrF_oOeAxHSSQ7bQ/s320/1959%20Head%20of%20a%20Tyrant6.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" /></a></div>The plot deviates a little from the story in the Book of Judith. The Assyrians come seeking to make the Israelites surrender. I like the way the town elders aren't really sure why they're being attacked. That seems to fit with the over-the-topness of Nebuchadnezzar's reaction in the text. Despite the reasonableness of the appeal for surrender,some refuse to accept their gods and there are a few who fire a few arrows towards Holophernes which creates conflict.The Bethulians are ordered to give up the would-be assassins or else they will be destroyed. But rather than besieging the town the Assyrians seem to move in. There's no camping at any rate. One other deviation is that Judith's servant, while an active character in the film, does not accompany Judith there.</div><div><br /></div><div>The portrayal of Judith is interesting. In the book she's a beautiful widow and both elements seem to have some bearing on the story. I don't recall if anyone mentions that she is a widow. Instead there's much more emphasis on her being a daughter and sister than on being a widow. Her youthful attractiveness is only emphasised when she ingratiates herself into Holophernes' inner court by performing a sexy Salomé-esque dance. </div><div></div><div> </div><div>Of course the most famous film version of this story is the 1914 one by D.W. Griffith and this is a very different beast. obviously this adaptation is in colour and with sound, not to mention that for modern audiences the quality of the available print is is far greater here. Yet something else feels very different aside from all that. It's campier, for sure. The shortness of the soldiers skirts confirm that. But perhaps it's because director Fernando Cerchio trusts his material a little more, as if knowing that the possibility of violence creates a more engaging experience than the before and after battle scenes in Griffith's film.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcTQnpw8Cc3eaGoR0vOP_597wGOcFn_vprQbCpnz7qMM8sTnt3Bc2bJTnU_2ylHTAOwNMlKXUdt_Hpv753r-EG3rwxdnBNbH6Uo4UIDyCXxL-YuYFsaUSIsj7aRtZFc7xnbW17JS02tZ2wY3N48Y58ojAwNwBE0lllXT_4a50L1GB5igKpPnV6iQ/s1280/1959%20Head%20of%20a%20Tyrant%207.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="1280" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcTQnpw8Cc3eaGoR0vOP_597wGOcFn_vprQbCpnz7qMM8sTnt3Bc2bJTnU_2ylHTAOwNMlKXUdt_Hpv753r-EG3rwxdnBNbH6Uo4UIDyCXxL-YuYFsaUSIsj7aRtZFc7xnbW17JS02tZ2wY3N48Y58ojAwNwBE0lllXT_4a50L1GB5igKpPnV6iQ/s320/1959%20Head%20of%20a%20Tyrant%207.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>Cerchio puts that colour to good use, particularly the greens and reds in the interiors which complements the costumes. It reflects both the opposition between Judith and Holophernes, but also their similarities, and that a little of each is found in the other. Yet the gaudiness of these tones, particularly in combination, are also unsettling, putting us ill at ease. There's a slight <i>In a Lonely Place</i> vibe here: the chemistry, the tension between conflicting passions, or between head and heart. <p>Here, though, things are different. Holophernes decides time is up for Judith's people. His costume changes to predominantly black as he hopes to force the citizens to surrender the guilty men. Hers is pure red with both the connotations of sexiness and blood. The physical gap between the two widens. Holophernes starts to feel justified in his decision and then he says "Sometimes we have to do things in spite of ourselves that we wish we didn't have to do" and his spell over Judith is broken. <br /></p><div>The beheading scene is particularly good. The sword almost calling out to her like Macbeth's dagger via a quick zoom. Her pose (above) as she hesitates just for a moment before striking, almost as if wishing he would wake-up and stop her. One more notable moment remains as Judith emerges from the building, shot from behind, and holds aloft Holophernes' head, motionless. A lesser director might have strung out the final battle scene here, but her it's rather half-hearted. The decisive blow has already been struck.</div><p></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-3544879584409130132023-09-03T08:13:00.006+01:002023-10-14T20:15:39.832+01:00Is The Book of Clarence Movie Based on the Bible?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj-vaUsPol3263lAZDDbHxoo-ZcDwlT-Aux_fgOgsl4neJzMh0vcguz2S6sq95J44Q_XtDdTrTg-8N7Kh5laEnmQ4Z5Cmmkizmb1OMynVskLV13lpDFMd9iI0P8LeOLMttvZaVwdIWOlp49rV2pC5hTIbF8bu9spx9xg-0v77wLxsvIIKhHa74hw/s1916/2024%20Book%20of%20Clarence%2001.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="793" data-original-width="1916" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj-vaUsPol3263lAZDDbHxoo-ZcDwlT-Aux_fgOgsl4neJzMh0vcguz2S6sq95J44Q_XtDdTrTg-8N7Kh5laEnmQ4Z5Cmmkizmb1OMynVskLV13lpDFMd9iI0P8LeOLMttvZaVwdIWOlp49rV2pC5hTIbF8bu9spx9xg-0v77wLxsvIIKhHa74hw/s320/2024%20Book%20of%20Clarence%2001.png" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>(Edit: <a href="http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2023/10/review-book-of-clarence-2024.html" target="_blank">my review </a>for this film is now live).</b></span><br />The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTMqRPOqkGs" target="_blank">trailer</a> for the film <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Book%20of%20Clarence" target="_blank">The Book of Clarence</a></i> landed this week and given the publicity for the movie talks about Jesus, a lot of people will be wondering, is the Book of Clarence in the Bible? <i>Is</i> there a Clarence in the Bible and if so where in the Bible is Clarence?<p></p><p>The answer to all these questions is fairly simple. There isn't a Book of Clarence in the Bible. There isn't even a character called Clarence in the Bible, even if many of the other characters in the film, are mentioned in the Bible or are known from other historical evidence. As far as we know, the movie is not even based on a true story, rather it's an original idea from British writer and director <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5029795/" target="_blank">Jeymes Samuel</a>. </p><p>Yet, based on what we know so far, it's fair to say that the film will be loosely based on the Bible. Jesus and the disciples are characters in the story doing broadly similar things to the stories about them in the gospels. Characters also recognised in Roman history, such as Pontius Pilate (who looks like he is being played by James McAvoy) will feature as well.</p><p>In this sense, then, it looks like the film will follow a roughly similar path to <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Life%20of%20Brian" target="_blank"><i>Monty Python's Life of Brian</i> (1979)</a>. Clarence is a fictional character around the fringes of the Jesus story who has some similar experiences to Jesus and becomes some kind of figurehead. Plus, of course, both films are comedies. </p><p>So while <i>The Book of Clarence</i> will draw on the stories from the gospels, Clarence himself is a fictional character who is not even mentioned in the Bible. <br /></p><p>If you liked this post you might enjoy:<br />> my review of <a href="http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2023/10/review-book-of-clarence-2024.html" target="_blank"><i>The Book of Clarence</i> (2024)</a><br />> my book "<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/100BibleFilms" target="_blank">100 Bible Films</a>" (BFI/Bloomsbury, 2022)</p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-69123000060847885222023-08-28T10:05:00.002+01:002023-08-28T10:06:03.864+01:00Data Visualization: How Does Pasolini Abridge Matthew's Gospel?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQkRWvdioLPgmHRO0qVB5IAKHydMGGA-mWTbqVYkrbavJ0B-iFH8hUpqEms_Y0aiPsxUblVp-q22CWq_BNwILyiuhod1uORNO4iEY3MV_TrlkOJM-XhF-_yBsIY6m0z-khpKPnHWD1eGdJ4Z17-dZAji1jq6falWF6-JBtUOLNlgvT-qWODGAyyA/s904/Pasolini%20vs%20Gospel%20of%20Matthew.JPG"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="904" data-original-width="806" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQkRWvdioLPgmHRO0qVB5IAKHydMGGA-mWTbqVYkrbavJ0B-iFH8hUpqEms_Y0aiPsxUblVp-q22CWq_BNwILyiuhod1uORNO4iEY3MV_TrlkOJM-XhF-_yBsIY6m0z-khpKPnHWD1eGdJ4Z17-dZAji1jq6falWF6-JBtUOLNlgvT-qWODGAyyA/s400/Pasolini%20vs%20Gospel%20of%20Matthew.JPG" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Click <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQkRWvdioLPgmHRO0qVB5IAKHydMGGA-mWTbqVYkrbavJ0B-iFH8hUpqEms_Y0aiPsxUblVp-q22CWq_BNwILyiuhod1uORNO4iEY3MV_TrlkOJM-XhF-_yBsIY6m0z-khpKPnHWD1eGdJ4Z17-dZAji1jq6falWF6-JBtUOLNlgvT-qWODGAyyA/s904/Pasolini%20vs%20Gospel%20of%20Matthew.JPG">here</a> for larger/better resolution version of the image</b>.</span></p><p>Earlier in the year I was writing a chapter on Pier Paolo Pasolini's <i>Il Vangelo secondo Matteo</i> (The Gospel According to Matthew, 1964) for a book due out next year hopefully about some of the films from the <a href="https://artsandfaith.com/top-100/" target="_blank">Arts and Faith Top 100</a>. </p><p>The words spoken in the film are almost entirely directly taken from Matthew's Gospel, but not all of the Gospel is included. Many sections are omitted or abbreviated. Moreover, Pasolini rearranges the text so some incidents/ speeches occur in a different place in the film. </p><p>I made a list of which parts of the Gospels appear in various film many years ago (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2006/07/30-film-scene-guide-spreadsheet.html" target="_blank">free download</a>) and Jeffrey Staley and Richard Walsh produced similar but more detailed versions of this information for their 2007 book "Jesus, the Gospels, and Cinematic Imagination" (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2007/12/jesus-gospels-and-cinematic-imagination.html" target="_blank">my review</a>) a completely <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/jesus-the-gospels-and-cinematic-imagination-9780567693853/" target="_blank">reworked version</a> of which was published last year. </p><p>However, I wanted to get a better feel for how Pasolini edits, abridges and rearranges the material and while those resources are useful I wanted to get something more immediate. Given my day job is creating data visualisations, I decided to have a quick go with the data about Pasolini's movie. Jeffrey and Richard were kind enough to allow me to use their research and to provide it in an electronic format. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Preparation <br /></h4><p>My intention was to plot where the cited/dramatised incidents from the text occur in the film. In order to do this I began by tidying and making a number of amendments to their data. There was the odd error and there was one passage where the wording is used twice in the text and I felt the other verse seemed to be where Pasolini would more naturally be drawing from. I also gave a more detailed breakdown of the Sermon on The Mount and where there was only a time stamp for a section of teaching, I added in specific times. This was a challenge as Staley and Walsh had used a different release of the film than any of mine own.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Visual elements</h4><p>One of the things I wanted to examine was how Pasolini handled the five main teaching blocks we find in the text. Scholars have noted how Matthew concentrates Jesus' teaching into five main blocks and for over a century it has been suggested that this is to associate Jesus and the gospel with Moses and the five books of the Torah. So I shaded these areas in grey. I probably should've mentioned that on the diagram itself, but I couldn't quite work out where to do that and, at least at the time, I was hoping to do an improved version.</p><p>From a data visualisation point of view there is one thing that is particularly unusual about this chart which is that "time" is on the y-axis, whereas nearly always time goes on the x-axis. I decided to do it this way for two reasons. Firstly, because in a sense both axes are a variation on time. The y-axis is time through the film, but really the x-axis represents time to. Perhaps we could call it time spent reading through the gospel. It's not linear or regular time, but it's not totally out of keeping with the convention.</p><p>The second reason, however, was that having plotted it both ways this felt like the more natural choice. While the time through the movie might be more regular, the text is more original. It represents a reality that exists before the film comes and rearranges it. The sense of progress is progress through the text. Similarly, I think the various attempts to plot the time sequence in <i>Pulp Fiction</i> (1994) fail because the people producing them don't want to break the rule that time in minutes/should be on the y-axis. But this is a case of "it depends" albeit in a situation where the convention is dominant.<br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Notes on style</h4><p>Many of the most popular data visualisations use quite lively colours and style. When that works, it really works and it's no surprise that the ones that are able to leverage colour effectively go on to become the most popular. </p><p>The downside of this, however, is that people think effective / good data visualization has to have lots of colour. That's not true. Indeed many dataviz experts like Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic advise us to "<span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">resist the urge to use color for the sake of being colorful" (<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=retRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&dq=ColeNussbaumerKnaflic%22ResistTheUrgeToUseColorForTheSakeOfBeingColorful%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqxMnE8v6AAxVtU0EAHV54CLUQ6AF6BAgJEAI=onepage&q=Cole%20Nussbaumer%20Knaflic%20%22Resist%20the%20urge%20to%20use%20color%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20being%20colorful%22&f=false" target="_blank">"Storytelling with Data", p.117</a>). </span></span></p><p><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">Here, it felt like colour didn't really have a key role to play. I could perhaps emphasise one particular section, or assign different colours to the type of material, and perhaps that's a job for a future iteration of the visual, perhaps one that is being presented. </span></span></p><p><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">Instead, I decided to lean in to the lack of colour. The film is of course magnificently and proudly black and white (if you have the <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2007/02/argghh-gospel-according-to-matthew.html" target="_blank">colourised abomination</a> you should destroy it before it burns out your eyes and shrivels your soul). Moreover regardless of the excesses appearing on screen, Pasolini kept his titles sparse and plain. </span></span></p><p><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">So I stuck with black and white, or rather black and light grey. The off-white background is the same hue featured in Pasolini's opening credits, and I used the Galatia SIL font as this seemed like the closest approximation to Pasolini's original font that I could find for free. </span></span><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">I'm weighing up doing a couple of other version of these and I'm thinking of doing those using colour and a more modern font. But here, </span></span><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc"> I've </span></span><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc">essentially tried to reproduce the film's simple aesthetic. It's part of what makes the film so powerful.<br /></span></span></p><p><b>Limitations</b></p><p>As I've mentioned above I'm still wondering about doing a more advanced version of the above. Ideally I would have liked it to be possible to hover over the dots and see the name and reference to each incident. In terms of tools I tend to use Power BI, but here I used Excel, partly because I didn't think anyone would look at it unless they already had a Power BI account and also because Power Bi doesn't let you use custom fonts. There are a couple of ways round the latter, but the former is a real deal breaker. </p><p>Annoyingly, though, while the Excel file version of this document does allow you to see some info as a tool-tip, you can't customise it, the way you can in PowerBi. So maybe I'll return to this data if I ever get around to picking up Tableau or Deneb or R or something where I can make the interactivity show online.</p><p>The other limitation is that the quality is not as high as I'd hope. The <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQkRWvdioLPgmHRO0qVB5IAKHydMGGA-mWTbqVYkrbavJ0B-iFH8hUpqEms_Y0aiPsxUblVp-q22CWq_BNwILyiuhod1uORNO4iEY3MV_TrlkOJM-XhF-_yBsIY6m0z-khpKPnHWD1eGdJ4Z17-dZAji1jq6falWF6-JBtUOLNlgvT-qWODGAyyA/s904/Pasolini%20vs%20Gospel%20of%20Matthew.JPG" target="_blank">higher quality version</a> of this image is just over 800 by 900 pixels, but even then the dots look a little pixely in places. I also need to find somewhere to put that note about the darker grey strips being the author's five teaching blocks.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Did it work?<br /></h4><p>The main point I make about all this in the essay is that whereas Jesus has five chunks of teaching, Pasolini essentially reduces this down to two, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) and the Olivet discourse (Matt 23-25). However this visualisation doesn't really bear this out. While both sections <i>feel </i>like they take a long time, in reality they only take 5½ and 6½ minutes respectively, only 10% of the film combined. Plus while Pasolini's second discourse includes almost every word from chapter 23, he omits most of 24-25.<br /></p><p>This move from five to two seems really clear from viewing the film, so it's arguably a bit of a failure of the graph that it doesn't really bring that out. In a future version I'd want to itemise the seven woes a bit more. That would create more presence on the chart, but I don't think it will solve the problem. I need to think a bit more about that – it's why this visualisation won't be appearing in my chapter on it. </p><p>That said, though, the <i>point</i> of the visual wasn't to reinforce a point I already felt comes through strongly in the film, it was to give me much more of a feel of how Pasolini jumps about in and abridges his source. And in that sense I think it really helps. For example, even with the briefest glance it's clear that Pasolini does not adopt a linear-but-abridged approach to the text. He moves material around. Much easier to see here than by sifting through a list of chapters and verses. I'm considering doing another one of these for <i>The Jesus Film</i> (1979) which takes a similar approach to Luke's gospel. I have no idea whether it jumps around or not.<br /></p><p>There are other benefits. One point I found particularly interesting, is to see what happened to Matthew's second discourse. Pasolini essentially merges it into part of his calling of the disciples sequence. It's a clever move because he manages to not only preserve the "revolutionary" way Matthew has Jesus make a single clear proposition, but also maintain a plausible dramatic narrative in terms of Jesus' growing support. He calls his men, and teaches them, before turning up after just his baptism to a huge crowd on the top of a mountain.</p><p>It also demonstrates that Pasolini jumps back four times in the film, but for decreasing amount of time and material on each subsequent occasion. Also noticeable that the birth and Passion narratives take place in completely straight-forward fashion. It's only the ministry where some things change. But it's also arguable that what Pasolini is doing is jumping forward, rather than backwards. I might need to think a bit more about that.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Over to you</h4><p>Having not only gone to the effort of producing this, I've now spent quite a while creating this blog post about it as well. So needless to say I'd love it not to be all in vain. So feel free to like and share and use if you're using it in classes. Please just keep the attribution to Staley and Walsh as well as mentioning me as its originator.</p><p>More importantly do you have any observations that come from the chart? If so, I'd love to hear them. Please put something in the comments below.<br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-51649051712913617492023-08-21T09:15:00.007+01:002023-08-21T09:17:37.760+01:00Wilde Salomé (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDrU2GP3nwd0f09t1z3WSuWNNv-hoqoLS62lFhHogKUXrLoGXYmNLbHhuuikGz5_jb0kjFR2l634dyM6GPJKC6cmYXXyL2bGTg_moFRc1nQpmijmmK8_YhyXQGLkbvW5_YiR9zQ77QJ9yvaLeukqEWxXNxb6BTk-iE316i4cnT_kfJUsn18JCpNg/s1366/2013%20Salome%20(1).jpg" ><img style="margin: 5px 0px;" border="0" data-original-height="738" data-original-width="1366" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDrU2GP3nwd0f09t1z3WSuWNNv-hoqoLS62lFhHogKUXrLoGXYmNLbHhuuikGz5_jb0kjFR2l634dyM6GPJKC6cmYXXyL2bGTg_moFRc1nQpmijmmK8_YhyXQGLkbvW5_YiR9zQ77QJ9yvaLeukqEWxXNxb6BTk-iE316i4cnT_kfJUsn18JCpNg/s320/2013%20Salome%20(1).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>I've wanted to see Al Pacino's <i>Salomé</i> production for many years despite not being entirely sure what it was. There were seeming <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795459/" target="_blank">two</a> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3112900/" target="_blank">entries</a> on IMDb that seemed relevant and while things are a little clearer there now, originally it was confusing. Was this a filmed play, or a (more standard movie); or was it a documentary. It briefly popped up on Amazon Prime so I bookmarked it to come back to. And then it disappeared. <p></p><p>Fortunately, after an absence of 2 or so years (in the UK at least) it's back <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Pacino-Presents-Wilde-Salome/dp/B07BHHBFNP" target="_blank">on Prime</a> again to rent or buy on Amazon. So, ever trying to learn from past mistakes, I snapped it up, watched it and decided I should probably get some initial thoughts down before it disappears again.</p><p>It turns out that what you are buying is in two distinct entities run into one. Firstly there is a documentary called <i>Wilde Salomé </i>from 2011. This is then immediately followed by a filmed version of the play which sits part way between a filmed play and a film. I'll offer a few thoughts on the latter in a future post as it's more the typical focus of this blog, but for now here are a few thoughts on the documentary</p><p>---------------</p><p><i>Wilde Salomé</i> is a 90 minute documentary which tracks Pacino's journey in adapting Oscar Wilde's famous play <i>Salomé</i>. Apparently the project has been a long term passion project for Pacino and he tells his story as he tours round various key locations in Wilde's lifetime, in Ireland, the US and in the UK. We also hear from a number of other people Pacino talks to, ranging from one of Wilde's descendants and people like Bono, through to a literal man on the street outside one of Wilde's British homes who, despite being a local resident, had no idea of the location's significance prior to bumping into Al Pacino blocking the pavement there. There's also some footage from Israel/Palestine.</p><p>The travelogue footage is interspersed with extensive excerpts from the filmed version of the play, as well as lots of behind the scenes footage. Pacino trying to bring the production together, rehearsals, passionate discussions about the way a certain aspect should be handled. It emerges that there are three levels to the project which are all being produced in the same five days period: the stage play, which is being performed in from of a paying audience; a separate filmed version of the play which is being shot in the same few days, but entirely separately from the theatrical version; and the documentary itself. </p><p>There are certainly some interesting details, particularly for those, who like me, can recall only a little about Wilde and are never sure how much of it is true and how much is fiction from productions ranging from comedies such as <i>Blackadder Goes Forth</i> (1989) to more serious biopics like <i>Wilde</i> (1997) starring <i>Blackadder</i> alumnus Stephen Fry.</p><p>The details of Wilde's final years, particularly those of his incarceration in a hard labour prison are pretty horrifying and the more editorial take on "Bosie", is welcome. I picture him as Jude Law, forget his father's codifying of the rules of boxing and can never recall a great deal else.</p><p>Richard Strauss's famous operatic adaptation also gets a mention here -- For some strange reason I struggle to think of Strauss's work as coming after Wilde's. He, or at least his opera, somehow seems like a much more established / accepted work in terms of the British establishment. </p><p>While there are I'd really have liked a decent discussion of other filmed versions of the play or story. Pacino mentioned first seeing the Steven Berkhoff version in the late 1990s, and there's a little footage from that, but only regarding how it inspired him. And then there's footage from an early silent version and another adaptation shot in the Mojave desert. Fine if you want to skip the 1953 Rita Heyworth version (which not only steers clear of Wilde's play and drops the accent on the "e", but also changes Salome into a heroine who thinks she's dancing to save John the Baptist), but it would be nice to hear his thoughts on the 1922 Nazimova version or Ken Russell's <i>The Last Dance</i> (1988). Actually I should get round to reviewing that one myself...</p><p>All in all, there are certainly some points of interest, and it does flesh out Pacino's filmed version of the play which follows, but it's not as interesting as might be hoped, partly because, for all Pacino's charisma and enthusiasm, there's very little discipline. Pet passions like this need reigning in and this is hard to do when the obsessive fan making the project is one of Hollywood's biggest ever stars. It's not hard to imagine -- not least seeing the direct way with which Pacino talks to his colleagues -- that no-one really stood up to him to reign him in a bit. </p><p>But hey, I'm hardly one to talk. And just as I've enjoyed carving out a bit of space on the internet to let my pet passion ramble on untethered, then why shouldn't he? And for a making-of style documentary for a film about strong, irresistible, irrational passions, perhaps that's rather appropriate. </p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-24949184381849434402023-08-12T13:38:00.001+01:002023-08-12T13:40:29.341+01:00Jesus' Humour in Bible Movies<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhktkA1IjryfHnvBEbH5Nzu1La-Fo_3IEEyIOBYBB0cOiqorRUC2P4pxtJcAm1PxIyZlSxvl0vxKjxjMQHeCib-wg83Ofb5yMjsOG3TT4L5SvB__FH6vKjJTchXtuHqJ7lWKPDn6yCjtj0_QntnPskEkxVgPGrVSyC7xktc5pwkREvOLRIp4IhWkQ/s1357/1988%20Last%20Temptation%20Cheers.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="719" data-original-width="1357" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhktkA1IjryfHnvBEbH5Nzu1La-Fo_3IEEyIOBYBB0cOiqorRUC2P4pxtJcAm1PxIyZlSxvl0vxKjxjMQHeCib-wg83Ofb5yMjsOG3TT4L5SvB__FH6vKjJTchXtuHqJ7lWKPDn6yCjtj0_QntnPskEkxVgPGrVSyC7xktc5pwkREvOLRIp4IhWkQ/s320/1988%20Last%20Temptation%20Cheers.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>I got a question from a friend asking if I knew of any clips of "Jesus laughing or being funny in any Jesus films" and if seemed like it might be an interesting subject for a blog post. They mentioned <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Chosen%20%28The%29" target="_blank">The Chosen</a></i> and I agree it's an obvious starting place, because Jesus' sense of humour is so much more fully developed in that series than any other production that I'm aware of. So maybe we can take that as read, or maybe we'll just return to Jesus' sense of humour in <i>The Chosen</i> because it's quite a topic in itself. Feel free to post any good examples in the comments.<p></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The Comedy Jesus Films</h4><p>An obvious place to start is comedies which feature Jesus as a character. However, in most of the obvious examples, Jesus is played straight, it's the antics around him where characters might be said to joke; or it's the fact that a non-joking Jesus is in an unusual context that provides the humour.</p><p>Take for example Luis Buñuel's <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2007/08/la-voie-lact-milky-way-1969.html" target="_blank"><i>The Milky Way </i>(1969)</a>. Jesus appears a few times. The first time he is thinking of shaving his beard off. It's a funny scene, but the joke is about quirky juxtaposition. Moments later Jesus is running late – again, a normal element of being human that somehow feels at odds with how Jesus is traditionally portrayed</p><p>I covered 9 films that could be classed as comedic in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/100BibleFilms" target="_blank">my book</a>, but most of them were based on the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless only one of them was written in that style of humour where one of the characters provides humour by saying intentionally funny things (e.g. Jerry in <i>Seinfeld</i> or Chandler in <i>Friends</i>), Hal Hartley's <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Book%20of%20Life" target="_blank"><i>The Book of Life </i>(1998)</a>. Here the 'funny' character is Satan even though Jesus (who has come to judge the living and the dead) remains the 'hero', though much of the humour comes from the quirky and surreal world to which Jesus returns.<br /></p><p>Indeed the existing comedy Bible movies are mostly written in that style where the characters themselves play things straight despite the fact they exist in a funny / absurd world / situation or they are the absurd ones. None of these films play Jesus as absurd, though I've not seen much of <i>Black Jesus</i> (2014-19) yet.<br /></p><p>Perhaps the most obvious example of the absurd universe model is the most famous comedic Bible Film <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Life%20of%20Brian" target="_blank"><i>Monty Python's Life of Brian</i> (1979)</a>. Here Jesus only appears briefly at the start delivering the Sermon on the Mount in traditional fashion. The humour comes from the absurd conversations that happen at the edges of the crowd and then as the film pans out further we discover Jesus may very well be the only sane character in the entire character.</p><p>The other film that might qualify as a comedy Jesus film is <i>Get Some Money</i> (2017) directed by Biko Nyongesa. The original short film of the same name was billed as a comedy about Judas' suicide. As someone not really familiar with a Kenyan sense of humour I found it difficult to relate to the humour – suicide tends not to be played for laughs in Anglo-American culture. Some bits were still amusing though again Jesus himself was not making jokes or wry observations.</p><p>Lastly there's <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jesus%20of%20Montreal" target="_blank"><i>Jesus of Montreal</i> (1989)</a> which, as it is often observed, is not really a Jesus film at all as much as a film about Jesus which leans heavily on allegory. Interestingly Daniel, the character in the film who is portraying Jesus in a play, does have a sense of humour, but that's no something that carries over to his performance of Jesus. So the Christ-figure is funny, but not the Jesus figure. Indeed many of the classic Christ-figure films give their hero a sense of humour, but I'm going to resist going off on that tangent.<br /></p><p>In short, while several films are funny <i>about</i> Jesus, none of those really portray Jesus as having a sense of humour. However, there are several of the more traditional-style Jesus films which do give Jesus a sense of humour, so lets turn to them now.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>Son of Man </i>(1969) </h4><p style="text-align: left;">Dennis Potter's play, <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Son%20of%20Man%20(1969)" target="_blank">Son of Man</a></i> was groundbreaking in so many ways, but it was when Gareth Davies adapted it for the BBC that elements of Jesus' humour began to emerge. The actor Davies picked as his lead – Colin Blakely – gives an electric performance as Jesus and his version of the Sermon on the Mount is a particular highlight. There are a few changes to the script. I'm not sure whether Potter rewrote it for the television, or if that was down to Davies, or just the way Blakely delivered the scene. Perhaps a combination of the three, but it's there that a couple of little humorous interjections emerge. The potential is there in Potter's words, but Blakely injects the scene with the impression that not only does his Jesus realise humour is a useful tool, but that he is clearly revelling in using it. "It's easy to love those who love you" says Blakely with perfect comic timing "Why even the tax collector can do that". Later, he admits it would hurt were someone to strike you on the cheek and when Brian Blessed's Peter adds "Yes, especially if I were to do it Master!", Jesus roars with laughter along with everyone else. The signs of Jesus' sense of humour are brief, but very much there.<br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>The Last Temptation of Christ</i> (1988)</h4><p><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Last%20Temptation%20of%20Christ" target="_blank">Scorsese's interpretation</a> of the story was different in so many ways from its predecessors that it's hardly a surprise that humour is one of the elements of Jesus' humanity (though perhaps it's a divine characteristic too) which it draws out. In some ways this is surprising as Jesus tends to be very intense and serious in this movie. The first flicker of a sense of humour here occurs in the stoning scene. Jesus is challenging the crowd about their own sin. When Zebedee steps forward claiming he's not done anything wrong, Jesus asks him his mistresses' name. It's meant rhetorically, but when another member of the crowd shouts out "Judith", Jesus raises his eyebrow wryly. At a recent screening, which I introduced, the audience laughed at that moment. </p><p>Shortly afterwards the disciples arrive at the Wedding at Cana, which Nathaniel (whose cousin is getting married) is helping out with. When the wine runs out Jesus asks what is in the nearby jars. Nathaniel informs him that they're only water – he filled them himself. Jesus suggests he check anyway. Nathaniel is insistent, but eventually gives way, only to discover they are now filled with wine. Nathaniel stares back at Jesus open mouthed. Jesus – in what has become a much used <a href="https://twitter.com/MattPage/status/1518322533044469762" target="_blank">meme</a>, raises his glass with an told-you-so smile.</p><p>There's not much more to it than that, but certainly this was a development, and moreover it's perhaps the only moment in any Jesus production prior to <i>The Chosen</i> where I smile at Jesus' sense of humour. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdRG0st21lsOXQEjxVhv3Hf9g2JJRTp9pCsgApUq8ArMPp6DodyXTU-JHa6KiCI81bd90COKIsINQuZmFn_LOwJk5UHh8igy0JalDh_N3EVKyN7VZZgEDHywEP6xAvdByqWDoBSZVp8y_JFLs5OymrWRan-pON-mf-eL12OCio7YuLAm5BdySBJA/s744/1993%20Visiual%20Bible%20Matthew%207%20log%20plank.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="575" data-original-width="744" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdRG0st21lsOXQEjxVhv3Hf9g2JJRTp9pCsgApUq8ArMPp6DodyXTU-JHa6KiCI81bd90COKIsINQuZmFn_LOwJk5UHh8igy0JalDh_N3EVKyN7VZZgEDHywEP6xAvdByqWDoBSZVp8y_JFLs5OymrWRan-pON-mf-eL12OCio7YuLAm5BdySBJA/s320/1993%20Visiual%20Bible%20Matthew%207%20log%20plank.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>The Visual Bible: Matthew</i> (1994)</h4><p style="text-align: left;">If Scorsese's introduction of a Jesus with a sense of humour was a bit of an innovation then Regardt van den Bergh's <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Visual%20Bible%20-%20Matthew" target="_blank"><i>Matthew</i></a> was a revolution. Bruce Marchiano received instruction from his director to play Jesus as a "Man of Joy" (p.72) and inspiration from an 8 year old friend who remarked "Well I sure hope he <i>smiles </i>a lot because Jesus in the other Jesus movies never smiled, and I know that Jesus smiles all the time". Marchiano certainly delivered on that guidance, giving the most joyful, smiley portrayal of Jesus imaginable. Even the passages where it's hard to image Jesus smiling, Marchiano keeps going, for example the 7 woes of Matt 23. He later reflected that "Jesus smiled bigger and laughed heartier than any human being who's ever walked the planet". While it occasionally rankles with an old curmudgeon like me, many have found it life-changing.</p><p style="text-align: left;">But smiling and laughing are not the same as "being funny" and here van den Bergh and Marchiano were limited by the former's decision to stick to a word for word adaptation of Matthew's text. Yet while Matthew is not the kind of witty text that will instantly have you in stitches, it's important to remember even the deliberate <a href="https://aleteia.org/2017/05/23/want-to-hear-an-ancient-roman-joke-heres-a-collection/" target="_blank">examples of wit we do have from that period</a> do not seem particularly funny to us today. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In that context there are one or two moments of humour in Matthew that feel not out of place in that context and the film certainly tries to stress the point that this is meant to be humorous. The most memorable is when it comes to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&version=NIV" target="_blank">Matt 7:3-5</a> ("<span class="text Matt-7-4" id="en-NIV-23321"><span class="woj">How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"). This bit of comic exaggeration </span></span>often cited as an example of humour in the Bible and, as if to underline the point, Marchiano picks up a big piece of wood and holds it against his eye as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Q502CD8Os" target="_blank">he delivers the line</a>. It's not the greatest piece of comic delivery, but it does, at least, make the point. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>Jesus </i>(1999)<br /></h4><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jesus%20(1999)" target="_blank">Roger Young's miniseries</a> tries, as much as any previous Jesus film, so show Jesus having a laugh. There's the moment when he and his disciples rush to a water point, desperate for a drink and he playfully splashes them with the water and another similar moment later on. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Perhaps the most memorable scene in this respect is when some street performers seek to get the crowd – which Jesus is part of – to dance. Jesus (played by a youthful Jeremy Sisto) is very keen and jumps right up. Thomas (of course!) is less entranced and so Jesus seeks to coax him out of his shell a bit. It plays as funny, but in real life I would hate it if someone tried this. Jesus! You don't need my compliance to validate your own joy at dancing.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Elsewhere Jesus' style of preaching is more open than in many films. When he preaches he doesn't just get the kind of questions we find in the Bible, also gets heckled, and his reaction is to laugh along. Jesus himself doesn't tell jokes in this film, but he certainly is shown to have a good sense of humour.<br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">More recent productions</h4><p style="text-align: left;">All of these examples are from the twentieth century. Are there any<b>, </b>more-recent examples? Casting my mind back, I remember Jesus being generally cheery and good natured in films such as <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Miracle%20Maker" target="_blank"><i>The Miracle Maker </i>(2000)</a> and <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Risen%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20the%20First%20Easter" target="_blank"><i>Risen</i> (2016)</a> and perhaps even a little self-depricating in such a way as to suggest he doesn't take himself too seriously. But neither contain laughter, humour or jokes. Meanwhile 2006's <i>Color of the Cross</i>, <i>Son of God</i> (2014), <i>Killing Jesus</i> (2015) and <i>Last Days in the Desert</i> (2016) probably reversed the general trend of getting Jesus to lighten up a bit from his earlier silver screen outings, and presented him as a more serious figure. Likewise other non-English language efforts such as <i>Shanti Sandesham</i> (2004), <i>Jezile</i> (Son of Man, 2006), <i>Su re</i> (2012) and <i>The Savior</i> (2014) also have a more serious-minded approach. There is are a couple of exceptions and like <i>Son of Man</i> (1969) above, both are from British television...<br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>The Second Coming </i>(2003)</h4><p style="text-align: left;">In 2003 Christopher Ecclestone, the (then) future Doctor Who, starred as the son of God come back to earth as a working class Mancunian. Northern humour was very much part of the mix. In one scene as he speaks to a vast crown he reminds them of scientific breakthroughs with potentially apocalyptic consequences and asks "Do you think you're reading for that much power?...You lot?....You cheeky bastards!" </p><p style="text-align: left;">The line that most stays with me comes from the end of the first episode. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it (it's currently on the Internet Archive), but even twenty years after watching it I could remember the episode's final line. "Well, maybe two".</p><p style="text-align: left;"><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(TV_serial)" target="_blank">Second Coming</a></i> is far from a conventional Jesus film, and it's notable that this was an ITV production rather than something from the BBC. This is very much a Jesus who jokes, even if he's arguably more intense than many of the others. Moreover this is a Jesus who jokes and uses humour, but doesn't really smile and laugh that much (and when he does it's slightly unnerving).<br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>The Passion</i> (2008)</h4><p style="text-align: left;"><i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/BBC's%20The%20Passion" target="_blank">The Passion</a></i> first broadcast by the BBC in 2008 contains a few humorous notes in its very first scene. Jesus and the disciples are attempting to buy a donkey and its colt and when their business is done the seller realises who Jesus is. Jesus asks him what he's heard and when the seller mentions overthrowing the Romans Jesus replies "Does this look like an army...apart from John and James". Later Jesus uses sleight of hand to inject a bit of humour into "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" and also to turn some of his questioners cynicism back onto them. </p><p style="text-align: left;">This is also a Jesus who smiles and laughs as well. But the series is also keen to show those around Jesus laughing at the things he says, or more to the point how he says it. When Jesus is told "the elders instruct us" he counters "and you must listen to what they say...just don't do what they do". As Jesus, Joseph Mawle's delivery is good hear, his relaxed delivery and timing make many lines that read straight in the Gospels become funny. That is also due to Frank Deasy's script which rephrases the words from the Gospels making them more lively and immediate.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Over to you</h4><p style="text-align: left;">That's all of the best examples I can think of, having mulled over this for a week or so. Did I miss any? If so, let me know in the comments below.<br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-7837805945000053882023-08-04T08:01:00.003+01:002023-08-04T08:04:05.633+01:00My Film Commentary for Pasolini's Gospel According to Matthew<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZsK9bpRebpF8tPI7aQfZhBrcD1yPv1e7dP2MB3g-2XZzSbMGhGIEzaOPzoyfezSsw5LDp_5B_xhuimZCwZS1IncvtntmLYVdy6gclehq7yxUfaH4-k55CakL2GZdEOnGAUiumCmi2VP5R1tNQTej2ZkZaNP8sajDFJAKd7p4WeZCebVn8LWmMIA/s960/Commentary%20on%20Pasolini%27s%20Jesus.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZsK9bpRebpF8tPI7aQfZhBrcD1yPv1e7dP2MB3g-2XZzSbMGhGIEzaOPzoyfezSsw5LDp_5B_xhuimZCwZS1IncvtntmLYVdy6gclehq7yxUfaH4-k55CakL2GZdEOnGAUiumCmi2VP5R1tNQTej2ZkZaNP8sajDFJAKd7p4WeZCebVn8LWmMIA/s320/Commentary%20on%20Pasolini%27s%20Jesus.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>For most of this year I've been writing a chapter on <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Pasolini">Pier Paolo Pasolini</a>'s <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Il%20Vangelo%20Secondo%20Matteo" target="_blank">Il Vangelo secondo Matteo</a></i> (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Gospel%20According%20to%20St.%20Matthew" target="_blank">The Gospel According to St. Matthew</a>, 1964). The chapter is due to go in a book celebrating the <a href="https://artsandfaith.com/top-100/" target="_blank">Arts and Faith Top 100 “Spiritually Significant” films</a> lists due out sometime 2024-25. I'll post details on that in due course but keep an eye out for it. It's current title is "The Soul of Cinema: Essays on Arts & Faith’s Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films".<br /></p><p>In honesty, that project may have finished me as a writer. There has been just so much written about Pasolini, and the concepts he wrestles with and introduces as an artist are not easy to get one's head around that it was hugely challenging marshalling all the sources and doing them justice, and then trying to cram it down to a semi-reasonable word count (I think mine might be the longest chapter in the book. I'm grateful to the book's editor and brains behind the project, <a href="https://1morefilmblog.com/about/" target="_blank">Ken Morefield</a>, for his flexibility & support on that. </p><p>Having done all that I thought it might be fun to put that knowledge to good use in other contexts. So I was interviewed about the film by <a href="https://www.johnbleasdale.com/" target="_blank">John Bleasdale</a> for his "Cinema Italia" podcast which you can get from <a href="https://shows.acast.com/cinema-italia/episodes/pasolinithe-gospel-according-to-st-matthew" target="_blank">Acast</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/pasolinis-the-gospel-according-to-st-matthew/id1679216788?i=1000621111881" target="_blank">Apple </a>| <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/2xq3D9OrLNtRe5ybefBEm0" target="_blank">Spotify</a>. </p><p>So I've also recorded this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFyPbpIGXx4" target="_blank">feature length commentary track</a>. Here you get to watch the whole film while I discuss various aspects about it's production, meaning, performers, music, etc. It's like a director's commentary, only I'm obviously not the director. The beauty of doing this is that I've added subtitles so you can still follow what's happening. And it's 720px so the visual quality should be pretty decent. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFyPbpIGXx4">Watch the video here</a>.<br /></p><p>It's difficult to know how this will land. I'm an avid consumer of YouTube, but have had quite mixed results even with my own limited content. My most watched video is 3 seconds of John Inman going "I'm free", followed by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDi6Rfl2tS4" target="_blank">Harry Dean Stanton singing "Ain't No Grave"</a> in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2006/09/christ-figure-of-cool-hand-luke.html" target="_blank"><i>Cool Hand Luke</i></a>. But in terms of Bible Films material I don't really know why my most successful video comprising of clips from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3KB5vM9Cu8" target="_blank">6 Classic Era Jesus Films</a> has currently got 26,000 views, while one showing clips from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bURGbu6FDA" target="_blank">5 Silent Jesus Films</a> has only 345. Similarly I would never have predicted that around 7,000 people would watch my <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1i4d5_TnTE" target="_blank">clip</a> from obscure Sardinian Jesus film <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Su%20Re%20%28The%20King%29" target="_blank"><i>Su re</i> (2012)</a>, but only 64 would watch the pivotal <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxyTES8HwnQ" target="_blank">clip</a> from the far better known <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jesus%20of%20Montreal" target="_blank"><i>Jesus of Montreal</i> (1989)</a>.</p><p>I suspect this is the least appealing of all of them – after all not many people will have the time to sit and watch/listen to me for over two hours. But I do hope those that do find it an enriching and rewarding experience. I should add that I don't make a penny of these videos, so hopefully there won't be too many ads for household gadgets at crucial moments.<br /></p><p> <iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sFyPbpIGXx4" width="320" youtube-src-id="sFyPbpIGXx4"></iframe></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-43198361021898515422023-07-23T17:03:00.002+01:002023-07-23T17:04:04.579+01:00The Shack (2017)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjNdDNIOqX9jaORxef5H_A_eYe7Vv_-2YYR0QCDFWv0C1D2OMjhPAwNhthLmLxxymjBsr2T2asPl9ypk5j6OTJSmzL5Q8yVv0ChKtfwxmt3OQhy-IYhMdN26xt-6iN7XIJYcnXuex3OVZbhh0iE_pfHPG3YaVnB5P90yp2tpn1s-3_opPRrbBYlQ/s1919/2017%20The%20Shack%20Trinity.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="799" data-original-width="1919" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjNdDNIOqX9jaORxef5H_A_eYe7Vv_-2YYR0QCDFWv0C1D2OMjhPAwNhthLmLxxymjBsr2T2asPl9ypk5j6OTJSmzL5Q8yVv0ChKtfwxmt3OQhy-IYhMdN26xt-6iN7XIJYcnXuex3OVZbhh0iE_pfHPG3YaVnB5P90yp2tpn1s-3_opPRrbBYlQ/s320/2017%20The%20Shack%20Trinity.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>Ideally, I probably should have watched <i>The Shack</i> (dir. Stuart Hazeldine, 2017) before I finished writing my book. The novel, originally a bedtime story that William Paul Young wrote for his kids and was encouraged to convert into a book, had sold 20 million copies even before the film came out,<sup>1</sup> and was certainly big at my old church. The summaries I heard didn't really appeal to me. Then it got a $20million adaptation, and while it made five times that back at the box office, it didn't get released near me. <p></p><p>By the time I was writing with real purpose, it was available on DVD, but it seemed to be more of a Christian film than a Bible film. Yes it features Jesus played by an actor from Israel (Aviv Alush), only three years after Robert Savo's <i>The Savior</i> (2014) had first done the same, as well as portraying God as a Black woman (played by Octavia Spencer). Yet while both of these things made me consider it briefly, its story is fictional, not biblical, and even the appearance of the Trinity (rounded off by Sumire as "Sarayu", the Holy Spirit) is ultimately portrayed as something that happens in the protagonist's mind/heart.</p><p>So I decided to pass and I would probably have left it for a good while longer but for the fact someone asked me about it at an academic conference recently. I was presenting on authenticity in biblical films and then also had a hint of a chance of appearing again on BBC Radio 4 talking about Christian movies, so I decided I should really get on with it.</p><p>On reflection, I'm glad I delayed because I <i>hated </i>this film. Indeed I'm fairly stunned to find reviews by some of the Christian reviewers I know (and respect) were lukewarm about it. As a general rule I tend to try not to dwell too much on the negatives of a film. I'm sure <i>The Shack</i> will have profoundly touched, moved and even changed some people, perhaps even help them through their grief. I don't wish to trample on that, so I'll refrain from going into why I think it fails both as entertainment as as an apologetic.<sup>2</sup></p><p>In any case, given my mind has a tendency to over-literalise things, perhaps I'm just missing the point. I guess it's trying to be more of a parable, though in terms of form, though, perhaps it closer to the Book of Job. <i>The Shack</i>'s protagonist, Mack (played by Sam Worthington) is well and truly brought low. Already a survivor of domestic violence and then having his daughter abducted, raped and murdered, now his marriage is falling apart and he's losing (less literally) his remaining kids as he (understandably) struggles to process his emotional pain. Only then are we given a peek into God's inner circle and the chance to understand the bigger picture: Mack finds himself at a remote cottage talking with personifications of the three persons of the Trinity, and then with the personification of wisdom (Sophia) as well.<br /></p><p>I get that the intention is to portray God-the-parent, God-the-son and God-the-Holy-Spirit as loving and approachable, but I'm not sure this really maps to the kind of Job-esque peek behind the scenes that the filmmakers seem to be attempting. Moreover is Job really a good apologetic in the first place? To me Job is at it's best when it's giving expression to human suffering – suffering we all feel at one time or another, not when it's trying to explain it away. Indeed even the court-scene framing – which many scholars consider later additions – doesn't really attempt to give acceptable justification for why God allowed Job to suffer. Theologically the problem is that <i>The Shack</i> wants to a) given a reasoned explanation for suffering; b) present God as being active, all-powerful, present and intervening in the world; and, c) loving and good and I think you really only get to choose two.</p><p>Octavia Spencer is a decent actress and she deserves better than this. Splitting the trinity into three persons (plus wisdom) really seems to weaken the potential appeal of each and while Spencer's homely, compassionate motherly persona might win over those who believe in God, but that he hates them, the character doesn't really have enough charisma and the homespun wisdom (not something I'm a huge fan of in general) falls a long way short of comparative biblical material (be it from Job or elsewhere). The problem is that personifying God then leaves little room for Jesus. He can show Mack how to walk on water and reinforce the point that both he and God-the-parent are loving, but while there's mention of his own suffering he doesn't even really seem to reflect on his and Mack's shared experience.</p><p>So while it's a most welcome change to see a Black Woman playing God, and an Jewish Israeli playing Jesus they are not really given any decent material to work with. It's not really a Bible film, it's an adaptation of Bible fan-fiction, and a poorly executed attempt at that.</p><p>=======================<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">1. Getlen, Larry, "This man wrote a small book for his family — and it became a bestseller", <i>New York Post. </i>December 27, 2016. <a href="https://nypost.com/2016/12/25/this-man-wrote-a-small-book-for-his-family-and-it-became-a-best-seller/">https://nypost.com/2016/12/25/this-man-wrote-a-small-book-for-his-family-and-it-became-a-best-seller/</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">2. If you want to experience it being dismantled, then <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jun/08/the-shack-review-christian-murder-drama-theology" target="_blank">plenty</a> <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/film-reviews-roundup-my-cousin-rachel-norman-wilson-the-shack-a7777101.html" target="_blank">of</a> <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-shack-review-20170302-story.html" target="_blank">other</a> <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Spiritual-Shack-a-poor-film-with-a-strong-10972526.php" target="_blank">reviews</a> have done that already, including the podcast "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpoea1JuRRI" target="_blank">God Awful Movies</a>" (also available on audio only) which spends nearly two hours comprehensively dismantling it – though I find some of their views pretty deplorable.</span><br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-32604933413592170412023-07-03T09:11:00.008+01:002023-07-03T09:12:50.808+01:00The Chosen (2019) s1e08<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4p-0jBtUy2vyJ1MCE2M4WQlGrQupMwHl-tjEbmF56vtXV8JO1EuSmxoR2j2tYe9NMMd7cyelfyRfpyzhd29JoutcafX44agOB3tCEH1gWoGVQ5ia5EEDXBZgsu6oUC3mv4YeUHRtlZBdcJRPnAOQMza3dPgyjlYYCv-T2-eD6H8uxnIioZLGm1w/s2160/1FC205D5-4367-4DF0-A06B-DD63209A1445.jpeg"><img border="0" data-original-height="1069" data-original-width="2160" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4p-0jBtUy2vyJ1MCE2M4WQlGrQupMwHl-tjEbmF56vtXV8JO1EuSmxoR2j2tYe9NMMd7cyelfyRfpyzhd29JoutcafX44agOB3tCEH1gWoGVQ5ia5EEDXBZgsu6oUC3mv4YeUHRtlZBdcJRPnAOQMza3dPgyjlYYCv-T2-eD6H8uxnIioZLGm1w/s320/1FC205D5-4367-4DF0-A06B-DD63209A1445.jpeg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>In many ways, it felt like <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-chosen-2019-s1e07.html" target="_blank">episode 7</a> of <i>The Chosen</i>'s opening season was the climax to its various story arcs, so the decision not to end there seems like a curious one. It's true that one of those arcs – that of Nicodemus – moves on a step further in this episode. We leave him hiding round a street corner crying because he cannot follow Jesus to Jerusalem. Yet neither of the main two story lines in this episode are primarily about major characters. One revolves around the healing of Peter's Mother-in-law (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201%3A29-31" target="_blank">Mark 1:29-31</a>) who has featured before, as has Peter's wife, but they've mainly functioned as filling in Peter's back-story as significant characters in their own right. Secondly, there's the woman of Samaria who, is an entirely new character as this is the first time we've really seen Jesus moving beyond Galilee.<p></p><p>And perhaps this last point is why this series ends where it does. It's not driven so much by story arcs and characters, as the breaks in the text, which, I suppose, say something about Jesus' story arc. His ministry is about to extend beyond it's initial Galilean base and begin a new phase. This is an interesting decision in terms of its use of the gospels. The three Synoptics only have Jesus go to Jerusalem once (as an adult); John has three visits. The writers are harmonising here and it makes me wonder how this structure will continue in future seasons. </p><p>It's curious too that we see Quintus making a decree banning religious gatherings and saying Jesus is sought for questioning. Is this merely coincidental timing and Jesus is unaware he is wanted. Or is Jesus' move south supposed to be motivated by fear?<br /></p><p>It's also noticeable how both of the major story lines in this episode revolve around women, and this has been one of the strengths of this series – though I don't know whether this derives from a theological conviction or the need to appeal to a wider base. In addition to the Samaritan and Peter's mother-in-law, we've already seen a lot of emphasis on Mary Magdalene and Jesus' mother Mary, which might be expected but in the former case is certainly sooner than might be expected. Plus we've also seen a fictional character, Tamar, framing and almost overshadowing the story of the man healed from being paralysed (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-chosen-2019-s1e06.html">ep.6</a>), as well as the most prominent child in children-only <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-chosen-2019-s1e03.html" target="_blank">episode (3</a>) being female.</p><p>Given Peter's mother-in-law is healed then I'm curious as to why the filmmakers decided not to have Peter's wife join them on their travels. There's no scriptural precedent for this of course. After all we only really know Peter even has a wife because we're told he has a mother-in-law. But it does show Magdalene making the trip, seemingly as the only woman. There's some precedent for Magdalene being present – in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208&version=NRSva" target="_blank">Luke 8:1-3</a>, she is named as being on one of Jesus' preaching tours – but in <i>The Chosen</i> she seems to be the only woman, as opposed to the "many other women" (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208&version=NRSva" target="_blank">8:3</a>) Luke mentions (on a separate occasion). Is the difference that Peter's wife is married and so the filmmakers consider her 'rightful' place to be at home? If so what about Joanna, whose husband Chuza still appears to be on the scene.</p><p>The main biblical incident in this episode, though, is Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (here called Photina following Eastern Orthodox tradition). The fictionalised backstory to this one starts from the opening scene which heads back to (an oddly specific) 1152 BC and a conversation Jacob has with a local named Yassib. Yassib thinks he knows that it is impossible for Jacob (and his 12 sons) to dig a well as the water circumnavigates their land. He also thinks its strange that Jacob is relying on promises made to his ancestors (and, by implication that Jacob's ancestors relying on promises to him would be equally odd). Of course, in mere seconds Yassib is proved wrong. Water miraculously springs up through the ground seconds later.</p><p>This is a bit odd for a number of reasons. Firstly because the Hebrew Bible has no mention of Jacob's Well. This is something that is only found in the New Testament and subsequent traditions. There's no reason to assume that Jacob's well has any link to the patriarch of the latter part of Genesis, not least because the NT writers still seem broadly happy to operate under the cultural assumptions that Samaritans are bad and untrustworthy.</p><p>Furthermore, it's hard to tell what the point of this scene actually is. If it's that Jacob's god is different in that he expects you to wait generations for him to come through on his promises, then the (almost instantaneous) miraculous (?) provision of water, rather seems to undermine Jacob's argument. Perhaps it simply serves as a reminder that, like the Jews, Samaritans also owed at least part of their inheritance to Jacob (or Israel as he is also known in Genesis) and that Jesus' ministry is for all of Jacob's 'sons', not just the descendants of his son Judah. I also noticed that when we jump back to the incident in the Gospels, it's dated as 26AD, thirty years after the latest date usually given for the end of Herod the Great's reign (this was also the date given in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-chosen-2019-s1e03.html" target="_blank">s1e3</a>).<br /></p><p>There's further filling in the gaps later on as well, namely around Photina's current and previous relationships (which in John has Jesus summarise as "you have had five husbands and the man you are living with is not your husband). I've heard various takes on this over the years. It's often read that this is a woman of low morals, but even she is valued by Jesus - a fleshed out portrait of Jesus' reputation for consorting with sinners. Another view points out that marriage was not really something women were active partners in. Your first marriage was dictated to by your family, and if your first husband divorced you (which he could do relatively easily according to some traditions) then society gave you no way of supporting yourself other than by finding another husband. This view casts the woman as a tragic figure, forced to move from one dead/fickle husband to another by patriarchal society.</p><p>The fleshing out of Photina here chooses neither approach, but incorporates a hint of both. An early conversation with her fifth (still living, still not divorced) husband. She is trying to divorce him, as she now lives with another, but he won't because she is his "property" and he doesn't "part lightly with his possessions". He wants her to return, but also recognises that some of his predecessors have mistreated her in divorcing her when each "gets bored" and that she married him for "stability". In other words this is a more complex and nuanced scenario than either of those presented above, and while it's not necessarily logical, I kind of like it, because life, and marriage, is rarely logical either. Later Photina is shunned by a street vendor, though even in that conversation there's a suggestion that while he can't be seen to associate with her, he's not entirely unsympathetic to her plight.</p><p>We also get a bit of further exposition of the relationship between Jews and Samaritans and the fact that Jesus seems to go out of his way to talk to this woman. There's mention of some of the reasons for the animosity between the two peoples. Initially, the conversation itself holds fairly closely to the text of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john$&version=NRSva" target="_blank">John 4</a>, but then Jesus goes beyond knowing about the five husbands and the one to giving a detailed breakdown of her first relationships. He also explains that he "came to Samaria just to meet you" and tells her that he has not revealed to the public that he is the messiah. </p><p>Finally the disciples return, there's the conversation about his food being doing God's will before the series ends on a more general note with Jesus saying "it's been a long time of sowing but the fields are ripe for harvest".</p><p>I haven't decided yet whether to post a few reflections on season 1 as a whole next, or move onto season 2. Watch this space I guess.<br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-3610997947534476512023-06-30T08:16:00.008+01:002023-06-30T09:01:17.932+01:00Movies from the MountaintopThe other book I was published in from 2022<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDWq3PhUxehy5oCp4wxJsUs0bzO6tvMR-einrDI03GSCr1DI9w38oiamCEGm2IZlYuBmMba5dQVay6Ur0lsGPLTCwPmdp5vqk_E3TiUb176B_XfMkJ-1nyRpqJWNww6EdKp5dNq_11_IsgCHmGylIyvYujqtmdVdQ4U8PCPhHGFQr1WmLwhPl9UA/s500/Movies%20from%20the%20Mountaintop.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: -0.5em; margin-right: 1em;" ><img style="margin: 0px 0px;" border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="313" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDWq3PhUxehy5oCp4wxJsUs0bzO6tvMR-einrDI03GSCr1DI9w38oiamCEGm2IZlYuBmMba5dQVay6Ur0lsGPLTCwPmdp5vqk_E3TiUb176B_XfMkJ-1nyRpqJWNww6EdKp5dNq_11_IsgCHmGylIyvYujqtmdVdQ4U8PCPhHGFQr1WmLwhPl9UA/w125-h200/Movies%20from%20the%20Mountaintop.jpg" width="125" /></a><b>Movies from the Mountaintop: 100+ Films that Express God, Explore Faith and Enlighten Church<br /><br /></b>Edited by Cody Benjamin</p><p>Published: 22 May 2022<br />Language : English<br />Paperback: 445 pages<br />ISBN: 979-8808551541 <br /></p><p></p><p>I've been so busy promoting my own book ("<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/100BibleFilms" target="_blank">100 Bible Films</a>") over the last 12-15 months that I've not had time to mention that another book I worked on also got published last year. "<a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Movies-Mountaintop-Express-Explore-Enlighten/dp/B0B1C1XQWQ/" target="_blank">Movies from the Mountaintop: 100+ Films that Express God, Explore Faith and Enlighten Church</a>" is a collection of essays and reviews from a range of authors, but principally editor Cody Benjamin.</p><p>I sensed when Cody asked me to contribute that all the other writers were Christian, but I was pleased to be involved. There is some material that I often discuss which is perhaps most relevant to believers which therefore didn't really seem to fit with"<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/100BibleFilms" target="_blank">100 Bible Films</a>". So this book gave me a chance to get that published as well. Essentially it's about how watching a range of different Jesus films gives us the chance to view Jesus from perspectives other than our own, which can challenge our perceptions and biases.<br /></p><p>I would estimate that Cody has written roughly half of the book, but there are contributions from another 20-25 authors as well as a 40+ pages of Q&A with other figures including movie stars Mark Wahlberg and Rob Lowe, and writers Brett McCracken and Robert K. Johnston. The final section adds "22 other films to consider". [Given there are 43 named in the contents page then I infer from the title that another 35 get passing mentions].</p><p></p><p>I've not yet had time to read the rest of the book, but if you're interested you can order a copy on Kindle or paperback from <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Movies-Mountaintop-Express-Explore-Enlighten/dp/B0B1C1XQWQ/" target="_blank">Amazon UK</a> | <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Movies-Mountaintop-Express-Explore-Enlighten/dp/B0B1C1XQWQ" target="_blank">Amazon US</a>.<br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-14861341877578864072023-05-29T20:15:00.004+01:002023-05-29T20:18:54.803+01:00Is Another Scorsese Jesus Film on the Way?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPnsfFuwW_HRq-BmKsnxY5SP7FuRc7DeMOtdu27F2u1YD7Lj14BzQfpklJASEdohV4leUMUbbZSfnenXhnSDoaRFPU482gUFu1xyteb5G7nrZIdqVqPNT1lp6gh3kjH7gADkh_6KNZkgLW56B1m65GV_Y4n4MDflvSjGonNSaS1bMgtcYSrp4/s1280/Scorsese%20meets%20the%20Pope.jpg" ><img style="margin: 5px 0px;" border="0" data-original-height="853" data-original-width="1280" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPnsfFuwW_HRq-BmKsnxY5SP7FuRc7DeMOtdu27F2u1YD7Lj14BzQfpklJASEdohV4leUMUbbZSfnenXhnSDoaRFPU482gUFu1xyteb5G7nrZIdqVqPNT1lp6gh3kjH7gADkh_6KNZkgLW56B1m65GV_Y4n4MDflvSjGonNSaS1bMgtcYSrp4/s320/Scorsese%20meets%20the%20Pope.jpg" width="320" /></a><p>Over the weekend the Vatican's been holding a conference in Italy called "L’estetica Globale dell’Immaginazione Cattolica" (The Global Aesthetics of the Catholic Imagination) and among the more famous attendees were Pope Francis and Martin Scorsese. According to the Twitter feed of organiser <a href="https://www.twitter.com/antoniospadaro" target="_blank"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Antonio Spadaro </span></a>the Pope said: <br /></p><p></p><blockquote>"This is your work as poets, storytellers, filmmakers, artists: to give life, to give body, to give word to everything that human beings live, feel, dream, suffer, creating harmony and beauty.... Will they criticize you? All right, carry the burden of criticism, also trying to learn from criticism. But still, don't stop being original, creative. Do not lose the wonder of being alive."</blockquote><p></p><p>Scorsese was apparently moved by the Pope's appeal and as a result later announced “I have responded to the Pope’s appeal to artists in the only way I know how: by imagining and writing a screenplay for a film about Jesus".</p><p>I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment, but you can read more on this story at <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/global/martin-scorsese-pope-francis-film-about-jesus-1235627620/" target="_blank">Variety</a> and <a href="http://cinematographe.it">cinematographe.it</a>.</p><p>Should be interesting to see how this film turns out given the general Catholic disapproval of Scorsese's <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogpost.com/search/label/Last%20Temptation%20of%20Christ" target="_blank">The Last Temptation of Christ</a></i> particularly given the Pope's comments above about criticism.<br /></p><p></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-8153103590175243162023-04-02T15:33:00.002+01:002023-04-02T15:34:36.079+01:00The Chosen (2019) s1e07<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy_1R-tdZ3S9W0Nmqx36NasmboYA5h6Yyru0fKuqM2UQGvVNCeSr8Q2p6xgvWBjjZClDfYSTNJ_NmxuNJ0MckBt7_rcOFyZEKgM6ut95dLoTaV0_YpEkxVQ6ANgiQb-1J9yGQWYcENNL6IO0gWZlfOADLnO9RFKDEYuPQxQx7qiaWYTH-RMTQ/s2160/1F87B26E-10E0-4022-B07C-B983258B2D33.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1077" data-original-width="2160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy_1R-tdZ3S9W0Nmqx36NasmboYA5h6Yyru0fKuqM2UQGvVNCeSr8Q2p6xgvWBjjZClDfYSTNJ_NmxuNJ0MckBt7_rcOFyZEKgM6ut95dLoTaV0_YpEkxVQ6ANgiQb-1J9yGQWYcENNL6IO0gWZlfOADLnO9RFKDEYuPQxQx7qiaWYTH-RMTQ/s320/1F87B26E-10E0-4022-B07C-B983258B2D33.jpeg" width="320" /></a> In many ways the seventh episode of <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Chosen%20%28The%29" target="_blank">The Chosen</a></i> feels like a season finale. A number of the longer running story arcs, particularly those of Nicodemus and Matthew, seem to reach their conclusion in this instalment. </div><p>Unusually however, this penultimate episode of<i> </i>season 1, starts back in the 13th century BC. Poisonous snakes are sweeping the Israelite camp and Moses and Joshua are debating the acceptability of fashioning a bronze snake to heal all the snake-bitten Israelites who gaze upon it. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2021:4-9&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Num 21:4-9</a> is not a passage that has been dramatised very often and it's always nice to see a relatively obscure passage getting covered. Here it's either a metaphor for how breaking the rules/doing the wrong thing can be the right thing to do in exceptional circumstances; or its a metaphor for how unclean things can be used for Gods glory; or its both. The latter seems like it might be a nod to Matthew's pending appointment to join Jesus' disciples; the former might be more of a nod to the difficulties Nicodemus is having in what he's discovering about Jesus. And, of course, amidst Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in John 3 that Jesus refers to this incident<br /></p><p>This episode is also fairly short and the scenes are fairly long, particularly Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus which lasts for 10 minutes straight – getting on for a third of the episode's run time. After the flashback above and the opening credits a handful of minor scenes slip by. The cosy relationship between Matthew and his supervisor Gaius, as the rather genteel Roman soldier picks up his charge for work; Nicodemus hears news of a new grandchild just as his Roman minder, Praetor Quintus, pops in for a status update; Jesus and his disciples set up a new camp on the outskirts of town.</p><p>While there are other Romans depicted, I'm starting to be bothered about the leading soldiers lack of power and menace. Gaius carries all the threat of a supply teacher; Quintus – channelling elements of Jay R<i>obinson's </i>Caligula in <i>The Robe</i> – implies some sort of threat, but by the end of their scene, it's clear Nicodemus is more scared of his wife than his imperialist superior. And this is a problem. I can't help but recall <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDCGkasqgxQ&t=55m50s" target="_blank">Suzy/Eddie Izzard's routine</a> about how the Romans didn't just wander in new territories and say "Hello, we are the Romans" in a James Mason voice. There's little to suggest the power dynamic that should be a key element in these scenes. I wouldn't even talk to my manager in the slightly brusque way that Nicodemus does to Quintus and, unless I missed something in my contract, they don't have the power to have me stabbed for being too snippy.</p><p>All this matters because the Romans and the Jews were not on level footing. The Romans were the invading force, backed up by the most feared army in the world. Some will have collaborated more willingly than others, but it's hard to imagine they were this snippy, and the problem is that this implies that Jews were much more heavily implicated in the opposition to, and demise of, Jesus than is likely to have been the case.</p><p>Prior to the meet-up between Nicodemus and Jesus we witness things being orchestrated behind the scenes to make the meeting happen, as if it's an episode of <i>The West Wing</i> where Leo is trying to make a crucial breakthrough in Israeli-Palestian diplomacy. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">John 3:1</a> just says Nicodemus "came to him by night". This might suggest secrecy, it could just suggest a busy diary, but here it's not really clear why Nicodemus is being quite so cautious.</p><p>When it finally comes, the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus is pretty good. I'm sure there is analysis online somewhere that go through, line-by-line, which bits are direct from John, which bits are paraphrased and which bits are made up, so I've no wish to do that. That said the dialogue broadly follows the order and arguments of the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">original text</a>, only paraphrased an expanded for clarity and flow for a modern audience. </p><p>However, it does import this element of the religious leaders being in opposition / a threat to Jesus. Nicodemus explains that his "mind is consumed with what a stir these words would cause among the teachers of the law" and Jesus says "Yes, and I do not expect otherwise... and it has not been received by the religious leaders". Then Nicodemus expands "I just fear you may not have a chance to speak many more of them before you are silenced".<br /><br />The Gospels record Jesus debating the interpretation of the Jewish law with other religious groups, including the "teachers of the law" (though that phrase is from the synoptics rather than John which is being used here), and it's clear that he does not always make them see his point of view. Nevertheless in the early pars of the Gospels this is mainly in the form of in-house discussion and debate. It is mainly when the action moves to Jerusalem that we get some of these scribes specifically aligned with the Chief Priests (i.e. the political as much as religious establishment) that trying to silence Jesus becomes an issue. <br /></p><p>Eventually we get the discussion about Moses and the bronze serpent. Jesus uses this as a metaphor for his crucifixion and we get a paraphrase of the famous "For God so loved the world" from <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">John 3:16</a>; but this part of the discussion also imports the idea of sin, right before Jesus speaks those famous words. Nicodemus' reaction then is not so much to be moved by the words that have adorned countless banners, posters, and sandwich boards, but to clarify the bit just before it. "So this has nothing to do with Rome, it's all... about... sin?"</p><p>While up to this point in the conversation the script has tended to expand and elaborate on the original text, now it can't quite see it through to the end of the passage. Jesus paraphrases v17, refers back to the snake and then starts of on v18, but the camera cuts away so the only negative bit on the passage "but those who does not believe, stands condemned already", the camera cuts away to the nearby disciples, so the last part is muffled. Once the camera returns to Nicodemus and Jesus the biblical part of the discussion is over and the conversation takes a fresh turn, almost as if time has passed in the edit. <br /></p><p>What moves Nicodemus to faith and even tears is not Jesus' words, but his recollection of having seen Jesus acts of healing (specifically his exorcism of Mary Magdalene). Indeed as the conclusion reaches its apex is not Jesus' words, but his actions days before and finally being in his presence.. Jesus asks Nicodemus to join him and gives him a few days. Nicodemus kneels and begins citing <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 2&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Psalm 2:12</a>, only for Jesus to respond with its final line, "Blessed are all who take refuge in him". The scene ends.</p><p>In many ways, the, this scene is a microcosm of the series' whole approach. The words of Jesus are taken, tweaked a little to make dramatic sense, but then those elements are left behind for a more emotional yet fictional encounter. As if words are not enough. In the Bible you sense Nicodemus is drawn in by Jesus' mysteries. Jesus offers him no deadline, no ultimatum and he appears to disappear from view. When he pops up briefly in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">John 7:50</a> he's with the chief priests again, though still sympathetic. And then nothing, until <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 19%3A38-42&version=NRSva" target="_blank">John 19:39</a> when he pops up at Jesus' burial, one of the few that have stuck with him. </p><p>Here though that's not enough. Nicodemus is drawn in not so much because of Jesus' words – which only seem to confuse him – but because he witnessed a miracle he could only assign to God. And similarly, the overall production seems to recognise that the text itself needs something more emotional and <i>drama</i>-tic, something that comes from encounter.</p><p>If Nicodemus' response to the challenge from Jesus still remains a little ambiguous (with Nicodemus thinking over Jesus' altar call) then the same cannot be said for Matthew and the challenge Jesus offers him in the final scene. Having been similarly fascinated of, but cautious about Jesus for much of the season, Jesus finally shows up at his tax collection booth. </p><p>The first shot of Matthew is of him in his booth (above), but this is designed in such a way that Matthew is behind bars, as if he is imprisoned. This is highlighted again with the first shot of Jesus in this scene, taken from Matthew's point of view with the bars in shot, to emphasise further this sense of him being imprisoned. The two make eye contact, Jesus walks on knowing Matthew's eyes are following him and simply asks "follow me".</p><p>Peter tries to dissuade him and for once he and his sworn enemy Gaius agree, but Matthew and Jesus are certain. "I don't get it" says Peter. "You didn't get it when I chose you either". "But this is different" retorts Peter, "I'm not a tax collector". "Get used to different" says Jesus with a wry smile. It's a line that has become one of the show's taglines, with <a href="https://gifts.angel.com/collections/get-used-to-different" target="_blank">a range of t-shirts, hoodies and reusable coffee cups proudly bearing the slogan</a>. </p><p>Being a Matthew myself I always notice the little details that Christian tradition has ascribed to Matthew and its interesting to see some of these played out. Firstly I always recall the line William Barclay's Daily Study Bible commentary, "Matthew rose up and followed him and left everything behind him except one thing – his pen" (p.6 in the 2001 version). Here he brings a tablet instead but the ideas the same. "Keep it, you may yet find use for it" says Jesus verbally winking at the camera. When Jesus tells Matthew "We have a celebration to prepare for", Matthew says "I'm not welcome at dinner parties". "That's not going to be a problem tonight" counters Jesus "you're the host". </p><p>It's a real zinger of a last line, delivered in pitch perfect fashion by Jonathan Roumie as Jesus. Just <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebkyetE4W6Y" target="_blank">compare it</a>, for example, with the same basic set-up in <i>Jesus of Nazareth</i> (1977), which tries a similar thing but falls flat (though, to be fair it leaves its emotional wallop for the conclusion of the whole sequence). I guess I will see, when I move onto the final episode of the season how the obvious tension between Peter and Matthew will play out here, but, with over an hour's running time, I'm kind of curious to see what else gets thrown into the mix.<br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-49680808188832148842023-03-26T13:51:00.001+01:002024-02-04T10:04:54.083+00:00La ricotta (1963), revisited<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfpumNdw2gIsZnpFM5i1s7a0QD97I-ewyjF1w2FFVnlRsJN-_hHh3jILglCy5dJDPD6VNyoQrs4c3PWSSKliuqxYW-qn4TFPTKlp99_TLi1Ya6AoCWCqhHG1aPVMjn40WQCtQE93Tn-TA00ySyB_ZiCF1GW6b6-AsOiDjNEKcwB_mueA-7FcM/s703/1963%20La%20ricotta%20Betti%20Mary.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="703" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfpumNdw2gIsZnpFM5i1s7a0QD97I-ewyjF1w2FFVnlRsJN-_hHh3jILglCy5dJDPD6VNyoQrs4c3PWSSKliuqxYW-qn4TFPTKlp99_TLi1Ya6AoCWCqhHG1aPVMjn40WQCtQE93Tn-TA00ySyB_ZiCF1GW6b6-AsOiDjNEKcwB_mueA-7FcM/s320/1963%20La%20ricotta%20Betti%20Mary.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>Sixteen years ago now I reviewed Pier Paolo <a href="http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Pasolini" target="_blank">Pasolini</a>'s 30-minute short <i><a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2007/08/la-ricotta-soft-cheese-1962-from.html" target="_blank">La ricotta</a></i> (1963), which was released as part of the anthology/portmateau film <i><a href="http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/RoGoPaG" target="_blank">RoGoPaG</a></i>. I've changed a lot since then, not least becuase now I've seen all of Pasolini's films – some of them multiple times – and read a lot and spoken about his movies as well. So I thought it was time to revisit this one, as I sat down to watch it in its entirety for the first time in a while.</p><p><b>Multiple crucifixions<br /></b>The first thing that struck me was the multiple crucifixions we find here, all stacked up against one another. Most obviously we have the gaudy technicolor reconstruction of the film within a film – a close reproduction of Rosso Fiorentino's Mannerist "Deposizione dalla croce" [aka "Deposition of Volterra"] (1521) – but this is not the only depiction of the crucifixion in the film with the film, because the scene in which Stracci features stars a Jesus who looks significantly different (there's no long red hair for one thing). In another sense though, Stracci's death is also a crucifixion of sorts. He dies on the cross, perhaps even, one could argue, for the sins of the world, and the final line of dialogue from Welles's director, recalls the centurion at the foot of the cross. Stracci's own final lines are significant too.<br /></p><p>But there is another scene that functions as a crucifixion scene, that is not so widely talked about. as the crew set up one of the shoots for the crucifixion scene we witness Stracci and the actor playing Jesus. While they are lying, nailed to their crosses, on the ground, the camera looks "up" at them as if the shot is taken at from the foot of the cross. Like the rest of the cast and crew the Jesus-actor talks down to Stracci, and their dialogue could be easily construed as just that. However, on closer inspection there's more to it:</p><p><b></b></p><blockquote><b>Stracci:</b><br />I'm hungry. I'm hungry.<br />Now I'm going to blaspheme.<br /><b><br />"Jesus":</b><br />Just try it and see what i give you.<br /><br /><b>Straci:</b><br />A fine Christ you are. You think<br />I've got no right to grumble?<br /><b><br />Jesus:</b><br />Suit yourself, but I won't take you<br />into the Kingdom of Heaven.<b><br /><br />Stracci:</b><br />I could be okay in the<br />Kingdom of the Earth.<br /><br />(The argument moves on to politics)</blockquote><p></p><p>This dialogue works as an ironic take on the text from Luke's Gospel. Instead of the thief humbling himself to beg a receptive and willing Jesus for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, we have an already humbled Stracci talking up his suitability for the kingdom. Meanwhile the Jesus actor is anything but the figure we find in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke 23:39-43&version=NRSVA" target="_blank">Luke 23</a>. Rather than be gracious and receptive he acts like a petty and mean-spirited gatekeeper.</p><p><b>Sweary Mary<br /></b>Sixteen years I didn't know any Italian, but I started learning around 2013-4 and have been making slow progress since. Enough, at least, to spot the odd thing that you don't get from the subtitles. Here, for example, there's a scene where the actors are trying to capture the deposition from the cross, reproducing the exact poses of another Mannerist, Jacopo da Pontormo's "<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacopo_Pontormo_004.jpg" target="_blank">Deposizione</a>" (1528). Pasolini has studied the history of art, and knew his Mannerism, so he would have know that "its adherents generally favored compositional tension and instability rather than the balance and clarity of earlier Renaissance painting".(1) So Pasolini makes a visual art-joke, demonstrating the "instability" of the composition by having the actors – who have been ordered to hold their poses still, rather than move and act – collapse after a while. This is rather unsurprising given the general messing around that has been occurring on set and taken to be typical of the attitudes that Pasolini seeks to highlight. Most of the actors laugh and see the funny side.</p><p>One person, however, is not impressed. The film's major star, "Sonia, la 'Diva'" played by Laura Betti, is playing Mary, Jesus' mother. While her co-stars laugh-off the whole incident, she is incandescent with rage. Her voice though is not added to cacophony of sounds emanating from the cast at this point, which almost seems to add to her frustration. However, it's clear that one of the words she shouts several times is "basta", the Italian for "Enough!" only here it's probably a bit stronger in Italian than that literal translation. I can't lip read the rest, but I'd love to hear from anyone who can. I do wonder if this was the moment that was the tipping point for those who decided to press for Pasolini's prosecution (that said, Geoffrey Nowell-Smith says, <a href=" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3150-subversive-pasolini-la-ricotta-and-the-gospel-according-to-matthew-a-conversation-between-nina-power-and-geoffrey-nowell-smith" target="_blank">in this piece</a>, "that the real target of the prosecution was not <i>La ricotta</i> at all but the much talked about Gospel". In other words that this prosecution was a shot across Pasolini's bows.</p><p><b>Accattone and Stracci<br /></b>This time around I was struck by the similarities between the title character (I won't say "hero") of Pasolini's debut feature <i>Accattone</i> (1961) and Stracci, the lead character here. Both characters have meaningful names. Accattone means "Beggar" or more colloquially ‘deadbeat’ or ‘grifter’. Stracci means "rags". The meanings of both resonate through their roles. While both are the lead characters, neither of them is a hero – not in any conventional sense at least – or even, really, an anti-hero. <br /></p><p>More importantly for Pasolini was that they were both representatives of the bottom layer of Italian society that he treasured so greatly. For Pasolini it was this strata of society that most opposed neo-capitalism and refused to play by its rules, and was also where the last remaining vestiges of the sacred could be found.</p><p>Pasolini was hugely critical of bourgeois society, and the more I look into his work the more I am convinced he would have hated me and the majority of those who so value his films today. And this is perhaps why I find both Accattone and Stracci so difficult to sympathise with, certainly to understand their actions. Stracci is the more sympathetic. Selling a dog to buy food when you're starving is more understandable than grooming and then pimping out a young girl, but the way Stracci eats to such excess proudly refuses to make him a conventional tragic-hero and imbues the whole film with the sort of comic approach that Pasolini was going for.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The actor playing Stracci, Mario Cipriani had appeared, uncredited in <i>Accattone</i> and <i>Mamma Roma</i> (1962) and would do so twice more, firstly in "La terra vista dalla luna" his contribution to another composite film <i>Le streghe</i> (The Witches, 1967), then in "Che cosa sono le nuvole?" in another joint film <i>Caprice Italian Style</i> (1968). Franco Citti, who played Accattone, would go on to become one of Pasolini's biggest collaborators, fronting a number of his movies throughout Pasolini's 14-year career. <br /></p><p><b>The cruelty<br /></b>Not unrelated to the above is the cast and crew's treatment of Stracci. This time around I was struck by how unrelentingly cruel it is and how it seems to be generated largely by class hatred. Stracci is never shown as being part of the group or having any form of social acceptance. Sonia's dog is welcome on site, and even catered for, but Stracci's family have to remain at a distance. Even when his costars appear, they smile wave and pass by like the opening characters from the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The scene where Stracci overeats to bursting point is particularly noticeable – everyone goads and bullies him into eating more and more, pitting the desperation of his hunger against his human dignity – but this behaviour occurs elsewhere. Once when Stracci is fixed to the cross, and mentions his hunger, a co-star offers him bites from his sandwich to taunt him before another man pours drink down his throat and he is mocked in every scene.</p><p>I suspect this behaviour is not so much a call to the middle classes to improve their behaviour to other classes as it is to say to the sub-altern/proletarians that "this is how they will treat you if unrestrained"</p><p> </p><p>While it tends to be <i>Il vangelo secondo Matteo</i>, <i>Teorema </i>(Theorem, 1968) or <i>Salò o le centoventi giornate di Sodoma</i> (Salò or the 120 days of Sodom, 1975) that are Pasolini's most celebrated films, there's a very strong case for <i>La ricotta</i> being his best short film, and his greatest comedy. And while there were often strong objections to his work, and threats of prosecution, I believe it was the only time Pasolini was convicted for one of his films.</p><p>Given its release came at a similar time to the start of the Vatican II Council I can't help but wonder if the timing was deliberately provocative, even for such a mild film by today's standards. Pasolini considered himself an atheist, but one who nevertheless realised the important and varying role the church played in Italian society in general. So while <i>Il vangelo</i> remains the more insightful film about the Gospels, <i>La ricotta </i>speaks with more insight and passion about the role of the Roman Catholic church at just the same time that the institution itself was undergoing major self-examination; and about Italian society in general and its often hypocritical attitudes to religion.</p><p>=========<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">1- Finocchio, Ross (2003) "Mannerism: Bronzino (1503–1572) and his Contemporaries", Department of European Paintings <i>The Metropolitan Museum of Art website</i>. Available online -<i> </i><a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/zino/hd_zino.htm">https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/zino/hd_zino.htm</a></span> <br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-91756545171921230642023-02-27T07:34:00.001+00:002023-02-27T07:34:00.210+00:00History of the World, Part II coming to Hulu next week<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKIQm0lguCt6A6as7C1_BS5ZEsghg798aawKRLggYaE9BWsy-87ddOoWljFUy5JQ1YCPpF9lIHjeKPrOE1tWkfmuSab89S7sa7Aq6GlM4oD5lBAp2QU1-aLQGiHjxzEA1xmcMtNr_Lj3v-4SyI8PcKivu8HBp0Jjti58wwvtaNalfYZ5RYFEc/s1409/2023%20History%20of%20the%20World%20II%20Jesus%20(trailer).jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="583" data-original-width="1409" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKIQm0lguCt6A6as7C1_BS5ZEsghg798aawKRLggYaE9BWsy-87ddOoWljFUy5JQ1YCPpF9lIHjeKPrOE1tWkfmuSab89S7sa7Aq6GlM4oD5lBAp2QU1-aLQGiHjxzEA1xmcMtNr_Lj3v-4SyI8PcKivu8HBp0Jjti58wwvtaNalfYZ5RYFEc/s320/2023%20History%20of%20the%20World%20II%20Jesus%20(trailer).jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div>42 years after Mel Brooks' original comedy film <i>History of the World, Part I</i> was playing in theatres, a sequel series – <i>History of the World, Part II</i> – starts <a href="https://www.hulu.com/series/history-of-the-world-part-ii-6c9bcf68-0c93-497a-aa4f-d5215faa9860" target="_blank">streaming on Hulu</a> next week. The series premieres on Monday March 6, 2023 with two episodes landing each night for four days.<p></p><p>The longer running format allows for an even wider range of historical characters than the original film's five and the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIfMfLbCbzY" target="_blank">trailer</a>, promises a good variety of historical characters, including the biblical characters Noah, Jesus (played by Jay Ellis, pictured above), Judas and Mary Magdalene.</p><p>IMDb still seems to be filling in the details but it looks like while Brooks exec-produced the series and wrote it (alongside David Stassen) and will also be narrating it, he isn't directing it or playing a lead role. That said the assembled cast is impressive. The eight episodes will feature Danny DeVito, Wanda Sykes, Taika Waititi, Sarah Silverman, Seth Rogan, David Duchovny, <i>The Good Place</i>'s D’Arcy Carden & Jason Mantzoukas, Richard Kind (<i>A Serious Man</i>), <i>Brooklyn 99</i>'s Joe Lo Truglio, Jack McBrayer (<i>30 Rock</i>) and Lauren Lapkus (<i>Big Bang Theory</i>).</p><p>I found the original movie a bit hit and miss. Moses dropping a third tablet with five additional commandments was a great gag, as was playing him as an exaggerated Jewish stereotype, and there were one or two good gags in the Last Supper section (starring John Hurt as Jesus) and a few others besides, but parts of it really dragged. Indeed this is how I tend to find Brook's movies, I always find myself wanting to like them more than I do. That said, I still haven't seen the producers, and really I should.</p><p>Anyway, I'll hopefully be able to access this and offer a few comments over the next few weeks.<br /></p><p><br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-62810036413279478412023-02-01T18:56:00.001+00:002023-02-01T19:16:30.113+00:00The Chosen (2019) s1e06<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSZW3KxRhhWlSvwHm-Jm5uZzq5HX2fsHoMelRmDiydeZyEJcCYSiEp5r6WM5LIQdjPPkDwIexdjFgogr1W6-J6ppnlTCQ1yZH_0rVw3nKYKyeSM_ZGCA_hsGMeE5fPi39474lukizgzNpwjPc6cJCeREOPaAUhQREIfoupz5ginrD0Jp8RdFA/s1197/2019%20The%20Chosen%20s1e06%20Tamar.jpg" ><img style="margin: 5px 0px;" border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="1197" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSZW3KxRhhWlSvwHm-Jm5uZzq5HX2fsHoMelRmDiydeZyEJcCYSiEp5r6WM5LIQdjPPkDwIexdjFgogr1W6-J6ppnlTCQ1yZH_0rVw3nKYKyeSM_ZGCA_hsGMeE5fPi39474lukizgzNpwjPc6cJCeREOPaAUhQREIfoupz5ginrD0Jp8RdFA/s320/2019%20The%20Chosen%20s1e06%20Tamar.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>My New Year's resolution to do more blogging has taken a big hit of the last couple of weeks, so it's about time I did another episode of <i>The Chosen</i> (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Chosen%20%28The%29" target="_blank">see all posts</a>), so let’s crack on. As ever these are scribbled notes rather than a more carefully considered and thoroughly checked piece.<p></p><p>This week’s episode starts with a man with “leprosy” trying to pass himself off as someone about to become an Essene in order to sell his remaining, valuable assets. To its credit, later on this episode will touch on some of the different Jewish groups in first-century Judea quite a bit, both the Sadducees and varieties of Pharisaism will get a mention later on. Here, however it quickly becomes apparent he is seeking to raise a bit of money to provide what he can for himself (and perhaps his family) as his condition worsens.</p><p>The main part of the episode starts with Matthew and his centurion colleague Gaius nervous about the tax money that has been raised from the miraculous catch of fish in <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-chosen-2019-s1e04.html" target="_blank">episode 4</a>. A friend with a child who has autism had mentioned to me that Matthew is portrayed here as autistic, and certainly this is the first episode where such traits became much more apparent to me. I think it’s potentially a great angle for the series to incorporate, though much of that will depend on how the character is handled in the remainder of the series.</p><p>The first scene of episode features Jesus and his disciples packing up camp. Jesus tells Simon that he will be going ahead and also advises Simon to go directly to Nazareth ahead of the others in order to look after his family. When we next meet Jesus he and his disciples are on the road where they meet an Ethiopian woman, Tamar (pictured above), who grew up in Egypt. Jesus breaks into what (I presume) is Arabic and soon he and Tamar are chatting along in the language of their childhoods, leaving everyone else wondering what’s happening.</p><p>This is an interesting development because while there are various reasons to suppose Jesus could have spoken bits and pieces of more than one language, it strikes me that Arabic is perhaps unlikely to have been one of them. If he grew up in Egypt then it’s certainly possible that he picked up enough “Egyptian”, although whether he was in Egypt long enough to pick up other than that of his parents is open to question. Nevertheless, as well as speaking Aramaic he also spoke some Hebrew and possibly some Latin or Greek. So it’s interesting because while this seems not unlikely, it's rarely something that features in the films. I’d have to go back and check <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/passion%20of%20the%20christ" target="_blank"><i>The Passion of the Christ</i></a> to see whether he ever speaks Latin in that film; and it’s one of the few multilingual Jesus films. </p><p>It also becomes apparent that Herod’s slaughter of the innocents was known more widely as one of the disciples refers to it your friend on learning of Jesus’ childhood abroad. Jesus and Tamar's conversation is broken off, however, by the arrival of the man we met in their opening scene. Clearly some time has passed and in the intervening period his symptoms have got worse. The disciples are horrified. Jesus of course steps forward and heals him. As far as I can recall, this is the series’ first healing. The scene ends with Jesus asking one of his disciples for their spare tunics (evoking John the Baptists’ teaching in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203%3A10%2D12&version=NRSVA">Luke 3:11</a>), giving it to the man, then using the phrase “Not too shabby”. Generally, I like <i>The Chosen</i>’s use of modern language, but sometimes it lurches far and the anachronisms leave the series seeming like it’s trying too hard.</p><p>Jesus and the disciples arrive in Capernaum. Simon is reunited with his wife and tends to his poorly mother-in-law. Jesus and the sons of thunder say hello to Zebedee and his wife, who here is called Salome. This is a harmonisation of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027%3A55%2D57&version=NRSVA">Matt 27:56</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015%3A39%2D41&version=NRSVA">Mark 15:40</a> Their friendly chat quickly develops into something more. On the one hand, Jesus begins to work out some of the best stories and sayings that he is to become so well known for as his teacher. For example, he delivers the thrust of the "Parable of the 10 Virgins", only without the kind of vivid imagery we find in the final, codified version. I wasn't sure if this was the deliberate attempt to exclude these ten women – which could be for a variety of reasons, good and bad – or if the idea here was that thought of Jesus starting to work out his teaching and the kind of key messages that will be honed and brought to life through repetition and reworking as he and the disciples go out on the road.</p><p>The other thing that starts to happen is that gradually a crowd starts to gather. It's just one or two people, at first, but soon the crowd has spread right across the street. This results in several different things happening. Firstly, it attracts the attention of the Pharisees. Earlier in the episode we have witnessed the conflict between Nicodemus and his former disciple Shmuel. John the Baptist has been seized, an act seemingly authorised by a Pharisee, and so an indignant Nicodemus, suspecting the reputed authorisation to be untrue, inquires as to who it was, only for Shmuel to admit it. Shmuel is worried about Jesus; Nicodemus is intrigued (famously so). On hearing this, an indignant Shmuel – who bears all the traits of having been radicalised, marches off to do something about it.</p><p>Secondly it attracts Gaius and Matthew. As invented characters go, so far, Gaius is far more reasonable than Shmuel, but nevertheless, he goes along to ensure the peace is being kept. Matthew on the other hand is fascinated, not least because Gaius and Matthew’s boss Quintus, has tried to brush off the miraculous catch of fish as a con job. Matthew though, is convinced something more is going on and eventually he ends up on the roof with some of the children from <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-chosen-2019-s1e03.html" target="_blank">episode 3</a> watching events unfurl.</p><p>As things transpire it turns out to be an ideal spot, because of the third thing that happens as a result of this growing crowd. Tamar returns, with a bunch of her friends, including a man who was paralysed as a child. Of course, those familiar with the Gospels can immediately see where this is going. Soon there are foiled attempts by the man’s friends to get closer and then the idea emerges of going in via the roof. Conveniently, the roof already has a large hole in it. Some destruction is required, but nothing as troublesome as I usually imagine. And, sure enough, by the time he’s been fully lowered down, Shmuel has worked his way to the front in time to perform the role of the disdainful Pharisee. There’s an interesting moment when, just before the man stands up he wiggles his toes. It’s a brilliantly vivid visual flourish. Is it also meant to express a momentary (understandable) doubt on behalf of the man who is being healed?</p><p>The shock of the event sees Shmuel summoning Gaius, Gaius bashing on the door, and Jesus escaping via a rear exit. Before he completely disappears though, he stops to catch Matthew’s eye.<br />Whilst there are parts of this episode I was less keen on – the desire to show off the diligence of their research is starting to wear a little thin, as is the slightly heavy-footed way they shoehorn in explanations of the wider contest – I also found parts somewhat moving. I do find the human moments of this, particularly those triggered by miracles from above, emotional. I think it’s partly down to the pacing which is really good in this episode.<br /></p><p>This is a busy episode: two healings, a bit of backstory/dramatic licence, a chunk of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, and a few new followers for good measure. At the start of the episode there’s every reason to think Jesus is an unknown: By the end he has made a major impact, and – in Capernaum at least – events have accelerated, rapidly. Life will never quite be the same again.</p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20528330.post-57604295384013835092023-01-08T18:55:00.002+00:002023-01-12T18:39:14.614+00:00Queen Esther (1948)<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGjczyqqE0KWOz8gf0cK401G5ba0-QTGaUH9xerSmvo1MAOxEkF_Y7mxMchZn_lE_fTl3bi_uK0Ap-D4FJMNSsg4SYIxA_MEWPvnDfibCPtiOQ3iuWkiNrYhZZwfEvj_kIV-T0_pqe-y9xSRKqDTWZhlSoGZBepSV_zTRRLmkUV__ypSsN6eo/s586/1948%20Queen%20Esther%2001.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGjczyqqE0KWOz8gf0cK401G5ba0-QTGaUH9xerSmvo1MAOxEkF_Y7mxMchZn_lE_fTl3bi_uK0Ap-D4FJMNSsg4SYIxA_MEWPvnDfibCPtiOQ3iuWkiNrYhZZwfEvj_kIV-T0_pqe-y9xSRKqDTWZhlSoGZBepSV_zTRRLmkUV__ypSsN6eo/s320/1948%20Queen%20Esther%2001.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>About 6 years ago <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-canon-in-early-sound-era.html">I mentioned</a> that the Gospel Films Archive were hoping to release a DVD of the 1948 Cathedral Films production <i>Queen Esther</i>. It's been a longer wait than any of us expected, but I was really excited this week to get an email from them informing me that the restoration work on the film has finally been completed and it's now available <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BFYW7H8Q?ref=myi_title_dp" target="_blank">to buy on DVD</a> alongside the 1937 biblical film, <i>Ruth </i>which I'm yet to see<sup>1</sup> Here's my brief review of what I think is quite an important work, given the general of paucity of US biblical films in the 20 year prior to its release.<br />===== </p><p>Esther has often been a popular choice for Jewish and Christian artists working in an array of media over the decades. The patriarchal succession for Israel and Judah meant that biblical queens have tended to only been involved in the royal families by marrying into them, and of those few to get anything more than a cursory mention, often they are seen as having a negative influence rather than a positive one.</p><p>Esther, though, is distinctly different. As a Jewish woman who gets elevated to be a queen in the Persian Empire. Not only does her story have excitement and glamour built into it, but she is also given a heroic role that she can fulfill by being faithful to God. No surprise, then, that during that first big crop of films based on the Hebrew Bible from 1908 to 1913, Esther got her movie debut in 1910 (<a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-story-of-esther-1910.html" target="_blank"><i>Esther and Mordecai</i> & <i>The Marriage of Esther</i></a>) and that by the end of the decade her story had graced the silver screen seven times. </p><p>Yet by the time Cathedral films released <i>Queen Esther </i>in 1948 it had been almost three decades since her story had been made into any kind of film. As such it's the first Esther film to feature sound and one of the rare American Bible films from the period from the Great Depression to the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuXjYouniidojRcjKabN0_UWlc9eAuhh_-G-P0jW6XktXObLtSl_XDXkiwtiNMd7sa_F28RRCqc6xv2_4LpZvjGXyn70f3QLryqoqB4kwGoT3lJcL-jDL2GpmNyv1SKoJ3UrKaFwslU3b_5zywnOt4Rr3B01iik_k95G7sWc7BxpRRk5Y0TJs/s841/1948%20Queen%20Esther%20Mordecai.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="631" data-original-width="841" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuXjYouniidojRcjKabN0_UWlc9eAuhh_-G-P0jW6XktXObLtSl_XDXkiwtiNMd7sa_F28RRCqc6xv2_4LpZvjGXyn70f3QLryqoqB4kwGoT3lJcL-jDL2GpmNyv1SKoJ3UrKaFwslU3b_5zywnOt4Rr3B01iik_k95G7sWc7BxpRRk5Y0TJs/s320/1948%20Queen%20Esther%20Mordecai.png" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>Interestingly the film starts in a modern setting with a Jewish family reading the Bible as part of celebrating Purim and using her Jewish name Hadassah. This framing of the story as a Jewish story is quite remarkable given its age, but perhaps just three years after the horrors of the Second World War the resonances between Haman's attempted destruction of the Jews and Hitler's were unavoidable. Indeed when we return to this family at the conclusion of the film the family's patriarch ("Grandfather") reminds them that "throughout the centuries there have been many who have attempted to destroy our people..."<br /></p><p>By the time the story transitions to Ancient Persia then Esther has already married the Persian king, here identified as by the Greek version of his name Xerxes (rather than Ahasuerus).
Esther, played by Ottilie Kruger, is also identified as Mordecai's cousin. The opening scene is fictional and, somewhat bizarrely,<sup>2</sup> features Mordecai (Richard Hale) explaining to Esther that those who approach her husband without permission risk being condemned to death. There's also an additional episode where Haman (Addison Richards) tries to convict one of Mordecai's associates of stealing from him, only for Mordecai to outwit him. While it remains an implication, it certainly is implied that Haman is acting dishonestly. It also firmly establishes that Mordecai is the kind of brave, forthright, quick-witted person whose character will be used to heroic effect later on.<br /></p><p>Only then do we come across the first biblical episode from Esther 2:19-23 where Mordecai overhears a plot to kill the king, tells Esther who informs one of the kings advisors meaning the plot is foiled. Xerxes (Charles Evans) assumes this is Haman's work, but the official involved makes sure that it's recorded in the annals that it was Mordecai who was responsible for saving the king. But the official continues in his conversation with the scribe. It's clear that even a (presumably) neutral Persian
considers Haman a bit iffy.</p><p>It turns out though that really this official should be more concerned about Haman's wife (pictured below) than he himself. Following Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman, it is she who comes up with the idea to kill all the Jews and then urges Haman to do it. "It's beneath your dignity and rank to avenge yourself against one man. If all the Jews refuse to pay homage, let them all suffer"
Later she will also suggest building some gallows for Haman to have Mordecai executed. I'm not sure if this is the impact of film noir and its <i>femmes fatale</i>, but its strange to shift the blame from the villain in the text to another when no motive is particularly apparent.<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieDqPfDtd9DPKRkMynoDCfqRggD-XSVSPcwy2hkz-AtWFMCVZClkFtf4Wf_6y9XNDCyy72xGaKlcydew_Kagh5rZYRcuykhqMiT2Qev2LIvwFysUcapC6ele9NmwnkzbqFQG71A4nolO3NIUOXWoaKWUXy3mzRkx1LY7f-8_tScYBPCjcM9qQ/s1013/1948%20Queen%20Esther%20Haman%20and%20wife.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="765" data-original-width="1013" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieDqPfDtd9DPKRkMynoDCfqRggD-XSVSPcwy2hkz-AtWFMCVZClkFtf4Wf_6y9XNDCyy72xGaKlcydew_Kagh5rZYRcuykhqMiT2Qev2LIvwFysUcapC6ele9NmwnkzbqFQG71A4nolO3NIUOXWoaKWUXy3mzRkx1LY7f-8_tScYBPCjcM9qQ/s320/1948%20Queen%20Esther%20Haman%20and%20wife.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>Xerxes seems to have a rather <i>laissez-faire</i> attitude to Haman's authority which makes him somewhat unsympathetic. Nevertheless, Mordecai is very positive about his emperor's character, even calling him "Good King" when he is not around, stressing that "the king is not unkind, not unreasonable". Even when Haman's plan becomes apparent Mordecai is unable to blame the king. "It's evident that our good king has been misled". What's interesting is that (thankfully) there's no real attempt to present Xerxes as a romantic figure to whom Esther is drawn, something that is bolstered by the opening of the story being excised. But then in some ways this is because Mordecai is almost more of the focus in this film than Esther herself. <br /></p><p>For a low budget production the sets are pretty good. I can't speak to their authenticity, though as with <i>The Story Esther </i>(1910) there are suggestions of the bas-reliefs in Haman's house and Xerxes' palace. The exteriors seem pretty good too. Likewise I don't know enough about the costumes of this time and place to be able to pronounce on their authenticity, (Haman wearing trousers) but they do seem to be more distinctive and of better quality than in some of the other releases by Cathedral Films. </p><p>There's the occasional nice use of the camera too. As many of the shots are fairly static the more dynamic shots – such as the pivotal scene when Esther risks all to request a dinner date with Xerxes and Haman – stand out all the more. The eve of the second banquet finds neither Esther nor Xerxes able to sleep, leading Xerxes to discover Mordecai's heroics meaning Haman's spends the day before the banquet leading Mordecai around the city to be honoured.</p><p>I always feel with the Esther story that the protracted stages with which Esther makes her request doesn't really translate very well dramatically. Here the film takes steps to make that seem less awkward while maintaining the original three-request structure of the original text. The first banquet follows immediately after her shock appearance in the courtroom and is very short: As with the Bible, Haman arrives at the second banquet hot on the heels of his day honouring Mordecai finally arrives. </p><p>It's interesting, though, how director John T. Coyle has subtly altered the seating arrangement. Esther sits to the left of the frame in both scenes, but in the first she sits next to Xerxes, literally getting him on-side: In the second, now Haman sits between the king and his wife, as if underlining the fact that his schemes threaten to separate king and queen permanently. Esther seizes her moment when Haman proposes a toast to the royal couple's reign "may it be a long, prosperous and happy one", opting out of the toast and then, when pressed by Xerxes, explaining her predicament. Xerxes is angered. Haman exposed. Xerxes orders that Haman and his sons be hanged on their own gallows and promises Esther that he will find a way to save them.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrOLLuGdTqw7Iyu6Ia31YOOFvzKqE3xloOe8l-Kf03C7tqnj1Hkhk8k1F4g19N9n0LYhdEgmC-McO6jf0U2eVt4M8sV1CW_9xAa3zYm74c6N4zOCZQ4D5pWgS3I55lGEDA5K-kcG0Uh96rwRVjT_vJgnSpyuC-uL14iTM4F4nIDimUHztFVzM/s576/1948%20Queen%20Esther%20table.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="454" data-original-width="576" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrOLLuGdTqw7Iyu6Ia31YOOFvzKqE3xloOe8l-Kf03C7tqnj1Hkhk8k1F4g19N9n0LYhdEgmC-McO6jf0U2eVt4M8sV1CW_9xAa3zYm74c6N4zOCZQ4D5pWgS3I55lGEDA5K-kcG0Uh96rwRVjT_vJgnSpyuC-uL14iTM4F4nIDimUHztFVzM/s320/1948%20Queen%20Esther%20table.jpg" style="margin: 5px 0px;" width="320" /></a></div><p>It's here that the film cuts back to the film's modern book-end. The extent to which the Jewish people fought back (killing over 75,000 of their enemies) is doubly watered down here. Firstly, no scenes of this violence are depicted, but also when instead the "Grandfather" (played, I think, by the same actor as Mordecai) narrates the end of the story his rather child-friendly summary is that "they defended themselves so valiantly, their enemies were discouraged". </p><p>For those familiar with <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Cathedral%20Films" target="_blank">Cathedral Films</a>' other efforts, particularly <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-great-commandment-1939.html" target="_blank"><i>The Great Commandment</i></a> (1939), <a href="No Greater Power (1942)" target="_blank"><i>No Greater Power</i></a> (1942), <i>I Beheld His Glory </i>(1952) and <a href="https://biblefilms.blogspot.com/search/label/Day%20of%20Triumph" target="_blank"><i>Day of Triumph</i></a> (1954), this film is more or less what one might expect. The story holds fairly closely to the biblical story, with the most significant variations being being the point at which the story dips in and out of the original text, often using some kind of framing device. The costumes and sets look good value for the low budget and the acting is to a better standard than similar church produced films in the era. While, like nearly all Esther films, it makes certain elements of the story more palatable and family friendly, at least it doesn't take things in the opposite direction of making it a love story. And of course the kind of more incisive interrogation of the text that that we might give it today was not remotely on the agenda in 1948.<br /></p><p>What was on the agenda back then is reflection on the Holocaust and it's here where the film is most powerful and creditable. Its framing of this as a Jewish story and a reminder that persecution of Jewish people has been an ongoing aspect of history, not a one off, seems unprecedented to me, even with biblical films from the post-war period. It's even more remarkable given its the product of an unashamedly church-based producers and deserves to be seen more widely.</p><p>==============<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">1 - I haven't been paid to endorse this film though I did receive a screening link. I don't even make money via Amazon affiliate links: They're just convenient. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 2 - I don't mean that the law permitting this is bizarre, even though it seems so to our eyes, more that it seems odd that Mordecai is explaining this to Esther only after she has married him and that this wasn't covered during the 12 months she was being institutionalized at court.</span><br /></p>Matt Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113670876288157267noreply@blogger.com3