The Bible (2013) - Part 1*

I've been writing up reviews for individual episodes The Bible on a sort of ad hoc basis. Essentially, when I revisit one because it touches on something I am researching, I try to write it up then, having only reviewed the series as a whole when it first came out. So now at last I have returned to Episode 1*(by this I mean the first episode if you are looking at the series as ten episodes long, but in some places it aired as five longer episodes, so I guess it's the first half of episode one if that's you).

The episode, and therefore the whole series, starts with the words of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech and snippets from various other famous speeches where other famous orators have referenced God and/or the Bible. Many Bible film makers have attempted to give their production gravitas at the very beginning by use of similarish devices - think Cecil B. DeMille's opening lecture at the start of The Ten Commandments (1956) or Orson Welles' authoritative sounding narration at the start of King of Kings (1961). This is a contemporary twist, even as it is rooted in history, it is more recent history, and rather than riffing on ancient artefacts or texts, it adopts an approach more in touch with our age, one awash with soundbites.

The creation and fall part of the series is perhaps most notable for its portrayal of Satan, which many noted at the time looks remarkably like then then non-conservative president, Barack Obama. This time around, it's even more striking. The makers denied it, of course, but it's hard to escape the feeling that even if this wasn't deliberate, it perhaps betrayed their deeper feelings. Other interesting casting includes the choice of a Scottish actor (David Rintoul) whose Scottish accent lends the role with a sense of connection with the great outdoors and dramatic weather (at the very least, constant rain).

The Noah segment is startlingly brief, and is ended by a scene which starts with a God shot of Rintoul before zooming out. It's initially rather well done, but then the special effects kick in and it speeds up to reveal the whole globe covered in water. Not entirely convincing special effects and over the top sound effects, are something of a hall mark of this series. We get both here and the passage of time has hardly improved them. The vision of the entire globe covered in water must have played nicely to the programme's conservative viewer base. I can't help but wonder (admittently rather flippantly) whether they ever considered zooming out to show the water covering an earth that was flat...

The next segment features Abram and Sarai, though here they are called simply Abraham and Sarah from the start. We start with a Abraham praying on a mountain top (using the obligatory helicopter footage) and hearing God call him out. We then cut to Sarah still at home on her knees, also prayin. Only he seems to hear God, however. Is this meant to reflect a reality - Abraham free to go for mountain walks whilst Sarah is stuck at home with the chores, or to legitimise a similar model today? I'm not sure quite how I'd like to see this played out, but I find the filmmakers' vision here disturbing. I suppose there's a chance that's the point, but that's not the impression I'm left with.

Whilst Sarah is happy to believe her husband, with just a smile to convey her acceptance, Lot's wife is considerably more dubious from the start. I really dislike it when filmmakers stack the deck like this, implying Lot's wife was never really on board with God's plans. It not only makes it so much easier to overlooks the ethical problems of her fate in the text, but it also lays heavy interpretation on it. Lot's (unnamed) wife's fate isn't portrayed as just a momentary lapse, it's the result of her general attitude. Needless to say, she is cast in this negative light in almost every scene.

Once Lot and his wife split from Abraham and his men, it's Sarah's turn to become the negative foil. Now it is she who mopes grumpily around and here she actively denies she will have a child. She tries to prevent Abraham from rescuing Lot and his clan (in a rare adaptation of that incident, which does cast Abraham in a different light, one that is, usually exorcised from most portrayals of him). When three visitors appear and suggest she will still have a child, she gulps rather than laughs. The three visitors are interesting as the two angels are non-white and the third is clearly meant to be Jesus. I quite want to go back and look at how the camera and the mise en shot indicates this without ever making it explicit.

Which brings us to the most ill-fitting part of this episode, if not the entire series, namely the scene in Sodom and Gomorrah. It's hard to be even more over-the-top than a text that has a man attempting to buy off a crowd of would-be angel rapists by offering them his daughters instead, but somehow The Bible manages it. The daughters are mere children here and the whole exchange passage (which obviously reflects very badly on Lot, the supposed hero) is dropped. What we get instead is a long and gratuitous scene of armour-clad angels beating up/killing a huge number of male Sodomites, in fairly graphic ways. As I'm sure I have mentioned before somewhere (but can't remember where), the scene lasts far longer than the entire creation sequence, or than the story of Noah. Later Isaac, Jacob and Esau's stories will be, by and large, omitted, yet this imagined scene of violent divine retribution just goes on and on. It's reveals a strange set of priorities. Moreover, do the angels not realise all these people are about to get the burning sulphur treatment? It's hard to think of a moment that typifies the series more, and exposes its claims for authenticity more starkly, than this.

Ultimately, here Lot's wife's crime could be interpreted as her not trusting Lot, as opposed to not trusting God. For some reason Lot has responsibility for both daughters, rather than both parents taking one each, and so Mrs Lot manages to get a little ahead. She only turns looks back, therefore,  because the other three fall behind. But of course, she has already been deemed guilty by the earlier scenes, so the filmmakers apparently consider that they have done enough to convince the audience that this is somehow justified.

The last incident in this episode is, of course, Abraham's aborted sacrifice of Isaac, meaning the adult life of Isaac and pretty much everything to do with his two sons Esau and Jacob, the father of Israel, is omitted. It's a reminder that for all it's claims to historical authenticity this is very much a Christian, rather than a Jewish take on the text.

The Bible (2013) - Part 5

Episode 5 of The Bible (Survival) picks up one of the parts of the book that most adaptations tend to miss, so packed into this episode is both a bit on Jeremiah and a good deal of the Book of Daniel. This is definitely one of the episodes in this series that keeps on track to covering the biblical material without getting waylaid in invented subplots.

Jeremiah's story is reduced more or less to him turning up in King Mattaniah's court wearing an ox-yoke and telling his monarch to surrender to Nebuchanezzar.  Nebuchanezzar here is played by Peter Guinness, who I've always enjoyed seeing pop up ever since Spender (1991-93). Mattaniah takes no notice of course so it's hardly surprising when just a few moments later we're treated to Nebuchanezzar putting out the king's eyes. By hand. Because, everything in this series, particularly the violence, has to be completely over the top

Jeremiah is played by Raad Rawi and appears old and shaggy looking, (in keeping with Jeremiah's likely age at this point). Certainly he's nowhere near as hot as Patrick Dempsey, from the 1998 film version, though that film focused far more on the start of Jeremiah's ministry. The contrast is all the greater, then, with the actor playing Daniel. I must admit that when I've read Daniel in the past, it never occurred to me that he might have a six-pack. I suppose I should probably blame the lack of a major-studio produced 50s biblical epic adaptation for that.

The Daniel section of the film not only includes the Lion's Den scene but also has time to show Daniel's rise to prominence via dream interpretation; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego surviving the Nebuchanezzar's furnace (thanks to a suspiciously Jesusy-looking angel); and Nebuchadnezzar descent into madness. Guinness isn't quite munching-grass in these scenes, but that's probably because he's already had his fill of the scenery.

It's not really made clear why on top of being fed to the lions Daniel also has to undergo this trial in just a loincloth, aside from the opportunity to show off the prophet's abs. In any case what the film does do well is to show show a genuinely fearful Daniel, even if we know it will all be okay in the end. I suppose Daniel's near nakedness heightens the sense of his vulnerability. And then the Israelites get to go back to Jerusalem and there's still 7 minutes left to talk about the Romans ahead of the next episode. All in all this is one of the better entries in the series, not only covering a lot of material without getting sidetracked, but by providing one or two genuinely insightful moments.

Saul, Depression and The Bible Pt 4

I have a great deal of sympathy for King Saul. I've experienced depression myself and have several close friends who have also struggled with it, so it, no doubt, makes me empathise with those whose minds trouble them.

It would be foolish, of course, to try and place a precise diagnosis on someone who is, essentially, just a character in a book. We only have a very small part of the picture and the writers hardly sympathise with whatever the mental troubles are that so afflicted Israel's first king, nor do they have any sort of expertise in mental health. Indeed they, like most people of their time linked mental health problems to demon possession. Yet whilst scholars are becoming more comfortable aligning, say, some of the 'demoniacs' that Jesus 'exorcised' with epilepsy, there seem precious few revisionist takes on Saul.

Saul, was a young and tall man when he was, rather surprisingly, anointed king of Israel. He was not at all prepared for the role - his family amongst the lowest in Israel - but found himself thrust into the limelight with only the resentful Samuel as his mentor. Yet despite the odds against him, he unites Israel and wins a string of key victories over the enemies that had been afflicted him. The result? The kingship is torn away from him on a couple of technicalities and he never sees his guide and mentor again. He slides into an affliction so deep that the court worries about how to help him. Fearing he is cursed, he dithers when faced with Goliath (who according to some manuscripts may only have been a little taller than Saul) and sees another young man from a humble background to fight in his place. David's victory is decisive, but propels him to greater popularity than even his king.

We don't really know why Saul threw the spear at David. It's unlikely to be justified, but the sources all seem to favour David, despite his desertion to the Philistines, and so it's possible that the accounts of subsequent events are less than fair to Saul, but his reaction to David sparing his life is both an interesting contrast to the madman who we so often see depicted and a sign that sadness and humanity remained in his heart. His last acts smack of despair. Faced with a revived Philistine army, in desperation he consults a medium in the hope of reaching Samuel. Saul's worst fears and realised. The battle is lost. His sons are killed. He takes his own life.

The above is not meant as a serious historical account, nor as a neatly comprehensive Bible study. It's simply offered as a more sympathetic take on Saul - a man whose great potential was destroyed by his troubled mind.

I've been mulling this piece for a long time, perhaps almost a year since I first saw The Bible's fourth part. Various films treat Saul more or less badly. In some such as Rei Davi he is clearly stark, raving mad. In others, such as The Story of David he is played more sympathetically.

The Bible's account is interesting because on the one hand it wants to stick closely to the text. It doesn't really want to appear historically inaccurate by allowing Saul to foam at the mouth. Yet on the other hand it goes to considerable length to cast Saul in a very poor light. In addition to the inclusion of all the major low points in Saul's life, the are three overarching ways in which his failings are highlighted / exaggerated: dialogue, storytelling licence and visual representation.

Dialogue
As a series The Bible often uses paraphrased / invented dialogue but uses archaic sounding language to give it an air of authenticity. This is particularly true of the narrator whose authoritative voice lend the production the additional impression of credibility, particularly as the series first broadcast on the History Channel.

In the fourth part of this series the narrator adds various bits of dialogue that emphasise and exaggerate Saul's failings. When Saul is condemned for not destroying Agag and the Amalekite animals the narrator concludes that "in trying to please his men Saul has displeased God". Later on he tells us that Saul is now "obsessed with destroying David".

When The Bible's characters speak it is a mix of the semi-archaic and modernised dialogue, but it too is used to paint Saul in a poor light, emphasising his paranoia ("he'll want my crown next". "He wants our crown, can't you see?") as well as the extent of his problems ("Father! What demons posses you?"). There is also a good deal of mad/paranoid shouting at various points in the episode.

Storytelling Licence
All visual interpretations of the Bible involve a degree of artistic licence, but the ways in which the narrative varies from that in 1 Samuel is fairly telling, frequently painting Saul in a worse light that the biblical text. An early example is the first time Saul attacks David. In the Bible Saul throws his spear at David, just before he goes on to allow him to marry his daughter. It's a moment of insanity, but in the Bible it occurs when David returns from de-foreskinning 200 Philistines and Saul still appears to be brooding about the failure of his plan to endanger his future son-in-law. Later when Michal protects David by claiming he is ill, it's Saul himself who barges into Michal's room, rather than sending one of his men. It implies a kind of driven madness that is simply not their in the biblical account.

Another occasion when the programme pushes a little beyond the biblical account is when David "spares" Saul's life. In both accounts of this in 1 Samuel Saul repents and calls David his son. In the first account (ch.24) he even weeps. In this film however Saul remains annoyed and angry about the incident and shows no remorse. Finally, Saul's suicide in 1 Samuel happens as Saul is fleeing and pressed hard by the battle. He seems to kill himself to avoid the punishment that the Philistines mete out to his corpse instead. Here however when Saul takes is own life he is under no particular pressure certainly not in the heat of battle.

Visual Representation
A few of the techniques used here also make Saul seem less sympathetic. The first is that the actor chosen to play Saul is far less attractive that the actor who plays David. There is only 4 years between the two men but whereas Langley Kirwood who plays David seems hunky and youthful, Francis Magee, who plays Saul, seems old an haggard. Magee's demeanour doesn't really help matters, he sneers and hardly ever smiles.

The camera-work also adds an extra dimension here. Saul is often shot using a hand-held camera, for example in one scene when he is tossing and turning on the bed. Later on he prays and this time not only is a hand-held camera used it is held at a low angle and extremely close up, giving a real air of madness to Saul's attempts to reconnect with God.


I'm not sure why this episode stuck in my mind as it did. Perhaps it is just the way that for all the things that are going on around him Magee manages to find some humanity in Saul and help us find some pity for him. But perhaps it's just the way in which a number of small changes all pointing in a certain direction seem to go above and beyond what seems, to me at least, an already harsh assessment in the pages of 1 Samuel.

=======

Whilst I'm here I noticed a few other things in this issue not relating to the main issue discussed above. The first is when David enters Jerusalem a hero and petals rain down on him from the buildings above. It's noticeable for two reasons, firstly I'm not sure we know about the kind of buildings the Israelites were living in at this point - they had yet to conquer Jebus - but this kind of multi-storey courtyard seems a little far-fetched. It's also noteworthy because this shot is repeated (I believe) in a later scene where one of David's descendants (Jesus) also parades into a city and is greeted by a shower of petals. Later Jesus enters the same courtyard on the way to Golgotha, but this time is only treated with derision. Again, if memory serves the raining petals motif is something borrowed from Last Temptation of Christ.

Speaking of visual nods to Bible films gone by, there is an awful lot of similarity between the wooden screens Bathsheba gets changed behind in this film and in 1951's David and Bathsheba. Interestingly Bathsheba is also involved in the scene where the ark is brought into Jerusalem. It takes a bit of re-arrangement to make this happen (in 2 Samuel David's affair with Bathsheba is five chapters after the ark has been brought into the city), but it does throw fresh light onto why David's dancing was undignified and why his first wife, Michal, was not best pleased.

My Review of The Bible is Online

The History Channel's miniseries The Bible finally arrives in the UK tonight tucked away on Channel 5. I've written a few bits and pieces on some of the episodes here, but my main review of the series as a whole has just gone up at Ken Morefield's 1 More Film Blog. Ken was kind enough to provide me with review copies of the DVDs. I may post a few more thoughts on the episodes as the series progresses.

The Bible and Writing Coherrently

I've been meant to be writing a proper piece on the History Channel's The Bible miniseries for quite a time now, but on top of having too much else to do and exhaustion to contend with, I now find myself with a major case of writer's block. Fun times. Getting those first few opening lines has never really been my strength as a writer, but this piece, in particular, is proving a major challenge.

So I thought I'd hash out a few thoughts here in the hope that it will at least get something going, or help anyone who hasn't visited my blog for quite a while to see that, yes, I do still produce content, right?

One thing that has really stood out to me about this film is the opening disclaimer that flashes up at the start of every episode.

This program is an adaptation of Bible stories that changed our world. It endeavours to stay true to the spirit of the book.

I've thought a fair bit about both sentences, but one thing I've really been thinking about is the staying "true to the spirit of the book" bit. The first thing to say is that it's a little unclear whether this is the spirit of the book or the Spirit of the Book. An all-caps font is used and whilst (proper) "capital letters" are very slightly larger, and the "S" doesn't appear to be, I could be wrong. The use of Spirit rather than spirit is fairly significant in this situation. Every adaptation is judged by whether or not it has stayed true to the "spirit of the book". But a capital would suggest the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead. Staying true to that is rather different.

But of course the Bible - as smart aleck Bible teachers are also so keen to tell us - is not a book, it's a collection of 66+. And whilst the same "Spirit" might be behind them all, it's by no means a forgone conclusion that the same spirit is behind them all. The spirit of Ecclesiastes, say, is very different from the spirit of Acts, or Leviticus or Revelation. Stylistically it makes sense to talk about acoherence. David's psalms don't feel the same as Jesus' parables, which differ again from Moses' purity laws. This is how it should be.

All of which raises some interesting questions when it comes to one program trying to cover a significant proportion of the Bible. How coherent should the visual style of the different sections be? What about acting style? Editing? Pacing and so on?

The 1990s series Testament: The Bible in Animation faced these questions by making the different sections in completely different forms. Some were stop-motion animation, others hand-drawn, but even the hand-drawn entries used a variety of styles, from the operatically delivered Elijah episode to the spiky elongated figures of the Moses entry.

As with other, similar, projects such as The Living Bible and The Greatest Heroes of the Bible, the decision made for The Bible has been to adopt what is essentially the same style for each section. Visually this has been the grungy-with-perfect-teeth approach to costume design with the same grungy filters used on the cameras. Scene length has tended to be about 2-3 minutes. Shot length has tended to be fairly fast - frenetically disorientating at times. Camera work has often been fairly dramatic and showy. The diegetic soundtrack is quite dominant at times.

All of the above and a lot more give the production a sense of coherence. Anyone who, having watched last weeks episode, finds themself tuning in late will know they had reached the right programme instantly despite having leapt from the Babylonian era to the Roman one.

It could, of course, be argued that the parts of the Bible that this series shows us are all essentially a variation on the historical narrative. That, in itself, is a good enough justification for formal coherence. It's notable, for example, that whilst The Bible Collection varies its style in episodes such as the Apocalypse one and the creation one the styles are far more divergent than they are for the majority of the series.

Nevertheless, the coherence isn't just an accident, it's a deliberate choice, and a choice that makes a far clearer statement about the Bible's unity than the series' dialogue ever could or would.

The Bible (2013) - Part 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible (2013) - Part 6*

I've not written a great deal about The History Channel's miniseries The Bible yet mainly because it's not due to air in the UK until the autumn and no-one thought it would be worth sending me a preview DVD. By the time I was sent one, the airing was over, I had other things on and then reviewing every episode just threatens to become a big chore. I will be writing something about the series and the DVD release as a whole soon, but for now I'm working my way through them and writing about them when the mood takes me.

Episode 6 is the first from the New Testament and the breakneck speed the series has whipped through the Old Testament in just 5 episodes (about three and a half hours) shows no sign of abating. In some ways this is necessary and those of us who would like to see things fleshed out a bit more are in a tiny majority; the series' viewing figures show that the producers got this just right. In other ways though it's a bit annoying. This episode starts moments before the annunciation and it's preceded by a long, drawn out and violent fictional example of the Romans collecting taxes complete with slow motion shots and scenes of extras clashing in the streets. It's the kind of scene that has happened a lot in the series, and it's beginning to infuriate. I can't deny that these scenes do add some historical context - whilst fictional they are nevertheless, in a sense, truthful. The problem is that whilst these scenes attempt to add that context they strangely also lack context themselves. The Romans violently extorting their taxes, but we don't know why. Sure, sometimes they probably just did, but the lack of motive, or back story, or explanation makes good history into bad drama. And for this scene to play out, at some length, whilst other key scenes, like the annunciation, or Jesus' birth, are done and dusted in a similar length of time is a bit frustrating. I did mean to start this post with a rant, but, well there you go.

It's a particular shame because the annunciation is particularly good. In fact it's one of a handful of scenes where the creativity of the storytelling is at the fore. Because it's in the middle of this carnage, symbolising the extent to which the Jews are under Rome's thumb, that an angel appears to Mary. It's a bold move, given extra power by intercutting between multiple scenes. "He will be a saviour" the angel says, as a soldier chops a Nazarene just around the corner. So many of these films portray the moment as one of serenity, it's quite powerful. The intercutting is used a few times in this episode to great effect. Another hugely effective moment is in the temptation scene where Satan's promise of kingship is accompanied by alternating images of an enthroned Jesus receiving a golden laurel wreath and a beaten Jesus being tortured with a crown of thorns.

At the same time I can't help wondering if this was inspired by the intercutting in The Passion of the Christ for example Mary seeing the adult Jesus stumble under the weight of a cross compared with footage of the boy Jesus stumbling up a couple of steps. I say this because the preview footage of the crucifixion scenes looked incredibly similar to those in Gibson's film and there's another element in this episode that also seems to be inspired by that particular Jesus movie - the temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Here the temptation is the one at the start of Jesus' ministry. Jesus is fasting in the desert, kneeling on the ground in prayer when a snake weaves its way past him. The snake is, of course, Satan who quickly changes into human form. But the use of the snake is striking as is the fact that the human Satan does all the talking. And the human Satan also looks a lot like the one in Gibson's film - tall, hooded, bald-headed and with a thin face.

Some of you probably thought I was about to say President Obama then, because this series will probably go down as the one that made Satan look like the current inhabitant of the White House. I don't want to go into this as some have done, suffice to say I think it's undeniable that the two look similar. It's no good the producers trying to distance themselves from this fact by wheeling out the actor in a different lighting, clothing and make-up and showing that in real life he looks nothing like the president. In the film he does. At the same time, however, the claim that this was a deliberate decision (even despite persistent and repeated denials by the filmmakers that it wasn't) seems a bit stupid. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps it was someone's subconcious, but to suggest it was a deliberate political statement seems fairly silly. I'd love to know what actually happened, but no-one will ever really know. For some reason there was rather less hoo-har about the fact that they chose David Brent to play Herod Anipas.

I was actually fairly surprised at how far through the gospels this episode got, ending with Jesus' calling of Peter. I quite liked this portrayal actually. It had its faults, but it was a fairly original take. I liked the image of Jesus wade through the water to get to the boat, the idea of him dipping his hand into the water, the shot of him from below the waves (a fish eyes' view?) and the final pan around an astonished Peter's boat, intercut with the execution of John the Baptist.

And as a watch that final moment I'm reminded of some of the things this production does really well. There are some great images - some of those of the magi are actually pretty staggering, CGI or not. The music is really emotive, memorable and hasn't yet annoyed me. I'm not saying I'd complain complain if they found another theme to weave in here or their, but overall it seems to strike the right, um, note. Where things have been a let down in general is the dialogue and the delivery of that dialogue. I can't quite work out which is primarily to blame, but either way both are at fault.

That's more or less it for this episode. Apologies if the writing is junk and littered with spelling mistakes, but it's one of those if-I-don't-do-it-now-(badly)-it'll-never-get-done-at-all thingsand there have been a lot of those over the last two years.

*Yes sorry it's going to be confusing, isn't it, that the show aired as five double episodes, but the DVD/Blu-ray has 10 single episodes. Here's a simple trick if only saw it on telly and you're easily confused: take my episode number and divide it by two. It's a miracle!

Ishmael in Film - Part 2

This is the the second of two posts about Ishmael in film. The first, it turns out, was rather error strewn, and anyone with any decency would have gone and made the corrections and added the labels and so on before writing the second. He or she would probably also write a better more meaningful post for part two and reply to comments more consistently. But unfortunately, you got me.

There are 6 films that I'm able to lay my hands on that depict Ishmael, but to be honest none of them really do much of great interest with him. This is, I suppose, mainly because he is a minor character. The Bible, and the films that do adapt his story, or rather his part in Abraham's story, are not really interested in him, they are interested in Abraham and Sarah and how they act and react. There's a certain amount of etiology in the Bible's account: Ishmael goes on to be the father of the Ishmaelites (popularly considered to be the descendants of the Arab people), and some of the Edomites (Gen 36) who both become enemies of the Israelites at times (although trusted servants at others - 1 Chron 27:30 for example). Gen 25:18 makes special mention of the Ishmaelites living in "hostility" to all the other tribes.

Essentially though Ishmael is a passive character, acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and to a lesser extent Hagar, but never really an active initiator. The last mention of Ishmael the man is from Genesis 25. He is with Isaac when Abraham is buried (which raises the question as to how contact was made / maintained between the half-brothers) and dies himself at the age of 137.

This doesn't leave scriptwriters a great deal to work with, and although with some characters such a blank sheet might be seen as an invitation to be creative, the need to focus on Abraham means that none of the films really take it.

The Bible (1966)
Sarai takes the initiative here, calling Hagar over and whispering into her ear. She waits for Abram, explains to him her plan. The enmity between Sarai and Ishmael (Gen 16:4) is made explicit early on with Hagar disdainfully comparing Sarai to "dried-up fruits", but it doesn't go to the extent we find in the rest of Genesis as Hagar does not flee from Sarah. The scene then changes to Abram's rescue of Lot (Gen 14), before returning to Ishmael's birth and childhood. But it's Sarah who urges Abraham to send them away, after Ishmael seizes a doll at a celebration of Isaac weaning, and then smashes it and buries it. Sarah again urges Abraham to take action; he is reluctant, but ultimately yields. The narrator adds that God also endorsed the plan in a sentence that sounds too ludicrously anachronistic to be from the KJV but actually is ("Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad"). The next scene is of bright desert sands reflecting the sun and the suddenness of the switch from the previous night-time scene, to the brightness of this scene, is at once beautiful and momentarily painfully glaring. Hagar and Ishmael collapse in the desert and Hagar cries out to God before an angel appears and makes water spring from the ground.

Abraham (1994)
Again everything is Sarai's idea, though here she asks Hagar as her free choice and then proposes it to Abram. Once the baby is born however Hagar makes comments to Sarai about her affair with Pharaoh and then questions her choice of bed for the baby. Hagar then runs away and has a conversation with an angel in line with Gen 16 and including some prophetic words about Ishmael. Hagar and Sarai make up and Hagar gives birth whilst sat on Sarai's knee. But the film is very clear that the child is Sarah's such that even as she is recovering from childbirth, Hagar has to lie there watching Abram and Sarai bring up Ishmael. There's an interesting scene with Abram and Ishmael preparing a sacrifice, which heavily prefigures God "testing" Abraham.

Isaac is born and looks up dotingly to Ishmael, cheering him on as he wrestles with older men and bests them.But as the boys grow older, the tension re-emerges between their mothers.  Sarah fears that Ishmael will do what Hagar tells him, and that Hagar wants to usurp Isaac and make Ishmael the leader. So Sarah persuades Abraham to send the pair away. They go off into the desert (Ishmael with a quiver slung over his shoulder), and struggle for their lives before the visitation from an angel. The spring appears though it's not explicitly a miracle. This, I think, is the only film to show both the times Genesis records Hagar meeting an angel.

Testament: The Bible in Animation - Abraham (1996)
Testament makes the primary focus of the Abraham's whole story, his search for an heir. Right from the start, during Abraham's time in Haran, his failure to find an heir is seen as a big problem, highlighted by both the narration and Sarah's isolation from the children who play around her. Once the move to Canaan is completed it's Sarah's idea for Abraham to have a child through Hagar, the sex is skipped over and the next scene is of a heavily pregnant Hagar still doing tasks for Sarah. Sarah asks "Have you done your work", to which Hagar snaps back "I've certainly done yours". Hagar runs into the desert but is spoken to by angelic/God figure, who tells her to return and not fear Sarah: "Do not be afraid she will be kind".

Again the film seems to skip over another of the more human moments of the story by missing Ishmael's birth. Of all the films this is really the only one to give Ishmael a proper role. He's seen talking to his father and asking "It will be a brother won't it?". It also both shows and mentions Ishmael with a bow and arrow as per Gen 21:20. Ultimately, though it is Sarah who sends Hagar away telling her husband "I will decide". Abraham is reluctant but hears God concur. "Free them" commands this film's God, trying its best to put some kind of positive spin on an episode that doesn't really reflect well on The Almighty.

The Bible: In the Beginning (2000)
Abraham is the main character in the first part of this two part miniseries - indeed even the creation story is narrated by him (to his people). Sarai offers Abram a concubine. He initially refuses, but eventually he visits her tent in the middle of the night. Next scene a heavily pregnant Hagar argues with Sarah and escapes to the desert. Drinking from a pool of water she sees a shadow in the pool and a Godly voice prophesies about Ishmael. Ishmael is born. Abram is happy, Sarai less so. Soon enough she's pregnant and it's Hagar that's in a grump. Isaac's born, Abe's happy again, but soon Sarah becomes all protective and scolds Ishmael. (Hagar and Sarah argue again, Sarah really doesn't come out of her dealings with Hagar with much credit) and soon Hagar's heading back to the desert. Abram weakly tells her God will look after her but the provision of water in the desert is missed out. If that sounds like one of dullest pieces of writing ever to appear on this blog then its because the Ishmael episodes are dealt with in such a dully mundane fashion that it drains any interest from the task of recounting it.

What's a little more interesting though is that Ishmael reappears (at the head of group of horsemen) just before Abraham dies. He and Isaac verbally jostle over pecking order and then Abraham blesses them both equally, making a vaguely 21st century sounding statement about respecting different paths, which sounds a bit forced, but at least it's something of interest in an otherwise turgid portrayal. This is the only film to show the death of Abraham.

The Real Old Testament (2003)
Ishmael doesn't actually appear in this endlessly hilarious version of Genesis, but the chapters 16 and 21 of Genesis are covered and feature Hagar fairly memorably. It's Sarai that suggests Abram taking Hagar as a concubine, and has to explain to him what it actually means. Abram is rather more keen on the plan here than in the other films, and, as he spends his night with Hagar in a sillhouetted tent, is heard triumphantly shouting "I'm young again".

Hagar flees Sarai and meets God in the desert, and as the film doesn't really deal with the story from Genesis 21 that's more or less it. It does however pick up on a couple of parts of chapter 16 that the other film's miss. First is God's prediction that Ishmael will be a "wild ass of a man". In one of Hagar's talking to the camera sequences she clearly sees that as possible. "I have this uncle and he's a wild ass of a man". Also covered is Hagar naming God El-roi in Gen 16:13. God, however, is not impressed: "I'm not going to let that one stick".

The Bible (2013)
Of all the films discussed here, this is the one that simultaneously sexes things, whilst going to the other extreme to portray Abraham as whiter than white. When Sarah suggests that Abraham has his child through her, Abraham is initially vehement "no, no, no, no, no, no, no", but he does anyway. But as he departs from Hagar's tent he leaves the door open for long enough for Sarah and, more crucially, the camera to get a good look in. Hagar sits up, still naked, her beautiful back exposed to the elements. It's a very sexualised image, but in contrast, Abraham, fully clothed walks away as if he has been emotionally unaffected by the whole affair.

We also see Ishmael practising his archery (as per Gen 21:20), and Abraham celebrating his son's prowess. The story then cuts to the rather gratuitously violent story of Sodom before returning to the birth of Isaac. Ishmael and Hagar are dispatched fairly quickly - though there is a heavy implication that it is God's decision and that Abraham is assured by God that they will survive, and prophesies to Ishmael that he will have many children. The camera fades on the two as they walk into the desert and there's no death of Abraham scene for him to feature in.