Religion in Cinema

[cinemabon]

In a few weeks, we are going to be treated to what A.O. Scott from the New York Times calls Mel Gibson's "Passion" as: "It is as it was"... whatever that means. He says he is supposedly quoting Pope John-Paul II's reaction to "Passion". This film is based on the passion of St. Matthew, an excerpt from the New Testament, in which Jesus suffers several times prior to his crucifixion, as in the Garden, the pillar, carrying the cross, etc.

There is a modern trend in films that wants this story retold in realistic terms.

We can look at the story of Jesus through the eyes of film makers in the past who made films like "King of Kings", "Ben-Hur", "The Robe", "The Greatest Story Ever Told", and others from the 1950's through the late 60's. The problem with these early interpretations is that they rubber stamp an image that had been carefully crafted by European Christians about Christ for many centuries.

Only recently have filmmakers broken out of this traditional mold and turned a critical eye on what Jesus looked like, how he spoke and what life was really like in Palestine 2000 years ago. Recent films like; Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St. Matthew", Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth", Jewison's "Superstar", and Godard's "Hail Mary" have thrown a more discerning eye on this untouchable material.

Why so untouchable? Because of the storm of controversy stirred up by religious zealots who see their Jesus as having brown hair, blue eyes, practicing Christianity; when in reality he was a Rabbi who practiced Judaism. His mother was Jewish, his father was Jewish, his friends were Jewish, and they all spoke Hebrew! If a brown haired, blue-eyed "white" baby was born in a Jewish family, he would have been stoned to death! The man said over 2000 years ago to love your neighbor... and we've been at war ever since! Go figure!

Now, along comes another interpretation! Oi-vay! Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood will ever learn. Should Hollywood tamper with this "sacred cow"? It only incurs someone's wrath (just as my comments will anger someone out there). Are religious stories about Jesus a legitimate subject for the movies? Or should it be left alone?

I purposely left out any religious film which did not refer to Christ, l ike "Dogma" or "The Ten Commandments" because they deal with religion on a different level.

I know this is a tricky subject because it involves personal feelings about something that is intangible some people. However, I was hoping we would look at it from a cinephile's position, rather than one who is into idolatry.

[Johann]

It's hard to accurately portray "The King of Kings" without a volley of criticism from some religious group. Has anyone seen the silent film From The Manger To The Cross?

I have a film buff friend who is also a devout christian. He has a website which addresses this exact subject. He is trying to bridge a gap between christian values and cinema. Check it out:
www.anduril.ca

[anduril]

Incidentally, Jesus probably didn't speak much Hebrew, except in the synagogue. Aramaic and Greek were the common languages of Palestine at the time, even among Jews.

I've had the benefit of seeing an advance screening of the Passion of the Christ. Unfortunately, this movie does not meet the expectations and hype. Scorsese's Last Temptation, Pasolini's the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, and Arcand's Jesus of Montreal are all better Jesus films. Gibson's movie is reverential and conservative. It is largely based on The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich. This book, unfortunately, is rather anti-semitic and, although Gibson has excised some of the more gratuitous aspects of the book's anti-semitism, strong hints of it still remain in the film. In general, the film is pretentious. Gibson tries too hard to be the auteur in this film and it shows with incoherent, inexplicable, and sometimes even cheesy scenes. Still, the movie is worth seeing and I recommend it to the forum. I hope we can get some good discussion going on it and other films.

Ken.

[cinemabon]

I am a huge fan of William Wyler, and I hope he forgives me when I paraphrase him, "Only a Jew could tell the story of Christ!" (on the set of "Ben-Hur").

I have seen excerpts of "From the Manger to the Cross"; production values a bit crude then, but the point well taken.

I am rather skeptical of how the story of Jesus is told. Personally, I think films like "King of Kings" are anti-semitic. Jews are portrayed in very stereotypical fashion, and made out the villan (i.e. the Pharisees). Historically speaking, Jews have been vilified for two millenia as the "ones who killed Christ". If not blamed for what the Roman's did, Jews are then given roles in film where at the moment of crucifixion; they instantly become converts to Christianity, and therefore salvation (in the Christian sense).

When I was growing up, my next door neighbor was Jewish, while I was Catholic. We were constantly wishing we could take the other's place when we would sit down and compare dogmas. My shame was the Inquisition, while her's was being persecuted for 2000 years. Both of us agreed, the story of Jesus is one that is told over and over again to secure his place in history as the end all prophet, instead of being a brilliant voice of God with a message of love, instead of anger... and nothing more. Just once, I wish someone would make a film that was honest. I guess that doesn't sell many tickets, though.

[anduril]

Anti-Semitism in Jesus movies is a troublesome and difficult issue. Fundamentally, the story of Jesus is a story that takes place within a Jewish community. Of course, everyone ought to know that Jesus was called a rabbi by his followers. He spoke in Jewish synagogues and taught through the Hebrew Scriptures. Even after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, and at least until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in latter part of the first century C.E., Christianity was simply a Jewish sect.

Therefore, it is important to recognize and allow for the role that the Jewish Sanhedrin played in arranging the arrest of Jesus Christ and its complicity in the crucifixion. The Talmud and other important Jewish literature does not shy away from these facts; actually, if anything, these sources stress and amplify the case of Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus. It may be stating the obvious but people have to bear in mind that many members of the Jewish leadership considered Jesus to be a blasphemer and therefore worthy of death. From the stand point of these Jews, the death of Jesus was not the death of God or even a great rabbi but rather this was the death of religious malcontent, a disturber of the peace, and, as the Talmud goes so far as to say, an agent of Beelzebub.

It also goes without saying that the earliest disciples of Jesus were Jews. Jesus's ministry was a ministry to the Jews; the earliest converts were, therefore, Jews.

The problem with Jesus movies, which builds on medieval Christian propaganda and, to a lesser extent, the Gospel of John, is that it divides Jews of the time of Jesus into two groups: Jesus and his followers, which though Jewish increasingly take on the descriptor, "Christians," over against those who opposed them, who still retain the descriptor, "Jewish" or "Jews." This division is obviously problematic because (1) it ignores the fact that many Jews had little or no opinion on the question of Jesus, (2) the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers is increasingly ignored, and (3) the "Jews," that small group who opposed Jesus, come to stand for the entire ethnic group. When this conceptual framework carries over into literature and movies, the end result of this division is anti-semitism.

This anti-semitism is then amplified in medieval Europe, which appropriates Jesus as its own and which also appropriates the Roman Empire as its own. Because Christianity eventually becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire and Roman Catholicism comes to dominate European Christianity, an ideological need to exonerate old Roman complicity in the death of Jesus develops. As such, Pontius Pilate and the Roman aristocracy are increasingly cast as reluctant executors of the will of a rabid Jewish mob.

So, how do literature and movies overcome this problem? First, by showing that Jesus and his followers were Jews. Second, by showing that not all Jews, not even all the Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin, shared the same opinion of Jesus. It is important to note that even the NT shows that some Pharisees of the Sanhedrin defended Jesus (e.g. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimethia, and Gamaliel); this almost never comes through in Jesus movies where the Sanhedrin is usually presented as unified in its hostility towards Jesus. Third, Jesus movies have to discontinue the practice of exonerating Pontius Pilate and the Roman aristocracy. Pontius Pilate and his Roman government crucified thousands of Jews; this needs to come through in any Jesus movie.

Sorry for the long-windedness... I just wanted to make sure my explanation was relatively complete.

In any case, I do think honest Jesus movies have been made, chiefly those of Pasolini, Arcand, and Scorsese. Zeffirelli and Young's Jesus movies are also quite good. I look forward to Verhoeven's Jesus movie, if he ever gets around to it, which should make another excellent addition to the group. At the same time, none of these films adequately presents the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus of Faith, or the Jesus of History; to accomplish any of these three portraits of Jesus would be impossible. In my opinion, filmmakers succeed in Jesus movies when they challenge people to think about the Jesus of Faith and re-engage the Bible.

BTW, Jesus is not simply about love. It is more than that and an honest movie about Jesus has to explore all sides of his message.

[cinemabon]

I applaud your candor and your intellect. Obviously, you are well researched on this issue. I apologize if I made Jesus' message too one sided. I wanted to create a contrasting image he tried to instill that was different from the God of the old testament, filled with anger and revenge, although many others made similar messages at the same time, like John the Baptist.

I have a proposal for a great series. Take Jesus life in three films. Show him from birth to early twenties and the first of his "miracles" as a first treatment. Then show, in the second film, the unknown side of Jesus with the Essenes (speculation yes, but there is some very good anthropological evidence out there). THEN, show the final well documented years in the third movie to make a definitive portrayal, showing all of the adult aspects of Jesus (his relation to Judaism, living under Roman rule, etc.) without the histrionics of sexuality like Scorsese did. Perhaps a trilology? Or are we just about oversaturated on the subject?

At any rate, great analysis on your first two postings. I would love to see more of your work on this site.

[anduril]

Hey, cinemabon, no apologies... Though I'm passionate about this stuff, I take no offense unless people are being purposefully obnoxious, disrespectful, and rude.

BTW, the God of the Old Testament is not simply a god filled with anger and vengeance... it is more than that... ;-)

Incidentally, I'm studying to be a Professor of Hebrew, Near Eastern, and Classical Studies with my specialization in Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). I also have a strong undergraduate background in New Testament literature. Right now I'm working on my Master's thesis and come September will start my Ph.D. program in the States. I apologize if sometimes I draw on my professional knowledge in this area to correct something people in the forum write about the Bible. I don't mean to be condescending or anything... It is just that as a prospective teacher, I like to educate people on something I know a lot about. By the same token, I'm always ready to learn from the people on this site who clearly know more about cinema than I do. I hope that's a fair exchange that people, especially in this thread, are willing to make.

Anyways, I would always love to see more explicitly biblical cinema out there and by all means a Jesus trilogy would be fascinating. What you describe is quite an undertaking... in the first two films you'd be delving into periods in Jesus's life for which little to no ancient documentation, reliable or otherwise, exists. Also, I don't know that you'd have a natural plot to make out of these periods in Jesus's life, especially your proposed middle movie.

The relationship of Jesus to the Essenes is very speculative. I'm not sure what you mean by "anthropological" evidence. The only evidence that exists for a link is some similarities in the Judaism of the Essenes and the Judaism of Jesus and the New Testament. But, even if you make the connection, what happens in this middle movie?

Should I post the basic plot and ideas for my hypothetical Jesus movie?

Check out this article for some basic information on Paul Verhoeven's long in the works Jesus film. Not only an accomplished director, Verhoeven is a Ph.D. (in Math and Physics) and a member of the Jesus Seminar, so I really hope he makes good on his intention to make a Jesus movie because it should be an interesting interpretation.

Personally, I'd like to see more movies based on the Old Testament; there is a immense wellspring of untapped stories in the Old Testament that have yet to be effectively adapted and brought to the silver screen. For instance, I'd like to see Silver Screen adaptations of the Jacob story (using Buechner's book, Son of Laughter--this one could easily be a trilogy), the Joshua story, the story of Gideon from Judges, the stories of any number of Israelite kings, the stories of any number of Israelite prophets (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), the Ruth story, and the Esther story. If done correctly, these movies would have rich plots, powerful themes, great battle sequences, sexuality, intrigue, drama, ... you name it, it'd be there.

[anduril]

Essential casting for my Jesus movie:

Natalie Portman as Mary.

Essential casting for my Jacob movie:

Natalie Portman as Rachel.

Essential casting for my movie about Ahab, King of Israel:

Natalie Portman as Jezebel.

Essential casting for my Isaiah movie:

Natalie Portman as the woman in Isaiah's visions.

Okay, I think you get the point... She's Israeli, she's young, she's beautiful, she's talented, she looks these parts... Man, I'm dying to see it. I wish I could make it happen...

[cinemabon]

We've touched on the Jesus movies, but I would also like your opinion of how religion plays a part in cinema. Recently, the skeptics have had the largest foot hold with films made in the last decade. Films like Kevin Smith's "Dogma", attacking Catholicism and Christianity in general (I thought parts were very funny and satyrical, however others just mysterious or gross). Not having access to the indies, I'm sure I'm missing out on some very good stuff. (See Oscar Jubis diary of the Miami Film Festival, or some of Chris Knipp's entries). Johann has some very good input on a variety of subjects. He seems to be shying away from here.

I went to your web site and caught a facinating and rather poignant link to "Ten Directors and 100 great films". Your choice of Lars von Trier is an interesting one. While your choice of Krzystof Kieslowski, a Polish director known more for television than cinema is a baffling one for me, although pertinent to the discussion of religion in his film, "Dekalog", which you mention but I have not seen. Your website shows a depth of your character which I am certain would facinate anyone who visits and writes on this website and has correlations to the subject at hand. In fact, I would go so far as to say I feel honored you've contributed to this column. Please feel free to elaborate any thematic material or subject matter you wish to pursue.

That said, I, too, believe Natalie Portman a competent actress and captivating beauty. As Mary? Well... perhaps... I was thinking of a blonde... with bright blue eyes.... high cheekbones... just kidding.

[anduril]

That's high praise... I'm overwhelmed... thank-you. I'm not sure if I'm deserving of it. My expertise is really in the religion, theology, and biblical studies side of things. I am a film buff... especially an historical film buff but I've had to learn alot from others on this front, including Johann (who happens to be a good friend of mine apart from these forums). I don't have the kind of time many others on these forums do to watch films so the repertoire of films I have to draw on is considerably smaller. I have many other interests that take up that time... family and my career in biblical studies being the foremost of these...

Anyways, let me respond to your last post by commenting a bit on the religion in the cinema of Lars von Trier and Kieslowski. Incidentally, my 10 top directors and 100 top films were not chosen on the basis of the religious themes in their work; rather they were chosen based on my knowledge of the craft of filmmaking. That being said, I have a natural bias towards filmmakers that explore religious themes...

Lars von Trier is definitely a director who explores religious themes, perhaps most explicitly in movies such as Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. Breaking the Waves is probably one of the most exciting and challenging movies I have ever seen in this regard. In it, Lars raises all sorts of questions about morality, the transcendence of God, grace, and ethics. The technique is brilliant... create a morally reprehensible character and then, through an examination of her motives, evoke sympathy for her.

Kieslowski is a different sort of director... he's constantly asking questions about fate, circumstance, coincidence, identity, self-awareness... his feature films (of which you are right there are not many) are all brilliant... what a filmography... Dekalog, Three Colors Trilogy, and Double Life of Veronique are some of the most beautiful films I've ever seen... I lament that he could not be alive to film his trilogy, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory... the first of these has now been directed by Tom Tykwer, a competent director but no Kieslowski... BTW, Dekalog is an absolute must-see for anybody interested in religion in cinema... you'll probably have better luck finding it under its English title: Decalogue.

Anyways, I have to go off and do some other things... I'll write some more later...

[Johann]

I'm not shying away, I just think I should leave it to the experts.

There are some religious films that impress me, but because I'm a little lost in the spirituality dept, I don't really relate.

It's a historical fact that Jesus walked the earth. My problem comes in the area of interpretation of his life. I simply don't trust the Bible wholly. I like to form my opinions based on my life experience. Somehow I think the Bible is bang-on accurate in parts but extremely padded in others. There are powerful messages in it that require as much faith to believe it as the writers had when they documented it.

Christianity films that seem to "get it right" to me are:
The Mission
Jesus (the mini-series with Jeremy Sisto)
Jesus of Nazareth
and the Last Temptation of Christ (which is fiction)

[cinemabon]

It absolutely galled me to look at the horrible and grotesque images of an extremely bloodied Jesus on the cross in Newsweek Magazine (there was bright red blood covering his body head to foot. If they are trying to achieve realism, blood does not stay red once it leaves the body. It dries quickly, hence its clotting action, and turns almost black. Ask any doctor, nurse, or investigator).

After seeing that, my question is this...

Is film supposed to be entertainment, the telling of a story, usually fictional, or even based on truthful material, but still fictional as a result of its adaptation? On what level does film loose its ability to entertain and cross the line into a sort of ultra-realistic impetuousness that purports to be "the true story" for effect? Violence for the sake of the "titillation" effect, or to thrill, amaze, rouse, and "wow" us goes back to the days of brutality for entertainment in another form. Our society seems to be regressing, allowing more and more violence in the media and calling it art, or using empty phrases like; "helping to tell the story".

At what point do we say, "Enough!" When is there too much violence? I realize that a horror story needs gore to help its "thrill" factor and sell tickets. We know that up front and can choose whether or not to see a "horror" film. But when so-called studio or commercial films show beheadings, dismemberments, and other acts of gore during the film, when does the audience ask itself, "Was that really necessary to tell the story?" Or was it added by the filmmaker to "shock" the audience and make some kind of impact. I for one am sick of it... and I don't care anymore who is offended by that statement. I will not stand in the Colosseum any longer and cheer for more violence. Extreme violence should be abhorrent to the civilized nature of man.

If you wish to decribe an ancient whose message was love, let that sell your movie. However, if you, as the filmmaker, wish to show us how barbaric life was in the world two thousand years ago, by all means show us; but make your movie "X" rated, and tell your viewers upfront about your message or intent. Then if anyone comes to see it, it'll be their own damn fault.

[anduril]

The violence in Gibson's movie is gratuitous; there is no doubt. The way the scourging is presented in the movie is simply not possible. Gibson's Jesus, if he were historically real, would have died at the scourging post, disembowled. Not only is he scourged backside with a cat o' nine tails but frontside too, which given the nature of that whip would have ripped open Jesus' gut. It is important to note also that the Gospels do not describe the physical tortures of the crucifixion; they simply record that Jesus was scourged and that he was crucified.

Incidentally, the Passion did get an "R" rating, which I know doesn't mean much today.

The violence, however, did not come as a surprise to me. Gibson is something of a sadomasochistic. Almost all of his movies have a theme or at least subtext of violence and/or disfigurement. For Gibson, evidently, the Passion is preeminently about the phsyical suffering of Jesus. Personally, I don't buy this... first, because if Jesus's pain is our salvation, there are many humans that have suffered as much if not more physical pain than Jesus endured; and second, the story is really about the Son of God condescending to humanity and dying this horrible death, enduring the sense of abandonment by the Father, and bearing the weight of sin. Jesus's death is preeminently about a spiritual pain and suffering that surpasses the physical tests on all levels. Interestingly, no movie perhaps captures this as well as Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ.

[cinemabon]

Your insight is precise and well reasoned, I couldn't agree more that Gibson is sadomasochistic. He must have had great political connections to get "Braveheart" a majority vote through the Academy community. I'm glad the film has an "R" rating, however, we know full well it will not stop minors from seeing this film.

Scourging often resulted in disembowelment and death. During the Inquisition, a variety of cat-o-nine tails were use whose sole purpose was to inflict such a severe torture the result would most certainly be death. If they show in the "Passion" film, anything other than a leather whip, or a frayed whip, then I would have to say it is preposterous to be so presumptuous.

Now we get to the question of whom (son?) or what came from God. While I have to agree that your theological background is by far greater than mine by leaps and bounds; I have this little theory about God I would like to run by your little gray cells. Perhaps God sent a part of himself and put it in that maturing egg inside Mary. It would explain Jesus' ability to "calm stormy waters" or "change water into wine" or even "raise Lazarus from the dead"; just a theory. The Jesus-God connection to humanity would also be explained when, during the moment of his death, he felt abandoned by God as his spirit left his body to return to heaven, imparting a certain level of suffering as a result. When the "Holy" spirit returns to the body of Jesus, it rises and transforms into complete spiritual material, transcending our own space and time, and returning to God. I know, it has holes in it as wide as Mack can make them. By all means, have at it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Scourging often resulted in disembowelment and death. During the Inquisition, a variety of cat-o-nine tails were use whose sole purpose was to inflict such a severe torture the result would most certainly be death. If they show in the "Passion" film, anything other than a leather whip, or a frayed whip, then I would have to say it is preposterous to be so presumptuous.

First, I'll talk about this one... tradition holds that Jesus was scourged with a cat o' nine tails and it is entirely implausible so long as it was used backside and limited only to a couple/few lashes.

In the Passion, they show Jesus scourged with leather and reed whips, frayed whips, and then the cat o' nine tails. With the cat o' nine tails, he is scourged repeatedly backside in the movie and then he falls and they repeatedly scourge him frontside. To survive this scourging would not only prove that Jesus was God but also that he wasn't human.