| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
Jesus
The main problem with Jesus, the film, is not its intentions, but its source. It is literally a word-for-word interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, translated from the Good News Bible. Luke was a doctor and a historian, and according to his own claim at the beginning of the book, he wrote his gospel as a historical document, based on the collection of interviews with eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. This claim has been disputed by some scholars and defended by others, but its authenticity is not the point here. The point is, Luke is interesting from a historical standpoint, but it lacks the rich drama of the gospels of John or Matthew, who wrote their gospels as statements of belief and as love-letters to the ever growing Christian church of the first century. Thus, Jesus works the same way as the gospel of Luke: Interesting, informative, but dry. Part of the problem, I think, is in the translation that the filmmakers use. The Good News Bible, while a useful contemporary translation, lacks the power of, say, the King James Version. The King James Bible was written to be read aloud, and its language gives a true depiction of the authority of Christ, as God made flesh on earth. In the King James Version, Jesus tells the prostitute, “Go, and sin no more.” In the Good News Bible, he says, almost sheepishly, “Go, and stop sinning.” I don’t know. Maybe on paper, they don’t look much different, but when spoken aloud, the Good News Bible just doesn’t have the impact. Even the New American Standard or the New Internation Version would have worked better. In any case, Jesus was filmed on location in Jerusalem, and despite its low budget, an attempt was made to be historically accurate. Much of the costumes and sets do look authentic, but even they seem dry and boring. No attempt is made to show off the beauty of the land, and I think that we would appreciate the filming locations if they had looked a little less depressing. I’m not saying that the filmmaker needed to make every shot beautiful and epic in nature, but surely they could have tried to get a better taste of the place where Jesus walked and taught. What’s the point of filming on location if you’re not going to use it to your advantage? The acting is also flat. Part of this is because of the lack of characterization in the Gospel of Luke; another part of it is because the actors are simply uninspired. When Jesus drives a demon out of a man, I could barely tell the difference in the actor before or after the exorcism. When Simon Peter realizes for the first time that Jesus is a holy man, his reaction is more of whiney than reverent. During the Transfiguration, when Jesus appears on the mountain with the spirits of Moses and Elijah, the disciples seem apathetic—they are simply looking on, when they should be feeling awe, or fear or something. Richard Kiley, as the narrator, inserts his dialogue far too much, when the actors and the scenes should simply speak for themselves. His constant presence is distracting, and it undermines the narrative. There are some bright spots. The Lord’s Supper is presented with some genuine emotion, as the actor playing Judas Iscariot darts his eyes around the room in guilt as the rest of the disciples stare at their Master curiously, not sure what he means when he says, “This is my body, broken for you.” Brian Deacon also makes an effective Christ, portraying the Son of God as a jovial, almost Santa Clause-like fellow. When a rich man asks Christ how to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ laughs out loud and gives the man a large, welcoming grin, delighted that someone would ask him such an important question. It is a unique approach to Christ, and it is in interesting contrast to the usually somber Christs of other films. Jesus is actually best known for the fact that it, quite surprisingly, the most watched film in the history of cinema. An organization called the Jesus Film Project was founded in the 1990s by a group of international Christian mission organizations that recognized its potential to present the Christian gospel. As a result, it has gone on to be translated into over seven hundred different languages and shown in theaters all over the world, including tents in indigenous African bush villages. American churches got involved with the project as well, and often distribute copies of the film on the doorsteps of houses around their community. Today, literally thousands and thousands of people have been converted to Christianity by watching Jesus. Considering this, I would have loved to have been the reporter who asked Brian Deacon, who accepted the role despite his agent’s objections (“You don’t want to be typecast,” he advised the actor), what it feels like to be the face of Jesus for thousands of people all around the world who otherwise have no idea what a “movie” is. Perhaps
it is appropriate that Jesus found its niche among missionaries
and Christians, who can use it as an effective visual aid to share
their message. After all, the film is the Gospel of Luke, exactly
how it was told in the Bible. Some Christian groups are reluctant
to view versions of Christ that take liberties, because the subject
matter is so precious to them. Thus, Jesus is certainly
an inoffensive, effective evangelism tool. For the rest of us,
there are far better, more engaging films about the life of Christ
to be seen. AKA: The Jesus Film Warner Brothers Presents an Inspirations Films production. Directed by John Krish and Peter Sykes. Written by Barnet Bain, from the Gospel of Luke (Good News Bible translation). Rated G (fine for kids). Running time: 117 minutes. Original United States theatrical release date: November 2, 1979.
Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com |
||
