sign in sign up
<<
Home , American Jesus, Bob Bingham, Christ figure, Depiction of Jesus, Harvey Keitel, Icon Productions

AND STARRING AS HIMSELF: CULTURAL CONTEXT AND THE IMAGES OF IN NORTH AMERICAN

Rebecca Dawson

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF

August 2007

Committee:

Angela Nelson, Advisor

Jeffrey Brown

Madeline Duntley

ii

ABSTRACT

Angela Nelson, Advisor

Jesus Christ may appear to be an unlikely candidate for movie stardom, yet few

other figures have managed to both captivate and outrage its audience. From early

appearances in silent epics to modern kung-fu action-comedies, depictions of Christ have

done more than show his life and his message. The directors of these , by using

Christ’s image, have added a new interpretative dimension to the social issues and debate

at the heart of each era of filmmaking. Post-Vietnam cynicism, feminism, gay rights, and

the have all found a champion in the of Jesus. Jesus becomes

malleable in a sense, as his image is changed and reconstituted to express the issues and

beliefs closest to the filmmaker.

This thesis will examine the evolution of the “Jesus film” in North American

cinema, focusing on the varying depictions of Christ within four films; Jesus Christ

Superstar (1973), The Last (1988), Jesus Christ Hunter

(2001), and The Passion of the Christ (2004). These films may vary in their approach and

depictions of Christ, ranging from a feminized neo-hippie to a very masculine and

practically indestructible savior, yet they all present an evolution in how Jesus is

presented and used in . Studying these films in terms of genre, subculture,

and gender is crucial to understanding how the image of Jesus has been affected by our

ever-changing culture. Through these various and distinctly different films, I will show

how each film’s depiction of Christ has been influenced through its director, its message,

and the culture that produced it. Jesus’ physical appearance, his relationships, and the

intent of the filmmaker all help form the cinematic Christ. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who helped me throughout this process. I want to express my gratitude to my committee; Dr. Angela Nelson, Dr. Jeffrey Brown, and Dr. Madeline

Duntley. Thank you all so much for your insight, time, and patience.

I could not have written this without the love and support from my family. They have endured hundreds of miles of separation, many panicked phone calls, and hearing

“What can she do with a Popular Culture degree?” more times than I’d like to admit.

Thank you for never doubting me. I just want to make you proud.

Thank you to my friends here in the Popular Culture department. We came in as strangers and immediately bonded like a family. If it wasn’t for our theme parties, wallyball, video game nights, and reality show obsessions, I would have gone crazy here.

Remember, there is no “I” in Dyamonds.

I would also like to thank all the friends I had to leave behind when I moved to

Ohio. Your letters of support, phone calls, and customized t-shirts kept me smiling when

I felt alone and scared in a place far from home. I miss you all.

Finally, I cannot begin to express my gratitude and love for Matt. You kept me sane when I was frantic, kept me cool when I wanted to throw my computer out the window, and you were my strength. All I can give you is my heart in return.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… 1

EARLY JESUS FILMS…………………………………… 9

CHAPTER I: …………………………… 23

CHAPTER II: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST……………….. 43

CHAPTER III: JESUS CHRIST:VAMPIRE HUNTER…………………. 67

CHAPTER IV: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST……………………… 85

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………… 109

WORKS CITED…...….…………………………………………………... 116

1

INTRODUCTION

It is a story that could only be told in ; an is released, one that many thought would be destroyed at the box office. The film’s subject matter and its lack of English dialogue seems guaranteed to isolate many theatergoers. Yet, the movie does have one promising feature, its highly charismatic star. With the power of this star, the film manages to exceed expectations and break records at the box office.

People line up to see the film, even buying their tickets in bulk to share with their community. The star’s face is every newspaper, every TV show, and is debated about by critics and pundits. The film has not only managed to break even, but has become one of the top grossing films of all time, all through the country’s fascination with its leading man. For any other film, this outcome would be a fantasy, yet ’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) faced this reality. The film’s gruesome display of Jesus’ death manages to captivate millions of all faiths and beliefs and sparked controversy over the portrayal of Christ and the aspects of his death. However, The Passion of the Christ is just one in a line of films that shows that our fascination with the life, times, and death of

Jesus continues to intrigue and challenge us as an audience.

Since the first years of mainstream film in North America, Jesus has been a constant presence on the screen. The character of Jesus has been used to enlighten, inspire, critique, and even satirize our culture. Yet, the image of Jesus itself had faced stagnation, with little exploration of what made Jesus such a compelling, yet tragically human figure. While the works and miracles of Christ had gone from black and white film trickery to grand Technicolor, the character itself had remained roughly the same.

Jesus was presented as a kind, solemn, and spiritually strong, with little traces of doubt or 2 concern over his fate. While this figure was inspiring, then films often neglected the idea that Jesus was also a human, with humanity often yielding anger, doubt, and sexuality.

While these portraits of Jesus were popular among audiences, they did not necessarily reflect the tensions within culture or the personal beliefs of the filmmaker.

This would change as Jesus evolved from a stoic figure like or a

Hollywood-handsome man like Jeffrey Hunter. Instead of a one-note savior, we can see

Jesus as a questioning Hippie in Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), a man tempted by of a more sedate existence in The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), and even a pro-gay, karate-fighting in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (2001). These films provide a more personal look at the life of Jesus, as the films study his relationships and how one man can handle the load of bring human and divine in one being. The modern

Jesus film also allows the director to use the image of Christ to express his personal beliefs, ranging from post-Vietnam cynicism to conservative .

PURPOSE OF STUDY

Through this thesis, I will examine various depictions of Jesus as an adult in North

American film, focusing primarily on the cultural and textual content of four films;

Norman Jewison’s Jesus Christ Superstar, ’s The Last Temptation of

Christ, Lee Demarbre’s Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. By examining these films, I will show how each film’s message and the culture that produced it have shaped the cinematic character of Christ. Not only has the actual appearance of Christ changed, from the beatific deity in King of Kings (1961) to the gauged ear piercing in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, but his personality and his relationships have received a similar transformation. The dynamics of Jesus’ relationship 3

with , Judas, and God have changed, ranging from almost traditional

father-son dynamic between God and Christ in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter to Jesus’

imagined sexual and romantic relationship with Mary in The Last Temptation of Christ.

The use of Jesus’ imagery not acts as a blank slate, one that the filmmaker can present their own message upon.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

The mainstream depiction of Christ reached a turning point in 1973, as Norman

Jewison’s Jesus Christ Superstar, the film adaptation of ’s

musical, debuted to criticism and controversy. Although many focused on the physicality

of ’s Jesus as a point of concern, the political, religious, and sexual

connotations of Jesus Christ Superstar were both the film’s selling points and targets of

debate. In a post-Vietnam America, could a musical with Hippie sensibilities be

embraced? How would a film that displays Judas a more compelling character than Christ

be received? Despite supposed strides towards tolerance, is anti-Semitism still a part of

the story of Christ?

Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) created a greater

outpouring of criticisms and outrage. The film, based on the book by Nikos Kazantzakis,

depicts Jesus’ humanity in a way not depicted before. Instead of a peaceful lamb led to

the slaughter, Willem Defoe’s Jesus is troubled and even reluctant to take on what he

knows will lead to his death. As he suffers on the cross, he is given one last temptation,

the vision of a domestic, long life not as a messiah, but as a man. The vision, depicting a

married existence with Mary Magdalene, raised eyebrows with its depiction of married

sex life between Jesus and Mary and drew scorn for its portrayal of a doubting Christ. 4

The film does not focus on Jesus as a savior, but as an introspective human being.

Scorsese’s background in Catholicism and his doubts as an adult led to this intimate approach to the life of Jesus. As the controversy raged on, film critics attempted to rise above the criticisms of the public. ’s Desson Howe declared that,

“Before another indignant fist rises, you should know that Temptation…is a faith- affirming odyssey that attempts to animate ‘the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh’” (Howe 34). Critics like Howe lauded the bravery of Scorsese, yet the film suffered at the box office from the protests and attacks of those who were offended by this representation of Christ’s humanity (Howe 34). Despite these criticisms, the film stands out in its depiction of Christ not just as a undefined martyr, but also a troubled and torn man caught in something much bigger than himself.

While Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ played with the ideas associated with the Jesus narrative, Canadian director Lee Demarbre’s Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter dissolves the typical conventions of a Jesus film by showing a side of

Christ never seen before: Jesus kicking butt! film not only plays with genre, alternately playing as a musical, comedy, and a modern , but toys with the images and ideas surrounding Christ. Instead of a long-haired pacifist, Jesus, played here by Phil Caracas, is now a cropped , gauged-eared . There is no doubt to this particular Jesus’ masculinity, as he takes down dozens of opponents. The components to the life of Christ have also been updated in this film. His sidekick is a latex-wearing Mary Magnum, and his enemies include kung-fu atheists and laboratory- created . Outside of these humorous elements, the message of the film is surprisingly supportive of homosexuality and tolerance. In a time when many still

5 question Jesus’ views on homosexuality, the film takes a strong stance in depicting Jesus’ love for all, regardless of sexuality.

If Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter represented a desire to update the Jesus narrative, the popular and controversial The Passion of the Christ stood for both a conventional, if graphic, depiction of the Passion and a troubling and age-old portrayal of . The film, while surprisingly traditional in its physical portrayal of Jesus, did mark the first time only Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew was spoken, suggesting a desire for in the depiction of Christ and his time. The film’s devotional nature led millions of to embrace Gibson’s message. Audiences were moved by the physical and mental anguish suffered by Jesus, portrayed by James Caviezel, yet others were outraged at the implications of the role of Jews in Jesus’ death. The controversy of the depiction of Jews and the extreme portrayal of Jesus’ torture and death caused many to wonder if this portrayal detracted from or added to the importance of Jesus’ message. Was the extreme violence or Jesus’ sacrifice for mankind the main focus of the film?

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This thesis focuses on film analysis, exploring themes of masculinity, relationships, subcultures, humanity, sexuality, and politics. Outside of these themes, I will explore the public reception of these films, from the critics’ perspective to the public outcry of the audience to many of these films. I will also examine these films in terms of genre, as genre can greatly influence the way a message is presented to is audience. John

Cawelti’s “The Question of Popular Genres” has provided the framework for my study of genre. of genre for these different Jesus films was a specific decision made by the director. By studying the genres of the four main films; the musical, the drama, the 6 action film, one can better understand the presentation of Jesus in these films. Cawelti asserts that genre criticism, “encourages the comparison and synthesis of different analyses of the same genre- i.e., of different formulations of the supertext- and thereby increases the sophistication of generic definitions” (Cawelti 55). The Jesus film may seem to be a varied and broad genre, since musicals, action films, and dramas may all fall under the category. By comparing these films, not only in their own specialized genre of being “Jesus films,” but in their own larger genres as well, one can better understand how the film forms the story and character of Christ. While the reasons for using genre criticism are strong, I will also heed Cawelti’s own hesitations of the study, particularly his suggestion that genre criticism can, “lose sight of the genius of individual works and creators” (Cawelti 55). By being aware that these four films are not just of their genre, but of the individual creative forces that drive them, one can also watch how the director’s views can influence and shape the message and presentation of his film.

Studying subcultures, particularly for Jesus Christ Superstar and Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter, is also beneficial for this study. In these two films, the influence of the counter-cultural Hippie movement and the increasing power of the Gay Rights movement respectively can hardly be denied. Subcultures, groups who share common values, political and artistic ideals, and common goals, are becoming more visibly influential on popular culture and their impact is especially important when it comes to how Jesus is portrayed in film. It may be surprising to some that Jesus could be a symbol for the

Hippies or the Gay , but the interplay with mainstream symbols and subcultural ideals is not new.

In his book Subculture: The of Style, Dick Hebdige acknowledges this

7 interplay and notes that studies have mostly focused on the opposition of subcultures and the groups they are defined against and that other factors have been largely ignored.

Hebdige observes that, “…the subculture tends to be presented as an independent organism functioning outside the larger social, political, and economic contexts. As a result, the picture of subculture is often incomplete” (Hebdige 76). Instead, attention must be paid equally to the subculture and the cultural forces that drive it. In studying the subcultures that help mold an image of Christ, we must also examine the times and values of the mainstream culture that surrounds both the subculture and the film. It is also important to note how the style of the subcultures that affected the image of Jesus. As

Hebdige describes, style is the key to many of these subcultures, “Style in subculture is, then, pregnant with significance…Our task becomes…to discern the hidden messages inscribed in code on the glossy surfaces of style…” (Hebdige 18). The style of subcultures, such as the transformation of the Disciples into the messy-haired, bell- bottomed young men signifying Hippie style, can immediately add meaning to otherwise well-known figures and ideas.

The idea of masculinity is another important element surrounding the contemporary images of Christ in film. While Jesus has been portrayed as an almost asexual being in the past, Jesus films of the past few decades have been more detailed in depicting Jesus’ sexuality and have perpetuated changing views of masculinity. Susan

Bordo’s work The Male Body has detailed this change in physical masculinity, from the traditional muscle-bound paradigm to the stream-lined, lean body. It has become more common to view men’s bodies in the same “gaze” that has long been focused solely on women (Bordo 173). R.W. Connell’s book Masculinities mirrors Bordo’s work, as he

8 studies not only the changing masculine body, but the evolving nature of male sexuality and the masculine role in society. Connell writes that men have been stymied by antiquated ideas of manliness, “Mass culture generally assumes that there is a fixed, true masculinity…We hear of ‘real men,’ ‘natural man,’ the ‘deep masculine’ (Connell 45).

According to Connell, several groups are responsible for this perpetuation, including

Christian fundamentalists (Connell 45). This is particularly interesting when taking into account Jesus’ increasing sexuality and appeal in film. The concern in many portrayals of

Jesus concerning gender seems to be whether Jesus is too feminine. However, this

“femininity” displayed may just be the new masculinity shining through, a masculinity that can include both the heterosexuality of Willem Defoe’s Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ and Ted Neeley’s high-pitched falsetto in Jesus Christ Superstar.

Several texts focusing on the Jesus, both as an American figure and a cinematic presence, have been useful in studying many of these various issues. Richard Wightman

Fox’s Jesus in America examines the evolution of Christ in American culture, from the first wave of explorers in the New World to today’s depictions of Christ in the media.

American Jesus, by Stephen Prothero, explores the American image of Christ, focusing on several categories on American Christ, such as the Rabbi Jesus and the Superstar

Jesus. Jesus at by W. Barnes Tatum focuses on influential films on Jesus and his life. The book acts as a guide, taking the reader through various depictions of Christ in film. The book examines the director’s objective for the film, the actual depiction of

Christ, and the audience and critical response to the film. Finally, Imagining the Divine by Lloyd Baugh is perhaps the most critical in its examination of Christ in film. Baugh delves deeply into the various Christ , actually comparing and contrasting

9 various images of Christ and spotlighting controversial portrayals. Baugh describes in great detail the Jesus or presented, noting how Christ as a character is shaped by various aspects of the film. For a film such as The Last Temptation of Christ,

Baugh examines how Scorsese’s background, his violent film past, and the

“grotesqueries” of the images and music in the movie shape how the image of Christ was portrayed and presented to the audience (Baugh 59). Baugh’s work is important as a reminder that a film does not develop solely out of the cultural forces of the day, but also through the experiences and visions of the director’s creative force.

EARLY JESUS FILMS

The image of Christ has been a perennial part of North American film. As technology and cinematic savvy increased, it became more and more possible to fully display the to an audience, who were enthralled with the possibilities of seeing

Jesus’ miracles on the big screen. The story of Christ became an extravaganza, particularly in the and , with Technicolor and films in Panorama. The actions of Jesus were the main focus of these films for several decades. Audiences were treated to special effects and , but not of Jesus’ humanity and suffering. While these

Jesus films were entertaining and inspiring, they were not meant for a more intimate perspective of Christ.

In the first few years of mainstream cinema, many films set out to display the life of Jesus on film. However, D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Through the

Ages (1916) is perhaps most remembered, not only for its incredible visuals, but for its anti-Semitism and attacks on female social reformers. Intolerance featured the story of

Christ among three other vignettes. These stories were meant to show the destructive 10 nature of intolerance; the persecution of Christ, the fall of Babylon, the St. Bartholomew

Day massacre of in France, and a modern melodrama of how a young woman’s life is constantly shaken through the intervention of sanctimonious reformers.

An intertitle at the beginning of the film announces, “Each story shows how hatred and intolerance, through all the ages, have battled against love and charity” (Intolerance).

The vignettes are intercut throughout the film with the image of as the

“Eternal mother” rocking a cradle, acting as a quasi-Mother Mary figure in the film.

Many believe that Intolerance was Griffith’s cinematic apology for his infamous The

Birth of a Nation (1915), notorious for its racist depictions of African-Americans and its heroic depiction of the Ku Klux Klan. However, any trace of an apology is absent from Intolerance. Instead, the film is Griffith’s chance to critique whom he saw as a threat to American freedom, mainly the modern social reformers.

While the story of Jesus receives little screen time in the film, amounting to little more than twelve minutes, the of Christ is meant to illustrate the extent of the destruction caused by intolerance. Compared to the fantastic sets and crowds of the

Babylon story, the violence of the Huguenot story, and the melodrama of the modern story, Jesus’ story in the film is much simpler. As we see Mary with the baby Jesus in the cradle, light beaming down upon it, we are told that, “Jesus is the greatest enemy of intolerance” (Intolerance). From there, we are introduced to the , presented as hypocritical and elitist meddlers. They are shown as a sneering crowd that focuses only on their exclusive needs. When the Pharisees begin to pray whole strolling around the city, everyone is expected to stop whatever they were doing until the holy men were done. One is even shown praying, “Oh Lord, I thank thee that I am better than other men”

11

(Intolerance). It is clear who the enemy is in this piece and whom Griffith believes deserves the blame for Christ’s death.

Intolerance’s depiction of Christ, played by Howard Gaye, is one familiar to most audiences. He is the tall, thin, long-haired beatific man that will reappear throughout

North American cinema. The disciples are barely shown, giving the full attention to

Jesus. While Jesus is shown preaching briefly in the film, the focus is on Jesus’ actions for others, actions that will lead to his condemnation by the Pharisees. He stops the stoning of Mary Magdalene and provides wine from water at the wedding in Cana. As he watches the festivities at the wedding, he is illuminated by a bright light. Yet, the Jesus presented here is not a savior, but a victim of the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As Jesus water into wine, the Pharisees look on, horrified. They are the ones who lead the charge against Mary Magdalene and in the end, despite a brief acknowledgement of Pontius

Pilate, they are the ones who are shown to be responsible for Jesus’ death. W. Barnes

Tatum notes that instead of Jesus dying for mankind, Jesus takes on a lesser role, “…even within the context of the traditional Judean story, [Jesus] becomes a victim of the intolerance he opposed. He appears as martyr, not savior” (Tatum 42). While Jesus’ appearance is short, his death acts as a symbol of intolerance and a cry against the modern hypocrisy of social reform.

Intolerance, like its predecessor , was attacked by many for its portrayal of minorities. Even before it was released, Griffith was forced to cut scenes of the Pharisees actually nailing Christ to the cross (Baugh 11).. It was also reported by

Simon Louvish, a reporter for Variety, that for the crucifixion scene, “[Griffith]

…repaired to the local ghetto and hired all of the orthodox Hebrews with long whiskers

12

he could secure” (qtd in Telford “His Blood Be Upon Us…” 277). Despite the cuts made

to the film, its depictions of Jews and Christ would further cement a dangerous anti-

Semitic myth, one that threatens to overshadow D.W. Griffith’s message of tolerance.

While Griffith used the image of Jesus to send a social message in Intolerance,

Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings (1927) was less message-driven and more focused

on entertainment. DeMille’s command of the epic is evident throughout the film,

particularly in the representation of Jesus’ miracles. He himself praises his film as a

chance to, “…give the peoples of the modern world the same opportunity to see the

wondrous life-drama of Jesus as was given to the citizens of nineteen hundred

years ago” (qtd in Herman 14). Indeed, the audience is treated to a myriad of sights;

Lazarus is raised, the blind are given sight, and many are redeemed. DeMille’s Jesus is a

showman, as W. Barnes Tatum describes, “…in The King of Kings, actions do speak

louder than words (Tatum 51). However, the visual extravaganza of The King of Kings

overshadowed the true message of Christ’s teachings. Richard Wightman Fox remarks

that, “…much more weight is assigned to Christ’s miracles than to his teachings. The

miracles are far more impressive on film, whether silent or sound, than the often elliptical

sayings are” (Fox 316). This and the perpetual lighting-created glow that Jesus, played by

H.B. Warner, exhibits gives little doubt over DeMille’s interpretation of Christ as a

miracle worker.

While many were impressed with DeMille’s interpretation of Christ, the film’s

roots in the also yielded a theme of anti-Semitism. The film lays the guilt

of Jesus’ death right onto the Jews, with unsavory portrayals of the high priests,

particularly and Judas. Those who follow Caiaphas are shown roughing up

13 several villagers, including a boy whom Jesus had healed. In Felicia Herman’ article,

“‘The Most Dangerous Anti-Semitic Photoplay in Filmdom:’ American Jews and The

King of Kings (DeMille 1927),” she reminds us that the portrayal of several key players in the film is in line with the bigotry associated with Passion Plays,

As in many versions of the Passion Play, the central of the story are Jewish-Caiaphas (Rudolph Schildkraut), the Roman-appointed high priest of Israel, his Pharisees, and (Joseph Schildkraut)-and no attempt to made to remind viewers that Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish as well. (Herman 14)

DeMille attempted to appease the ADL and other protesters by shifting the blame, laying it solely on Caiaphas, who is shown praying, “Lord God Jehovah, visit not Thy wrath on

Thy people Israel, I alone am guilty” (The King of Kings). While many were angered by

DeMille’s work, the director remained positive about the film’s influence, remarking on its popularity that, “…only the brought Jesus alive for more people than did his film” (qtd. in Prothero 113).

While films like The King of Kings were popular, the advent of sound and the cynicism of the Depression made musicals and gangster films take precedence over inspirational Biblical pictures. However, with the growing enforcement of the Hays Code in the 1930s, which restricted the amount of violence and less than savory activities that could be depicted in films, and the rising technology that could be used in film,

Hollywood experienced a Biblical boom in its motion pictures in the up to the 1960s, as extravagant retellings of the Old and flourished. Films like and

Delilah (1949), The Robe (1953), and : In the Beginning (1966) all took events of the Bible and imagined adventures set in Biblical times and created lavish productions that focused on action, salaciousness, and eye-popping visuals rather than biblical

14 accuracy.

William Wyler’s Ben-Hur (1959) represents the height of Biblical popularity in film. Ben-Hur, inspired by the Fred Niblo’s Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925), takes place during the time that Jesus lived and spread his message. The film focuses on the death of a friendship between Judah Ben-Hur, played by , and the

Roman Messalah, played by Stephen Boyd. After Messalah betrays Ben-Hur’s family and has him enslaved, Ben-Hur rises from his imprisonment to power, fueled by his desire for revenge against Messalah. He continually crosses paths with Jesus, almost unaware of the affect Jesus will later play in his life. While many remember the exciting chariot race between Ben-Hur and Messalah as the main focus of the film, the film’s real message is of the change from revenge to redemption.

While Jesus facilitates the film’s message, he is never fully seen in Ben-Hur.

Instead, the audience is given glimpses of Christ and second-hand tales of his actions.

Jesus makes his first appearance not as a messiah, but a concerned and charitable citizen.

An enslaved Ben-Hur is taken to so his captors, Roman soldiers can refresh themselves. While other slaves are allowed sips of water, Ben-Hur is denied any. He pleads, “God, ” (Ben-Hur). God does indeed hear his plea, as Jesus leaves his carpentry work to give water to Ben-Hur. With his face hidden from view, we watch as

Jesus kneels down to wash Ben-Hur’s forehead and comfort him. It is his hands that are the main focus in the scene, suggesting an emphasis on his work rather than an emphasis on the man himself. Ben-Hur looks up in appreciation and amazement as even the Roman soldier does not dare to manhandle Jesus. As Ben-Hur is dragged away with the other slaves, it becomes clear that Jesus’ actions in the film may overshadow the man himself.

15

While Jesus is briefly seen at the and appears bloodied before Pilate, the film leads up to the final pivotal moment between Ben-Hur and Jesus.

Years after their previous meeting, Ben-Hur has become a powerful figure in Rome, after being adopted by the influential Quintus Arrius. He goes back to his home in to find that his beloved mother and sister have been sent to leper colony. He is encouraged by Tirzah, his love interest, to take them to Jesus, who can heal them.

Reluctantly, Ben-Hur travels to Jerusalem with his family, only to discover Jesus is about to be crucified. As he watches Jesus fall while carrying his cross, Ben-Hur realizes their connection and exclaims, “I know this man!” (Ben-Hur). In a moment of reciprocation,

Ben-Hur manages to bring Jesus water. Again, we never see Jesus’ face, but this encounter has struck a chord in the vengeful Ben-Hur, “He gave me water and a heart to live, what has he done to merit this?” (Ben-Hur). As Jesus dies, Ben-Hur’s mother and sister’s leprosy are healed. Ben-Hur rejoices in this transformation, but notes a more internal change to Tirzah, “I heard him say, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,’ and I felt his voice take the sword out of my hand” (Ben-Hur). The film shows that the actions of Jesus do not end with his death, but that he continues to heal even after his death. As W. Barnes Tatum states, “Jesus’ words about loving your enemies…had finally struck home” (Tatum 68). Ben-Hur is redeemed through his interactions with Christ, even though he was unaware of this change until Jesus’ death.

Although Jesus is only briefly seen in Ben-Hur, we are left with little doubt of his divinity. The Nativity is shown at the very beginning of the film, with a sole star shining directly on the stable where Jesus was born. Balthazar, one of the three wise men who comes to visit Jesus, searches for him throughout the film, hoping to see if the

16 prophecies were correct about the coming savior. Ben-Hur encounters Balthazar at the

Sermon on the Mount, who joyously tells him, “The child has become a man, and the man, oh I know it now, he’s the son of God” (Ben-Hur). Ben-Hur barely acknowledges this, but when he finds Balthazar again at the crucifixion, the weight of Balthazar’s insight hits him. Balthazar mournfully tells him, “He has taken the world of our sins…unto himself. To this end, he said he was born, in that stable, where I first saw him.

For this cause, he came into the world” (Ben-Hur). Unlike the Jesus of Intolerance, Jesus’ death comes not out of the interference of those who hate him, but out of a plan to redeem mankind.

Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings (1961) continued the popularity of the Biblical epic.

With gigantic and detailed sets and action-filled battles, it is certainly an elaborate depiction of the simple carpenter. While the film is not biblically accurate in some regards; Barabbas’ role is changed from a thief and a murderer to the leader of a Jewish insurrection against Rome, King of Kings is a sight to behold. Yet, while the film is centered around the titled messiah, the focus of the film is placed on several figures that interact with Jesus: King , and his wife, the Roman guard

Lucius, and Barabbas, the rabble-rousing rebel-leader.

The moments that do depict Christ are impersonal to say the least. Jeffrey Hunter portrays Jesus as a handsome, blue-eyed Messiah, yet appears to be simply a pretty face.

He is a masculine figure, one who even comes back home to use his carpentry skills for his mother, and whose physical appearance suggests one who has spent years working as one, yet the character of Jesus presented here is passive to the extreme. He displays little interaction with his disciples, who do not display the passion for Christ that will be

17 exhibited in later films like Jesus Christ Superstar. Mary Magdalene is kept at a distance. When she finds Jesus resurrected after his crucifixion, their reunion is polite at best. The film critic Bosley Crowther remarks on these relationships, lamenting that King of Kings is a, “peculiarly impersonal film that constructs a great deal of random action around Jesus and does very little to construct a living personality for Him” (Crowther vi).

Jesus’ role as a savior and miracle worker lacks the passion commonly associated with the life of Christ. Lloyd Baugh remarks that Jesus’ miracles are, “never deliberate moments of personal encounter which announce the Kingdom of God” (Baugh

20). Other than quick shots of Jeffrey Hunter’s piercing blue eyes and hands, we rarely see Jesus perform his miracles. We only hear about various miracles, such as the feeding of the fifty thousand and the resurrection of Lazarus, through Lucius’ reports to Pilate.

When Jesus heals a blind man, he does not physically touch the man; the man recovers while simply standing in Jesus’ shadow. While this may have been a way to enforce the ideal of Jesus’ divinity, the film creates a strange and aloof portrait of Jesus.

Jesus’ role as a messiah is mirrored by the character of Barabbas, played by Harry

Guardino. While Barabbas is opportunistic and ready to fight for Jewish freedom against the Romans, Jesus preaches peace. Barabbas engages in battle with the Romans while

Jesus and his disciples are in the temple. Yet, it is Jesus who dies in Barabbas’ place when the mob chooses him, reinforcing the idea of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb. This pacifism is reinforced by Jesus’ actions in the film. This is a Jesus that does not raise his voice, even as a crowd is about to stone Mary Magdalene or when Judas leaves to report him to the High Priests. Jesus seems aware of his destiny to die at the cross, yet does not seemed moved at all by this. His prayer to God at Gethesemane, a moment where Jesus

18 famously asks God to reconsider his fate, has little tension, as Jeffrey Hunter’s Jesus quickly accepts God’s plan after a brief but severe physical spasm of doubt. Furthermore, the scene at the Temple where Jesus rebukes the moneychangers does not appear in the film, furthering the idea of Jesus as a man of peace. Jesus himself notes his role as a passive messiah, calling himself, “…the . The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep” (King of Kings). Yet, as he says this, there is little doubt, love, or concern displayed in his words. When Jesus is resurrected and meets his disciples, he appears only as a shadow and a disembodied voice, instructing his disciples to spread his message. While Jesus’ divinity is not questioned in the film, one does have to wonder if his humanity should be.

While the film does little to analyze the humanity of Jesus, King of Kings does attempt to right the bigotry often associated with the Passion. The film downplays any involvement Caiaphas and the High Priests had with the . Instead, the

Romans and their appointed officials outside of the Priests are painted as sadistic, ambitious, and wicked. Only Lucius, a Roman guard who witnesses key moments in

Jesus’ life, is free from vilification. It is he who utters, “He is truly the Christ” (King of

Kings). Even Judas escapes blame, as he appears as a man who wants to follow Christ, but feels he must force his hand to action by facilitating his arrest. Even the is given the politically correct treatment, showing the meal’s true origins as a Seder meal.

The film may have escaped the protests associated with other Jesus films, through its dispassionate Christ and over-the-top production, it does little to inspire its audience to feel anything else.

The Biblical epic reached its climax and eventual decline in George Steven’s The

19

Greatest Story Ever Told (1965). The film was an extravaganza of all sorts, boasting an estimated budget of $25 million dollars, an exorbitant budget for any film of its time

(Baugh 25). The film was not only visually impressive, but The Greatest Story Ever Told also possessed one of the most star-studded casts of its day. Acclaimed actors and actresses like , Charlton Heston, Shelley Winters, Claude Rains, and John

Wayne all played roles.

However, the film’s obvious lavishness also led to its downfall. was not only the director of the film, but the producer, which meant that little could rein in the excesses of the film. Lloyd Baugh criticizes this decision as the main flaw of the film, “In this situation, where there were no limits on decisions, no questioning of basic concepts and their implementation, a kind of hubris set in, and…the result was a disaster, both critically and at the box office” (Baugh 26). With little to subdue the abundant spending of its director, the film was indeed a disaster, grossing only $12 million dollars

(“Business Data for The Greatest Story Ever Told”). With the focus on lavish settings, the film is often criticized for its lack of true focus. Richard Wightman Fox claims that

The Greatest Story Ever Told’s true holy figure is where the movie was filmed, “The only things truly made holy in The Greatest Story Ever Told were the gorgeous

Techincolor mesas of the American Southwest” (Fox 176). The film’s all-star cast also led to its critical reception, as the constant star-gazing took away from the actual story.

Bosley Crowther wrote in his review for the film that, “…most distracting are the frequent pop-ups of familiar faces in so-called cameo roles, jarring the illusion of the moment with the diversion of the mind to the business of discovery” (“The Greatest Story

Ever Told…” 40). Indeed, the sight of , growling in his accent,

20

“Truly, this man was the son of God,” does take the viewer out of the film (The Greatest

Story Ever Told).

Despite the film’s obvious flaws, The Greatest Story Ever Told does yield an interesting portrait of Christ. The role of Jesus was given to Max von Sydow, a relatively unknown actor to American audiences and a regular in pictures. Max von Sydow’s unmistakable Swedish features may not provide the most realistic Jesus on film. W. Barnes Tatum describes von Sydow’s face as, “…a northern gothic look, appropriate for a Swede, dour and pained” (Tatum 96). While Von Sydow continues the role of the stoic, Caucasian Jesus in film, yet does yield a more human portrayal than his predecessors. Jesus may be divine, healing the sick and ascending to Heaven in the end, but displays very human traits. This Jesus actually communes with his disciples, angrily throws moneychangers out of the temple, has a true friendship with the wealthy Lazarus, and sheds a tear when faced with Lazarus’ death. While this Jesus is more emotional,

Von Sydow’s Jesus is still a relatively unreadable figure, one who readily resists temptation and speaks in King James verse.. At one point, Jesus is asked by one of his disciples, “Speak plainly and speak no parables” at the Last Supper (The Greatest Story

Ever Told). While Jesus in The Greatest Story Ever Told may show signs of the Jesus later portrayed in motion pictures, he is still a lofty figure.

Jesus’ relationships with those around him are more fleshed out in The Greatest

Story Ever Told than in previous films. While figures like Mary Magdalene are still kept to the background, Jesus’ relationship with his disciples are fairly close here. Judas is the first to follow Jesus and while the motivations for his betrayal are not clear, he cries out, “I love him!” to the . Peter is given Jesus’ cloak after complaining

21 that his was stolen and later tried to defend Jesus with a sword at his arrest. Jesus actually converses with his disciples, unlike Jeffrey Hunter’s constantly preaching Christ.

The Greatest Story Ever Told also continues with King of Kings’ focus on resisting the anti-Semitism associated with Jesus films. King Herod and the High

Priests are cloaked in black, yet it is made clear that they are not solely responsible for the death of Christ. Herod’s meetings with Pilate and the High Priests suggests a mutually beneficial, if tense, relationship. As Caiphas brings the High Priests together to condemn Christ, it is made clear that he has excluded the many High Priests who support Jesus. Judas escapes complete vilification once again, because he begs the

Caiphas to make sure Jesus is not harmed. His suicide is by falling into the sacramental fire, not by hanging, suggesting that Judas was a sacrificial scapegoat, not a true .

If there is a true villain of The Greatest Story Ever Told, it is , who appears in the flesh of theHermit, played by Donald Pleasence. Unlike the invisible temptations of the

Devil in other Jesus films, the Hermit’s feeble appearance hides a sinister threat. While

Jesus easily resist him in the desert, the Hermit makes other appearances throughout the film; he is present at Judas’ betrayal, when Peter denies Jesus, and leads the cries to crucify Jesus at Pilate’s trial. The Greatest Story Ever Told carries on a growing concern over the portrayals of anti-Semitism with the cause of Jesus’ death, one that will continue on with later films.

CONCLUSION

Jesus films for several decades were mostly attempts at inspiring their audiences.

The emphasis was on presenting Christ as a divine man, but not as a human being with flaws. We are shown in full Technicolor that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but we 22 are only given glimpses into his character. We are shown Judas betraying Jesus, but are left without a clear view of their relationship. As much as Jesus is compelling as a character, very few films were willing to explore this.

While the Jesus films had been popular as a whole, they were lacking in any real insight into Jesus as a man, not just as a savior. It is often taken for granted that he is a divine being, leaving the audience unsatisfied about Jesus’ nature. Yet, with the growing tide of cynicism, protest, and doubt connected with the end of the 1960s, Jesus as a character would receive a new perspective from the directors who chose to relate the story of Christ on the big screen. Instead of focusing on the divine, the filmmakers of

Jesus films would begin to dissect Jesus’ character, his relationships with others, and his humanity as a whole.

23

CHAPTER I: JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR

For several decades, the image of Jesus in North American film remained roughly static. The focus of these early films was not to challenge any existing ideas of who

Christ was, nor was it to question the ideologies of society. Instead, films showing the life and work of Christ helped to maintain the idea of his perfection as a man and his divinity as the son of God. The films were meant to inspire their audiences, not to force uneasy and uncertain questioning of their faith. This aspiration in film changed with the times, as it became harder to find something steadfast to believe in. This change in society however produced ’s Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), a film that presents

Jesus in the trappings of the Hippie subculture. While the film was both praised and criticized for its blend of the Passion and modern sensibilities, as well as its presentation of the Jews’ role in the death of Christ, it also presented a strong and innovative image of

Christ in film. Jewison’s work not only successfully reflected the confusion of the , but the tension inside of a man who was much more than just a man.

With the start of the 1970s, the need for inspiration was placed aside in popular culture. The certainty that people once had in the foundations of society were slipping, especially when it came to politics. In the , details of the Vietnam War shook households and raised questions about the cost of life. The country’s faith in government was while details of the Watergate scandal were broadcast on the evening news. The hope and optimism expressed by the thriving Hippie subculture of the

1960s had faded, as the message of peace and love was overshadowed by commercialism and violence. Film reflected the changing times, displaying the fluctuating beliefs and issues of a country in a time of turmoil. The “ultra-violence” of A Clockwork Orange 24

(1971), the questioning of military authority on the Korean warfront in M*A*S*H

(1970), and the Mafia protagonists in (1972) reflected a turn away from sanitized, optimistic films. It would appear that the inspiration found in Christ films of previous decades were now out of place in a time of such doubt.

Despite the prevalence of so many anti-heroes within popular culture, the image of Jesus was still appearing in unconventional places. Christ was present in popular rock music, not just as a savior, but as a down-to-earth friend. The 1969 rock hit,

“Spirit in the Sky,” performed by Norman Greenbaum, urged its listeners to, “Prepare yourself, you know it's a must/ Gotta have a friend in Jesus/ So you know that when you die/ He's gonna recommend you to the spirit in the sky” (“Spirit in the Sky”). Jesus is not presented as someone above humanity, but as a friendly companion who will watch over you in this life and the next. Likewise, The Doobie Brothers’ 1972 hit “Jesus is Just

Alright” proclaimed that, “Jesus, he's my friend,” with the repeating insistence that, “I 't care what they may say/ Jesus is just alright, oh yeah” (“Jesus is Just Alright”). The music may not have been found in a hymnal, but their presentation of Christ revealed a desire to for Jesus, not just as a savior, but as a personal experience. This desire was reflected through film in 1973, as Jesus Christ Superstar placed an interesting twist on the life of Christ, by putting the Gospels to music. Jesus Christ Superstar reflected the songs of the Doobie Brothers and Greenbaum in its portrayal of Christ as a down-to-earth friend and companion to his disciples, rather than an untouchable leader.

The use of the musical genre to portray the life of Christ may have seemed like an unconventional choice when the film was released, as the genre is not renowned for its critical reception. Lloyd Baugh freely admits that the musical is not known for its

25 superior plots, but for the importance of the songs, “The development of the narrative is secondary: the story told is mainly a vehicle for the songs” (Baugh 33). The musical is also limiting in its depictions of the character, who are recognized in their singing ability, not in the development of personalities on the screen. Baugh laments that, “The protagonist is perceived first as a singer-dancer, and only secondarily as a real person with a serious human experience” (Baugh 33). The suspension of disbelief needed for a musical is also problematic to critics, as Jane Feuer notes in her article “The Self-

Reflective Musical and the Myth of Entertainment,” “The musical, technically the most complex type of film produced in Hollywood, paradoxically has always been the genre which attempts to give the greatest illusion of spontaneity and effortlessness” (Feuer

165). The musical is traditionally synonymous with characters spontaneously bursting into song without self-consciousness, then returning to normal action.

While the lack of plot and the calculated spontaneity of the musical may be disconcerting to critics, musicals have been well-received by audiences, who are often drawn to the heavy emotion of the score. This aspect of musicals itself well to the story of Christ, as Christianity has always had heavy ties to music through hymns and music. The songs also lend themselves to a more intense emotional experience, as the characters Jesus Christ Superstar belt out their fears and desires through song. It was the presentation of Jesus in a musical setting that created such conflict and initially caught the eye of its future director, Norman Jewison. In his autobiography, This Terrible

Business Has Been Good to Me, the director Norman Jewison recounted his reaction to the musical, “I first heard of Jesus Christ Superstar when the BBC banned the British record album. They had found it offensive. Sacriligious. I was intrigued…” (Jewison

26

184). Part of what made Jesus Christ Superstar so polarizing, and yet so intriguing to

Jewison, was its use of the musical conventions to relate the story of Christ. While the introduction of Jesus into the genre of musical may lead to many questions over his representation, the musical also proved to offer a new inspiration for the portrayal of

Jesus.

The influence of the musical can be felt in the actual presentation of Jesus Christ

Superstar as a film. Jewison immediately separates the movie from other films depicting

Christ in that he makes no qualms about the fact that what we see is a performance.

Norman Jewison warned those seeing his film that it was, “…a pastiche, that’s all it is!

Try to make it more important than it is and you get into trouble” (qtd in Baugh 36). The film embraces the use of the pastiche through its blend of Hippie aesthetics and musical conventions. Even the opening scenes reflect a pastiche of the Jesus film with the background production of a musical. As the film begins, we watch as a van full of young people prepare for a performance in the deserts of Israel. The suspension of disbelief required by musicals may be tested by this, but the establishment of the backstage activity is just another convention of the musical. This goes back to what Jane Feuer calls the “self-referential” nature of the musical, as she states, “Whatever the explanation for its origins, the backstage pattern was always central to the genre. Incorporated into the structure of the musical was the very type of popular entertainment represented by the musical film itself” (Feuer 160). We are introduced to several of the main characters as they prepare; Mary Magdalene, played by primps in a mirror, King

Herod, performed by Josh Mostel, lounges in a chair. The presentation of this portrayal of

Jesus’ life serves to remind us that, unlike other Jesus films that strive for realism, this is

27

only a performance.

Jesus Christ Superstar found its inspiration not just in the Bible and the American

musical, but in the Hippie subculture of the 1960s. While the subculture had pronounced

itself dead years before, the ideas and images associated with the movement continued to

inspire. Timothy Miller, the author of “The Hippies and American Values,” summed up

the Hippies as, “…cast adrift from the prevailing values of society and [the Hippies]

tried, variously, to effect major changes in majority society or to drop out of it” (Miller

7). The Hippies, according to Miller, saw the dominant society, known to them as “the

Establishment,” as, “rotten to the core, and a new society needed to arise on the cultural

dunghill” (Miller 7). While the Hippie movement was not expressly political for the most

part, their core beliefs did challenge the prevailing values of mainstream society. While

many Americans were being shipped off to Vietnam, the Hippies embraced pacifism,

choosing nonviolence over military action. The Hippies’ desire for pacifism, as Miller

details, was a powerful stance against the mainstream, “Violence, they argued, was the

product of a corrupt society and was one of that society’s dead ends” (Miller 185). The

need to distance themselves from a violent and angry culture was part of the staying

power of the Hippies’ influence on society.

The Hippie movement, by showcasing nonviolence over war, became the

antithesis of what many American saw the government slowly becoming. There was a

distrust in the government that was all too clear within popular culture, especially as the

war in Vietnam raged on. The Hippie’s political stances of pacifism and suspicion of

government and corporate officials certainly had an effect on Jesus Christ Superstar, although this may have been ignored by some Richard Wightman Fox claims that the

28 film’s use of modern images and themes are irrelevant to the Jesus Christ Superstar’s tie to earlier depictions of Christ, “Superstar neither advocated nor reflected any social movement. It used countercultural trappings, standard Webber melodies, and occasionally inspired Rice lyrics to present a serious Passion Play within a play” (Fox

378). It may be tempting to write off Jesus Christ Superstar as a simple Passion play, the political overtones of the film mirror the distrust of government that was rising within seventies culture. The image of a dark government, both found in the high priests and the

Roman officials, concerned about their own power and the fear of rioting masses, would certainly hit a nerve in a period when the President of the United States could not be fully trusted. The Hippies’ use of Jesus as an example of a political and spiritual radical would also do little to quell any notions of political naiveté in the film.

While many aspects of the Hippie subculture, like the easing of sexual mores, were not conventionally tied to Christianity, the Hippies’ ties to the and Jesus could not be denied. The Hippies’ embrace of pacifism reflected the nonviolence and forgiveness that Jesus had taught almost a millennia before. The Hippies’ desire for inner change resembled earlier strives in Christianity for personal transformation. Harvey Cox, a leading theologian, reflected on the Hippies’ spirituality in traditional terms,

Hippieness represents a secular version of the historic American quest for a faith that warms the heart…The love-ins are our 20th century equivalent of the 19th century Methodist camp meetings-with the same kind of fervor and the same thirst for a God that speaks through emotion and not through anagrams of doctrine. (qtd in Miller 17)

On a more superficial level, the physical appearance of Jesus struck a chord with the

Hippies, who were criticized for their long hair and casual appearance. The image of a radical Christ, complete with and long hair, touched those who felt like outcasts

29 compared to mainstream society in the 60s. The Hippies’ portrayal of Christ lasted long after the movement itself had become irrelevant.

As the idea of Jesus as a radical became popular among disenfranchised youth, the Jesus found in Jesus Christ Superstar was identified with this rebellion However, it was Christ’s appearance, not his politics, that created the most controversy. While Jesus is typically shown with long hair and a casual appearance, especially when compared to

Jewish high priests or Roman nobility, Jesus Christ Superstar’s Christ was different. His unkempt, straggly hair was more reminiscent of a hippie than a messiah. Norman Jewison was well aware that Ted Neeley’s physical appearance would garner attention, although he was sure that Neeley was the man for the role, “His intensity, confidence, and wild falsetto wail convinced me, even though I would have a very slight and small man for the role of Jesus” (Jewison 186). As Jesus, Ted Neeley’s appearance does little to dissuade any accusations of femininity. His high cheekbones, blond streaks, and slight frame stands in contrast to his disciples, who tower over him and forego the robes associated with Jesus in favor of vests and bellbottoms. Ted Neeley’s rock and roll falsetto is also distinctly feminine, especially when compared to the booming bass of the high priest

Caiaphas, played by . Lloyd Baugh takes Neeley’s demeanor and appearance as Christ as a sign of weakness, both physically and mentally, “Neeley is of slight build, with straggly, stringy blonde hair and blonde mustache and beard. Neither his presence nor his movements and gestures nor his high-pitched voice are capable of embodying a character of moral strength” (Baugh 38). Baugh distinctly picks Neeley’s high voice and feminine attributes as proof as a lack of moral fiber, suggesting that masculinity is equal to good character. If this stance is correct, then on a physical level, it

30 would appear almost ridiculous that the Romans and the Jewish high priests could be afraid of the actions of such a small man.

Yet, the lack of overt physical masculinity in Neeley’s Jesus represents a conscious turn away from traditional societal ideals of masculinity. Scholars such as sociologist Alan Mazur assert that male attractiveness is found not in beauty, “…the man who turns heads is not necessarily beautiful but is powerful and inspires fear and respect…” (qtd. in Bordo 257). Yet, a new face of masculinity is being presented in popular culture, one that does not exactly command fear. Susan Bordo points this out in her examination of a male underwear model in an ad, one whose physicality is reminiscent of Ted Neeley’s Jesus, “His body projects strength, solidity; he’s no male waif. But his finely muscled chest is not so overdeveloped as to suggest a sexuality immobilized by the thick matter of the body” (Bordo 171). This less developed masculine sexuality suggests that the tide of what was considered to be traditionally “masculine” is experiencing a slow, but gradual change, one where a physique like Neeley’s Jesus is admired over the muscle-bound bodybuilder forms associated with masculinity.

The change in masculinity found in Jesus’ physicality here is also shown in the emphasis on nonviolence in Jesus Christ Superstar. Throughout the film, Jesus asks his disciples, “Why are you obsessed with fighting?,” as they question his choices (Neeley

“What’s the Buzz”). He even prevents a squabble between the Roman guards and his followers at his arrest at . As Jesus is pulled away by the guards, the disciples cry out, “Hang on, Lord, we’re going to fight for you,” only to be quickly rebuked by

Christ, “…Stick to fishing from now on” (Cast, Neeley “The Arrest”). Violence against others is not part of Jesus’ nature here and one that he seems to find annoying at best in

31 his followers.

This presentation of pacifism is not only representative of the Hippie subculture that influenced Jesus Christ Superstar, but of the changing ideas of masculinity. As R.W.

Connell lists characteristics that society often deems “feminine,” the idea of nonviolence and passivity is placed outside of traditional masculinity, “…being peaceable rather than violent, hardly able to kick a football, uninterested in sexual conquest, and so forth”

(Connell 67). If masculinity is rooted in aggressive behavior, such as in athletics or warfare, then the acts of Jesus as a peacemaker places him outside of what was thought to be natural masculinity. With all of the emphasis on “the body and the blood” in the mythos of Jesus, Jesus Christ Superstar’s Jesus appears to veer away from interaction with either one. Bordo also notes this association of violence with masculinity, suggesting that this blending of the two receives, “tremendous cultural adoration…by men and women alike…” (Bordo 237). Yet, the emerging Feminist movement and skepticism about the glory of war made the masculine characteristics described by

Connell and Bordo seem outdated and even foolish. New role models were needed and while Jesus was always a figure to aspire to be, Jesus Christ Superstar’s emphasis of nonviolence presents Jesus as an alternative to power though force.

While Jesus’ performance of masculinity was a major focus among critics of Jesus

Christ Superstar, it was the blending of divinity and humanity that truly sets Jesus apart from his Biblical Boom bretheren. In earlier Jesus films, the focus was on Jesus as a divine being, the son of God who could walk on water and heal the sick. Yet, we do not see this Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar. Jesus does not perform miracles and his resurrection is not enacted. While the film may be lacking in celebration of any external

32

form of divinity, Jesus Christ Superstar is notable in its portrayal of Jesus’ humanity, both

in a negative and positive light. In many ways, Jesus is portrayed as a loving teacher. He

takes delight in sitting with children, he engages in discussion with his disciples, and his

is evident when he proclaims to an adoring crowd, “Sing out for yourselves, For you

are blessed” (Neeley “Hosanna”). As his followers sing out, “Christ, you know I love

you,” we see a happiness on Jesus’ face that is rare among earlier films (Marshall “Simon

Zealotes”). describes this joy in his article, “Do You think You’re What

They Say They are: Reflections on Jesus Christ Superstar,” noting that, “This is, in fact,

the one Jesus film in which he is actually capable of smiling, and smiling a warm, human

smile and not a condescending, beatific simper” (Goodacre xxxii). Before this Christ, the

Jesus shown in North American film had little trace of humanity, living above the people

he wanted to save. Neeley’s Christ can both enjoy time with his followers and strike out

against ideas that anger him. Jesus Christ Superstar shows flashes of humanity in a man

whose very nature as a man is often overlooked.

While the joyful and happy Christ we are presented with in Jesus Christ Superstar already marks him as different from the earlier Jesus films, it is his anger and frustration truly separates him from conventional Jesus films. When Judas criticizes his involvement with Mary Magdalene in front of the disciples, Jesus angrily rebukes him, “Who are you to criticize her?/ Who are you to despise her?…/If your slate is clean/then you can throw stones./If your slate is not/ Then leave her alone!”(Neeley “Strange Thing Mystifying”).

Jesus visibly shakes with the last line and the stare-down that occurs after between Judas and Jesus does not resemble brotherly love in the least. Jesus’ anger and frustration is finally unleashed in the temple, where money changers, weapons and drug dealers, and

33 sex peddlers have taken up shop. Jesus literally tears apart the temple, picking up a shotgun to smash displays. His cry, “My temple should be a of prayer/ But you have made it a den of thieves” (Neeley “The Temple”). The scene of the money changers in the temple usually shows the surprise and guilt of those accused, however this time people are shown screaming and in fear of Jesus’ anger. It is no surprise after this that the

High Priests are eager for the death of this rabblerouser.

Jesus faces many disappointments with his followers and the world at large, yet his ultimate frustration lies in his role as a savior sent by God. Here we can see the ultimate tension between Jesus as man and Jesus as divine. It is human to desire self- preservation, but Jesus is called to reject that need. Jesus is uncertain about why he is chosen to die and his doubt is palpable. Stephen Prothero describes Jesus’ situation in terms of identity, “…‘Who are you?’ is the question, and even Jesus seems unsure of the answer” (Prothero 134). If Jesus is expecting a clear answer from God, it is not readily available to him. The film lacks a clear focus on the relationship of Jesus and God. In fact, there is little in the film that shows a paternal link between God and Jesus, the only mention of God as father is at the end, when Jesus on the cross beseeches him, “Father, forgive them/ They don’t know what they’re doing” (Neeley “The Crucifixion”). Instead,

Jesus appears to be a pawn in a game that only God truly understands. W. Barnes Tatum compares Jesus to a puppet, “as God’s puppet, in obedience to God’s demand” (Tatum

124). Lloyd Baugh takes the relationship between God and Jesus one step further, noting a sadistic overtone, “If anything, God is a sadistic killer who offers no explanation…”

(Baugh 40). Instead of loving reassurance and support, this Jesus is given very little indication of the importance of his actions. If God does play a paternal role in Jesus

34

Christ Superstar, it is undoubtedly as an absentee father.

It is this uncertainty of God’s plan that leads to Jesus’ exasperation. As Jesus prays at Gethsemane, he openly asks to be delivered from his final purpose, “I only want to say/

If there is a way/Take this cup away from me/ For I don’t want to taste its poison”

(Neeley “Gethsemane [I Only Want to Say]”). The image of Jesus praying at Gethsemane is a popular one, but this particular image does not show a Jesus going down without a fight. He begs, pleads, and openly questions God’s logic. His main concern is whether or not his death will mean anything or will it be a sacrifice for nothing, “Can you show me now/ That I would not be killed in vain?/Show me just a little/Of your omnipresent brain”

(Neeley “Gethsemane [I Only Want to Say]”). God does indeed show Jesus, as flashes of various paintings depicting the crucifixion flash on the screen. The images are terrifying, showing Jesus’ despairing face, the nails in his feet and hands, the weeping of his mother

Mary at the cross. However, this does not truly satisfy Jesus. He admits, “God thy will is hard/ But you hold every card,” and he warns God to take him now, “…before I change my mind” (Neeley “Gethsemane [I Only Want to Say]”). Jesus may be willing up to a point to be God’s puppet, but he will not be so quietly.

Amidst the strife of his role to play, Jesus finds a surprising place of peace and calm in Mary Magdalene. While women are seen around the twelve disciples, it is made clear in Jesus Christ Superstar that Mary and her friends are outsiders. They are not seen among his inner council and are nowhere to be found during the Last Supper. Yet, Mary is the one who garners the most favor from Jesus. As Mary cools Jesus’ face with a wet rag, Jesus chastises his disciples, “While you prattle through your supper/ Where and when and who and how/ She alone has tried to give me/ What I need right here and now”

35

(Neeley “What’s the Buzz”). The statement is vaguely sexual, especially since Mary’s hinted occupation in the film is prostitution. She is described by Stephen Prothero as,

“sensuous,” and her role does seem to center around her soothing Christ physically

(Prothero 133). Yet, despite hints of sexual tension between Mary and Jesus at the beginning, their relationship is chaste. Mary is not there for sexual relief, but for emotional relief. She alone seems to understand the weight of Jesus’ troubles and his part in the world around them, “And we want you to sleep well tonight/ Let the world turn without you tonight/ If we try, we'll get by/ So forget all about us tonight” (Elliman

“Everything’s Alright”). While the disciples debate the next move of their leader, it is only Mary who tends to Jesus, not as a spiritual savior, but as a man she admires.

Her connection to Jesus may have been criticized by others, yet it is Mary who shows the most concern about their relationship, stating “I don’t know how to love him”

(Elliman “I Don’t Know How to Love Him”). She reflects on the change he has created in her as a person and seems surprised that Jesus would be the one to turn her around,

“He's just a man/ And I've had so many/ Men before/ In very many ways…” (Elliman “I

Don’t Know How to Love Him”). Again, while she alludes to her sexual history, physical affection is not the focus. Instead, she wants a deeper, emotional connection, “Should I bring him down/ Should I scream and shout/ Should I speak of love/ Let my feelings out?” (Elliman “I Don’t Know How to Love Him”). This question lies at the very heart of

Jesus and Mary’s relationship in terms of the earthly and the divine. There is sexual tension, especially on Mary’s part, but Jesus cannot act on this desire. He may be a man, but Mary is wrong when she tells herself, “He’s just one more” (Elliman “I Don’t Know

How to Love Him”). He is also divine, which Mary must acknowledge. If the two

36 consummate their relationship physically, Mary would indeed bring Jesus down from his divinity, which she acknowledges in a sense. Their relationship is more than just a

“superstar” and a devoted fan, but an embodiment of Jesus’ humanity and divinity. In the end, Mary concludes that she does indeed love him, as her face is woven next to the image of a sleeping Jesus. The shot is very telling, suggesting a strong, equal connection between the two, where Mary acts as the loving spirit Jesus has within.

If Mary accentuates the calm, tender side of Christ, then it is important that a balance is created to keep Jesus down to earth. Judas acts to create this balance, becoming a kind of questioning conscience for Jesus. While Judas has been frequently vilified in both film and outside of popular culture, Jesus Christ Superstar does not reflect this. Instead, Judas is shown to be an important pawn, an unknowing accomplice to the salvation of mankind. He introduces himself when he tells Jesus, “And remember/ I’ve been your right-hand man all along” (Anderson “Heaven on Their Minds”). Immediately we know that this is not the Judas who lurks in the background, he is a favored member of Jesus’ entourage. Physically, he appears to be the polar opposite of Jesus, an energetic black man clad in bright red. Judas is as active as Jesus is passive. While Jesus inevitably must accept his death, Judas cries out to God until the very end, “You have murdered me!” (Anderson “Judas’ Death”). This role makes Judas a far more attractive character than previously shown. Many critics today find Judas, not Jesus, the most interesting aspect of the film. Compared to his view of an anemic Jesus, Lloyd Baugh describes

Judas as, “a more robust, more vigorous, more coherent, and more attractive personality than Jesus” (Baugh 38). In a Jesus film, placing Judas as the focus rather than Jesus himself is a radical choice to make.

37

Like Mary, Judas acts as a caretaker of sorts to Jesus. Judas’ main concern throughout the film is Jesus’ role as a leader of many and the implications his choices create. When Jesus is anointed by Mary with costly oils, Judas reminds him, “People who are hungry/ People who are starving/ They matter more/ Than Your/ Feet and Head!”

(Anderson “Everything’s Alright”). It is a moment that is reminiscent of The Greatest

Story Ever Told, both Judases balk at the supposed waste of the oil. When Judas does run to the high priests, it is not to betray Jesus, but to seek help for him. He only reveals

Jesus’ location when they play on his concern for the poor. With money he receives for turning Jesus in, Caiphas, played by Bob Bingham, reminds him that he can, “Choose any charity/ Give to the poor” (Bingham “Damned for All Time/ Blood Money”). It is only then that Judas relents, although the decision tortures him for the rest of the film. Still,

Judas acts as an important reminder to Jesus. While the crowds proclaim Jesus’ divinity,

Judas is quick to prompt him of his humanity, “You have set them all on fire/ They think they've found the new Messiah/ And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong”

(Anderson “Heaven on Their Minds”). In a way, Judas not only stands in to remind Jesus of his frailty as a man, but he also acts as the eyes of the audience. As Tatum notes, it is

Judas’ separation from the crowd at the beginning that grasps our attention as an audience

“at the outset they are given a retrospective glance at that ministry through the eyes and voice of Judas (Tatum 123). It is through his eyes, thus ours, that Jesus is seen.

Many who watch Jesus Christ Superstar are focused on Mary’s presence, but it appears that the true love story is not between Jesus and Mary, but between Jesus and

Judas. While Mary can only sigh, “I want him so,” it is Jesus and Judas who share personal moments throughout the film (Elliman “I Don’t Know How to Love Him”).

38

When Jesus warns Judas, “You'll be lost/ You'll be so sorry/ When I'm gone,” he grasps

Judas’ arm (Neeley “Everything’s Alright”). The two stare into each other’s eyes as their hands slowly move down the other’s arm, finally clasping in a moment of friendship and love. This moment is and Judas sulks away, as Mary pleads with Jesus to, “close your eyes and relax” (Elliman “Everything’s Alright”). Later, when Jesus reveals at the

Last Supper that Judas will betray him, the two engage in an impassioned screaming match. When Judas runs off, Jesus follows, offering a blanket in a sign of reconciliation and compassion. When he is rebuffed, Jesus takes one more chance to reach Judas. Jesus does not seem quite as upset at Judas’ betrayal as he is about the loss of his friendship.

Echoing Mary, Judas finally breaks down and admits, “I don’t know how to love him/ I don’t know why he moves me” (Anderson “Judas’ Death”). The film takes any previous assumptions about the nature of Judas and Jesus’ relationship and turns it around. Judas is not just a nefarious traitor waiting in the wings, he is a trusted and loving friend who sees his friend going too far in his politics. Jesus is not simply his teacher, but a close companion. Jesus Christ Superstar stands out in its presentation of a close friendship that is riddled with conflict rather than a vilification of Judas.

Judas had been an easy scapegoat for many Jesus films, mostly because it created an easy link to the actions of the Jewish Judas to the High Priests. Yet, in Jesus Christ

Superstar, we come across an interesting change. By changing the ethnicity of Judas to

African-American, the anti-Semitism that is usually placed on the role of Judas is discarded. Judas is not shown to be a scheming liar or traitor, the film portrays Judas’ decision to turn Jesus as an inevitable part of God’s plan. Judas is shaken by this idea, screaming at God, “I’ve been used!/ And you knew all the time!” (Anderson “Judas’

39

Death”). Without the anti-Semitic images of Judas that are normally attached to the character, Carl Anderson’s Judas becomes a much more sympathetic character, one that is acquitted of any wrong-doing, since everything is beyond his control.

Instead, Jesus Christ Superstar points a finger at the Jewish High Priests and the masses for the death of Christ, an opinion that had led to centuries of discrimination and hatred towards those of the Jewish faith. Throughout the film, the masses are shown to be a fickle people, one that readily turns their back on Christ and begs for Pilate to crucify him. The film also presents the High Priests robed in black, standing on scaffolding high above the crowds. The High Priests plot and scheme to destroy Jesus and his effect on his followers in order to save their place as leaders and maintain favor with the Roman empire. It is they who mislead Judas and give Jesus over to Pilate. Herod is shown as an effeminate, spoiled man and Pilate is shown as a sympathetic, conflicted, but ineffectual official. Compared to these two leaders, the High Priests are, according to

Lloyd Baugh, “strong, determined, politically astute, and sadistically evil” (Baugh 38).

There is little doubt over who was behind Jesus’ death in the film, and the blame is laid upon Jewish shoulders.

The American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League immediately spoke out against the film, fearing that the film would perpetuate old Jewish .

Benjamin R. Epstein, the national director of the A.D.L. of B’nai B’rith stated that, “the movie’s sharp and vivid emphasis on a Jewish mob’s demand to kill Jesus can feed into the kind of disparagement of Jews and Judaism which had always nurtured anti-Jewish prejudice and bigotry” (qtd in Greenhouse 24). The fear was that a film so accessible to younger audiences as Jesus Christ Superstar would continue the myth of the Jewish

40 involvement with the death of Christ. Universal, the studio that released Jesus Christ

Superstar, denied that the film supported anti-Semitic views, maintaining that, “…we do not believe their views to be supported by the content of the film or shared by the many millions who have listened to the music or viewed the concert and stage presentations throughout the world since 1970” (qtd in Greenhouse 24). Despite Universal’s claims, it is hard to ignore the vilification of the Jews in Jesus Christ Superstar. While the film does much to modernize the character of Jesus for a new generation, the film also helps further age-old hatred.

Issues like anti-Semitism in Jesus Christ Superstar presents should have been familiar to its audience at the time, since it was a popular Broadway musical. The musical had received criticism from all sides, from its portrayal of Jesus to its allusions to the death of Christ and biblical inaccuracies. Stephen Prothero describes the reception of the original musical as a strangely uniting experience, “Superstar had offended so many kinds of people when in premiered in October 1971 that the opening-night picket line was a model of interfaith comity” (Prothero 133). However, the rage over the Jesus Christ

Superstar had not died as it reached its film premiere. Before Jesus Christ Superstar opened, there was already speculation and criticism of various aspects of its message and production. Many critics objected to the film’s treatment of , what Lloyd

Baugh calls, “a theological disaster” (Baugh 40). Howard Thompson, a critic for the New

York Times, brushed the film off as a, “gaudy rock rhinestone” and warned that,

“…many Christians may construe the picture as blasphemous” (Thompson 28). Many critics, like Christianity Today’s Janet Forbes, decried the use of Ted Neeley as Jesus, suggesting that he made the character Christ look unfit for a messiah, “Jesus, played by

41

Ted Neeley, looks and acts incompetent, insecure, and petulant” (qtd in Tatum 130). It appeared that many had not heeded the advice of director Norman Jewison, but instead took this version of Christ’s life straight to heart.

Despite the many criticisms of Jesus Christ Superstar, the film was well-received by others. praised the transformation of the musical into a film, claiming that

Jewison had, “taken a piece of commercial shlock and turned it into a Biblical movie with dignity” (Ebert i). He also acknowledged the racial and religious tensions of the film, deciding that, “Jewison is dealing with a fantasy about the life of Christ, not fact, and if he wants to typecast, that’s his right as a filmmaker. We also have the right to be offended” (Ebert vi). Norman Jewison looks back on the film fondly, noting its surprising aesthetics, “Of all my films, I consider Superstar to be the most inventive and visually interesting. I consider Superstar to be the first rock video before MTV” (Jewison 187).

Perhaps the most ringing endorsement comes from Meyer Kantor. In a piece written for , Kantor discusses the rise and fall of heroes in American society and how it affected the faith of his generation and the movements of the 1960s,

And through it all, through it all, we searched for a leader, one man who would sacrifice everything for our cause. We followed everyone who seemed to be that one man…They all failed the supreme test. When offered money, some of them took it; when jailed, they stayed put with no miracle escapes; when shot they died. Like our movement, they died. (Kantor 13)

The movie, Kantor claims, is less about Jesus as it is about the fall of a hero and the people who followed and loved him. The end, Kantor describes, represents the reality of heroes, “…there is no miraculous resurrection, just a dejected group of young people boarding the bus that is their movement to try to carry on” (Kantor 32). However, Kantor believes that the film’s ending is hopeful and gives that hope to this generation who could

42 have been so jaded by the world they lived in,

All it is is a superbly made film about us, the ragtag army of the young who trudged through the sixties trying to build a better world, succeeding sometimes and failing sometimes, and being human always. Maybe next time we can do better. Maybe not, but we’ll be trying. (Kantor 32)

With this optimistic view of the film and his generation, Kantor shows that Jesus Christ

Superstar had managed to touch the generation that had so greatly inspired the film and music.

Jesus Christ Superstar, both in style and substance, was a turn away from the Jesus that American audiences had been familiar with. It raised questions about sex, politics, and religion in a way that would not have been possible in earlier films. The musical genre may have been daunting for those who wanted a traditional drama, but it also produced a greater emotional tie with its audience, who could identify with the lyrics.

The film attempts to show how the divine and the human can be embodied by one person, a man who is more than “just a man.” Meanwhile the film both tried to clear the name of

Judas while still convicting the Jews. Yet, it also gave its generation hope; heroes may fall or disappoint us, but we are still left with their message. The image of Jesus here may not be the same unwavering and perfect savior that is presented in earlier Biblical films, but Jesus Christ Superstar managed to do what these earlier films could not, introduce the audience to the man behind the divinity.

43

CHAPTER II: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

The 1970s and 1980s represented a turning point in American cinema. As the country recovered from Vietnam, many films reflected a cynicism and wariness of the cultural myths of American society. Films like One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1974) and (1979) continued the trend towards the critique of established cultural infrastructures, such as what constitutes medical treatment and the superiority of the American military. Many films were critiquing the real world, yet at the same time, others were offering an escape. Popular science fiction films like (1977) and feel-good fantasy like E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) focused on taking the audience away from the world outside the theater, immersing them in galactic mythology and modern fairy tales. Many films were breaking boundaries, both ideologically and visually, however there was one topic that was rarely breached, the subject of Christ.

Although Jesus had appeared briefly in comedies such as Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part I (1981) and Terry Jones’ Life of Brian (1979), he was rarely a major presence within mainstream cinema. This may have been due both to the budgetary restrictions of biblical epics in a time when gritty melodrama was the rule. The negative response and protests that followed the release of Jesus Christ Superstar may also have been a factor. Jesus Christ Superstar had shown how divisive the very image of Christ still was to the American public, let alone the politics or relationships that surrounded him. Yet, as troublesome the story of Christ was to some filmmakers, it was the epitome of a long-held dream for director Martin Scorsese. After years of trouble with the studios and filming, Scorsese released The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988 both as an expression of Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel The Last Temptation of Christ and as a reflection 44 of his own Catholic-influenced belief system. The Jesus presented here is neither the steady and sure Christ of the Biblical epic, nor the uncertain Hippie leader of Jesus Christ

Superstar. He is a man in this film, complete with insecurities, needs, and, more notably, lust. The Last Temptation of Christ represented not only a new and challenging look at the life and work of Christ, but a close examination of what makes the divine truly human as well.

The idea of The Last Temptation of Christ grew out Scorsese’s fascination with the Catholic . Even at a young age, the mythology and ritual of Catholicism was a mesmerizing and personal experience, “I became an altar boy because I loved the ritual, the chance to be close to that special moment when God came down to the altar” (qtd in

Kelly 29). Scorsese’s Catholic upbringing is evident in Last Temptation, particularly on the scene of Jesus’ return to the disciples. After his stay in the desert, Jesus returns to his followers and literally rips out his heart for them, imploring them, “This is my body, take it” (Last Temptation). The Jesus is a prominent image among Catholic art and was certainly an influence on a young Scorsese, “My grandmother…had the portrait of the Sacred Heart” (qtd in Baugh 57). The Sacred Heart literally becomes a gift for

Jesus’ disciples in the film, a bloody allusion to the Communion at the Last Supper.

The Sacred Heart scene is a small part of the dramatic visual nature of Last

Temptation. The story of Jesus was especially captivating for Scorsese, who saw both a theatric element to the Gospels and a deeper, emotional level, “I was also taken by the great story of Jesus and his love. That to me is the most important part of it. The theatricality that went with it was extraordinary, of course, but to me, it was about this incredible character, and about those events” (qtd in Kelly 31). It was this character that

45 drew Scorsese to the novel The Last Temptation of Christ. When actress Barbara Hershey brought the book to Scorsese’s attention in 1971, the director was immediately entranced,

“…I liked Last Temptation because it dealt with the battle between the spirit and the flesh. I thought it was something I could understand” (qtd in Kelly 169). This battle between the divine spirit and the earthly flesh would be the cornerstone of the film, as

Jesus wrestles with the temptation of a normal existence. While the novel aroused

Scorsese’s interest, it would be over a decade until he was able to pursue his inspiration and bring Kazantzakis’ book to the big screen.

The Last Temptation of Christ harkens back to the Biblical epics in its plot and focus. We are introduced to Jesus, played by , as an adult, working as a carpenter. To the dismay of his closest companion Judas, played here by , and his fellow Nazareth citizens, Jesus constructs crosses for the Romans to crucify insurgents and criminals. This Jesus leads a tortured life, troubled by his love and lust for his former love Mary Magdalene, played by Barbara Hershey, and his uncertainty of his role in the plan that God is slowly revealing to him. Even when placed on the cross, this

Jesus struggles with his divine nature, almost succumbing to the titled “last temptation,” when an “” takes him down from the cross and Jesus lives out an earthly existence as a father and husband. It is this internal battle with Jesus’ earthly desires and heavenly mission that both drives the movie and created such controversy upon its release. The

Last Temptation of Christ illustrates the tension between the human and divine in the image of Jesus, a tension made worse once elements of sexuality are added.

When Scorsese began work on the film in 1983, he was already a household name.

His films (1973), (1976), and (1980) had

46 established him as an acclaimed New York director, one who could create art out of the gritty urban metropolis. It is not surprising then that Scorsese’s Jesus would reflect his cinematic anti-heroes. Scorsese specifically equates Last Temptation’s Jesus with Taxi

Driver’s and Raging Bull’s Jake LaMotta, the latter two roles both played by Robert DeNiro. While it may not be clear at first how these three films are related,

Scorsese insists that the movies are, “…of the same cloth: they’re about lonely, self- deluded, sexually inactive people” (qtd in Friedman 152). It is these inadequacies that drive the three characters. However, while Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta are driven to violence by these shortcomings, it drives Jesus to discover his divinity. Despite an attempt to create an uprising against the Romans, Jesus cannot bring himself to the same level of force that Scorsese’s other characters are so capable of. He must take another route to face his inner , a road that eventually leads him to the cross. Jesus’ struggle with the same inadequacies as these flawed, violent men suggests that even the divine can be utterly human.

The Last Temptation of Christ is a different form of the Jesus story, not just in its ’ flaws as a human being. The film also provides more of a back story to the life of Jesus. In some aspects, this plot trajectory is similar to other Jesus films.

Most biblical epics began with the Nativity and moved straight into Jesus as an adult, with little detail about how Jesus spent his time as a child, whom he interacted with, how he played. The Bible is not entirely clear about the period before Jesus was in his 30s.

Last Temptation may not show any groundbreaking revelations about Jesus’ past, it does suggest that there was a life before Jesus began his ministry. Jesus still lives with his mother Mary, had a nonsexual but loving relationship with Mary Magdalene in the past,

47

and works as a carpenter, building crosses for the Romans. These tiny glimpses into

Jesus’ earthly life helps us as an audience understand the man behind the divinity.

While The Last Temptation of Christ does focus on Jesus’ humanity, Scorsese’s

goal was never to suggest that Jesus was not divine. Scorsese went into the film hoping to

show Jesus’ humanity, without ever forgetting his divinity: “He’s God. He’s not

deluded…He makes me feel like he’s sinning--but he’s not sinning, he’s just human. As

well as divine…That’s the way I directed it and that’s what I wanted, because my own

religious feelings are the same” (qtd in Friedman 154). Scorsese makes it clear that Jesus

is not a deluded human with visions of grandeur, he is a divine being struggling with

humanity. Indeed, by committing this final act of sacrifice, Jesus has transcended the

human and has embraced the supernatural. W. Barnes Tatum suggests that this is Jesus’

final reward, “Although Jesus has an extended vision of the good life while hanging on

the cross, he dies with the glorious knowledge that he had been faithful unto death--flesh

had been transcended by the spirit” (Tatum 161). The Last Temptation of Christ perhaps

best exemplifies Jesus’ duality, as a man who is tempted by the comforts of a married life

and as a supernatural being who must save the lives of the world.

It was not just the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity in The Last Temptation of Christ that made him more approachable, Jesus’ earthly form is also a body that audiences can better relate to. Compared to the slight frame of Ted Neeley, Willem Dafoe’s Jesus in

Last Temptation is the epitome of the ideal masculine form. He has shorter hair and the

muscular frame of someone who has spent his life as a carpenter. The first few minutes of

the film show Jesus in his shirtless glory, unlike the flowing, shapeless robes we usually

find in Jesus films. Mostly though, this Jesus is not presented as a heavenly human being,

48 inner lit with holiness. Scorsese aimed to create Jesus as an everyday man, “The concept of Jesus in this picture is to make him look like someone you might know. If every time

Jesus appeared he was bathed in radiant light, as in other films, then why didn’t everyone automatically follow him?” (qtd in Kelly 203). The Jesus portrayed by Willem Dafoe may not be the radiant savior of other films, instead Scorsese wanted a Jesus that could be recognizable to the audience and representative of his time,

…During the time of Jesus, there was also assimilation. There was lots of mixing, even though Jewish law tried to prevent it to keep their culture distinctive. So we thought Jesus could have had blue eyes. Willem looks like the Jesus we’ve known over the years. This was kind of nice in a funny way…We intentionally made him look more like the Jesus we know from the traditional art. (qtd in Kelly 204)

Willem Dafoe’s angled face and piercing blue eyes may have added sex appeal to the image of Christ, Scorsese has to justify his choice as based on uncertain historical details and traditional art, each of which may not lead to the true physical image of Christ.

However, by choosing Dafoe for his Christ, Scorsese created an image of Jesus that people could immediately recognize.

Last Temptation’s Jesus may look physically more masculine than his Jesus Christ

Superstar predecessor, but his actions suggest a more docile and dependent Christ than his predecessors. The first image we see of Jesus in Last Temptation is when he is asleep.

As he agonizes over the voices that he hears in his head, he writhes on the ground in the . The scene suggests a defenselessness that we do not normally equate with the image of Jesus in film. Brian Snee analyzes this moment in his article “The Spirit and the Flesh: The Rhetorical Nature of The Last Temptation of Christ” in terms of ordinary humanity. Snee suggests that the introduction to Jesus in the film help, “…create the impression that he is ordinary, even vulnerable, and not at all like the figure film viewers

49 have come to expect” (Snee 56). The idea of Jesus as ordinary certainly does tie in to

Scorsese’s idea of Christ as the , but it also compounds the neediness of Jesus that is later exhibited throughout the movie. Despite his divine nature and physical strength exhibited as a carpenter, Jesus’ weakness as a man is the central emphasis of his character.

The image of Jesus on the cross continues to showcase his weakness, particularly in the case of masculinity. Jesus appears to be visibly emasculated on the cross, with his knees bent, thus hiding his genitals. While this would have been a traditional crucifixion,

Friedman notes that Scorsese, “consulted the Biblical Archeology Review for evidence of an actual crucifixion, the fact that Jesus’ genitals have been hidden away so blatantly in film suggests an uneasiness about Jesus as a sexual being” (Friedman 160). The early

Jesus films before traditionally show Jesus either robed or donning a strategically-placed cloth around his hips. Bordo discusses the symbolism of the penis in terms of gender, stating that, “It may seem only natural to those who equate gender with biology that the presence of a penis would confirm that the body who has it is male” (Bordo 23). By obscuring his body, the Jesus films deny the full humanity of Jesus and reject whatever notions of sexuality that come with that. With so much emphasis placed on hiding Jesus’ body, he loses part of his masculinity and human sexuality.

Even before his appearance on the cross, Scorsese’s Christ would never be defined as the epitome of masculinity in Last Temptation. Throughout the film, Jesus is shown to be a man who thrives on dependence. From his mother and Judas to his fantasy of a family, Jesus is constantly shown in need of comfort, even begging, “Don’t ever leave me” (Last Temptation). While Jesus has never been a figure of autonomy, as the presence

50 of the apostles will attest to, Christ has never been shown so desperate for human comfort.

This softness of character implicates a level of femininity that makes Christ’s struggle to reach out so difficult. In “Men’s Resolution of Nonrelational Sex Across the

Lifespan,” Glenn E. Good and Nancy B. Sherrod detail the gender roles in relation to dependence and notes that as far as masculinity is concerned, “many men learn to value independence (as contrasted with dependence, a ‘feminine’ quality) to such an extreme that they become disconnected from others, both men and women” (Good 181). Bordo continues this idea of “softness,” remarking that, “To be exposed as ‘soft’ at the core is one of the worst things a man can suffer in this culture” (Bordo 55). Jesus stands in opposition to this view of masculinity as autonomy. Unlike the other cinematic Christs, we are always aware of Last Temptation’s Jesus’ uncertainty and dependence. His conversations with Judas resemble motivational pep talks, where Jesus bemoans, “I’m struggling” to a beleaguered Judas. Jesus is constantly uncertain about his role as a public figure, questioning the teachings he will give, “What if I say the wrong thing? What if I say the right thing?” (Last Temptation). This lack of eloquence in Jesus’ speech in Last

Temptation connotes a lack of confidence found in other versions of Jesus; this Jesus stutters, hems and haws, and accidentally incites an angry mob to kill the rich. This lack of male authority in Jesus proves problematic for Baugh, who asserts that, “The problem….is the way Scorsese has Jesus speak throughout the entire film, even at the end, always awkward and uncertain, as if he never develops any self-confidence or skill, as if he never speaks with authority” (Baugh 61). This image of Jesus’ constant uncertainty may be troubling for the viewer who is used to Jesus as a leader and orator.

51

The hesitation that we find in the character of Jesus here leads him to use others as

emotional crutches. The women in his life, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene,

highlight his inability to stand on his own. It is his mother Mary who acts as the voice of

reason when Jesus comes to her after his restless nights listening to God. She asks the

fundamental question, “Are you sure its God? You’re sure its not the ?,” a question

Jesus must face throughout his life and as he is tormented on the cross (Last Temptation).

Even Mary Magdalene proves to be a stronger person than Jesus at first, publicly spitting on him as he carries the cross he has made for a Jewish dissenter. When Jesus visits her later, she chastises him for his moral weakness, “If you weren’t hanging onto your mother, you were hanging on me. Now you’re hanging onto God” (Last Temptation).

Mary Magdalene paints an unflattering picture of Jesus; she describes a man who cannot

stand on his own, but must lean on another to simply get by in life.

The idea that Jesus’ weakness, particularly his inability to endure without his

emotional crutches, stems from his relationship with his mother is an interesting point.

Much has been made about the Freud’s idea of the Oedipal conflict in male development.

R.W. Connell notes that Freud’s beliefs on gender laid not in what was innate, but,

“Freud understood that adult sexuality and gender were not fixed by nature, but were

constructed through a long and conflict-ridden process” (Connell 9). If the conflicts that

surround the Oedipal stage are not confronted and dealt with, Freud believed that serious

personality and gender issues would occur.

This would appear to be true in the case of Scorsese’s Jesus; we never see his

earthly foster father Joseph in the home that Jesus and his mother share and their

relationship is never discussed. The film suggests that Jesus’ relationship with his mother

52 is part of what holds him back as a leader. A pivotal moment occurs when Jesus returns to Nazareth and his mother addresses him, hoping he’ll come back home. Jesus brusquely answers her, “I don’t have a mother…I have a father in Heaven…Who are you? I mean, really?” (Last Temptation). While the emphasis of the film has been on the temptations of earthly desire, this moment showcases how easily Jesus is willing to deny certain aspects of his humanity, particularly his connection to his mother. Mary is left to cry and rue her son’s divinity, as Jesus walks off with his crowds. The moment is bitter; Jesus has done what every man must eventually do, leave his mother, but the strength Jesus has exhibited is ultimately struck down. As he faces his death on the cross, Jesus silently admits,

“Mother, I’m sorry for being a bad son” (Last Temptation). The tenuous relationship between a son and his mother seems to be a catalyst for the confusion Jesus experiences throughout the movie and it is one that unfortunately is not resolved until his death.

What proved to be extremely problematic for both Jesus as a character and for the audience was the idea of sexuality. Jesus had been portrayed in the past as a chaste being: in Jesus Christ Superstar, where there was undoubtedly sexual tension on Mary

Magdalene’s side, Jesus is an innocent sexually. It has been established within Jesus

Christ Superstar and less blatantly in earlier Jesus films that Christ, as a divine being, must be nonsexual to maintain that holiness. In The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus not only desires women, but he eventually has sex with Mary Magdalene within the confines of his “last temptation.” Yet, Jesus displays the same trepidation with his sexuality as he does with his speech. Before the “last temptation” segment of the film, Jesus is plagued by conflict between his sexual desires and his desire for holiness. As he talks with the student of a holy man, Jesus confesses that, “When I see a woman, I blush and turn

53 away…I want her, but I don’t take her…for God” (Last Temptation). Jesus’ desire is evident earlier in his visit to Mary Magdalene. There is little innuendo concerning Mary’s profession in the film, her “clients” are shown waiting patiently in her home as she services the men. Jesus waits until the last man is gone and approaches Mary. There are hints of a past love affair between the two that was never consummated. Mary confesses to Jesus that, “All I ever wanted was you,” to which a sorrowful Jesus answers, “What do you think I wanted?” (Last Temptation). When Jesus pleads for Mary to give her heart and soul to God, her reply is filled with bitterness towards the past, “He already broke my heart. He took you from me. And I hate you both!” (Last Temptation). Just as Jesus’ first relationship with a woman turned out tumultuous, Mary and Jesus’ romantic feelings for each other conflict with his desires for a godly life.

Jesus’ sexuality would continue to plague him, even following him on the cross.

As Jesus sits in the desert, Satan takes the form of a snake with Mary Magdalene’s voice, representing, as Scorsese explains, “sexuality in all its form-even in thought” (qtd in

Friedman 155). The snake suggests that Jesus should, “Save yourself, find love,” but is promptly rebuffed by Jesus (Last Temptation). After his trials in the desert, Jesus’ sexuality continues to act as a hindrance in his ministry. When he stays with Mary and

Martha, eagerly asks Jesus, “Do you have a wife?” (Last Temptation). When

Jesus responds, Mary admonishes him and tells him that God wants him to have children

(Last Temptation). Later on, Jesus’ chastity is used against him by a skeptical mob. When

Jesus proclaims the destruction of wealth to the people of Nazareth, a townsman cries out, “ This is what happens when a man doesn’t get married. The semen backs up into his brain” (Last Temptation). Throughout the movie, Jesus is confronted with the idea that to

54

be chaste and unmarried is a curse. By following God and taking on the role handed to

him, Jesus is reminded again and again of the tension he feels both as a man and as

someone who is more than a man.

After the Angel assures Jesus that that he does not have to die, she eventually

leads him to Mary Magdalene, who, “is no longer a sexy strumpet, but a chaste bride, she

is dissociated from carnal desire and identified with family values” (Friedman 155). Jesus

is now free to marry Mary Magdalene and enjoy sex within the confines of a marriage.

Mary’s murmur that, “We could have a child,” during their honeymoon interlude

suggests another part of the temptation, the temptation of a family (Last Temptation).

Jesus cannot fully experience the full pleasure of sexuality without procreation, so when

Mary Magdalene dies during her pregnancy, Jesus remarries. He has children with Mary,

while fathering children with her sister Martha. Jesus eventually rejects the fantasy life of

this temptation, but it does represent a key aspect of Jesus as a man, the desire to live

fully as a sexual human being. In the end though, this scenario is simply a fantasy, one

that is eventually discarded by Jesus in favor of the cross. Although Last Temptation’s

Christ fantasizes about sex, he still remains physically pure.

This in-depth look at Jesus’ sexuality may have been unique within the Jesus film genre, but Jesus’ struggles with his divinity and humanity are familiar. From the very first moments of the film, Jesus struggles with the voices and prophecies he hears. He is unsure of where his role will take him, but seems to be certain of the final act he must take. When Judas initially confronts him about his cross-making, he asks Jesus, “How will you pay for your sins?” (Last Temptation). Jesus replies sadly, “With my life, Judas,

I don’t have anything else,” alluding to the sacrifice he must eventually make (Last

55

Temptation). Jesus still fights his fate, going so far as taking on the carpentry of crosses for the Romans. In an internal soliloquy, Jesus admits the intentions of his chosen career,

“I make crosses so He’ll [God] hate me, I want him to find somebody else…I want to crucify every one of his messiahs” (Last Temptation). There is an ongoing fight between

Jesus and God, so much so that Jesus does not recognize God as a father, instead referring to another darker figure, “You want to know who my mother and father are?

You want to know who my God is? Fear…” (Last Temptation). Fear is what initially drives Jesus, even as he begins his ministry. Unlike the role of Jesus in the past, this Jesus is much more uncertain and driven in terms of self-preservation.

Initially, Jesus is confused about his human desires and his need to be loved.

When he reflects on Mary Magdalene’s near stoning, he laments, “How could I be the

Messiah? When those people were torturing Magdalene, I wanted to kill them. Then, I opened my mouth and out comes the word, love. Why?” (Last Temptation). This question is eventually answered when Jesus realizes his true being, “If I was a woodcutter, I’d cut.

If I was a fire, I’d burn. But I’m a heart and I love. That’s all I can do” (Last Temptation).

In this statement, Scorsese’s Jesus literally becomes the cliché, Jesus is love. He tries to defy who he is by becoming a militant. By choosing to fight the Romans with an insurgence, Jesus is attempting to discard his weakness in favor of a more masculine and more determined figure. Unlike the Jesus of Jesus Christ Superstar, this Jesus does become obsessed with fighting. He tries to convince others of his resolve, declaring, “I believed in love, now I believe in the ax” (Last Temptation). Jesus attempts to take on a new role, a forceful messenger of God.

Jesus appears to have gained a new confidence with this change. He

56 authoritatively heals lepers and casts demons out of people. His resolve is clear and he even develops a sense of cockiness. At the wedding at Cana, Jesus is happy and dancing joyously. When he is approached about the lack of wine, there is little production involved as he turns the water into wine. When a man insists it is water, Jesus simply smirks and answers, “No, it’s wine” (Last Temptation). This does not appear to be the same Jesus who could barely begin his message at the Mount. He becomes steadily more violent, tearing apart the moneychangers’ tables in the temple and taking a stand against the Roman guards. When the high priests lecture him about his insolence and blasphemy,

Jesus warns them, “I didn’t come to bring peace, I came to bring a sword” (Last

Temptation). There is violence intended in this message, a revolution with Jesus as the steady and powerful leader.

However, this is all a pretense, a way for Jesus to avoid his true calling, to die on the cross. In front of the crowds, as the guards stand ready for a revolt, Jesus pleads to

God, “Lord, I hope this is what you want. Let me die here. Please let it happen fast while

I have the strength” (Last Temptation). As the soldiers approach, Jesus begs God for a sign, “Give me an ax, not the cross. Let me die like this” (Last Temptation). Rather than be the ultimate martyr for humanity, Jesus pleads for a less painful, less notorious death.

A sign of assurance from God never appears here, and Jesus leaves, never beginning the promised revolt.

The way of the ax fails, and Jesus reverts to his original message, one of love.

When he is arrested at Gethsemane, an apostle cuts off the ear of a Roman soldier. Jesus miraculously attaches the ear back and chastises his -wielding disciple, “You live by this, you die by this” (Last Temptation). Unlike the forceful miracles earlier, Jesus is

57 focused more on actually healing than proving himself. This moment of kindness as he is about to be led away supports the idea that Jesus no longer places his faith in the ax, but in love and compassion. In the presence of Pontius Pilate, in a cameo by Bowie,

Jesus asserts that his message will change the world, “All I’m saying is that change will happen with love, not killing” (Last Temptation). His message may have fallen upon deaf ears at Pilate’s, but the image is familiar. The appearance of Jesus as a radical in the film is replaced by Jesus as a figure of love.

Yet, as Jesus appears to accept his fate, he begins to falter again. At Gethsemane,

Jesus has his famous moment of doubt. Jesus’ intentions of why he wants to live are more clear, it is not just based on doubt, but on his great love for being a part of the world around him Jesus praises the beauty of this world and the next, but he has to admit his reluctance, “ I don’t know which is more beautiful. Oh please, Father, I’ve been with you for so long. I never asked you to choose me…Can I ask you one last time? Do I have to die? Is there any other way?…Please take it away…Please, Father, please” (Last

Temptation). A wind blows, revealing a vision of a disciple holding a cup of wine. Jesus reluctantly drinks, “All right, but please give me the strength” (Last Temptation). This strength again wavers on the cross. As he is crucified, Jesus begs God, “Father, stay with me. Don’t leave me!” (Last Temptation). It is during the last moment of vulnerability and weakness that Satan is allowed to enter, in the guise of an angel, and present Jesus his last temptation.

In the fantasy of Jesus’ last temptation, the “Angel” takes him down from the cross, assuring him, “So if He [God] saved Abraham’s son, don’t you think He’d want to save his own?” (Last Temptation). Jesus is allowed to enjoy of life of a normal man,

58 complete with a large family. However, reminders of his divinity follow him into his fantasy. Jesus encounters Paul, who was the former militant Saul, who is proclaiming the good news about Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus tries to tell him that he is in fact not dead and definitely not the messiah. Paul scoffs at Jesus and informs him that the myth behind Jesus is bigger than the man, “I don’t care if you’re Jesus or not. The resurrected

Jesus will save the world and that’s what matters” (Last Temptation). He compounds this message with a final insult at the frailty of the Jesus standing before him, “My Jesus is much more important and much more powerful” (Last Temptation). Paul’s message is shown in an unsavory light, almost as an exploitation of Jesus and the masses, but it delivers an important point. Friedman states that this moment, “…is the first indication that Jesus is ‘living’ a dream, that he cannot outrun his fate, and that God’s will has already been done” (Friedman 161). Jesus may feel safe around his many children, but the seeds of doubt have already been planted with this confrontation.

In this fantasy, Jesus fully realizes his mistake at his deathbed. An old man, Jesus lays dying as Jerusalem falls to the Romans. Surrounded by his former disciples, he receives the wrath of Judas, who had to sacrifice his love for his ‘Rabbi’ for of salvation:

Your place was on the cross, that’s where God put you. When death came too close, you got scared and you ran away and hid yourself in the life of some man. We did what we were supposed to do, you didn’t! You’re a coward! Rabbi, You broke my heart. (Last Temptation)

Judas reveals the “Angel” to be the devil, now taking the form of a flame within the room. Jesus now comes to the realization that without his death, there can be no salvation for mankind. The old man crawls out of bed and manages to creep towards Golgotha, the place he was crucified. All around Jesus, there is death and destruction at the hands of the 59

Romans and lives are lost whom he could have redeemed. Once at the site of his crucifixion, Jesus cries out to God;

Father, will you listen to me? Are you still there? Will you listen to a and unfaithful son? I fought when you called, I resisted. I thought I knew more, I didn’t want to be your son. Can you forgive me? I didn’t fight hard enough. Father, give me your hand. I want to bring salvation. Father, take me back! I want to be the Messiah! (Last Temptation)

Just as he realized his faults as a son to his mother at his crucifixion, Jesus realizes his flaws as a once again at Golgotha. This final cry for his rightful place as the

Messiah finally reveals his strength and determination, as he throws away the life he has been presented for a painful death at the cross. When the vision ends and Jesus realizes he is now back on the cross, he smiles and sighs with his last breath, “It is accomplished.”

Jesus has resisted temptation and has reconciled the divine and human in his nature.

The one person throughout The Last Temptation of Christ who was able to remind

Jesus of his greater purpose is perhaps the most unlikely person, Judas. Just as in Jesus

Christ Superstar, the character of Judas threatens to steal the movie away from Christ.

Baugh describes Judas in terms of dominating Jesus, noting that with his “thick, muscular body, red Afro-style hair and beard, easily overpowers a rather wimpy-looking

Dafoe, as does his strong voice and tough guy New York accent” (Baugh 66). Judas and

Jesus share a familial bond; Jesus refers to Judas as a brother and even tells him, “Of all my friends, you’re the strongest” (Last Temptation). This dichotomy between Jesus’ passivity and Judas’ domination is clear from the very beginning, when Judas confronts

Jesus over his construction of crosses. Judas goes as far as physically manhandling Jesus in frustration. Harvey Keitel specifically focused on this frustration and anger as the core of the character, believing that Judas “…was a man who was outraged at the injustices of

60 his time--the economic inequalities, the oppression of religious freedom, the rape of his people, and a man’s spirit rebelling against that, willing to give his life for it” (qtd in

Kelly 213). The Judas in Last Temptation is a powerful and passionate man, unafraid to take a life or lay down his own for a cause greater than himself.

Judas’ lack of fear and confrontational nature is even more prominent when placed against Jesus’ hesitant temperament. This fiery Judas is not simply a follower, he is a radical and violent militant. Like Barabbas in King of Kings, Judas is a radical zealot, desiring a full revolution against the Roman occupation. However, he is a man of principles, so when he is ordered to kill Jesus, he eventually resists. Jesus suggests,

“Maybe He sent you to follow me” (Last Temptation). Yet, it is Jesus who tends to follow Judas, who leads him to , and it is Judas who acts as comforter to a scared and dependent Jesus.

Yet, when it comes to the act of betrayal against Jesus, we finally see a moment of weakness in Judas. When the promised revolution never comes, Jesus faces the truth that his role is to die on the cross and it is Judas who must set the events in motion that will place him there. Judas insists that he will not kill his beloved “Adonai,” but Jesus reminds him that, “Without you, there can be no redemption” (Last Temptation). Even at the pivotal moment, Jesus reminds Judas of his power, a strength that Jesus does not possess in his final and crucial role, “That’s why God gave me the easier job…to be crucified” (Last Temptation). While Jesus may have the role that will save the world, it is

Judas who is given the ultimate burden in the movie; he must betray his teacher, brother, and friend.

Judas does end up playing the role of betrayer, but we are left in a situation where

61

the true betrayal is at the hands of Jesus. By leaving the cross with the “Angel,” Jesus

does not fulfill his end of the deal with Judas. William Telford points out this reversal in

the Christ story, “This is an angry Judas who has played his part in the drama of

salvation, only to find that he, himself, has been betrayed by Jesus” (Telford “The Two

Faces of Betrayal…” 232). Judas has sacrificed his best friend and rabbi in order to fulfill

a higher purpose, so when Jesus fantasizes about a life as a normal man, he realizes that

this would be a betrayal of Judas’ trust. When Judas calls Jesus a coward on his deathbed,

he is merely pointing out the hypocrisy Jesus has chosen by indulging in his “last

temptation.” What Jesus has done out of selfishness, Judas did for his love of his Rabbi,

“I loved you so much, I went and betrayed you” (Last Temptation). While some films

have either vilified or weakened the character of Judas, The Last Temptation of Christ has shown that Judas’ betrayal is not simply a man’s act of vengeance, corruption, or idealistic dreams of revolution, it is an act of deep love.

While Judas’ role is clear within the film, women in The Last Temptation of Christ do not appear quite as consistent. It would appear that women do fare better in the film than they have in previous works, where they are present only to be saved, to mother, or to mourn. In The Last Temptation of Christ, the character of Mary Magdalene is a

constant presence near Jesus. She escorts him to the wedding in Cana and takes part in

the Last Supper with the male disciples and Jesus. Scorsese justifies this inclusion of

women at such a symbolic moment because it would have fit with Jesus’ nature:

Jesus was so great. I just couldn’t see him telling the women at the Last Supper, “Wait in the kitchen.” …Especially since he was a man who broke the rules, and he would have had women there….I said to myself “These women have been with him the whole movie, they’ve stuck with him and they’re the only ones at the Crucifixion.” The only ones at the Resurrection are also women…Jesus appears to them first. He’s telling us something. (qtd in Kelly 224-225) 62

Women play such a vital part both in Jesus’ life and his ministry that it would indeed seem unfair for women to be denied such a sacred and important moment with their teacher.

Women do play a central role in Jesus’ ministry, yet in his fantasy life as a married man, they play a less positive role. Baugh notes that women may be allowed within the inner circle of the disciples, they are only a counterpart to the spirituality of the men, “In

The Last Temptation, and even in the mind of its Jesus, woman is still ‘the earthly other to spiritual man’ and her role is limited to that of embodying ‘sexuality and domesticity’”

(Baugh 55). This is certainly true in the case of Mary Magdalene. She is initially resistant to Jesus, who angers her when he resists her sexuality. Although she redeems herself by rejecting her previous life as a prostitute, her sexuality is still what defines her. Judas has a spiritual transformation, Mary Magdalene’s role appears to only be a smiling complement to Jesus’ role as a man. Jesus may not be able to consummate a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene, but her constant presence reminds his detractors of his masculinity.

The notion of women as a sexual counterpart is further shown in the fantasy of the

Last Temptation. After years of being plagued with an active sexuality, Jesus’ fantasy on the cross allows him to fully partake in multiple sexual relationships. After his initial and happy marriage to Mary Magdalene ends in her death, Jesus mourns until the “Angel” gently tells him to take up with Mary, who is “Magdalene with a different face” (Last

Temptation). The angel declares that, “There’s only one woman in the world, one woman with many faces…This one falls, the next one rises” (Last Temptation). This reasoning is used to justify Jesus’ sexual relationship later with Martha, Mary’s sister. This line

63 exhibits a kind of misogyny that had not been seen before in other Jesus films. Friedman suggests that this reasoning stems from Last Temptation’s Jesus’ inherent selfishness in his fantasy, “This apparent interchangeability of the three women seems designed to excuse Christ’s hasty remarriage and hastier adultery, but it may equally imply that his version of a ‘normal’ life is a bit self-serving” (Friedman 161). In the end, Jesus rejects this fantasy life for the greater good, but the audience is left unsettled. By rejecting a

“normal” life, is Jesus also rejecting the idea that women are faceless interchangeable objects? In the end, Jesus is more motivated by guilt of betraying Judas than by any of his actions in his fantasy.

The various themes of sexuality and human weakness combined with divinity made The Last Temptation of Christ a volatile topic for many who watched it. While the film lacks the underlying anti-Semitism of other Jesus films, Last Temptation faced another kind of backlash because of its nontraditional portrayal of Christ. Scorsese defended his nontraditional outlook on the Gospels by justifying his religiousness, saying that, “I’m a devout Catholic even if I’m not a ‘good’ Catholic. I’m not even a practicing

Catholic, but I believe and I pray….I feel closer to Jesus now” (qtd in Kelly 242).

However, Scorsese’s protests of his religious background and understanding fell upon deaf ears, who saw his justifications as garbled at best. Joseph Sobran, a writer for the

National Review, described Scorsese’s explanations of the film as, “embarrassingly inarticulate, mumbling about the film as an ‘act of faith’” (Sobran 33). He goes on to describe the film as, “a little film about a little man--only the little man, we’re casually told, happens to be named Jesus, a fact that shouldn’t be made too much of” (Sobran 33).

Many critics were less disparaging of Scorsese’s inspiration, while still hesitant to

64 fully praise the film. Janet Maslin of the New York Times criticized the film for its stilted dialogue and all too recognizable faces;

The dialogue that accompanies these moments amounts to one of the film's great incongruities, since the language (in a screenplay by ) is often as intentionally flat as the imagery is starkly glorious. Peering out through various odd-looking and wigs are actors so identifiable and eccentric that they often upstage the material. (Maslin C4)

Hal Hinson of the Washington Post considered the lack of relation to Jesus the film’s central downfall;

The director's failure, though, comes at the most basic level. In spite of all he accomplishes, he is unable to bring Jesus close to us, to realize his stated goal of creating a universal figure who symbolizes the spiritual anguish of all men. Somehow Christ's suffering seems to have been fetishized, and there's an almost creepy kind of glee in the filmmakers' presentation of the corruptions here. (Hinson ixx)

Scorsese hoped to create a more human and recognizable Jesus, but critics overall felt that the character of Christ was too distant and too mannered to be truly relatable to the audience. While critics praised the risk Scorsese took by bringing Kazantzakis’ novel to the big screen, the overall opinion was that Scorsese’ eye for detail ultimately overshadowed the story of a more human savior.

The audiences were much more unkind to Scorsese and The Last Temptation of

Christ. Before the film’s editing was completed, demonstrations had already begun.

Scorsese initially invited members of the religious community to a screening of the film.

Scorsese later recounted the groups’ reluctance to attend:

They didn’t show up. At 10 A.M., when the screening began, the only people who were there were me, and my crew, and Valenti, , and a man from Time magazine. At two o’clock, some other religious people saw the film. Some were hostile--but overall they liked it. (qtd in Kelly 235)

Many were offended not only by a portrayal of Jesus as a sexual being, but the depiction 65 of Jesus leaving behind his role as Messiah for a worldly existence. Theologian David

Tracy admitted that the sexual overtones of the film did not worry him, but he found the idea of Jesus as a “troubled ” troubling (Fox 382). Perhaps fueled by the protests, audiences stayed away from the art-house film and The Last Temptation of

Christ grossed little more than eight million dollars, barely grossing more than its cost

(“Business Data for The Last Temptation of Christ”). However, the impact of the film could not be denied. Years later, many still protested the film, going as far as threatening to removing the video from the Amherst Public Library. G. Anderson reported in

American Libraries that in 1992, protesters were so incensed at the video’s inclusion at the local library that they promised, “to defeat a library levy if the library didn't remove the videocassette of The Last Temptation of Christ from its collection. But in the end, the tape stayed on the shelves and the levy narrowly passed” (Anderson 16). Despite

Scorsese’s hopes for understanding, the film struck a different chord with many in the audiences. Instead of a loving portrayal of a novel, the film was turned into an example of blasphemy. Scorsese’s attempt to show Jesus as a complete, flawed, and sexual being, as well as a heavenly being, was perhaps too shocking for a public that was used to the cinematic Jesus of the Biblical Boom.

The Last Temptation of Christ introduced a flawed Jesus to the public, a man who was divided by his dual nature as human and divine, and a man who could be led by his desires just as easily as the rest of us. Audiences may have not been ready to embrace such a Jesus, but it did reflect very human conflicts; doubt and guilt, spirituality versus sensuality. While the film may have been received as well as Scorsese hoped for, the film did manage to not only show a more stylized tale of Christ, but it also displayed a 66 director’s true passion on the screen.

67

CHAPTER III: JESUS CHRIST VAMPIRE HUNTER

Dramas like The Last Temptation of Christ have always been quick to receive the scorn of the religious public. As Martin Scorsese admits, those associated with these films appear surprised by their films’ reception, ignoring the controversy associated with presenting an alternate view of the life of Christ. Meanwhile, comedies centered around

Christianity and Jesus in particular appear to appreciate and even court the controversy left in their wake. Comedies like Life of Brian (1979), History of the World Part II

(1981), and Dogma (1999) have all used the mythology surrounding Jesus to their benefit, reconstituting the story of Christ into humorous satires. Instead of displaying the same reverence for the life of Christ that dramatic filmmakers decide to use, these religious-themed comedies choose to make light of the serious nature of the Jesus narrative, using it as a chance to examine both our society’s treatment of the sacred and how gender, sexuality, and race play in both Christianity and popular culture at large.

This clash between the sacred and profane is especially evident in Lee Demabre’s genre-blasting comedy Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (2001). The action/comedy/musical takes the image of Christ and turns it on its head, transforming the passive Jesus we have seen in movies such as The Last Temptation of Christ and creating a savior that can save people’s souls and strike down a crowd of atheists with his martial arts skills in his spare time. Not only does Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter tackle and subvert the image of Christ, the film satirizes the tension between homosexuality and modern Christianity. Jesus’ mission to save Ottawa’s lesbian population from a vampiric fate shows an acceptance of homosexuality that is often denied in the religious world. By balancing the religious and the popular, while combining a progressive look at homosexuality in religion, Jesus 68

Christ Vampire Hunter displays the often-ignored power of laughter in within the text of

the Jesus film.

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter’s multi-faceted plot centers around the resurrected

Jesus, played by Phil Caracas, and his fight against vampires attacking Canadian

lesbians. Abandoned by a cynical public and with his gang of priests taken down by the

vampire Maxine Schreck, played by Murielle Varhelyi, Jesus unites with the perky yet

dangerous Mary Magnum (Maria Moulton) and Mexican crime fighter/wrestler Santo

(Jeff Moffet) to bring down the vampire threat. Screenwriter Ian Driscoll freely admits

that his main inspiration came from his other film work with Demarbre, the comedic

action hero, Harry Knuckles, also played by Phil Caracas. Driscoll confesses that, “I’d

really like to say it [Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter] was inspired by my favorite films…but

honestly, the biggest influence for the film was Harry Knuckles and the Treasure of the

Aztec Mummy (1999), because we basically took the plot points from Aztec Mummy and just slotted the Jesus character into the Harry Knuckles part” (“Jesus Christ Vampire

Hunter Interviews”).

The convoluted plot is further complicated by the film’s transcending genres, as

Jesus both fights off vampires and breaks out into a multi-person song and dance number

at a moment’s notice. This merging of genres acts as a way to subvert the serious tone

associated with the Jesus film as a genre. In one song, Jesus tries to gather a crowd to

fight against the vampires, only to be rebuked. Ian Driscoll acknowledges the

outlandishness of the song and notes that it is a part of Jesus’ hopes for his followers,

“…the whole song and dance number represents Jesus’ fantasy, like I’m going to go to

the town and everyone’s going to join in with him and they’re going to stand together,

69

but in every case with Jesus, he gets deserted when the going gets tough” (“Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter Interviews”). The use of the musical to express Jesus’ hope and belief in

the goodness of others is effective, as it takes the viewer out of the mentality of the stoic

action hero. The film’s main theme “Everybody Gets Laid Tonight” continues this clash

of genres, as the song both references the work of Jesus, “He came from Heaven/Two

stakes in his hand” and offers a celebratory chorus “It’s all good/It’s alright/ Everybody

gets laid tonight!” (“Everybody Gets Laid Tonight”). Graham Collins, who wrote the

film’s score, discusses the juxtaposition of ideas in the main theme;

We wanted something that was going to be like an anthem…and it had to have all of the feel-good parts of Christianity but brought up to date…It had to be a little dirty as well, so that’s how we kind of got into everybody getting laid, that feels good, like the feeling of Christ entering your heart.” (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter Commentary Track”)

The song reflects the film’s overall use of contrasting images and genres. The tension

between the heavily masculine action genre and the happy-go-lucky musicality of the

movie reinforces the overall silliness of Demarbre’s work.

This irreverence is truly part of Canadian humor, which is alluded to throughout

the film, which includes a verbal nod to the Canadian comedy troupe, The Kids in the

Hall. This desire to include Canadian culture is evident throughout the film, which

showcases much of Ottawa’s urban setting. Lee Demarbre often jokingly refers to the

people of Ottawa throughout the film, even musing that, “There’s the entire Ottawa

population right there” during a crowd scene (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter Commentary

Track”). While Demarbre may joke about Ottawa’s influence on the film, its heavy use of

underground and independent Ottawa establishments throughout Jesus Christ Vampire

Hunter displays a kind of Canadian civic and national pride. As Demarbre lightheartedly

70

remarks, “We’re prepping everyone who doesn’t live in Ottawa to come to Ottawa and

join in on the Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter reality tour” (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

Commentary Track”).

Canadian pride is not the only influence on Demarbre’s film. As with The Last

Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter is heavily influenced by Catholicism.

On its surface, the cast of heroic punk priests, including the turncoat Father Eustice,

played by Tim Devries, and its repeated references to the Crucifixion and stigmata mark

the film as distinctly Catholic. However, the most prominent feature of Catholicism

within the film is its long-held rejection of homosexuality. Homosexuality has been seen

as a deviant within most sects of Christianity. Many believe that homosexuality stands

against God’s plan, citing biblical evidence of God’s repulsion towards the gay and

lesbian population. Reverend Kent Philpot, the author of the book The Third Sex?,

decries the homosexual lifestyle as fundamentally a lie, “There is no third sex! For many

reasons-some known, some unknown, men and women have exchanged the truth about

God for a lie and have become homosexual. Homosexuality is a choice, a choice to be

and do what is not intended…” (qtd in Erzen 28). This outlook has shaped how much of

conservative Christianity has treated homosexuality, even going as far as to create camps

and centers specifically centered around treating homosexuality as a disease and lifestyle

that can be “straightened.” In her book, Straight to Jesus, Tanya Erzan discusses the

growing “ex-gay movement” among conservative Christians, which focuses on reparative

therapy to change the sexuality of its members. One of the largest groups involved with

the ex-gay movement, Exodus International, has increasingly gained power in the

Christian Right movement. Erzan reports that, “There are now over 200 evangelical

71 ministries in the United States, Europe, South America, , , the

Philippines, Singapore, Japan, China, and Mexico under Exodus International” (Erzan

42). This increase of those attempting to change the lifestyles of Christian homosexuals exemplifies a growing conflict between what is traditionally seen as “holy” and what is a part of normal human nature.

Like evangelical Christians, many of those in power in Catholicism have taken a similar stance against homosexuality. The Vatican has remained firm in its treatment of homosexuality as a deviance or a disease. In 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a letter called “A Letter to the of the on the

Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” The letter, which was approved by both Pope

John Paul II and future pope Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, describes homosexuality in terms of disease and a disorder;

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting, erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit, but rather defends personal freedom and dignity as realistically understood. (qtd in Hartman 155).

While terms such as “personal freedom” and “dignity” are used, the letter is essentially decrying the homosexual lifestyle as a disorder, one that distances one’s self from God.

In the book Congregations in Conflict: The Battle over Homosexuality, author Keith

Hartman discusses the letter in detail, noting the Church’s apathy when it came to the bigotry towards homosexuality;

The CDF instructed Catholic bishops to oppose any form of civil rights protection for homosexuals. It explained that homosexuality was an inherent evil and a threat to the traditional place of in society. Although the CDF did recognize the essential humanity of homosexuals and found the violence done to them “deplorable,” it also implied that gays had brought the violence on themselves. (Hartman 155).

72

This indifference about the well-being of the homosexual population and the view of homosexuality as a threat to the nuclear family resonates even today in Catholicism. In a time when more attention is being paid to the Catholic Church’s secrecy concerning their priest’s liaisons with underage clergy, the Church’s treatment of homosexuality has become even more apparent as both outdated and inherently intolerant.

The criticism and prejudice felt by homosexuals may be even more intense for those who were raised as or choose to be devout . Arthur D. Kahn, the author of

The Many Faces of Gay, interviewed several gay men and women about their experiences with the conflict between Catholicism and homosexuality and found that many were left disheartened and disturbed from their experiences. Kahn notes when comparing his interviews with Roman Catholic gays and lesbians to others that, “Roman

Catholic interviewees experienced more intense trauma than other interviewees in coming to grips with their sexuality” (Kahn 132). Interviewees specifically cited the hypocrisy taught by the Church to be the main area of conflict. Gerri Walls remembers her experiences as a young Catholic lesbian as a trying time, “Catholicism teaches that we’re sinful. At 13 or 14, I stopped going to church because I felt that I wasn’t welcome.

That was very painful. The church that talks about spirituality, holiness, and compassion has caused a lot of hatred towards me” (qtd in Kahn 132). Tracy Morgan, another lesbian interviewed by Kahn, supports Wells’ statement and further calls for action within the gay community, “We have to stop waiting to be recognized…Stop waiting for someone else to tell us we’re okay. We’ll decide what’s screwed up and what’s not, what’s our way and what’s not. The Catholic Church has made me feel guilty about sex” (qtd in

Kahn 134). This guilt is what has driven many away from religion itself, while the

73

Catholic Church remains steadfast in its rejection of the homosexual lifestyle.

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter tackles these issues of homosexuality and the

Catholic Church head-on. While its message may be hidden under silly karate sequences

and comedic sensibilities, the film also has an underlying message concerning the

Christian acceptance of homosexuality as not a deadly sin, but a normal and natural form

of love. Ian Driscoll addresses these issues as an important part of creating a modern-day

hero in the character of Jesus, “As for why lesbians? We wanted to address contemporary

social politics in the film as well. We felt that that was important to make a Jesus for the

21st century, tackling those tough social issues that people face today” (“Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter Interviews”). Despite the film’s humorous exterior, there lies a deep

need to express the bigotry and issues facing not just Christians, but everyone influenced

by religion, in modern culture.

Lesbianism and bisexuality in particular stand out in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

Not only are the victims of the vampires mostly lesbians, but the character of Mary

Magnum, who is based on the various portrayals of Mary Magdalene, comes out in the

end, falling in love with the reformed vampire, Maxine Schreck. This is certainly a

turning point from traditional Jesus narratives, where Mary Magdalene is completely

devoted to Jesus only. Instead, there is fluidity in Mary’s sexuality in Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter. She is initially flirtatious with Jesus, even planning out a strategy in a

sauna with him. When she coos, “You sure have a lot to show” to Jesus, the intent is

obvious (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). Yet, she is most struck by Maxine and even begs

Jesus at the end to spare Maxine’s life and restore her humanity. She pleads, “Rabbi, I

owe you so much already, the peace in my soul. But Maxine, she brings me a joy that I

74

never thought possible here on Earth” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). Lee Demarbre

deliberatively created this lesbian romance for the film, “I think it was important to make

it a heroic lesbian adventure, where the women would get together at the end” (“Jesus

Christ Vampire Hunter Interviews”). It is telling that the major romantic embrace in the

entire movie is between Mary and Maxine at the end, while Jesus must awkwardly watch.

Meanwhile, the lumbering Santo falls in love himself with Maggie, a presumably lesbian

vampire. When she is restored, Jesus is confused over her romantic embrace with Santo.

“I’m bi!,” she exclaims to a bewildered Jesus, much to the joy of Santo (Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter).

Even the transvestite community is portrayed in the film, as Jesus finds himself

acting out his own parable of the Good Samaritan. After Jesus is badly beaten and left for

dead by the vampires, he pleads several passing officials, such as a priest and a police

officer, for help. Only a passing transvestite stops to help him, crying out, “Jesus, honey,

you’re a mess” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). The transvestite cares for Jesus, albeit

with a seductive intention perhaps, and restores Jesus to health once again. Ian Driscoll

deliberately equates transvestism with the Samaritan story, noting that, “The

were a half-caste and that’s why they were scorned and looked down on. They didn’t

belong to one tribe or another…which makes the transvestite the perfect update of the

Samaritan” (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter Commentary Track”). This update in the

teachings of Christ is most certainly relevant with the backdrop of religious conflict over

Throughout the film, it is the side of good that protects and supports the

homosexual community. Father Eustice, a priest serving Jesus, reflects on the vampire

situation at hand and solemnly reflects over the fate of the lesbian victims, “We cannot

75

stand idly by and allow these children of God be slain by these…these…agents of the

Devil” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). The fact that a Catholic official describes lesbians

as “children of God” and not of the devil sets a standard throughout the film, that the gay

and lesbian community belong to God as well and that those who try to prey on them are

essentially evil.

While Father Eustice’s words are comforting, it is Jesus himself who acts as the

greatest advocate of homosexuals. When Father Eustice describes the Catholic Church’s

reluctance to help save the lesbians because of their lifestyle, Jesus sternly remarks, “The

Church should learn to leave judgment to higher powers” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter).

Later, when Father Eustice has been bitten and turns into a vampire, he captures Jesus and prepares to kill him. Father Eustice snidely admits the real reason vampires have chosen to feed off of lesbians, “They’re deviants, no one will miss them” (Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter). Jesus, struggling with the ropes Father Eustice has restrained him with,

finds the power to argue, “There’s nothing deviant about love!” (Jesus Christ Vampire

Hunter). This final statement makes a strong argument concerning homosexuality. The

film suggests that if love is a divine creation, then homosexuality is still a part of God’s

design and not, as Father Eustice and many others claim, deviant.

Sexuality may have been updated in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, but there are

other modern aspects that would certainly seem out of place in a traditional Jesus film.

Jesus’ aide, Father Alban, reflects the punk sensibilities with his appearance. While he

wears the priestly collar, his red liberty spike hairdo resembles something one would see

at a seedy bar, not a cathedral. Even his customized bike helmet bares the mark of this in-

your-face spirituality, bearing the phrase “Live to Pray/Pray to Live” (Jesus Christ

76

Vampire Hunter). Like gays and lesbians, those in fringe cultures such as the Punk underground receive little support from the spiritual community. Father Alban’s appearance stands as another reminder that true godliness does not simply lie in the stereotypical religious elder, but also in the hearts of those in various subcultures.

This reflection on the variety of sexualities and appearances is not the only change made to the story of Jesus. Jesus himself is given a makeover, both literally and figuratively, in the film. While he is quick to dispense sage wisdom and love, he is also more than capable of dishing out the violence, particularly when it comes to vampires and bothersome atheists. The image of Jesus tackling vampiric lesbians and often getting beaten maybe troubling to more devout audiences. Lee Demarbre freely admits that,

“People don’t like the idea of Jesus getting the shit kicked out of him in the movie, but I think a hero must fall at one part of the movie and sink so low, he only becomes a true hero when he rises again and defeats his enemy” (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

Commentary Track”). Demarbre recognizes Jesus as part of a long line of mythic heroes, those created under spectacular circumstances, who may be defeated at one point, but later come back to face down their opponents. Like many other films in the action genre,

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter even features a post-defeat montage of Jesus sharpening stakes and preparing for his next battle. Jesus may be beaten up frequently in the movie, but he is never truly beaten.

The appearance of Jesus within the film is certainly more striking than his martial arts skills. Catholicism has frequently portrayed Jesus in terms of the feminine in its art, preferring a beatific Jesus to any muscle-bound . Stephen Prothero describes the popularity among Catholics of the paintings by Currier and Ives, which portrays Jesus

77 in a feminine light, “His hair, framed by a bright halo, is elegantly coiffured. His face is beautiful and his neck and fingers long and delicate. Beneath a long flowing robe, his wide hips jut out toward the enter of the image, as to accentuate his roundness. This is an unmistakably feminine Savior” (Prothero 61). This image of Christ is present in many

Catholic representations, particularly when presenting the Sacred Heart Jesus. While other images of Christ, such as Ted Neeley’s performance in Jesus Christ Superstar, have been criticized as feminine, the Catholic image of Jesus would fall nicely into that category.

However, in order to be the traditional male action hero, Jesus must undergo a physical transformation. He is first presented in traditional Jesus garb, with flowing locks and beard and the white robe. After his initial fight with the vampires and the loss of his two priest companions, Jesus travels to the nearest barber, cuts off his hair and beard, pierces his ears, and later dons the tight t-shirt and pants that would seem more appropriate for a Bruce Willis feature rather than a movie about Jesus. Physically, Jesus attempts to look the part of a traditional action hero, yet his personality and mannerisms tell otherwise. He is more than physically capable, but his height is often characterized as too diminutive to be heroic. The slight savior is reprimanded by the crowds he tries to unite for battle, who more than gladly tell him, “….You’re not very tall/ You could be setting us up for a fall!”(Cast “The Messiah Hop”). Indeed, even Mary Magnum manages to tower over Jesus, creating a tension between the enormous physical and spiritual power of Christ and the diminutive body he exists in.

The Jesus we find in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter may not be an imposing figure, but there is little doubt of his divinity. We first see Jesus baptizing in a lake and offering

78

lemonade to Father Alban, who asks, “Will there be enough?” (Jesus Christ Vampire

Hunter). Jesus knowingly smirks, “Oh, there’ll be plenty,” alluding to his profiency with

feeding the masses (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). When trying to round up the masses

against the vampires, he shows them his crucifixion wounds to show how he has suffered

as well. During an extended dance, he proceeds to heal the lame and the dead, all with a

smile on his face. Judging by his actions, it would be hard to argue that this Jesus lacks

the divinity of earlier portrayals. Yet, if one looks beyond the flashy miracles, the

message Jesus delivers proves more powerful than providing lemonade for all. When

fighting the evil Dr. Pretorious (Josh Grace), the evil genius behind the creation of the

vampires, Jesus slices his throat. While the doctor groans in pain, Jesus places his

hand on Dr. Pretorious’ throat and heals him. Jesus sternly reminds him, “Not even this

separates you from my love” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). The fact that Jesus can save

and even love his mortal enemy proves to be a powerful statement. This Jesus does not

just give sermons, he literally fights for what he believes.

Yet, it is not just his height and divinity that sets Jesus apart from other action

heroes. Jesus is frequently shown to be uncomfortable around the opposite sex, ignoring a

flirtatiously winking waitress and stiffly rejecting Mary Magnum’s advances in a sauna.

While everyone is paired off at the end; Mary Magnum with her Maxine and Santos

jetting off with his new love, Jesus is left with Santos’ appropriately named assistant,

Gloria Oddbottom. The only proof we have of Jesus’ heterosexuality is when Jesus grabs

Oddbottom’s posterior. It would appear that Jesus faces a greater foe than vampires here,

he faces the scourge of the double bind of masculinity. Susan Bordo points out that the

double bind is taught and encouraged early on for men, noting that, “Clearly, this culture

79 places young boys in a double bind too…We fabulously reward those boys who succeed in our ritual arenas of primitive potency and humiliate the boy whose sexual aggression quota doesn’t match up to those standards…” (Bordo 242). In order to be a true hero in the eyes of Western culture, a man must not only be physically capable, but sexually capable as well, a characteristic that seems to allude Jesus.

Compared to the womanizing or the dangerous sexuality of Bruce

Willis or Mel Gibson, Phil Caracas as Jesus seems almost asexual. Even his physical masculinity is flawed, as he still relies on Mary Magnum to help him out. In one scene, he dives into a sewer, sternly telling Mary, “If I’m not back in 5 minutes, call the Pope!”

(Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). Yes, a few seconds later, he cries out, “Mary, I’m stuck!,” as an exasperated Mary climbs in to save him (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). However,

Bordo explains that this seeming contradiction is only created by the culturally reinforced double bind:

The fact that these contradictory directives put a real person in a difficult (if not impossible) double bind gets masked by the fact that we’ve created numerous fictional heroes who successfully embody both requirements, who have the sexual charisma of an untamed beast and are unbeatable in battle, but are intelligent, erudite, and gentle with women. (Bordo 242)

While Jesus may not fit the traditional mold of the sexually knowledgeable action hero, he is progressive in that he rises above the double bind. He is not concerned with the physicality of women, he is concerned with the saving of their souls and indeed, the souls of everyone. He may be a man, as his brief squeeze of Oddbottom’s exterior will attest to, but he is still the Messiah in the end.

It is not just Jesus who manages to transcend gender in the film. Mary Magnum,

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter’s version of Mary Magdalene, takes on the role of the

80

“action chick,” discarding the role of a simple devotee. Instead, she is just as physically powerful as Jesus, even fighting him when she is transformed into a vampire. She has expertise in several fields, even rambling off the scientific reasons one would turn into a lesbian, as a flustered Jesus can only nod. Her motorcycle leap into the air at the end of the movie proves to be the action highlight of the film. She may be, as her calling card describes, “an apostle to the apostles,” but she has proven that she is not just content to follow.

Mary Magnum is a part of a line of recent action heroines who transcend gender by mixing femininity with masculine forms of physical power. She dresses in form-fitting camouflage and shiny catsuits, yet she proves to be more competent physically than

Jesus. She is intelligent and manages to have control of her sexuality. She proves to be not just an accessory to the main hero, but can hold her own when the fists start flying.

This mix of gender norms reflects a continuing trend in the action hero, as elements of the dominatrix combine with the action heroine norm. Jeffrey Brown discusses the role of the dominatrix in action films in his article “Gender, Sexuality, and Toughness: The Bad

Girls of Action Film and Comic Books,” and is quick to point out the difference between the dominant view of dominatrix and its use in film, “I mean ‘dominatrix’ here not as a kinky subcultural fetish but as a complex symbol that combines and exploits power (both physical and social) along the axis of gender (both masculine and feminine)” (Brown 69).

The dominatrix in action film acts as an amalgamation of the masculine and the feminine, toying with the line between genders. Brown explains that while former female action stars like Linda Hamilton have been criticized for their masculinity, the action heroine read as a dominatrix transcends criticisms of her gender;

81

She [the action heroine] does just dress up as a male or simply enact masculinity. She dresses up as both male and female, enacting both masculinity and femininity. Thus she illustrates by example not only that gender is primarily a performance of culturally determined traits and conventions but also that these traits and conventions do not have to symbolize sexual difference. The signs of masculinity and femininity are not complete sets but individual pieces to be played with. (Brown 69-70)

By crossing gender roles and traits, Mary Magnum becomes a progressive example of the

action heroine. She is beautiful, capable, and most certainly deadly.

While Mary Magnum may break away from the traditional role of the “fallen

woman” in the Jesus narrative, other women in the film do not receive the same freedom.

While the female vampires are physically strong, the emphasis is often on eroticism

among the lesbians. In a bar scene, Santos leers at a pair of women kissing, even

engaging Jesus in his girl-watching. Meanwhile, Gloria Oddbottom, Santos’ assistant,

must endure bout after bout of pinching and grabbing due to her large figure. While her

looks are disapproving, little is said about the fondling. The fact that Jesus even engages

in this grabbing suggests an ambivalence and acceptance of the behavior.

Outside of Jesus’ and Mary’s transformation in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter,

several aspects of the Jesus narrative are updated. Jesus no longer has his group of

disciples, despite Judas’ importance in most versions of the story of Jesus. Father Eustice

instead acts as betrayer, noting that the vampires, “…offer so much more power” (Jesus

Christ Vampire Hunter). Meanwhile, two notable figures make a much more subdued

appearance. God appears to Jesus in the form of a talking bowl of Cherries Jubilee. While

his appearance is certainly less majestic than in other films, his relationship with Jesus is

certainly closer and more paternal. He reassures Jesus, “I have not forsaken you,” but

later chides his son, “Call your mom, she misses you” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter).

82

Meanwhile, the Virgin Mary takes a more modern approach to motherhood. Appearing in the form of a Mary nightlight, Mary lectures her son about his adversaries, “Oh, you’re not letting those boys push you around…Who do we always say is going to inherit the earth, my dear?” (Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter). The appearance of these two dominant figures in Catholic dogma in everyday objects and food suggests a blend of the sacred and the secular. Finding the holy in the everyday certainly transcends the spiritual restrictions found in so many other Jesus films.

The main message behind Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter lies in the update of the

Jesus’ lessons to his followers. After his victory against the vampires, Jesus greets his public in the slick suit of a Hollywood bigshot now. Looking every bit the celebrity, he lectures an adoring mass:

Back when I was hanging out with the Apostles, we had a saying, “If you can bear the whole yoke of , you’ll be perfect, but if you can’t, then do what you can.” I don’t want you to accept anything just because I say it. Think about it. Make up your own mind. And if you choose Christianity, don’t follow me. Follow my teachings, it’s the message that’s important, not the messenger…Listen, you don’t need me telling you these things. I’m not here to give you new laws. I’m just telling you what you already know. I’m the part of you that feels bad when you don’t give that homeless guy your spare change. You know what’s right, trust yourselves, learn to love, learn to forgive….(Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter)

This new sermon offers a different version of Jesus’ message. Instead of placing their faith in the Church or even Jesus himself, Jesus is asking the crowds to place their faith in themselves. Also, instead of expecting perfection, Jesus is only asking people to do what they can to help their fellow man. Taking the emphasis off of Jesus and onto his followers in the end is a progressive step, instead of creating a religious hierarchy, Jesus has instituted power within all.

Despite the film’s obviously irreverent portrayal of Jesus, Jesus Christ Vampire

83

Hunter received little backlash, mostly due to its lack of big budget film press and advertising. Compared to the protests surrounding other portrayals of Christ, Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter received little attention from conservative groups, much to the dismay of the film’s creators. Ian Driscoll sadly admits that the angry reaction he desired was lacking, “We expected a whole lot more controversy than what we got. We were hoping for Last Temptation of Christ people picketing outside the movie theaters and getting us some attention, but that didn’t really happen….” (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

Interviews”). While the masses were not exactly appearing with pitchforks and placards,

Driscoll does acknowledge some spiritual resistance;

…Early on in production, we went scouting locations for a church and we tried to convince the priest of this one church that we’d like to shoot there and he got kind of upset about the whole thing…He said, “Priests are beautiful things and you shouldn’t have them in a movie with vampires, because they’re beautiful.” (“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter Interviews”)

Other than the priest’s protests, Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter has seen little reception outside of independent film festivals. This may be a disappointment to Driscoll and

Demarbre, but the film’s relative obscurity does not diminish the progressive themes presented and the huge strides made in bringing Jesus to a 21st century mindset.

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter stands out among other modern versions of the Jesus narrative. The film may take on the conventions of a spoof, but it still has a powerful message at its core. Instead of focusing on the Gospels or the Crucifixion, Lee Demarbre instead concentrates on updating Jesus’ message to the disenfranchised and jaded. While the modern-day Church may not recognize those that deviate from their idea of morality,

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter shows an all-loving savior. Even when Jesus fights his enemies, he assures them that he still has love and concern for them. As Christianity

84 moves into another millennium, it should be important to remember that Jesus embodies the value of acceptance and love, even when he is slaying vampires.

85

CHAPTER IV: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

Jesus’ appearances on the big screen have often been met with a surprisingly equal

amount of scorn and praise. This tricky mix of acceptance and contempt created a less

than certain fate for religious-themed films. While a few television movies had been

made on the life of Christ in the nineties, mainstream cinema did not take the same risks

as it had in decades past. However, in 2004, Mel Gibson released his version of the last

days of Jesus, The Passion of the Christ. As with other films like The Last Temptation of

Christ, Gibson’s opus was met with scorn and criticism, particularly for its debated anti-

Semiticism. Despite its critics, the movie was embraced like no other Jesus film before it.

The film represented not only a turn to a more traditional and decidedly masculine Jesus,

but also the rise of conservative Evangelical Christianity.

While America is often criticized in terms of morality, the amount of those who

claim to be “believers” has become increasingly high. In the article, “America’s Christian

Right in the Struggle for a Moral Consensus,” Phillip Earl Steele provides some

surprising statistics. According to his research, Steele shows that on an average weekend,

“…some 120 million people (43%) take part in services conducted in nearly half a

million houses of worship” (Steele ix). Steele continues to dismiss the notions of a

“Godless” America, noting that, “94% of Americans believe in God. 92% identify with a

given denominational faith. 86% are Christians” (Steele ix). With these statistics, Steele

concludes that, “On the basis of merely the foregoing, we see that the oft-encountered

statement that 'American society is a secular society' is in no way reflected by empirical

data” (Steele xi). With a majority of Americans holding some form of Christian belief, it

should be no surprise that this influence could be felt in all aspects of American culture. 86

While Christianity has always had some sway over American culture, the 1990s and 2000s represented a particularly powerful moment for Evangelical Christianity and the Christian Right. The Christian Coalition, led by popular evangelist Pat Robertson, found millions of followers through its prominence in the media. Steele states that the

Christian Coalition actively took religion into a political setting, using programs like

The 700 Club and its economic resources to influence, “…school board and state legislature elections, activist training, and the defense of religious freedom in the courts.

It has affiliates in each of America's 50 states and a total of over 2,000 local chapters”

(Steele xxxxi). Meanwhile, groups such as the Promise Keepers, a conservative Christian men’s organization, promoted a return to “traditional” family values, with a focus on the home as a spiritual center and the husband as a leader.

The increasing prominence of groups like the Christian Coalition and the Promise

Keepers came to a head with the election of George W. Bush. While the White House has been a home to various Christians, Bush has been very vocal about the use of his religion in his policies. Ruth Conniff discusses this political religiosity in her article “Public

Piety” and notes that a change has come over Washington D.C., “Most notable is the new religious fervor in Washington--from the prayer meetings at the White House and Justice

Department to the evangelical overtones in the State of the Union address” (Conniff 14).

Bush’s religious zeal is also found in his abundant use of religious terminology in his public addresses:

In the State of the Union address, Bush's reference to a "day of reckoning," his assertion that the liberty Americans cherish is "God's gift to humanity," and his intense self-assurance about America's role as guardian of morality and avenger of offended innocence were right off late-night Christian cable TV. (Conniff 14)

Conniff’s connection of Bush to Christian televangelists suggests that Evangelical 87

Christianity has created a hold over America, an influence that would help fuel the fervor

over The Passion of the Christ.

Even before The Passion of the Christ opened, its promoters were busy garnering

attention from Evangelical Christians. Deborah Caldwell details the strategy of The

Passion’s Productions in her article, “Selling Passion.”

Together with Outreach Inc., a -based ministry, a strategy was made to market

The Passion using church-goers:

There were ideas for Passion outreach, including showing the DVD trailer during Sunday services in order to drum up interest, distributing and invitations to the movie to “unchurched” colleagues and friends, and using Outreach resources to preach a sermon series on The Passion. (Caldwell 221)

Many were also encouraged to go as far as door-to-door campaigning, with Outreach

instructing people to, “…walk every street and pray for each house, asking that God

would reach each person with the message of the cross through exposure to The Passion of the Christ” (qtd in Caldwell 221). This form of spiritual marketing would make The

Passion of the Christ more than a Jesus film, but a religious event.

While the film was used to court Protestant Christians, its influence could be

found in very different areas, from conservative Catholicism to eighties action films. The

Passion of the Christ is in actuality a film version of the Stations of the Cross, a Catholic

ritual of performing the last 15 major points of Jesus’ life and resurrection. Director Mel

Gibson is very public with his traditionalist Roman Catholic beliefs, opposing the

changes made during Vatican II. Gibson’s statements about Catholicism run the gamut of

controversies. His public statements about his belief that only through the Catholic

Church can one be saved raised eyebrows, especially when he included his own wife as

one of the unsaved: 88

There is no salvation for those outside the Church…My wife is a . She’s, like, Episcopalian, . She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes…And it’s not fair that she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.” (qtd in Rubenstein 115)

His convictions extended into The Passion of the Christ, as he declared its accuracy to all,

asserting that, “That’s just what’s in the Gospel, I know how it went down…” (qtd in

Fredrickson 32). Despite the controversial nature of Mel Gibson’s assertions, supporters

of the film were still moved by Gibson’s convictions as a Christian

Gibson and his screenwriters have declared that The Passion of the Christ finds it

source in the Gospels. However a more obscure figure had a major influence on The

Passion. Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th century nun, had many of her various visions

of the Passion published. Despite the claims of the use of the Gospels, Paula Fredrickson

denies this in her article, “Gospel Truths,” instead claiming that, “The scaffolding of his

story, the reorganization of events presented in different sequences in the evangelists, the

characterizations of Caiphas, Pilate, Mrs. Pilate, and Mary the mother of Jesus--the meat

of the movie, in brief--are pure Emmerich” (Fredrickson 32). Elements of the movie,

from the description of Jesus’ suffering to the character of Claudia Pilate can be found in

Emmerich’s visions. Many support the idea of Emmerich’s influence, including Gaye

Ortiz. As Ortiz notes in her article, “Passion-ate Women,” the pivotal moments of The

Passion have their genesis in Emmerich’s visions:

The detail that her visions being to The Passion of the Christ is considerable. She offers much to Jesus’ tortured prayer session in Gethsemane…Mary’s ability to sense Jesus’ suffering even at the start of the passion in the Garden is deemed “spiritual communication” by Emmerich. Gibson’s Temple scenes…derive their portrayal of Mary and Pilate’s wide from the Dolorus Passion visions….” (Ortiz 118)

These visions, which are by no means a part of any Gospel, play a huge part in the look 89

and feel of The Passion, perhaps more so than the Biblical accounts that Gibson so

readily purports to be his main focus.

While religion and visions may have had their influence, The Passion of the Christ also found its roots in art and American film, both religious and decidedly secular. In a roundtable discussion about The Passion, religious scholar Peter Francis refers to the film

as a bricolage of previous Jesus films, “Gibson also borrows from Jewison’s Jesus Christ

Superstar with its camp miracle-demanding Herod. He borrows the devilish figure from

George Stevens’ Greatest Story Ever Told…” (qtd in “Table Talk” 316). Francis

continues to characterize Gibson’s work in terms of bricolage with its use of religious

Renaissance imagery, “It borrows its from great Renaissance paintings

(, Mantegna) and especially from Caravaggio. Gibson constructs

carefully composed scenes that are tableaux vivants based on these great masters…” (qtd

in “Table Talk” 316). These various images of modern and classic religious themes have

helped support the film’s overall sense of hyperreality, as the brutal nature of Jesus’ death

is turned into a living tableau.

While the visuals of The Passion of the Christ garnered attention, it would the

influence of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic past, particularly his father’s beliefs, that would

color the most criticism. While there has frequently been an undercurrent of anti-

Semitism in many Jesus films, The Passion of the Christ came under fire for its portrayal

of the High Priests and the crowds watching Jesus’ trial, scourging, and execution.

Gibson has tried to defend his work, stating that, “This film collectively blames humanity

[for] the death of Jesus,” yet the movie seems to counteract his assertions of universal

blame (qtd in Meachem 13). Many of those who take exception to the portrayal of Jews

90

in the film point out Mel Gibson’s past, particularly in terms of his father.

Hutton Gibson, like his son Mel, is a Catholic that ignores Vatican II, rejecting the

changes that were installed during the latter part of the 20th century, such as keeping with

an all-Latin service. However, what makes Hutton Gibson’s beliefs truly controversial

was his adamant declarations that never existed. Despite the eye-witness

accounts of many and the historical proof available, Hutton Gibson maintains that the

Jewish population had simply left and settled in, “ and Brooklyn and Sydney

and ” (qtd in Rubenstein 114). Hutton’s views reflect the same prejudice that

was so present within the original passion plays, that Jews are essentially dark villains,

attempting to take over the world. Richard Rubenstein reveals that Hutton’s prejudice ran

so deep that when a young Mel Gibson left home to live in Israel as an Orthodox Jew,

Hutton went to drastic measures:

…Hutton told Mel that his mother was suffering from cancer and has asked him to return immediately. Upon his return, his father And brothers locked him in his room and cut him from all contact with the outside world until he abandoned his plans to convert to Judaism. Gibson held out for two and a half weeks and then agreed to return to Catholicism-that is, to his father’s distinctive version of Catholicism. (Rubenstein 113-114)

Mel Gibson has declared that he does not share all of his father’s beliefs, but the anti-

Semitism that surrounds Hutton has tainted Mel Gibson’s career even to this day.

Gibson has answered claims of anti-Semitism with the idea that The Passion of the

Christ only reflects the times and information found in the Bible. However, many have

pointed out the extreme stereotypes found within the film. The physical appearance of the

majority of the Jews appears to be cemented in these stereotypes. The High Priests are

especially rooted in these prejudiced descriptions; in their lavish black robes, the bearded

High Priests are portly yet sharp-faced figures. In “Christ’s Passion: Homoeroticism and 91 the Origins of the Passion,” Susannah Heschel points out the many clichés surrounding the physicality of the Priests, “The smirking faces of the priests are matched by their overfed bodies…, stringy hair, and shifty way of walking-the priests actually waddle”

(Heschel 101). Meanwhile, King Herod is portrayed in the same manner as in Jesus

Christ Superstar, as a flamboyant and feminine figure, complete with eyeliner and surrounded by debauchery. Heschel believes that Herod and the Priests are both examples of sexual deviancy in Gibson’s portrayal of Jews:

Gibson’s Jews are its repugnant sexual deviants. Herod, king of the Jews, is a vulgar transvestite engaged in a lewd, drunken, bacchanalian orgy with a group of transvestite cohorts. The Jewish priests are a homosocial clan of physically unattractive men, they are stout and blood-thirsty, with yellowed teeth and gruesome sneers. (Heschel 103)

The Jewish leaders are painted in terms of gluttony of all kinds, especially when compared to the pristine and dignified Pontius Pilate and Claudia.

Caiphas especially comes under fire as the epitome of Gibson’s portrayal of the

Jews. Caiphas is the most outspoken of the Priests and even though it is not mentioned in the Bible, his presence is seen throughout the various points to Golgotha, even at the

Crucifixion itself. It is Caiphas who receives most of the blame for Christ’s crucifixion, leading the cries to crucify Christ before Pilate. It is Jesus himself who places the blame on Caiphas. When Pilate reminds Jesus that, “I have the power to crucify you or else to set you free,” Jesus responds, “…It is he who delivered me to you who has the greater sin” (The Passion of the Christ). While this line, found in the Book of John, points to the Temple as the cause of his death, Jon Meachem points out in “Who Really Killed

Jesus?” that the quote suggests something much broader in the movie:

The “he” in this case is Caiphas, John’s point in putting this line in Jesus’ mouth is almost certainly to take a gibe at the Temple elite. But in the dramatic milieu of 92

the movie, it can be take to mean that the Jews, through Caiphas, are more responsible for Jesus’ death than the Romans are--an implication unsupported by history. (Meachem 9)

The Romans may have played a part in Jesus’ death, but The Passion of the Christ appears to rest the blame not only on Caiphas’ shoulders, but on the people he represents.

The rest of the Jews in The Passion of the Christ do not fare any better than

Caiphas. The movie creates two groups of Jews; the “good” Jews, led by the Mary (Maia

Morgenstern), Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci), Veronica (Sabrina Impacciatore), and

Simon (Jarreth Merz), and the “Evil” Jews, which are comprised of the majority of the masses. The so-called “good” Jews are shown to be attractive and deeply sorrowful.

Veronica and Simon even risk the scorn of the public by helping Jesus by offering water or helping him carry the cross. The rest of the film is populated by the grotesque “bad”

Jews. During the scourging scene, many of the crowd members are enjoying the blood and gore. These Jewish mob members are gnarled and grotesque in appearance, even cackling and shrieking in malevolent joy at Jesus’ pain. Satan frequently passes through these crowds, suggesting that this ultimate evil is quite at home with the savage Jewish mobs shown in the film. Mick LaSalle, a critic for the Chronicle, notes the discrepancy between these Jews and the Jewish Marys, “…It is a little disquieting to notice that every evil Jewish character carries on like a community theater Shylock, while the good Jews -- such as Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene or as the Virgin Mary -- act like normal human beings” (LaSalle viii). In the end though, God enacts his revenge on the mobs and Priests. As Jesus dies, an earthquake is unleashed, destroying the Temple and leaving Satan shrieking at the skies. This scene suggests that those who were responsible for Jesus’ death have been punished, although the tone of

93

Jesus’ resurrection would suggest that he still has a score to settle.

While Gibson’s religious background is evident throughout the film, perhaps most

surprising of all of Gibson’s influences would be his own background in film. His time in

the action genre, with a large portion of it involved in some form of a torture scene, have

a decided effect on the film. William Telford analyzes Mel Gibson’s career in terms of

punishment:

In The Patriot (2000), Lethal Weapon (1987), The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), (1979), (1981), Signs (2002), Conspiracy Theory (1997), (2002), you have this character (Gibson) who can take a lot of punishment but also acts in a redemptive way. (qtd in “Table Talk” 317)

While Gibson’s heroes tend to be the heroic and punished, not everything from his films

translates well into a Jesus film. Scholar Melanie J. Wright discusses the less laudable

characteristics of the Gibson genre in found in The Passion, “It is identifiably a Gibson

film in the sense that it fetishizes violence and constructs the roles of masculine and

feminine genders conservatively” (qtd in “Table Talk” 317). While the violent aspects of

The Passion of the Christ received the most focus, Gibson’s use of static gender roles

make it stand a part from its more recent religious peers.

In terms of masculinity, the Jesus we discover in The Passion of the Christ takes

us back to manly Christs of the Biblical Boom of the fifties and sixties. The Passion already stands out against films like The Last Temptation of Christ by focusing primarily

on the last few days of Jesus’ life, beginning with his prayers in Gethsemane and ending

with his resurrection in the tomb. A few flashbacks are interspersed throughout the film,

giving very brief glimpses into moments of Jesus’ life. It is within this short time frame

that Jesus, played here by James Caviezel, is put through the ultimate physical test. Like

any other Gibson hero, Jesus has the physical power to withstand the punishment. In his 94

article, “The Problem with The Passion,” Matthew Myer Boulton describes Jesus’ duty to

take on the cross in terms of the heroic masculine, “Thus the challenge is announced, and

Gibson's Jesus, hero of heroes, must rise to meet it…The sin of the world is very, very

heavy, and so the handsome Son of God must be very, very brave, and very, very strong”

(Boulton 20). Indeed Caviezel is very striking as Jesus and while he is more emotive

than someone like Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings, he returns us to a Jesus who is not

only a savior, but Hollywood handsome as well. The Jesus found in The Passion of the

Christ is not just a religious figure, his appearance and physicality fit the criteria for a

Hollywood action star.

Since the very nature of the Passion requires Jesus to be in various forms of

undress during his torture, the audience is often asked to gaze at his body. Just as The

Last Temptation of Christ had done, we are reminded of the effects of Jesus’ role as a

carpenter through the display of his body. In a flashback, Jesus is shown with his upper

body exposed working on a table. If previous portrayals of Jesus were attacked for its less

than physically commanding Jesus, Gibson’s Jesus seems to answer the critics’ desires

for a manly Jesus. Bjorn Krondorfer discusses Caviezel’s Jesus in his article “Mel

Gibson’s Alter Ego: A Male Passion for Violence” and notes that Jesus’ body appears to

be the answer to the audience’s wishes, “The chosen ‘body’ of Christ accommodates to

audience expectations of the current ideal of the male physique; tall, athletic, muscular,

white, with a touch of gentle sternness” (Krondorfer 18). Caviezel’s Jesus meets all of the

criteria the culture requires of ideal masculinity. This Jesus is not only aesthetically

pleasing, his body is truly proved to be masculine through the torture it endures

throughout the film. The masculine body is active and self-sustaining, characteristics of a

95

body that can deal with various and extreme forms of endurance. Jesus’ body is certainly

put through the test, surviving beating after beating, the infamous scourging with reeds

and cat o’nine tails, and the crucifixion itself. Never before had the torture and

subsequent death of Jesus been so brutally depicted on film, creating an almost

superhuman aspect to Christ’s body. While the body and the blood have always been

important elements of Jesus, here we see copious amounts of both put to the test. One

would indeed find it problematic to imagine Ted Neeley’s slender Christ going through

the same punishment.

The body of Jesus in The Passion of the Christ receives a lot of attention, yet a

deep exploration of the humanity and inner life of Jesus is missing. We are only given

brief flashbacks; depicting Jesus as a child, Jesus as a carpenter, giving his Sermon on the

Mount, saving Mary Magdalene from the mob, washing his disciples’ feet, and solemnly

leading the Last Supper. These flashbacks mostly serve as foreshadowing for Jesus’

sacrifice. As he washes the feet of the Disciples, he reminds them, “If the world hates

you, remember that it has hated me first. Remember also that no servant is greater than

his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you” (The Passion of the Christ). In another flashback, Jesus acknowledges his final act to the crowds at the Sermon on the

Mount, “I am the Good Shepherd. I lay down my life for my sheep. No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the power to lay it down and power to take it up again. This command is from my Father” (The Passion of the Christ). Jim

Wallis questions Gibson’s choice for brevity in displaying Jesus’ life in “The Passion and

the Message” and makes a startling conclusion about the treatment of Jesus’ life, “…it is

irrelevant backstory for an evangelical that just needed a Savior to be born in

96

order to die for sin. That Christology turns the next thirty-three years of the life of Christ

into a period of almost wasted time” (Wallis 117). As an audience, we do not receive any

commandments to love one another, there are no parables given, in The Passion of the

Christ, Jesus is simply there to die.

The focus may be on the death of Jesus, but the film makes it clear that Jesus is

divine being. When his disciples attempt to protect Jesus from being captured, a soldier’s

ear is sliced off. Just as in The Last Temptation of the Christ, Jesus heals the soldier and

rebukes his disciples, “Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword. Put it down”

(The Passion of the Christ). Here, we are not only assured of Jesus’ divinity, but of his

authority as well. Unlike other more recent Jesus films, which tend to end immediately

after the Crucifixion, The Passion of the Christ also briefly marvels in the miracle of

Jesus rising from the dead. After Jesus’ exhausting and bloody death, we are taken to his

tomb. As the tomb opens, we see Jesus sitting, a determined expression on his face. As he

rises and walks out, we are made aware of the gaping holes in his hands, evidence of

Jesus’ torture and triumph over death.

However, this final miracle of his resurrection is less about Jesus’ divinity and

more reminiscent of Mel Gibson’s earlier action films. In Susan Thistlethwaite’s article

“Mel Makes A War Movie,” the scene is described in terms of another action hero, “Like

Sylvester Stallone in Rambo: (1982)…this hero also rises…This is war, not

peace; confrontation, not concord. We feel less reassured than anxious: What will happen

now?” (Thistlethwaite 134). The resurrection is the ultimate symbol of Jesus’ divinity,

showing how Jesus as a human can overcome the bonds of death. Yet in The Passion of

the Christ, it is treated with the same reverence as the return of Rambo or .

97

Instead of a feeling of redemption and mystery, the mood Jesus’ resurrection is rooted in

the return of an avenging action hero. Like Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, the holes in

Jesus’ hands are used as proof of his determination. The movies show that Jesus is back

and ready for action.

This idea of macho strength tends to place Jesus away from the men we usually

see support him, the Disciples. We see Jesus interact with the Disciples in flashback, but

it is usually in an act of ritual, such as washing their feet, or in a moment of instruction

and direction. Unlike previous depictions of Jesus, Gibson’s Jesus stands alone. When

Jesus reemerges shaken after his prayer in the Garden, the disciple John asks if he should

fetch the others. Jesus stops him, “No, John, I don’t want them to see me like this” (The

Passion of the Christ). Unlike the Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ, this Jesus does

not try to hold onto others for support and comfort, at the expense of an intimate

connection that the audience can see.

Jesus’ place as a solitary figure is further emphasized through the rejection of

some of the Disciples. There are others in the scuffle between the Disciples and the

soldiers at Gethsemane, but Peter, Judas, and John are the only ones who truly make their

presence known. The other Disciples may not as well exist in the eyes of the audience.

Not only do we not get to see the rest of the Disciples, the ones we do see for the most

part end up betraying Jesus. Judas, portrayed by Luca Lionello, leads the soldiers into

Gethsemane and appears to be guilty, but we do not have the emotional background to

understand why he feels so guilty. As Jesus is led away by soldiers that night, his

mangled body is briefly dangled over a bridge, where Judas happens to be hiding, and the

two stare at each in acknowledgement and horror. This intense and chance meeting is the

98

only time we see a true connection between the two men. Judas’ role in God’s design is

also not touched upon. Nowhere does Judas suggest that he is aware of the importance of

his position. He is punished for his betrayal, as demons, in the guise of children, spit upon

him and him into the hills, where he eventually hangs himself. The movie shows

little sympathy for Judas, portraying him once again as a hapless patsy for the High

Priests’ sinister plans.

The Disciple Peter (Francesco De Vito) does not fare any better and also comes

under the judgment of Jesus’ weary eye. After Jesus has his first meeting with the High

Priests and Caiphas, he is beaten before the crowds, who howl with glee at his pain. Peter

walks among the crowd, obviously in pain over his Master’s torment. But he is quick to

deny that he knows Jesus. As he denies Jesus a third time, Jesus falls and his eyes meet

Peter’s. To emphasize Peter’s betrayal even further, we see a flashback of Peter swearing

to Jesus, “Wherever you go Lord, I will follow you. To prison, even to death” (The

Passion of the Christ). Peter’s words now ring hollow and Jesus appears to be even more

alone now. The only disciple we do not see completely abandon Jesus is John (Christo

Jivkov), although he lacks the apparent masculinity of his burlier brethren. John

accompanies Jesus’ mother Mary and Mary Magdalene in their solemn journey following

Jesus during his trials and torments. He is usually the only male who appears truly

disturbed by the violence, while others howl with glee or anger. His place is with the

women, as he grieves and weeps over Jesus with them. His youth is also apparent,

especially when he is surrounded by crowds of angry men. When Jesus tells him from the

cross, “Son, behold your mother,” we almost get the sense that Mary will protect him

rather than vice versa (The Passion of the Christ).

99

While many of the men in Jesus’ life flee or betray him, the women in his life are

steadfast and strong. Yet, while we see their resolve in following Jesus even to his

crucifixion, we do not learn anything beyond their grief. Mary Magdalene, played by

Monica Bellucci, especially suffers from a lack of identity in The Passion of the Christ.

Mary Magdalene had always had a tense and sexual role in the traditional Jesus film

narrative. While we are reminded of her wild past, especially since her hair is uncovered

for a good part of the film, Mary Magdalene is not an object of lust here. In The Passion of the Christ, Mary does not face the same sexualization as previous Mary Magdalenes,

However, she is still sown to be fully dependent on Jesus for her identity.

The Passion continues to present Mary Magdalene as the fallen women and really

emphasizes her submission before Jesus. In a flashback, Jesus stands before the mob

attacking who are attacking Mary, with only his lower body visible to the audience. A

woman, revealed to be Mary Magdalene, lies on the ground, bloodied and helpless. She

reaches for Jesus and he lifts her to his feet. While the scene is moving, it also reinforces

Mary Magdalene as inferior. Jane Schaberg points out in “Gibson’s Mary Magdalene.”

that, “This ground-level perspective is very effective in conveying her abjectness and

Jesus’ relationship to her as superior to inferior, powerful to powerless” (Schaberg 72).

We never see Mary as part of Jesus’ inner circle or even a part of his adoring crowds, it is

this image that defines Mary Magdalene. Schaberg believes that in previous portrayals of

her almost-stoning, she was a much more powerful figure than here:

In the movie Jesus stands up from his writing and then glances down at Mary Magdalene, at which point she crawls to him for mercy and forgiveness; but in the biblical text the woman has been standing all along, before the crowd and before Jesus, who rises to speak to her. (Schaberg 72).

By contradicting the Biblical image of her redemption, Mel Gibson creates an especially 100 subservient Mary, one who can never live up to the standard set by the perfect Jesus.

If Mary Magdalene highlights weakness in the women in Jesus’ life, then Mary, the mother of Jesus and played by Maia Morgenstern, acts as the ultimate strength. Jesus may be too inscrutable to relate to and Mary Magdalene is too weak and undefined as a person. However, Mary stands out, the audience both recognizes her grief as a mother and relates to it. In “How I Stopped Worrying about Mel Gibson and Learned to Love the Quest for the ,” Alan Segal suggests that the focus of the film lies not in Jesus, but in his mother, “She is the real center of the film, since all the events are filtered through her perspective” (Segal 190). As she follows Jesus through the Stations of the Cross, the connection between mother and child is here is abundantly clear. As

Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane, Mary awakes from her sleep suddenly and quotes scripture aloud, “Why is this night different from any other night? Because once we were slaves and we are slaves no longer” (The Passion of the Christ). Mary’s almost psychic connection to Jesus allows her to find the spot under the Temple where Jesus is imprisoned. The two possess a bond that seems to transcend earthly ties.

While this Mary is reminiscent of the seemingly all-knowing Mary of The

Greatest Story Ever Told, her grief is all too human. We see a closeness between Jesus and his mother as they joke about his carpentry in a flashback. As we watch the jovial and loving pair, it makes Mary’s loss that much more real to the audience watching. As she watches Jesus fall while carrying his cross through the crowds, she experiences a flashback of Jesus as a child, playing and falling on his face. Mary runs to the child and comforts him. As the flashback is intercut with images of Jesus in the present, we watch

Mary rush to her battered son’s side with a comforting “I’m here” (The Passion of the

101

Christ). Mary may understand her son’s divine role, but she still needs to protect him as a

mother. The intense bond between mother and son in The Passion of the Christ harkens

back to Mel Gibson’s action roots. Tod Linafelt’s “Tragically Heroic Men and the

Women Who Love Them” addresses this convention of the epic hero, noting that,

“…Nothing amplifies the pathos of the tragic, violent death of a man more than the

presence of a woman who loves him” (Linafelt 29). Most of the pain we see is from the

inflicted on Jesus, but the true anguish of the film lies in the grief of the Mother Mary.

The role of the mother does not only belong to Mary in The Passion of the Christ,

Satan appears throughout The Passion, sometimes in the guise of a dark mother. When

Satan first makes an appearance, the most striking aspect of the character is its

androgyny. Satan is played by a woman, Rosalinda Celentano, yet is voiced by a man.

These two clashing elements give the Satan presented in the film a menacing quality,

especially when compared to the Satan as a little girl in The Last Temptation of Christ or

Donald Pleasance in The Greatest Story Ever Told. Yet, it is in a motherly appearance

that Satan seems the most threatening. As the scourging of Jesus commences, Satan

walks among the soldiers, holding a demonic and screeching child. Clutching the child as

a mother would, Satan is almost mocking Mary’s pain as a mother. As Satan glides

across the screen with the child, Melanie Wright notes that the parallels between Mary

and Satan are almost inescapable:

I think the film doubles Mary with the devil. Despite the of a male voice for this androgynous character, I think we are meant to see these figures as a pair. For example, in the scourging scene, the devil and Mary are clothed alike, the devil is seen suckling a diabolic child. (qtd in “Table Talk 319)

The demonic mother and child act as an antithesis of the love between Mary and Jesus,

creating a tension that goes beyond the simple opposition of good and evil. 102

While the dynamic of the family may be disturbing, we are ultimately reminded again of the importance of the parental role. (Jarreth J. Merz) and Veronica (Sabrina Impacciatore) play important roles in the traditional Stations of the

Cross; Simon is chosen to help Jesus carry the cross and Veronica, a non-biblical figure found in Catholicism, who wipes the blood of Jesus’ face. What is most noteworthy about these two figures is their visible roles as . Veronica watches Jesus struggle from the front step of her home, eventually leaving her young daughter behind to wipe Jesus’ face and offer him water.

Simon is less giving in his role, as he is forced to leave his daughter behind when the Roman soldiers push him into helping Jesus carry his cross. He is indignant at first, reminding the crowd and the soldiers that, “…Remember, I’m an innocent man, forced to carry the cross of a condemned man” (The Passion of the Christ). However, Simon’s sentiments soon turn into concern for Jesus. When the weakened Jesus is beaten by the soldiers, Simon reprimands them, “Leave him alone! If you don’t stop, I won’t carry that cross one more step, I don’t care what you do to me!” (The Passion of the Christ).

Carrying the cross is a physical burden for two men, yet alone for a single person, so

Simon’s concern for Jesus’ well-bring over his own is almost fatherly in its tone. Once the two reach Golgotha, Simon’s words or encouragement are reminiscent of a loving father, perhaps mirroring the thoughts of God as a father, “…Almost there, almost done”

(The Passion of the Christ). This comforting mantra cements Simon as a physical for Jesus here, while God may be omnipresent, it is the tangible support of Simon that gives Jesus one of his final comforts.

Simon may provide the fatherly comfort Jesus needs during his struggle to the

103

crucifixion, but we are constantly reminded that God is indeed a father figure. While God

may not be as explicitly a parent as in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, the audience never

doubts the role of God as father. We may never see or hear God, but we are constantly

reminded of his presence. Jesus frequently addresses God as a father and rarely addresses

him as anything else. As Jesus dies, we are taken to an overview of the hills of Golgotha,

as the audience is given the perspective of God. A single drop of rain falls down to Earth,

setting off an earthquake that destroys the Temple. The raindrop could possibly be just a

raindrop, but the tremors it sets off at the precise moment of Jesus’ death suggests instead

that it is a teardrop, one of great sorrow from God as a father. William Telford describes

the scene as, “…Expressing his sadness or judgment,” yet it is clear that God makes his

presence known at the moment of His son’s death (qtd in “Table Talk” 313).

Jesus receives this kind of grand gesture of support throughout his final hardships.

While the Marys and other women mourn him, while Simon and Veronica stop to help

and comfort him, his fellow Jews offer little support. Instead, Pontius Pilate (Hristo

Shopov) and his wife Claudia (Claudia Gerini) stand out as perhaps the most sympathetic

characters outside of the presented. Pilate proves to be a conflicted man,

struggling to maintain peace in an land that is plagued with social upheaval and threats of

rebellion. We are constantly reminded that he is pressured by the High Priests to crucify

Jesus, that it is not truly of his choosing to do so. Instead, Pilate seems intrigued by Jesus

and questions his own beliefs surrounding Jesus. In a moment of confusion, he asks

Claudia, “What is truth, Claudia? Do you hear it, recognize it when it is spoken?” (The

Passion of the Christ). Jesus’ answers to his questions and his assertions that he is the son

of God have moved Pilate. Despite his powerful position, Pilate is conflicted and in need

104

of answers, much like the modern audience watching the film. In “The Quest of the

Historical Jesus Revisited,” Peter Haas positions Pilate away from his role as a leader to

an ordinary man:

He was caught, like many of us often are, between doing what he feels is right and what his duty to superiors’ demands. He has to navigate a course between his conscience and his political and social responsibilities. Pilate is unsure of what to do, but then most of us face that existential situation at some point or another…So in a way Pilate becomes Everyman, caught in his own moral unclarity. (Haas 61)

Like Mary, we can relate to the turmoil in Pilate, a man who must balance his questions

about the heavenly in a position that requires him to act only rationally.

Unlike her husband, Claudia lacks any uncertainty when it comes to her feelings

about Jesus. While she is only mentioned once in the Gospels, the character of Claudia

plays an important role in The Passion of the Christ. She initially begs Pilate not to

condemn Jesus, insisting that, “He’s holy” (The Passion of the Christ). After Jesus’

scourging, a crying Claudia finds Mary and hands her white linen to clean Jesus’ blood

from the ground. It is a motion of deep solemnity and support for the mother and it shows

Claudia’s deep regret. When Jesus is finally condemned, Claudia cries alone, sharing the

same grief as Mary and Mary Magdalene. In his review of The Passion of the Christ,

Irvine Greenberg suggests that despite her few appearances in the Gospels, Gibson uses

Claudia to make an important and controversial point:

Only Matthew has Pilate’s wife urge the Roman governor to “have nothing to do with an innocent man”…Gibson turns this fleeting reference into a portrait of Claudia, a good Roman who pleads with her husband to save Jesus, anguishes over Jesus’ suffering, and brings a white fabric to wipe up his blood-all to highlight Roman compassion for Jesus and their reluctance to kill him, as compared to the Jews, who are hard and unyielding. (Greenberg 8)

By giving Claudia the role of a Roman sympathizer, Gibson suggests through Claudia’s actions that she is some form of a proto-Christian, ready to follow and believe in Jesus 105 when even his own disciples abandon him.

The roles of Claudia and Pontius Pilate were just a few of the liberties Gibson had taken with the story of Christ. Many critics have taken exception to Gibson’s toying with

Biblical events for the sake of movie drama. Claudia’s appearance in the Biblical accounts is marginal, while Veronica never makes an appearance in the New Testament.

A large point of criticism lies in Gibson’s choice to only use the languages of the time, mainly Latin and Aramaic. While the move was celebrated by many in creating a realistic portrayal of Christ, others have shown how language has been altered in favor of

Gibson’s vision. Dr. William Fulco, a consultant for The Passion of the Christ, discusses a particular scene where language is used more for a religious and political point than for historical accuracy. When Jesus is first brought before Pilate, Pilate attempts to converse with Jesus in Aramaic, which would make sense since this was Jesus’ language.

However, Jesus chooses to respond in Latin, which Fulco admits was of Gibson’s doing:

Mel wanted Jesus to beat Pilate at his own game, so Pilate addresses him in Aramaic and Jesus answers him in Latin. It’s purely an artistic choice to have Pilate think he’s in the superior position and all of a sudden Jesus ends up in the superior position. That’s why he did it. (qtd in Shepherd 327)

Beyond the criticisms of historical inaccuracy, it should be pointed out that there has not been a Jesus film that has been completely accurate and like many, Gibson is very deliberate in the way he chooses to present Jesus.

Gibson’s Jesus was met with very mixed reactions, spanning from extreme adoration to extreme hate. The film was embraced by conservatives and Evangelical

Christians, who saw the backlash against the film as, “a struggle between film evangelism and secularists” (Greenberg 9). The supposed struggle, coupled with the 106 decreasing morality that Conservative Christians saw in the American public, fuelled many Christian’s need to support and view the film. Many critics saw the film as the embodiment of classic Catholic values and ritual. While Roger Ebert notes that the film,

“This is the most violent film I have ever seen,” he also has very intimate memories associated with the Catholic undertone of the film (Ebert ii). Ebert almost thanks Gibson for his work, declaring, “What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of” (Ebert iv). Yet, while many mirror

Ebert’s statements, others were disturbed by the images and implications of the film as a whole. The New York Times’ critic A.O. Scott criticizes Gibson’s focus on blood over salvation, “The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it” (Scott iii). Variety’s Todd McCarthy summed up many filmgoers’ disgust over the blood in The Passion of the Christ by declaring, “…If you liked Gibson's torturous execution scene in , you'll love

The Passion of the Christ (McCarthy v).

The lines between support and protest for the movie went beyond the stylistic choices of the film. The battlelines over the film seemed to be drawn over religion. The

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the film, “…a deeply personal work of devotional art,” while overlooking the inaccuracies and typecasting in the film (qtd in

Greenberg 9). Meanwhile, Pope John Paul II gave a simple statement about the film, simply stating, “It is as it was,” although this statement was later denied by the Vatican

(qtd in Feldman 94). While the Catholic Church at best embraced the film and at worst did not condemn it, others felt the film was potentially destructive. The Anti-Defamation

107

League, Simon Wiesenthal Center and other groups drew support from many in the media and used letter campaigns and op-ed pieces to critique Gibson’s film. However, concerns over the film were soon turned into a war over culture. Those who supported the film explained away the criticisms of the film as nothing but the stirring of a elite few.

Amy-Jill Levine describes the reaction to criticisms of The Passion of the Christ in “Mel

Gibson, the Scribes, and the Pharisees,” in terms of this transformation:

Gibson and his supporters in the media and elsewhere suceeded in framing the discussion as a culture war. In one corner were “egghead perverts” who “falsely represented themsleves as a committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” We were, in due course, joined by: the “Anti-Christian entertainment elite;” the “forces of censorship” comparable to those of the Inquisition and Societ Russia; and “modern secular Judaism”…. (Levine 138)

With this portrayal of the films’ critics firmly in the minds of the public, it was not a surprise that The Passion of the Christ was so firmly embraced by audiences everywhere.

The film’s staggering $300 million box office earnings cemented what many both hoped for and feared, that America was willing to embrace harmful sterotypes and violence in order to become closer to understanding Christ.

The Passion of the Christ suggests a change within the American audiences’ desire for Jesus. Films like The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus Christ Vampire

Hunter may offer more human or open-minded Christs, but they were largely ignored by a paying audience. Instead, the Jesus that is present and so widely accepted by audiences is a return to the Jesus of the Biblical boom of films in the 1950s and 1960s. We may not be completely clear about Jesus’ goals or inner life, yet the audience is certain that Jesus suffered for our collective sins in The Passion of the Christ. The anti-Semitic figures in this film also suggest that people are willing to permit offensive images in order to embrace a more traditional Christ. Whether this a sign of the times in a more 108 conservative America or a reflection of religious changes to come is yet to be seen. What can be readily seen is that America is not as secular as many would claim it to be.

Perhaps it is only in America that Jesus can become a real superstar.

109

CONCLUSION

The Jesus film has undergone a metamorphosis in the past three decades. Modern filmmakers have shed a new light on how we envision the image of Christ through the portrayal of his relationships, appearance, and the tension between divinity and humanity.

Compared to the rather static narratives of the early Jesus films, modern Jesus films have gone past simply relating the Gospels on the big screen to actually dissecting and examining the interior life of Jesus. The focus is not just on the actions of Jesus, such as his miracles and his teachings. Instead, we have seen an emphasis on the inner turmoil and doubt of a man asked to take on a heavy burden. These films stress that Jesus is a human being, one prone to the same moments of insecurities and troubles that plague everyone.

As the Jesus film continues to evolve, aspects of the earlier films manifest, as we can see in The Passion of the Christ. Like the early Jesus films of Griffith or DeMille, there is more emphasis on those responsible for Jesus’ death than there is on Christ. Films like The Passion take for granted the audience’s understanding of Jesus’ life in its presentation of Jesus’ death. His death after all must mean something to the audience, yet we are given very little of Jesus’ life to understand. The Passion also resurrects the ancient Passion play mentality, as it firmly attacks and criticizes the Jewish people present at Jesus’ death. Yet, for all of its shortcomings, The Passion of the Christ does keep debate concerning Jesus relative and fresh. Like its predecessors, The Passion of the

Christ shows that the debate over the life of Jesus and his influence is still present in society.

While The Passion of the Christ reflects older views of the life of Christ, the 110

film is also part of the trajectory away from early Jesus films. Instead of a flat character,

the Jesus we see in modern filmmaking has layers of depth. He is not the all-knowing

passive Jesus of King of Kings. The modern Jesus in film questions, doubts, experiences

guilt and loss. He has moments of playfulness, joy, love, and lust. Jesus’ humanity is

defined in these movies. We also see more of a concern about Jesus’ masculinity. The

Jesus portrayed in Jesus Christ Superstar was criticized for his feminine appearance and

The Last Temptation of Christ portrayed Jesus as a emotionally weak savior. The gender

roles in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter and The Passion of the Christ appear to be a

response to the idea of a feminized Jesus. Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter toughens up its

Jesus, giving him strong physical abilities as well as a spiritual side. The Passion’s Jesus

is able to withstand the blows and attacks from Roman soldiers thanks to his traditionally

masculine body. In a world still influenced by seventies feminism and political

correctness, these portrayals of Jesus suggest a desire to get back to older views of

gender.

It is interesting to note that while Jesus is becoming more masculine, his sexuality

has been mostly neutral throughout the films. This has effectively created a tension with

the attempts to create a manly figure in Jesus, since sexuality is often used to prove

masculinity. Mary Magdalene clearly loves and wants Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, but

Mary realizes that her desire can never be fulfilled. Jesus would be brought down to her level, a realization that frightens her. In Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, Jesus is obviously

uncomfortable with Mary Magnum’s advances and appears to be embarrassed by most

forms of physical affection. The only time Jesus interacts with a woman other than his

mother in The Passion of the Christ is when he stops a mob from stoning Mary

111

Magdalene. It is only in The Last Temptation of Christ that we see any true form of sexuality in the character of Jesus. Scorsese’s Jesus lusts after women and is tormented by his desire. His fantasy on the cross involves a married and sexual life, even fathering children outside of marriage with Martha. Yet, this is only a fantasy, so Jesus still remains “pure” in the eyes of the audience. While the scenes of Jesus actually having sex with Mary Magdalene were ground-breaking, they were never enacted in the reality of the film. Jesus may be a human being, the emphasis has always been on the spiritual, not the sexual.

Jesus is obviously always the center of modern Jesus films, but these films focus more so on the influential people in Jesus’ life than earlier films. Judas has been transformed from just a flat villainous traitor or a gullible follower. Instead, Judas’ actions are shown to be an integral part of a higher plan, as he must bring Jesus to the authorities so that Jesus can die and thus save humanity. This view of Judas’ betrayal, particularly in Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ, has wiped away the anti-Semitic connotations usually connected to Judas. He is shown to be a highly passionate man, one led more by his emotions than by reason. Judas is concerned about his people and the stifling rule of Rome. His conflicts with Jesus arise from this issue, but his disagreements with Christ are shown to be rooted in love more than anything else. It is Judas who receives most of Jesus’ attention in Jesus Christ Superstar and Jesus frequently turns to Judas for comfort in The Last Temptation of Christ. These films suggest that Judas was more than a disciple, he was Jesus’ right-hand man.

Outside of Jesus, women play a more integral role in the modern Jesus film. The women in the modern Jesus film do more than act solely as mothers or spiritual damsels

112

in distress. They are shown to be part of his inner circle, providing an emotional

foundation for Jesus. Mary Magdalene in Jesus Christ Superstar proves to be more loyal

than any of the disciples, providing Jesus with comfort and support, even at his death. In

The Last Temptation of Christ, Mary Magdalene is sexualized yet she is a strong

character, one who is willing to point out how Jesus had previously hurt her. Unlike other

Jesus films, she is present at the Last Supper, which suggests that she is just as

indispensable as the disciples. Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter’s Mary Magnum is not only

physically capable, but intellectually as well. Not even Jesus can keep up with her

technological prowess. While the role of Mary Magdalene has been more substantial, it

has also perpetuated the idea of Jesus as feminine. Mary Magdalene is still connected to

ideas of sexuality, a facet of humanity Jesus does not fulfill in any of the films. By giving

in to sexual longing, as in The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus cannot fulfill his destiny

to die on the cross. This uneasiness with sexuality in the character of Christ reflects the

tension of humanity and divinity within a man.

Meanwhile, the role of the Mother Mary takes more prominence in The Passion of the Christ. The film is just as much about her loss as a mother as it is about Jesus’ death.

It is through her eyes that we see Jesus’ suffering and it is through her perspective that we

are reminded that Jesus is human. This focus on Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene

continues on in film. The recent films The Da Vinci Code (2006) and The Nativity Story

(2006) both take the fascination with Mary Magdalene and Mother Mary to the big screen, with most of the action revolving around them. Jesus may be the main focus in

Christianity, but over time, we may see him giving up the cinematic spotlight to the women in his life.

113

Not all of Jesus’ relationships are as defined as Judas, Mary, or Mary Magdalene

in the Jesus film. God’s design is often in question in these films. Jesus can only rage at

God in Jesus Christ Superstar, as he pleads with God for a glimpse of what is to come. In

The Last Temptation, Jesus knows what God wants from him, yet he tries his hardest to

save himself from the crucifixion that lies in his future. When God appears in Jesus

Christ Vampire Hunter, his majesty is somewhat deflated. After all, it is hard to take a

talking bowl of Cherries Jubilee seriously as a deity. Yet, it is clear here that God is

acting as a parent, checking in on Jesus and keeping him in line. It is only in The Passion of the Christ that we see God as both a powerful and paternal being. The first raindrop

after Jesus’ death suggests a sorrowful father watching from above. While God may not

always be visibly present in these movies, it is His will that is ultimately accomplished.

These Jesus films may reflect modern sentiments concerning God and religion,

however they are still tied to very antiquated and potentially harmful views, particularly

anti-Semitism. The Jewish people in general are shown in an unflattering light, from the

easily led and fickle crowds in Jesus Christ Superstar to the grotesque mobs in The

Passion. Meanwhile, both films point the finger at the Jewish high priests for the death of

Christ. In both cases, the Pharisees, led by Caiphas, are dark, scheming, and only

concerned with maintaining the power they have. They are quick to use others to attain

their goals and The Passion even shows Caiphas at the Crucifixion. This anti-Semitism

may be absent from Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, but the overall film seems to be wary

of hierarchies in organized religion. Jesus has many friends in the clergy to help him save

lesbians from a vampire menace, but there are constant reminders that the Catholic

Church has been unwilling to act because of the victims’ sexuality. Father Eustace’s

114

conversion to evil through the vampires and his battle against Jesus also suggests a

distrust in the clergy. These films may help audiences find another side to Jesus, but they

also create tensions throughout the religious community.

Jesus’ significance has moved beyond religion in film, his life and work has

been used by filmmakers as a metaphor for a number of causes and statements. Instead of

a passive , the Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar openly questions God, and the

process that will lead him to the cross. Jesus Christ Superstar took Jesus’ message of

peace and transformed it into a tale of post-Vietnam cynicism. Martin Scorsese uses The

Last Temptation of Christ to present not only a portrait of masculine sexuality in Christ,

but a reflection of his Catholic background. Martin Scorsese takes the various Catholic

images and beliefs he grew up with and creates not only an emotional tale of Jesus, but

one expresses his own personal beliefs about religion and humanity. Jesus Christ

Vampire Hunter juxtaposes action-hero masculinity with Jesus’ message of tolerance,

using both elements to fight anti-gay sentiment and promote tolerance. The messages and

themes of these movies are more than just a simple Jesus narratives, they are a means to

display modern social issues and concerns regarding religion, gender, and sexuality.

In the end, there may never be a definitive Jesus film. Peter Francis points out that

most Jesus films, “…fail in that respect. We get very little impression of why Jesus is so

charismatic” (qtd in “Table Talk” 316). With so much of his early life left out of the

Gospels, the most any film can do in presenting Christ and his life is speculate. However,

this has made the use of Jesus in film that much more powerful. The filmmaker is able to

use Jesus to express beliefs and values about our culture. In that respect, Jesus has

become more than a symbol of spirituality. We will never truly understand who Jesus

115 was, but through using his image, we can better understand ourselves.

116

WORKS CITED

Anderson, G. “Temptation Tempest.” American Libraries. 23:8 (1992), pg.16.

Baugh, Lloyd. Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1997.

Ben-Hur. Dir. . With Charlton Heston, Jack Hawkins, and Haya Harareet. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1959.

Bordo, Susan. The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999.

Boulton, Matthew Myer. “The Problem with The Passion.” Christian Century. March 23, 2004, pg 18-20.

Brown, Jeffrey A. “Gender, Sexuality, and Toughness: The Bad Girls of Action Film and Comic Books.” Action Chicks. Ed. Sherrie A. Inness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

“Business Data for The Greatest Story Ever Told.” Internet Movie Database. .

“Business Data for The Last Temptation of Christ.” Internet Movie Database. < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095497/business>.

Caldwell, Deborah. “Selling Passion.” On The Passion of the Christ. Ed. Paula Fredrickson. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006.

Cawelti, John. “The Question of Popular Genres.” Journal of Popular Film and Television. 13:2 (1985): 55-61.

Connell, R.W. Masculinities. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995.

Conniff, Ruth. “Public Piety.” Progressive. 67:3 (2003), pg 14-15.

Crowther, Bosley. “King of Kings Has Its Premiere at State.” New York Times. October 12, 1961. < http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movi es/review.html? _r=1&title1=&title2=King%20of%20Kings%20%28Movie%29&reviewer= BOSLEY%20CROWTHER&v_id=27431&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes&oref= slogin>.

---. “The Greatest Story Ever Told; Max von Sydow Stars in Biblical Film.” New York Times. February 16, 1965, pg 40.

Doobie Brothers, The. “Jesus is Just Alright.” Toulouse Street. Warner Bros., 1972. 117

Ebert, Roger. “Jesus Christ Superstar.” The Chicago Sun-Times. August 15, 1973. .

---. “The Passion of the Christ.” The Chicago Sun-Times. February 24, 2004. .

Erzen, Tanya. Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-Gay Movement. Berkeley: P, 2006.

Feldman, Louis H. “Reflections on Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.” Mel Gibson’s Passion: The Film, the Controversy, and Its Implications. Ed. Zev Garber. West Lafayette: Purdue U, 2006.

Feuer, Jane. “The Self-Reflexive Musical and the Myth of Entertainment.” Genre: The Musical. Ed. Rick Altman. : Routledge, 1981.

Fox, Richard Wightman. Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession. New York: HarperCollins, 2004.

Fredrickson, Paula. “Gospel Truths: Hollywood, History, and Christianity.” On The Passion of the Christ. Ed. Paula Fredrickson. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006.

Friedman, Lawrence S. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese. New York: Continuum, 1997.

Good, Glenn E. and Nancy B. Sherrod. “Men’s Resolution of Nonrelational Sex Across the Lifespan.” Men and Sex. Ed. Ronald F. Levant and Gary R. Brooks. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.

Goodacre, Mark. “‘Do You Think You’re What They Say You Are?’: Reflections on Jesus Christ Superstar.” Journal of Religion and Film. 3:2 (1999). .

The Greatest Story Ever Told. Dir. George Stevens. With Max von Sydow, Michael Anderson Jr., and Carroll Baker. , 1965.

Greenbaum, Norman. “Spirit in the Sky.” Spirit in the Sky. Reprise, 1969.

Greenberg, Irving. “Anti-Semitism in The Passion.” Commonweal. 131:9 (2004), p10-13.

Greenhouse, Linda. “Superstar' Film Renews Disputes; Jewish Groups Say Opening Could Stir Anti-Semitism Reasons Given Company Issues Statement.” New York Times. August 8, 1973, pg. 24.

118

Haas, Peter. “The Quest of the Historical Jesus Revisited: Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.” Mel Gibson’s Passion: The Film, the Controversy, and Its Implications. Ed. Zev Garber. West Lafayette: Purdue U P, 2006.

Hartman, Keith. Congregations in Conflict: The Battle over Homosexuality. New Brunswick: Rutgers U P, 1996.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Methuen & Co., 1979.

Herman, Felicia. “The Most Dangerous Anti-Semitic Photoplay in Filmdom': American Jews and The King of Kings (DeMille, 1927).” Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television. Fall 2000, Issue 46, pg 12-25.

Heschel, Susannah. “Christ’s Passion: Homoeroticism and the Origins of Christianity.” Mel Gibson’s Bible. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Hinson, Hal. “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The Washington Post. August 12, 1988. .

Howe, Desson. “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The Washington Post. August 12, 1988, pg 34.

Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Through the Ages. Dir. D.W. Griffith. With , , and F.A. Turner. Triangle Distributing Corporation, 1916.

Jesus Christ Superstar. Dir. Norman Jewison. With Ted Neeley, Carl Anderson, Yvonne Elliman. Universal, 1973.

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. Dir. Lee Demarbre. With Phil Caracas, Murielle Varhelyi, and Ian Driscoll. Odessa Filmworks Inc., 2001.

“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter Commentary Track.” Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. With Lee Demarbre, Phil Caracas, Ian Driscoll. Odessa Filmworks Inc., 2001.

“Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter Interviews.” Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. With Lee Demarbre, Graham Collins, Ian Driscoll, and Phil Caracas. Odessa Filmworks Inc., 2001.

Jewison, Norman. This Terrible Business Has Been Good to Me: An Autobiography. New York: T. Dunne Books, 2005.

Kahn, Arthur D. The Many Faces of Gay. Westport: Praeger, 1997.

Kantor, Meyer. “Is 'Superstar' About Christ-Or About Us?” The New York Times. September 23, 1973, pg. 13, 32. 119

Kelly, Mary Pat. Martin Scorsese: A Journey. New York: Thunder’s Mouth P, 2004.

The King of Kings. Dir. Cecil B. Demille. With H.B. Warner, Dorothy Cumming, and Ernest Torrence. Pathé Exchange, 1927.

King of Kings. Dir. . With Jeffrey Hunter, Siobhan McKenna, Hurd Hatfield. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1961.

Krondorfer, Bjorn. “Mel Gibson’s Alter Ego: A Male Passion for Violence.” Cross Currents. 54:1 (2004), pg. 16-21.

LaSalle, Mick. “It's a Passionate Film. It's Also a Bloodbath. Brutality Engulfs Mel Gibson's Vision of the Crucifixion.” San Francisco Chronicle. .

The Last Temptation of Christ. Dir. Martin Scorsese. With Willem Defoe, Harvey Keitel, and Barbara Hershey. , 1988.

Levine, Amy-Jill. “Mel Gibson, the Scribes and the Pharisees.” Re-Viewing The Passion: Mel Gibson’s Film and Its Critics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Linafelt, Tod. “Tragically Heroic Men and the Women Who Love Them.” Mel Gibson’s Bible. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Maslin, Janet. “Review/Film; Last Temptation, Scorsese's View of Jesus' Sacrifice.” New York Times. August 12, 1988, section C1, C4.

McCarthy, Todd. “The Passion of the Christ.” Variety. February 22, 2004 .

Meacham, Jon. “Who Really Killed Jesus?” On The Passion of the Christ. Ed. Paula Fredrickson. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006.

Miles, Jack. “The Art of The Passion.” Mel Gibson’s Bible. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Miller, Timothy. The Hippies and American Values. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1991.

Ortiz, Gaye W. “Passion-ate Women: The Female Presence in The Passion of the Christ.” Re-Viewing The Passion: Mel Gibson’s Film and Its Critics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

The Passion of the Christ. Dir. Mel Gibson. With James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, and Christo Jivkov. : 2004.

120

Prothero, Stephen. American Jesus. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.

Rubenstein, Richard L. “Mel Gibson’s Passion.” Mel Gibson’s Bible. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Schaberg, Jane. “Gibson’s Mary Magdalene.” Mel Gibson’s Bible. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Scott, A.O. “Good and Evil Violent Showdown.” New York Times. February 25, 2004. < http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A07EFD 614 3CF936A15751C0A9629C8B63>.

Segal, Alan F. “How I Stopped Worrying about Mel Gibson and Learned to Love the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2:2 (2004), pg.190-208.

Shepherd, David. “From Gospel to Gibson: An Interview with the Writers Behind Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.” Religion & the Arts. 9:3/4 (2005), p321-331.

Snee, Brian. “The Spirit and the Flesh: The Rhetorical Nature of The Last Temptation of Christ.” Journal of Media and Religion. 4:1 (2005), pg 45-61.

Sobran, Joseph. “Jesus, We Hardly Knew Thee.” . September 16, 1988, pg 30-33.

Steele, Philip Earl. “America’s Christian Right in the Struggle for a Moral Consensus.” Dialogue & Universalism. 10:1/2 (2000).

“Table Talk: Reflections on The Passion of the Christ.” Ed. Eric S. Christianson, Peter Francis, William R. Teleford. London: SCM P, 2005.

Tatum, W. Barnes. Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First Hundred Years. Santa Rosa: Polebridge P, 1997.

Telford, William R. “The Two Faces of Betrayal: The Characterization of Peter and Judas in the Biblical Epic or Christ Film.” Cinema Divinite: Religion, Theology, And the Bible in Film. London: SCM P, 2005.

---. “‘His Blood Be Upon Us and Our Children’: The Treatment of Jews and Judaism in the Christ Film.” Cinema Divinite: Religion, Theology, and the Bible in Film. London: SCM P, 2005.

Thistlethwaite, Susan. “Mel Makes a War Movie.” On The Passion of the Christ. Ed. Paula Fredrickson. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006.

121

Thompson, Howard. “Mod-Pop 'Superstar' Comes to Screen.” New York Times. August 9, 1973, pg 28.

Wallis, Jim. “The Passion and the Message.” On The Passion of the Christ. Ed. Paula Fredrickson. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006.