Journal of Religion & Film Volume 6 Issue 1 April 2002 Article 2 April 2002 Celluloid Savior: Jesus in the Movies Jeffrey H. Mahan Iliff School of Theology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf Recommended Citation Mahan, Jeffrey H. (2002) "Celluloid Savior: Jesus in the Movies," Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol6/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Religion & Film by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Celluloid Savior: Jesus in the Movies Abstract Films about Jesus attempt to interpret the gospel in light of both cultural issues and the concerns of individual filmmakers. Yet both 1) dominant assumptions about how to interpret Jesus and 2) the difficulty of esentingpr the narrative structures and worldview inherent in ancient texts within the forms of modern narrative cinema make this a difficult task. This article explores how this has been done, giving particular attention to how presentation of Jesus' divine and human natures are balanced in presenting the arrest, death and resurrection, in four well-known Jesus films available on video. This article is available in Journal of Religion & Film: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol6/iss1/2 Mahan: Celluloid Savior Evangelicals, Orthodox and conservative Roman Catholic Christians picketed the theater in Chicago where I saw The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Standing in the cold they pronounced the Martin Scorsese film, and the Kazantzakis' novel on which it was based, blasphemy and told those of us waiting for tickets that attending might imperil our souls. It is tempting to think that the controversies generated by this film were unique. In fact however, filming the life of Jesus has always been a problematic enterprise and has always met mixed reactions. Films about Jesus face the same aesthetic and commercial challenges as any other movie. A significant subject doesn't always produce a compelling film. The story must be engaging; the performances and production must be aesthetically satisfying. In addition, the attempt to portray on film the central narrative of religious communities has always been met with suspicion by believers and non- believers alike. In the case of a Jesus movie, the entire experience must work for viewers who have no personal investment in the subject and for those who see reflected or distorted in the film the central figure of their own religious lives. The commandment against graven images has been one source of anxiety about the visual portraits of Christ. Protestants in particular have historically been concerned about the appropriateness of portraying Jesus. Suspicion of filmmakers in general and of their intentions in filming the life of Jesus added to that Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2002 1 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 6 [2002], Iss. 1, Art. 2 concern. Churches that taught that Christians should not attend the movies were at best ambivalent about whether sacred subjects sanctified the medium. However there is no copyright on the gospel accounts. The story and images of Jesus have been translated into every art form. The church has never been able to entirely control that process. And many Christians of a particular generation report that Bible movies were the first, and for many years the only, films they saw. Religious critics and audiences struggle with two problems when Jesus is presented on celluloid. First is the question of whether any visual presentation of divinity is acceptable.1 Secondly, even when the idea that Jesus can be a character in a movie is accepted, critics and audiences struggled with particular presentations of Jesus. How do we picture Jesus? Is he "gentle, meek and mild" or a "manly" figure confronting his antagonists? What elements of the gospel accounts will be included, or excluded, from a particular presentation? Is the emphasis on his teaching, on healing, on conflict with the Roman or Jewish authorities? The challenges of translation, transliteration and interpretation present themselves when anyone works creatively with the biblical text. They are perhaps particularly evident in attempts to present the story of Jesus on film. For all the challenges filmmakers face, from the beginning of the history of the cinema Jesus has been a compelling subject that has drawn the interest of both believers and skeptics. The first commercial screenings happened in France in https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol6/iss1/2 2 Mahan: Celluloid Savior 1895, and Edison presented his first public screenings in 1896. Though we no longer have copies of them, in the next two years silent filmed versions of passion plays were showing in both countries. The American film purported to be filmed scenes from the famed Passion Play at Oberammergau, however some reports suggest that it was actually filmed on a rooftop in New York City. By 1912 an American cast and crew traveled to Palestine and Egypt to film From the Manger to the Cross. Critics report that these and other early films tended to be solemn, stoic and lifelessly reverential. They focus on Jesus' divinity at the expense of his humanity. Later films like The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1964) and The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) would be more naturalistic and introspective. They attempted to reveal Jesus' humanness and suffering and attempted to explore his motivations.2 Concern about the appropriateness of presenting Jesus, and the effort to avoid offending any potential viewer is evident in the "sword and sandal" dramas of the 1950s. In films like Quo Vadis (1951), The Robe (1953) and Ben Hur (1959). Jesus is mentioned or appears, but little emerges about his character or mission. We see him at a distance, or his hand or feet fill the screen. We may overhear his words briefly or hear others discuss him. But there is too little distinct presence to define or offend. Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2002 3 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 6 [2002], Iss. 1, Art. 2 It is not only attitudes about Jesus but about the Bible itself which shape these films and the critical response to them. Assumptions about how the Bible is to be read, about the relationship between the four gospels and about biblical criticism all shape the response to these films. Modern biblical criticism helps us to see what is distinctive about each of the gospel accounts. But, with the notable exception of The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1966), the Jesus films create a narrative by drawing on multiple gospel sources.3 This harmonization approach assumes the unity of the biblical texts. In doing so, the filmmaker imposes a dominant interpretation that masks the distinctive perspectives of the gospel writers. In an extreme example of this tendency C. B. DeMille actually imports New Testament texts to the story of the exodus and puts the "Magnificat" in the mouth of Moses' mother in The Ten Commandments (1956). Such liberty works with a popular audience that is vaguely familiar with the material but is frustrating for those aware of the critical issues of biblical authorship A further problem is the difference between the narrative form used in the genres of the biblical text and the form of popular contemporary genres. Modern audiences look for introspection and explanations of motivation that held little interest for the biblical writers. The gospel writers give us pictures of what Jesus did and said, and of the actions and responses of others but they are not interested https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol6/iss1/2 4 Mahan: Celluloid Savior in the questions of why these characters acted as they did. One example of this can be found in the accounts of Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Modern readers want to know why he led the authorities to Gethsemane but the Bible is silent about this. Did he do it for the money? Was Judas, as some later scholars have suggested, a zealot disappointed that Jesus had not launched a revolt against the Romans? We struggle with this same problem in reading the more problematic sayings of Jesus. What was he thinking when he cursed and withered a fig tree that didn't bear out-of-season fruit? If filmmakers are to do more than provide visual back drops for the gospel texts they will have to struggle with these or similar questions and offer audiences some answers. Modernity's scientific worldview and the viewer's awareness of the film industry's ability to create special effects present another problem. Audiences will suspend their disbelief to enter into a fictional world in which the fantastic can happen. But the successful Jesus movie cannot present ancient Palestine as though it were Oz. Can the filmmaker present healings, walking on the water, multiplying loaves and fishes, or the raising of Lazarus without making Jesus seem merely a cinematic trickster? Can resurrection be suggested in a post enlightenment world? Film's realistic presentation makes difficult any of the theological nuances of what resurrection might mean.4 Published by DigitalCommons@UNO, 2002 5 Journal of Religion & Film, Vol. 6 [2002], Iss. 1, Art. 2 One resolution of this problem is to abandon naturalistic presentation and historical continuity as was attempted in Jesus Christ, Superstar, or Godspell (both 1973). Another is to displace the story as was done in Hail, Mary (1985) and Jesus of Montreal (1989). In all of the Jesus films, selections are being made about what gospel material to include. Limiting the presence of the supernatural and focusing on Jesus as one who teaches, blesses and forgives reduces this problem for modern audiences.