Two Marys’ of the New Testament as Portrayed in Film: Scriptural Confusion or Cinematic License

The name Mary is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Miriam or Marianne. It can mean wise woman or lady. It was used many times in the New Testament so it was apparently a popular name during that time. The focus of this blog will be on Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. How they are written about in scripture and how they are portrayed in films.
Gospel Scriptural References

The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are the main sources of information that the Christian church has on the life or history of Jesus. There are theological disagreements on the historical accuracy of the Gospels since they were written by humans and ascribed as factual wittings of events. There is also debate on whether the ascribed writers were actual disciples or just attributed to these individuals, especially since these were oral stories that had been passed down in the church until they were written down fifty to seventy years after Christ death and resurrection. There is a belief that each of the Gospels where written to different audiences, giving a specific focus to different genres.

Even given all these factors, the Gospels not only mention many women but also give them prominent roles is extraordinary. Especially in a cultural period that women were seen less important than even slaves. Jewish men thanked God daily that they were not born as women. Greek philosophy was admired during that time. The Greek theory of dualism was fluent where everything had an equal and opposite other, negative and positive, women were placed in the negative category.

As the Gospels are our main source for knowledge of the life of Jesus, Christians use this as the litmus test for any other outside portrayal. So we begin our look at these two Marys in the parallel Gospels.

Mary the mother of Jesus

The book of Matthew begins with the birth of Jesus and the importance of Jesus’ mother Mary. Mary is throughout the beginning of the book of the Matthew 1-2. She is the mentioned as Jesus’ mother and Jesus’ other siblings in Matthew 13:55. Matthew then mentions Mary the mother of Jesus at the end of the book were she is present at the crucifixion and resurrection.
In Mark, Mary is mentioned in 6:3 to be Jesus mother and Jesus’ brother and sisters. She is then mentioned in Mark 15-16 at the crucifixion and resurrection. Mark is the shortest of all the Gospels.

In Luke, the book is more comprehensive in the story of Jesus’ life. Luke 1-2 is full of detailed information on Mary and Joseph’s call to be the parents of Jesus the Christ. This is where the connection of Mary and Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist is told. Mary song is also detailed. The story that Jesus is taken to the temple and how not only Jesus is prophesized over but Mary too. Again, in chapter 24 Mary and women are at the resurrection and told the remaining disciples.

In John, Mary is fist mentioned at a wedding in John 2:1-11 that both she and Jesus attend; where she asks him to turn water into wine. This gives Mary and Jesus’ relations a different dynamic as maybe a center of her family and is respected by her adult son. She is then not mentioned again until John 19 and 20 when she is at the cross with other women and at the resurrection.

Mary Magdalene

Since there are many Marys that are mentioned in the Bible, we will only note the scriptures refer to Mary Magdalene, meaning that she was from the town/village of Magdala on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. This would be done to help narrow what Mary was associated to particular acts.

There are very few references to Mary Magdalene in scriptures. Many times, she is joined with Mary the mother of Jesus and other women. This would seem appropriate since women being alone with a man or men would be inappropriate outside of their family. She is also referred to as a financial supporter of Jesus and his disciples. She may have been looked at as a leader of the group of following women.

In Matthew and Mark, Mary Magdalene is not mentioned until she is at the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus with other women, Matthew 27:56; Matthew 2761; 28:1; Mark 15:40; 15:47; 16:1, 9.

In Luke 8:1-3 Mary Magdalene is the only time defined as possessed by demons~
After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.(NRSV)

Again she is indicated as being at the cross and resurrection with the other women, Luke 24:10.
In the book of John Mary Magdalene is referred to by name at the crucifixion in John 19. She then is also at the resurrection and could be considered the first missionary. She meets the risen Jesus and runs to tell the disciples of the resurrected Jesus, John 20:1-18.

Film Representations of Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene

This is where as a Christian if we were presented with only a cinema-graphic picture of these women we may be very confused with the written events in scripture. We do recognize that in writing many things are left out. Even in the Gospel of John 21: 25 he acknowledges this, “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (NRSV)
So we have to come to viewing films of the life of Jesus as not final authority but recognize it as an entertainment medium. Many times directors and writers will reinvent scenes of characters to fit their own creative view or increase cinematic drama.

Looking at three of the films that we have seen this semester let us see how these Marys have been portrayed.

King of Kings 1927

In this film, a silent film, the portrayal of Mary the Mother of Jesus is seen as virginal and holy. I am not sure that she is not in a scene that does not also have dove flying around. Her dress is very conservative, covered from head to toe. She seems to have a calming presence about her at all times. She is shown in other scenes with Jesus and his disciples that are not present in scriptures. Yet, as a women and the mother of God she is still portrayed in the background, but more holy than others women. She also is represented as having some female camaraderie with Mary Magdalene after her conversion as a follower of Jesus. This Mary has the alluded essences of what many would associate with the Mary of Catholicism.

Mary Magdalene in this film is portrayed so uniquely that I knew I needed to use this film as one of my examples. The film begins with Mary Magdalene as a main figure. She is portrayed as a well to do concubine associated with Judas Iscariot. She is scantily clad, for me surprisingly for this dated film, with heavy makeup and jewelry. She has her own entourage and servants, portrayed as wealthy and a concubine to many famous individuals. She has been given numerous gifts, even a set of zebras she uses for horses. She goes to seek out her wayward suitor Judas who is now following Jesus. She is appalled at being left. When she meets Jesus, she tries to sway him but just his presence affects her so that she begins to change. In a dramatic scene is exercised of seven demons, during which time she is changed. Her hair, clothes and jewels are transformed into a more conservative manner. This is the only movie we watched that actual had the scene of her healing, the only factual reference to her ailment in scripture. Mary Magdalene in now one of Jesus’ troupe and is seen with Mary Jesus’ mother and other women through the film.

Jesus of Montreal 1989

This foreign film is a more modern portrayal of Jesus. It is a little harder to associate who is who in the film because of this. The film is a portrayal of a reenacting of the passion play for a Catholic church. The ‘Jesus’ character, Daniel in the movie, is asked to gather a group of actors to freshen up the old rendition of the play. There is no mother of Jesus in this film but there is a mother figure, who has a young daughter. She portrays this in the friendship of the actors outside of the actual play rendition. This mother is nowhere near perfect as she is having a sexual relationship with the priest in the film. Yet, when the rest of the groups is around, she is the figure that makes sure they eat, is comfortable and is the caring mother character. She also builds a friendship with all the actors and they gather at her home, some evening living there. When the Jesus actor dies, she is there caring for him with the Mary Magdalene character. Even in the end, she is there to encourage carrying on his legacy of truth and justice.

The character that portrays the Mary Magdalene type is Mireille. Mary Magdalene is again portrayed as a sex object. She is an actress that does scantily clad rolls and is sexually involved with her director. The ‘Jesus’ character saves her from this to play in the Passion play. She moves in with the group and the mother figures home. She is called by Jesus (Daniel) to change her way of life and not to compromise herself. There remains a hint that she had some type of attraction to ‘Jesus’ more that platonic but nothing develops in the movie. She becomes friends with the mother character and is there at Jesus’ (Daniel’s) death. Her life as with all the actors or followers of Daniel is change by their experience, not only from the play but also from their friendship.

The Passion of the Christ 2004

As many know this film by Mel Gibson focuses on the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life yet has sprinkled throughout clips of previous events of his life. With Gibson being a Catholic, it is not surprising to see Mary Jesus’ mother as portrayed in a holy perfect light. She seems to be even dressed as a nun throughout the film. She is humble throughout and always in the background with Jesus and his disciples. She is portrayed as a loving mother supporting her son, knowing where his life will lead, to the cross. Yet, there is a wonderful scene of camaraderie with mother and son where he is building a table and she calls him to wash and eat. In the end, she is always there even watching the brutal scenes of his beating, even on hands and knees wiping up his splatter blood. She runs through the street with the disciple John and Mary Magdalene to follow Jesus to the cross. She never leaves his side. They watch his crucifixion, death and burial. The Marys both go to the find to Jesus is risen. She is a devoted mother to the end. One that really cannot compare to anyone human today. No mother I know could mental stand to see such horror happen to their child. This Mary has something more. Some type of superhuman ability to stand this atrocity.

Mary Magdalene is a staunch follower of Jesus and friend to Mary his mother. Here she is portrayed in roles that were not ascribed to her in scripture. An adulterous and the women with the alabaster jar of oil to wash Jesus’ feet. As a follower of Jesus, her clothes and actions become more subdued. She is now a dedicated disciple of Jesus and is seen with His mother throughout his final hours.

Women seem to be more prominent in the film if nothing but as supporters and staunch followers even when many of the disciples deserted Jesus.

Conclusion

Most of the films we have watched have taken cinematic license when portraying many of the scenes in the films compared to the scriptural writings. Yet, it seems that the most dramatic license taken is with the character of Mary Magdalene. She is portrayed as an adulterous woman in almost every film even thought scriptures never say this about her.

As filmgoers, we are to always recognize first and for most, these films are for entertainment value and made for economic profit. If one is seeking personal theological enlightenment, one needs to turn back to the scripture and prayer.

Eye Has Not Seen Nor Camera Filmed…

How can the medium of film respond to the ineffable? The ineffable cannot by definition be said so how can film acknowledge this and point towards this unspeakable dimension, affirming that it is in some sense real? To do justice to this question would far exceed the capacity of this blog entry and so I narrow it to focus upon one particular motif that challenges the capacity of language. How has the Resurrection of Christ been addressed in three selected Jesus movies and what is the significance of some specific choices in terms of the theology conveyed?
For each of the movies addressed I will offer some comments on their “Resurrection scene” or lack thereof, but also the motif of resurrection as indirectly reflected throughout the film.

My rationale is two-fold: (1) The canonical gospels were written through the lens of faith in the Resurrection. If there had been no Resurrection faith, there would have been no canonical gospels as we know them. Therefore the entire gospel narrative is affected by this central faith-claim. Some gospel passages such as the transfiguration account and, arguably, nature miracles may be concerned with the Risen Christ who is conflated with the Jesus of Nazareth. That is, it may be overly simplistic to assume that the gospels are chronological biographies of Jesus’ life, and that everything recounted before the burial of Jesus is concerned with a pre-Easter Jesus. The gospels do not neatly distinguish between the flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of Faith. For the Gospel-writers, Christ was risen and they could not view Christ except through Easter-tinted spectacles. Therefore to whatever extent Jesus movies are influenced by the gospels, long before an empty tomb scene if indeed there is on, they depict choices with implications as to how Resurrection is to be understood. (2) A strain of Christian thought since the enlightenment conceives of Resurrection not in terms of an event in a tomb on a particular date in history but rather as a transformation of perspective that is ever-available. Kant divests Jesus of a virgin birth, miracles, substitutionary atonement and Resurrection. Subsequent voices in biblical criticism (Bultmann) and of Jesus scholarship (Crossan, Borg) have continued this tradition of demythologization. While such thinkers may deny the historicity of Jesus’ bodily Resurrection in 30-33AD, they do not necessarily deny the doctrine of Resurrection per se. This broad understanding of Resurrection makes more complex the question as to how a movie portrays “the Resurrection”. What follows are reflections on three of the more innovative renderings of Resurrection in Jesus movies.

(I) Jesus of Montreal (Denys Arcand, 1989): The movie’s protagonist is named Daniel, his name evoking the biblical book wherein the author recounts an apocalyptic vision of “one like a Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven” (7:13) Daniel “resurrects” a passion play which had become tired and unappealing. However his reinvigorated version of the play falls foul of the ubiquitous Catholic authorities. It could also be argued that Daniel prompts Resurrection as a transformation in perspective on the part of his fellow actors, prompting them to challenge institutional authority and demand human dignity. Having committed assault and destruction of property in protest against the degradation of an actress by the sleazy producers of a beer commercial, Daniel incurs the interest of the civil authorities. However, it is neither the ecclesiastical or civil establishment that brings about Daniel’s death. Rather, the cause is a tragic accident during a performance of the play. It could be argued that callous incompetence and a failure to treat Daniel at St. Mark’s Catholic hospital contributed, through sin of omission, to this tragedy. In a surreal subway scene an impliedly brain-damaged Daniel yells apocalyptic warnings along the lines of the visions recounted in the biblical book bearing his name. The Book of Daniel envisages “One like a Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” (7:13) Such apocalyptic imagery is evocative of the Second Coming and a general Resurrection. After Daniel later expires at a Jewish hospital, one of his co-workers, shocked by this death, murmurs consent to the donation of his organs. While Daniel’s heart and eyes, it is implied, will bring a new lease of life to their recipients, this is a problematic Resurrection. Daniel’s death was neither at the hands of the forces of evil not chosen by Daniel so as to fulfill a mission. So too his “Resurrection” is difficult to attribute to any intention of his part. Neither does this Resurrection seem capable of inspiring authentic continuation of any mission Daniel may have had. The prospect of a theater company founded in his honor seems ill-fated and is cynically portrayed in this movie in which all institutions are viewed as evil. At best, the Resurrection implied is one guided by an unseen hand that transcends the intentions of Daniel or his disciples. Such an interpretation would suggest the agency of apocalyptic forces beyond human intentionality.

(II) The Last Temptation of Christ (Scorsese, 2004): If one were to consider the Resurrection only in terms of a specific event in Jesus’ tomb, then this movie does not portray the Resurrection at all. Indeed, the encounter between Jesus and Paul of Tarsus evokes doubt as to whether Jesus rose from the dead. This said, the movie offers glimpses of the afterlife as Jesus receives several visitors from beyond the grave: the master of a monastery, John the Baptists and Isaiah, as though to signify that Jesus exists at the portal of life and death. If Resurrection can take the form of a change in perspective and the awakening of eternal life within, it could be argued that this movie offers an exquisite study of the topic. I suggest that Resurrection in this movie is constituted by death to self and rising to other-centeredness. In a paradoxical sense, spiritual death is this movie would be for Jesus to accede to the temptations presented in his reverie of escape from the cross. In this vein of thought, Resurrection ironically takes the forms of Jesus’ transformation of perspective wherein he embraces his crucifixion. That is to say, within the world of this movie, Jesus’ cross is Resurrection whereas evading the cross would constitute spiritual death.

(III) Son of Man (Dornford-May 2005): The film set in land identified as Judea but clearly steeped in the culture, languages, vistas and struggles of southern Africa. The movie exhibits a tension between a gospel of supernaturalism, represented by the presence angels and Satan, and a gospel of liberation. David Jenkins writes of the rise of supernaturalist, evangelical Christianity that thrives in Africa, a faith more concerned with apocalyptic concerns than with justice in the here and now. Before embarking upon a mission of liberation, Jesus tells an angel, ‘This is my world”. This Jesus is concerned about the struggle for earthly justice. It is he who has been incarnated into the midst of a desperate struggle for liberation. I argue that the Resurrection in this movie is most powerfully conveyed through the actions of Mary the Mother of Jesus who exhumes the battered corpse of her murdered son, exhibits it on a cross for all to see and defies armed soldiers poised to gun down the band of Jesus’ followers chanting a song of protests before his cross. Jesus also lives on in colorful murals depicting scenes from this ministry, perhaps an equivalent to the “oral tradition” and the eventual committal of the Christian scriptures to writing. At the movies end however, Jesus is seen celebrating with the angels, perhaps in an indication that he has returned to the supernatural order. His incarnation in this world is continued in the witness of Mary and his followers. “Son of Man’ drives home the point that the Resurrection is not complete without Pentecost and Ascension. At Pentecost, the mission of the incarnate Christ is passed on to the Mystical Body of Christ made incarnate in the emboldened Church that is empowered to continue his mission. Also, as Jean-Luc Marion proposes, the incarnate Jesus must in some sense ascend so his disciples can become the face of charity. On a related notion, Peter Trachtenberg refers to the “presence of absence”, the bitter-sweet sense in which a deceased loved one is more present than ever they were, no longer subject to spatiotemporal limits but mysteriously and, perhaps, painfully present in all that is.

In conclusion, the portrayal of Resurrection in Jesus movies can permeate the mise-en-scène beyond an explicit “Resurrection scene”. None of the three movies considered in this piece include a reconstruction of an empty tomb scene yet all convey a perspective on Resurrection. In Jesus of Montreal, Resurrection is an instance wherein a mysterious providence prevails in the affairs of humanity, largely beyond the agency of any of the characters, including the Christ-like Daniel. In The Last Temptation of Christ, Resurrection is a transformation of perspective, whereby Jesus recognizes his temptation as evil and comes to embrace the will of God as best he knows it. In Son of Man, Resurrection is made manifest in human courage and integrity in the face of oppression. Each perspective may validly identify a dimension of Christian belief in Resurrection, perhaps representing aesthetically aspects of Resurrection that cannot be rendered in the prose of doctrinal propositions. Resurrection carries apocalyptic overtones that agencies beyond human control are operative in the world. Resurrection may be a transformation of perspective wherein self-centeredness dies to other-centeredness in an act of sacrifice. Equally well, Resurrection is witness to justice, defying the forces of oppression. Each of these movies can challenge viewers to think beyond Resurrection as resuscitation and stone-rolling.

Barabbas: Leader, Rebel, or Murderer?

When looking at the character of Barabbas in Jesus films, it is always interesting to see how he is going to be portrayed and what he will look like. In trying to paint a picture of what Barabbas will look like, one has to wonder what a murderer looks like, how they act, and if they will look guilty or innocent.

Barabbas in scripture
The story of Barabbas can be found in the four gospels: Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:16-25, and John 18:39-40. Matthew uses the word “notorious” to imply that he might have been publicly or generally known. Mark and Luke use the word “insurrection” which could mean that he was arrested with those that took part in a revolt Mark or that he had taken part in the revolt as stated in Luke. John simply says he had taken part in a rebellion. What we know about Barabbas by reading scripture is that he has committed murder and the rest is left to our imagination.

Barabbas in Film
When most films decide to show a scene with Barabbas and Jesus, it seems they usually use the gospel of Matthew to stay true to the biblical text and this is how it usually goes:
Kings of Kings (1961)
This movie shows Barabbas in a way I have never seen him before. It challenges me to ask the question, is Barabbas the King of Kings or is it Jesus. This movie shows us a man that is not only a fighter in the resistance to the Romans but also a leader. The movie opens with 10,000 rebel Jews hiding in the hills and their leader Barabbas is wanted for murder. The Romans had been trying to capture Barabbas but were unsuccessful. The friendship between Judas and Barabbas is also one I find interesting about this movie. It adds an interesting element to think that Barabbas would be “best friends” with the man that would betray Jesus. When Jesus is introduced in the picture, Judas and Barabbas have a conversation about it: Judas: A new prophet has come into town and he has the same first name as yourself, Jesus. Barabbas: we need more fighters and fewer prophets. Barabbas was obviously regarded as someone that was important since they cared enough to tell him a new prophet was in town. It appears Barabbas is still the hero in this movie and he makes the comment: Barabbas: I need a prophet to help me win over the people, can this Jesus do it? Barabbas wanted to meet Jesus but for reasons that had to do with the fight. In this movie, he was known as the Messiah of war and someone that was leading the Jews in their fight for freedom. It was interesting to see how Nicholas Ray had shown us a Barabbas that was young, handsome, and intelligent enough to lead an underground operation to fight the Romans. The scene that shows Pilate asking the Jews who he should release, Jesus or Barabbas happens while Barabbas is in Jail so he never gets to see how the crowd responds or reacts. Upon his relief, he acts surprised that they had actually chosen him but walks away feeling somewhat important. *Movies like The Greatest Story ever Told, Jesus Christ Superstar, and the Last Temptation of Christ do not take the time to show Barabbas at all.
The Passion of the Christ (2004) Unlike Nicholas Ray, Mel Gibson did something different with the character of Barabbas. Barabbas was referred to as a notorious murder, he looked like a villain, and he was very different from Ray’s Barabbas who played the hero. When Barabbas was released to the crowd, they seemed disgusted and did not want anything to do with him. It seemed they feared Barabbas as if his actions were unpredictable. Gibson shows us a man that is slightly over weight, dirty, and blind in one eye (probably lost an eye fighting).


Time and emphasis devoted to Barabbas
The scene with Barabbas can take less than five minutes to go through what happens when Pilate is asking the crowd whether he needs to release Jesus or Barabbas. Some films have taken the time to give Barabbas his five minutes of fame while others have completely ignored that scene. In passion plays, the story of Barabbas does not really say much about the life of Jesus and it would make sense that films don’t really spend too much talking about him. There was a 1961 film about Barabbas which explained what happened to Barabbas after he was released. Since scripture does not say much about his life after his release, one can conclude that such films are based on historical fiction and not fact.


Goals of the filmmaker
When filmmakers like Gibson take the time to introduce Barabbas it seems the goal is to remain true to the biblical text by showing us a notorious murderer. Once in a way you run into directors like Nicholas Ray that embellish the story of Barabbas and make you ask the question, who is the real king of kings.. Jesus or Barabbas? As I said before, the character of Barabbas is not as important as other characters like Judas and when they are not included in passion plays, it is easy to not notice that they have been omitted and when they are included, a director has a decision… whether or not they give Barabbas his five minutes of fame or not even bother mentioning him.

The Cleansing of The Temple

My focus aspect for the semester has been the Cleaning of the Temple. The three films that I have chosen to analyze in regards to my focus aspect are Cecil B. DeMille’s silent Film King of Kings, Norman Jewison’s film of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s’ Rock Opera Jesus Christ Superstar, and Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ. Each of these films takes a unique look at this memorable scene from the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. I also believe that the filmmakers in each of these three films took this scene seriously and found it to be a crucial part of both their film and the way that they portrayed Christ as a person and as the savior of humanity.

Cecil B. DeMille’s King of Kings

DeMille’s Depiction of Christ and the Cleansing of the Temple did not sit well with me initially. I felt like Jesus looked weak and effeminate in the scene. He seemed disengaged and uninterested in what was really happening. This did not seem to me to be the Jesus that I knew. He looked old, pasty, and frail. I questioned both DeMille’s casting and his directing of the scene. I felt as though my view of DeMille’s depiction of Jesus was tainted from this scene. While I liked the gentle way that he treated the adulterous woman in the scene before I expected to see him respond in a stronger way to the moneychangers in the temple. When I saw him pick up the leather whip I expected to see him use it but he only held it. He said all the write words but his actions didn’t seem strong enough to match his strong words.

It is however interesting to look at DeMille’s explanation for his depiction “The slightest trace of overacting would have ruined it... 
He simply picked up a leather thong and wrapped one end of it around his hand, but with such authority that it was entirely believable when the money-changers fled in confusion from a Christ whose anger was the more terrible because so perfectly
 controlled”[1] This is very interesting to think about this idea that his anger was the more terrible because so perfectly
 controlled. Clearly, more than entertainment was in the mind of DeMille. It would appear that controlled anger was very much a part of his Christology. This certainly makes me look at how DeMille’s Jesus is depicted in other scenes in the film.

Norman Jewison’s film of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s’ Rock Opera Jesus Christ Superstar

Jesus Christ Superstar has always been one of my favorite films and musicals. I enjoy the way that Jesus is depicted through both Jewison’s direction and Ted Neely’s acting.

It is clear in this depiction that the director holds one belief and wants the view to have a clear feeling that Jesus believed in justice. This is evident when Jesus did the cleansing of the temple; he was showing justice since he did not want people disrespecting the house of God or being taken advantage of.

While I found this depiction of Jesus as a whole in the film to be a bit lacking a felt like he was strong and well played in the Cleaning of the Temple. In the rest of the film he seems like and angsty teenager who is lost in his own skin and upset with his parents. While I do think that is in many ways Jesus is represented in the Gospels it just did not work for me on the screen. I felt like in the Temple scene Jesus was strong out of most of the scenes in the films he seems to understand his mission here more.

Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ

In the Last Temptation of Christ we see a downright angry Jesus he takes issue with everything that is going on and quite simply Jesus goes on a rampage. In this depiction of the Cleansing of the temple Jesus becomes so angry and is so violent that as I viewer I almost began to lose some of my understanding that I was watching Christ being depicted. He is sweating, struggling, and so emotional that this scene almost depicts him as too human. Knowing that one of Scorsese’s goals was to wrestle with the two natures of Jesus, both human and divine, I understand this added dose of humanity in the scene it just seems to put me as a viewer off.

Another part that I found myself critical of in this depiction was all of the dialogue between Jesus and the temple leaders. It seemed to me that there was quite a bit added he and much of it I didn’t even feel was needed. This added dialogue seemed to push the depiction of Jesus too far and make me question how he was even able to walk out of there alive after the things he said. It is clear that Scorsese was aware of this and it seems intentional as the disciples almost escort Jesus out before he says anything more. While I liked the look of this scene it just seemed to over the top for me to really connect with.

Conclusions

Out of the three films depictions of the cleaning of the temple I fell that I connected most with the Jesus Christ Superstar depiction. What was interesting to me however was how over the course of the semester I have become fonder of the King of Kings depiction. There does seem to be something to be said for DeMille’s idea of a controlled anger in his portrayal of Jesus Christ. All of the films makers seemed to so a respect for this scene and its importance and all seemed to make it a key part of their films. I believe that it would be hard for anyone’s view of their depictions of Jesus not to be affected by how he is portrayed in the Cleansing of the Temple in each of these films.

---

[1] Donald Hayne, ed., The Autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille (New York: Garland Publishing, 1985), p. 277

Jesus of Montreal - Passion Play or Passionate Players

About the Film

Daniel Coulombe (Lothaire Bluteau) is engaged by a Montreal priest to improve on the parish's tired passion play. He is quietly excited by the possibility and invites a group of old actor friends to join him in revitalizing and bringing new life to the play. They will stage the performance outside by torchlight on the crest of Mount Royal with the lights of the below. The script is modern, visceral, and engages the audience. The actors all manage to improve their Real life situations examples include a man who gives up dubbing scripts for porno movies and a woman leaves an abusive partner to become Mary Magdalene.

At first, the priest is happy with their efforts, but he looses his confidence and credibility when Daniel figures out that he is sleeping with one of the female actors. The play is a huge success, but nameless clerical authorities are disturbed by the sexuality and the avant-garde performance; in the absence of support from the priest, they revoke the right to perform.

As an act of defiance the troupe performs the play anyway, hoping the police will be sympathetic to them. A naked Coulombe is arrested off the cross in the midst of his crucifixion scene. An altercation takes place and ultimately he suffers an accidental head injury. He is then taken by ambulance to a busy hospital where he is refused treatment. Daniel is able to recover enough to sign himself out but collapses in a subway station. He is attended by the two dismayed and disoriented women who again take him to another hospital, the Jewish Hospital, where he dies.

In an unlikely resurrection scene a doctor asks his female companions to give his body over to donate his organs. Though they are not family they agree and his body is used to being life and wholeness to others.

The shift

As we see the film progress it becomes more and more about the experiences of the actors and how much they mirror the passion narrative. My question is if the film is a true passion passion play or if it is simply the tale of passionate actors who are putting on a passion play. Daniel has begun to identify with his character. Accompanying Mireille to an audition for a beer commercial, he is enraged when she is humiliated by the producer and director. Taking a cue from Jesus in the Temple, he smashes the television equipment and drives the advertising clients out of the theatre.

In the midst of the next performance of the Passion play, Daniel is arrested by the police on charges of aggravated assault and vandalism. Released from custody after a hearing, Daniel is propositioned by Richard Cardinal (Yves Jacques), a show business lawyer who offers to make him a superstar; through the right career planning, he is assured all of Montreal could be his.

Theology

While it is clear that Daniel is an actor portraying Jesus in a live action passion play. The film begins to quickly draw you into him as a Jesus figure and not just an actor. In one of the crucial scenes in Jesus of Montreal, Father Leclerc tells Daniel that churchgoers don't want to be informed about what his research reveals about Jesus. They come looking for happiness; they hope to be consoled with the good news that "Jesus loves them and awaits them." Turned out by the church, Daniel must find his own understanding of what Jesus means. The path leads to the innards of the city where his life and death give significance to the Scriptural passage "Greater love has no man than he lay down his life for his friends."

Critique

By the film's end it's hard to tell where one person ends and the other begins. The story is simple and the movie is powerful. The performances are gripping. Jesus of Montreal seems to be born, perhaps, as a critique of society in the 80’s, but which still brings to life the Passion. It brings to life the Passion of Christ through the passion of man.

The Many Temptations of Christ: The Temptation of Jesus in Film

The temptation of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4, marks the first activity of Jesus ministry in the Synoptic Gospels. Directly after his baptism, Jesus is driven by the Spirit into the wilderness and is tempted there by the Devil/Satan (depending on translation). This story has been popular material for the film industry and interpretations of Jesus on film. Each Gospel writer and each film director construes this story differently as it begins to shape who Jesus is and what Jesus is about. I would like to suggest that through the many temptations of Jesus as depicted in scripture and film, a variety of Jesuses emerge. The way in which Jesus is tempted and the way in which Jesus responds is integral to the way in which the film identifies Jesus and his mission.

To demonstrate this I will cover three films: The Passion of the Christ (2004), The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1964), and The King of Kings (1927). I will avoid any in-depth discussion of the Gospel portrayals of Jesus’ temptation because this will take us far from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that while similar, the accounts are not identical. While the Jesus they present is similarly not identical, their understanding is much more similar than the three films I will discuss here.

The Passion of the Christ

The passion of the Christ follows John’s gospel closely (which has no temptation of Jesus) and is itself a presentation of Jesus’ final hours before the crucifixion; it would seem this is an odd place to begin a discussion on the temptation of Jesus. The film contains not direct scene of Jesus’ temptation as recorded in the synoptics, but there is a highly similar scene in the garden of Gethsemane. This scene is essential a ‘temptation replacement,’ or a dramatic re-imagining of the way Jesus ways tempted throughout his ministry and final hours.

The scene opens with low but ominous music, a downtrodden, suffering Jesus, and a misty creepy feel. Here Jesus is praying in the Gospel fashion to avoid the crucifixion, yet in the end proclaims to fulfill God’s will. In the midst of this prayer a cloaked, androgynous figure interjects questioning Jesus as to whether he believes he can bear the weight of humanity’s sin. Jesus does not directly responds but prays for God’s protection. Satan again interjects saying it is impossible. Jesus again appeals to God, saying it is possible through God’s will. Satan responds by questioning Jesus’ identity. Then a snake slithers from Satan’s feet and as it is about to strike, is crushed by Jesus’ foot and Satan disappears.

This is clearly not a Biblical account but does have multiple attestations in the visions of medieval mystics. So Mel Gibson’s Jesus is more of a Jesus of the medieval mystic than a Jesus of scripture. In this scene Jesus is also seen as carrying humanity’s sin, suffering under the load of sin and what he must do, and in a high stakes battle of identity and mission with Satan. Jesus is here dramatically human in his suffering, yet divine in his will to persist. Mel Gibson’s Jesus is a suffering Jesus, yet triumphant Jesus. A Jesus riveted with pain, yet finally dedicated to the task before him. In moving the temptation of Jesus into the garden is displays Gibson’s focus on the role of Jesus in the divine-human drama of sin and redemption. The temptation of Jesus, while certainly contributing to the identity of Jesus, serves here to reinforce his role as sasvior more than his identity as a person.

The Gospel According To Saint Matthew

Pasolini’s version of the temptation is a much more literal interpretation of the Biblical text. All of the dialogue is directly from the Gospel of Matthew, as is the progression of the scene. Jesus is a first alone and then approached by Satan. The temptations of food, testing God, and power over the world all come one after another. After being told to leave Satan looks sad and shuffles away. Throughout the entire scene Jesus is rather dispassionate and seems very unconcerned at the appearance of Satan. At most Satan was a minor inconvenience of his alone time in the wilderness. There is no hint of Jesus being hungry or in anyway worse for the wear after forty days in the desert.

This presentation is interesting because Pasolini presents a principally human Jesus. Throughout the film Jesus is seen in the grim and struggle of the lower working class. His temptation occurs in the same harsh conditions. Jesus responds with no significant strength or Godly response. Jesus is a human like any other human, simply a strongly moral and unwavering in his convictions. In Pasolini’s presentation of Jesus the viewer is invited to join with Jesus and resist the forces of evil and oppression just as Jesus had. Jesus is primarily a teacher, and his action stand as instruction as well, ‘go and do likewise.’ In this rendition of the temptation of Jesus we are told to resist gratifying our sensuous appetites, lust for power and need to control. Instead, we are to join Jesus in opposition to institutions of power and a recognition that God is with the poor and marginalized.

The King of Kings

The King of Kings has a remarkable portrayal of Jesus’ temptation; there is none. Cecil DeMille presents a passively divine Jesus where there is almost no passion in any of his activities. DeMille’s Jesus is almost completely divine and so there is no temptation, Jesus is beyond temptation. Persons are transfixed and transformed by Jesus’ presence. Of course De Mille does not come out in say this in the film, it is implicitly demonstrated throughout the film.

I Satan had appeared to Jesus one could imagine that he would be immediately changed by Jesus presence. Mary Magdalene, portrayed as licentious and loose, is immediately cleansed of her evil and spurned on to modesty simply by meeting eyes with Jesus. Satan has no chance against De Mille’s Jesus, no temptation is possible for the Son of God.

Conclusion

Three different films have produced three different Jesuses with three different treatments of the temptation. The Passion had a temptation, which displayed more about Jesus’ role as a suffering savior than about him as a person. Pasolini’s Jesus was of a morally upright and unshakable, very human Jesus. DeMille presented an entirely divine Jesus without temptation. Many scenes could be analyzed to determine how Jesus is portrayed, the temptation scene is one of many ways to go about this project. It is inevitable that different interpretations of Jesus would be evidenced by the directors’ approaches to the temptation scene. Who is Jesus in this film? Look at the temptation, or its absence, its bound to give you a clue.

"Who is this 'Son of Man'?"

(John 12:34)

Under the unassuming title "Son of Man," South African director Mark Dornford-May presents a powerful retelling of the story we all thought we knew. Son of Man (2005) relocates Jesus in modern-day Africa, with lively local music and refreshingly commonplace characters. Though the basic plot follows the biblical account, the setting and style effectively defamiliarize the gospel story. With the grave-clothes of familiarity cast aside, the gospel is resurrected for a modern world in desperate need of "good news."

From the start, the audience knows this will not be the average Jesus film. It opens, unconventionally, with the temptation narrative. This confrontation between Jesus (Andile Kosi) and Satan (Andries Mbali) establishes the film's central theme – "good versus evil," or, more accurately, "justice versus injustice." This programmatic scene reaches its climax as Satan claims, "This is my world" and Jesus objects, "This is my world." The film progresses as a trial of these competing claims. Dornford-May has thus subtly altered the significance of the temptation. In the gospels, Jesus rejects temptations of worldly dominion in order to proclaim the kingdom of heaven. In Son of Man, he rejects Satan's power over this world and begins his ministry of bringing justice on earth.

The colors white and black function symbolically throughout, making the conflict visible. At the temptation, Jesus appears dressed in white and covered in white paint, while Satan is clothed in black and resembles a dark shaman. Beyond the cliche white-black dichotomy may lie a contrast between light and darkness (c. Jn. 3:20-21; Eph. 5:8-14; 1 Jn. 2:8-11). Darkness implies deception, which is satanic (Jn. 8:44b). The so-called "Democratic Coalition" presents a facade of legitimacy through duplicitous rhetoric. Acts of violence are denied and literally covered up (the massacred boys are covered by a blanket, people "disappear," Jesus' body is hastily buried). In contrast, the movement around Jesus "brings to light" injustices which have gone unchallenged because they are hidden. Thus we see Mary turn her son's face to witness the murder of his peers and later hear Jesus repeat "when...evil still exists in the world." Most striking is the reversal of cross-burial; in this telling, Jesus is murdered at night, in secret, and placed in an unmarked grave. Mary uncovers his body and places it on a cross, lifted high in broad daylight for all to see. The cross is transformed from a symbol of redemptive suffering to a proclamation that violence cannot bring peace. Injustice draws power from lies and fear; when the community unites under the cross with the courage to face the truth, their victory has already begun.

The message is decidedly this-worldly and human; the absence of "God" or "heaven" in Jesus' preaching is noteworthy. The revised Sermon on the Mount (an address in a shanty-town hut) diverges from Matthew's version (Mt. 5-7): People must not get bogged down by "moral trivialities" (personal sin) or they will lose the struggle against "real sin," which is institutional evil. Dornford-May's Jesus proclaims faith in "the inherent goodness of man" and calls people not to believe in him as Savior but to join in his mission: "We lead ourselves to glory or destruction." Likewise, the divinity of Jesus is essentially insignificant. He is the leader of a movement, not the savior of the world. The real triumph occurs after his death (and before the resurrection!), when his followers embody his commitment to non-violent resistance. By placing the Pentecost moment before the Resurrection, the film suggests that human rather than divine action is the cause (and significance?) of the resurrection.

The prominence of the supernatural in Son of Man seems at first incongruous with its anthropocentric message. Beneath the surface level, however, the way the supernatural elements function may actually suggest their irrelevance. The angels watch but never interfere. In one of the most poignant scenes, Mary (Pauline Malefane) angrily confronts an angel for allowing the massacre she has just witnessed. The angel remains silent. The child Jesus then rejects the angel's summons as he rejects Satan: "This is my world." From that point on, angels appear only on the periphery. Satan never acts directly either, despite frequent appearances. The goat staff he carries appears in the hands of a corrupt leader, suggesting that "Satan" is merely the abuse of power by human beings. Satan looks upon Jesus' brutalized body with glee, but the violence was perpetrated by human beings. In a similar way, Dornford-May portrays miracles only indirectly, through the videos of Judas and the murals of the community. Judas's colorless film conveys the literal events, which "prove nothing," while the fanciful murals demonstrate true understanding. Even the most miraculous gospel events, the Incarnation and the Resurrection, are bound to human action – Mary's display of solidarity with the victims of violence and the community's courageous act of nonviolent resistance. This portrayal suggests that whether or not supernatural forces are present, the struggle for liberation rests solely on the shoulders of human agents.

The biblical quotation at the end of the film plays off of the title screen at the beginning, for a framing effect which drives the message home. The post-script - "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image'" - explains the significance of the title: Here, "Son of Man" is not synonymous with "Son of God," but with "Man" (i.e., a member of humankind). The title stands out because "Son of Man" is never applied to Kosi's character in the dialogue. Even the name "Jesus" is explicitly mentioned only at the Annunciation. This "Jesus" may be viewed as a sort of Everyman. His clothing and demeanor do not distinguish him from the crowds in any way, nor does he draw attention to himself. He is a (mostly) ordinary person whose message of unity and non-violence empowers other ordinary people. The implication is that if the Kingdom of God is to come on earth, God's image-bearers must bring it.