Ship of Fools: Movie Jesus

Thread: Movie Jesus Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024367

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

This evening I was watching "The Gospel of Matthew" (1993) from the "Visual Bible" series, with Bruce Marchiano as Jesus. Marchiano's Jesus is very touchy-feely; He's always hugging and kissing people, and seems to say everything with a permanent smile affixed to His face. He's a little too cuddly for me. That made me think of Henry Ian Cusick's Jesus in "The Gospel of John" (also Visual Bible series, 2003), a portrayal of Jesus that I find extremely scrappy and confrontational. You get the feeling this Jesus is always spoiling for a fight. It's been years since I saw the 1979 "Jesus Movie" (text from Luke), but I remember not being overly impressed with the portrayal of Jesus there either.

Is it ever possible to get a good portrayal of Jesus in a movie? Or is it always unsatisfying because it's filtered through a human actor? The only one I ever feel comfortable watching is the Jesus in "The Miracle Maker" where He has the two distinct advantages of 1) being a puppet, and 2) being voiced by Ralph Fiennes (any Jesus with a British accent automatically sounds better than one with an American accent, it seems. Easier to take seriously). There are a lot of movie portrayals of Jesus that I haven't seen or don't remember, of course.

So, what's the best movie Jesus? Is there a good one? Is it even possible?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I like the sorta- Jesus Clown guy in Godspell. He was a hippie. I like hippies.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I liked the Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar.

Posted by Mr Curly (# 5518) on :

Agree with Miracle Maker. Brilliant Peter as well.

Jesus of Montreal - in the play they put on in the film, and in the parallel story in the film.

mr curly

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I've often regretted never seeing Jesus of Montreal.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

It's certainly worth seeing, Trudy, if you can ever get hold of a copy.

Film Jesuses are never going to be totally satisfactory, it's just too difficult a part! But sometimes an actor can illuminate certain aspects - and even Jeffrey Hunter made a valiant effort. The Sermon on the Mount was done well here, with people in the crowd shouting out questions to him.

I still think that Pasolini's Gospel according to Matthew is the best Biblical film. It looks beautiful, and although the cast are not Jewish but are Italians there is a Mediterranean feel to the film, which is lost when played by British or American actors. And being non-professional helps too. The Jesus is stern, authoritative, not very approachable, but his face lights up when the children run in to the Temple on Palm Sunday, shouting 'Hosanna!'

I've not seen Marchiano, but I quite like Cusick's Jesus - but the problem there I think is that John's Gospel is not very visual, so scenes appear to comprise long sermons.

I once saw on TV The Day Christ Died, with Chris Sarandon as a very non-sappy Jesus, and good actors like Colin Blakely and Jonathan Pryce were in it. I was impressed at the time and would like to see it again to see how it's stood up to time, but I've failed to track it down.

Ultimately film Jesuses are never going to be completely successful, but some at least are more than halfway decent.

[ 29. December 2012, 09:50: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I still think that Pasolini's Gospel according to Matthew is the best Biblical film. It looks beautiful, and although the cast are not Jewish but are Italians there is a Mediterranean feel to the film, which is lost when played by British or American actors. And being non-professional helps too. The Jesus is stern, authoritative, not very approachable, but his face lights up when the children run in to the Temple on Palm Sunday, shouting 'Hosanna!'

Yes. This is the movie I keep coming back to. Enrique Irazoqui, who played Jesus, is astonishing in the part. I still get goosebumps when I see scenes like the denunciation of the scribes and pharisees - there's a clip here. (You first get a closeup of Jesus at about 3:51 in the clip.)

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I saw something on TV once with a cast of largely unknown Middle Eastern actors - I can't now remember whether they were Israelis or not - with the dialogue in, I think, Aramaic, and subtitles in English. It was a short film and I think it was made for television, but it managed to convey the atmosphere quite powerfully: you felt you were looking at something real, as opposed to something with an actor that you recognize from elsewhere - and some actors play themselves, whatever role they're starring in.

(Before anyone asks, I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ". I don't want to, either.)

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

I always rather liked Robert Powell.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
I always rather liked Robert Powell.

Seconded.
I've always had a soft spot for Willem Defoe in The Last Temptations of Christ. Not the guy from the BBC 3pt Passion from 2010 though. Perfectly decent actor, but as Jesus, a bit meh.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The problem with Jesus as a film character is that people always have their on impressions if ho he acted, which is why I prefer non-literal Jesuses on screen. The clown Jesus in Godspel is a good one, as as the singing Jesus in the Manchester Passion.

Not really movies, I know.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I've always had a soft spot for Willem Defoe in The Last Temptations of Christ.

As do I, and I was gonna recommend that, though I thought it might be too obvious. Probably merits a mention, though.

Despite all the controversy around TLTOC, I know at least one evangelical Christian, of a conservative Baptist bent, who uses it for evangelism purposes.

One thing I found odd about the negative reactions to that film is that everyone seemed to have their own reasons for objecting to it, and those reasons were sometimes mutually exclusive of one another. I know Catholics who had no problem with the dream sequence(since they understood that's what it was), but took offense when Jesus appears to treat his mother and other relatives in a cold manner(even though that was more or less a direct lift from the Gospels).

On the other hand, at the screening I attended, a woman stormed out of the theatre(actually in tears) during the scene that mimics the Sacred Heart iconography. Something that would probably seem unremarkable to most Catholics.

I think a lot of people had been conditioned by all the hoopla to expect something shockingly blasphemous in the film, and so went into it looking for things to be offended by.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

The run up advertising of TLTOC billed it as controversial and blasphemous for two reasons - the first was because the distributor feared nobody would watch a Jesus movie, so they had to build hype. The second was because Scorcese regretted the tongue in cheek portrayal of Judas from the Bronx and worried that it might result in the film being withdrawn. When it came to it, it was the short scene featuring a naked Jesus that caused a storm. Taken on its own merits though, and setting aside all the silly bits and controversies, it's a fairly astonishing and even challenging declaration of faith - possibly the strongest to ever come out of Hollywood.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Yes, I like Willem Dafoe's Jesus too, and the film has a lot going for it. I first read the book 40-odd years ago, and have read it several times since, although it is so powerful and epic that once every few years is enough!

One brilliant scene is when he recounts saying to himself as a child, 'God, make me God! God, make me God!' and goes on to reveal the devil inside him crying that he is not a man, he is the Son of Man, 'and still more: the Son of God! and still more: God!'

Terrific stuff. The silly hype and hoo-ha surrounding the film was just daft - it's a good film and a great, profoundly Christian, book.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Very interesting takes on TLTOC. I have not seen the film. My impression, from complaining Christians mostly, was it was made for the purpose of being controversial. And I refrained from seeing it for that reason.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
My impression, from complaining Christians mostly, was it was made for the purpose of being controversial.

As Fletcher Christian pointed out, the studios themselves hyped it as controversial. But I think there likely would have been some controversy anyway(it was released in the wake of the even more innocuous Hail Mary, which had generated pickets and bomb threats), so you probably can't blame the studios for playing the hand they were dealt, howver cynically.

While I remember commentary at the time about the New York mensch Judas, I wasn't aware that Scorsese had expressed regrets about it. I actually thought it made a nice complement to the waspier, more-traditional Hollywood Jesus portrayed by Willem Dafoe.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

One thing that ticks me off is writers who lump TLTOC in with The Da Vinci Code as "films that have offended Christians" or "are offensive to Christians"(depending on the writer's agenda). The message of the two films is actully polar opposite, since in Last Temptation, Jesus rejects the offer of a normal life in order to die on the cross and redeem mankind.

This idiot actually states that Last Temptation
denies that God gave his only begotten son to redeem mankind. Obviously, never saw the movie.

He also praises Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for launching the protests that caused the film to do poorly at the box office. It's true the film bombed, but likely would have done even worse without all the free publicity.

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
I always rather liked Robert Powell.

Noooo, anyone but Robert Powell, who ruined an otherwise perfect film! So I can only watch it up till Jesus appears as an adult. Cannot bear to watch skinny, greasy-haired, blue-eyed Anglo Jesus striking poses and trying to sound profound.

Give me Henry Ian Cusick every time. Any time, actually. [Big Grin]

The definitive Jesus: authoritative yet human, has the knack of teaching to everyone in the room individually (watch the Bread of Life discourse scene), and unlike Jeremy Sisto (in "Jesus"), he knows who he is and what he's about.

Though I admit that "The Miracle Maker" is a miracle in itself, and a close second to "The Gospel of John."

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:

Give me Henry Ian Cusick every time. Any time, actually.

Seconded

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

There was a 'Jesus film' sometime in the 50's I think, which incredibly cast the young hottie Rip Torn (stage name, obviously) as Jesus.

I have repressed the whole thing, except the sight of Jesus on the cross with SHAVED ARMPITS! And No, I Am Not Making This Up.

(You had to have been there.)

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

I think you are thinking of King of Kings, with Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus, who indeed was ordered to shave his armpits. It was made around 1961, and Rip Torn played Judas.

It was known as I was a teenage Jesus because of Hunter's very good looks, but he was in fact 33 when he made the film. Poor boy couldn't help being pretty...

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Thanks, PM

The memories are coming back now - the Horror, the Horror! (Just kidding, really.)

But that 'King of Kings' was pale in comparison to the old silent film of the same name.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
There was a 'Jesus film' sometime in the 50's I think, which incredibly cast the young hottie Rip Torn (stage name, obviously) as Jesus.

Him?!

Btw: Rip is a longstanding nickname in the Torn family, so not just a stage name.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
There was a 'Jesus film' sometime in the 50's I think, which incredibly cast the young hottie Rip Torn (stage name, obviously) as Jesus.

Him?!

Btw: Rip is a longstanding nickname in the Torn family, so not just a stage name.

Your use of the word "him" led me to think momentarily that you might be referring to this Jesus movie, of disputed existentiality.(A link not for the timid.)

I used to think it would be pretty delicious if Michael Medved really had made that up, since he later went on to a career trashing cultural-elites for poisoning our minds with attacks on tradtional values. But there he was, a few years earlier, concocting lewd Jesus fantasies himself.

However, the evidence seems to be piling up that the film was in fact real, albeit never given anything remotely close to wide distribution(can't imagine why, sounds like a classic).

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Back to Rip Torn for a second, the guy has always been a bit of a live wire.

Maidstone

The idea is that Torn was supposed to improvise a surprise attack on the presidential candidate, played by Norman Mailer. You can see how that went down.

I thought he was okay as Louis XV in Marie Antoinette, though.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Glad to read positive posts on TLTOC.

I watched it shortly after conversion in 01 and found it immediately powerful, and not in anyway worthy of the knock-back it received in the 80s.

OK, no movie is ever the be all and end all of the Great story, but I have the DVD of this one and usually watch some, or all of it around Easter.

Maybe the only way it might have been improved upon would have been to have used Gibson's idea of subtitled dialogue.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Maybe the only way it might have been improved upon would have been to have used Gibson's idea of subtitled dialogue.

You mean have the actors speaking the languages that the charcters themselves would have spoken in real life, translated with English subtitles?

If so, I think Gibson's original idea was just to have it in the original languages, with no subtitles at all. (I think I did my second screening of the film with no subtitles, just to get a "director's cut").

But subtitles or no, I don't know if using original languages would have worked for TLTOC. The dialogue(compared to The Passion) is fairly complex, and Scorsese would have needed actors who are credible in those langauages. I'm guessing that would have ruled out a lot of his high-profile Hollywood stars, in favour of no-names.

For what it's worth, I WILL put in a qualified good word for The Passion Of The Christ. It's visually a fairly captivating film. From a psycho-theological perspective, it's pretty nutbar, and is probably best regarded as interesting in a symptomatic sorta way.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0