I will freely admit that I am an Atheist. To many of you, that dirty word alone will dismiss me as any sort of reasonable voice concerning the discussion of Christ on film. To those of you who made it past sentence one, I can tell you that I find Jesus to be an amazing figure in History Who is Jesus to you. I have also devoted a great deal of time to perusing the Gospels, finding secular meaning in the words of the Rabbi. Undertaking the task of making a biographical movie about a man of whom little is known– outside of four accounts– is a slippery slope. We learn more and more about the “Archaeological Jesus” daily. We know where he probably lived, we have narrowed down where he was most likely executed. But the man himself remains aloof. The gospels give us no indication of what Jesus’ personality was like. We know he laughed once or twice, cried over the death of his friend Lazarus, and was apparently good with children. Beyond that, we have only his words.
Enter the slippery slope, and the reason why I wouldn’t touch a Jesus biopic (as if that offer were forthcoming). No matter the outcome, there is the inevitable outcry from one side or another– He is too human. He is not human enough. He’s too white. He’s too emotional. He’s too robotic. Taking on a Jesus movie is a thankless job– unless you happen to cash in like Mel Gibson’s gore fest “The Passion of the Christ”. Here are the best and worst Jesus biopics, including best characterization, historical accuracy, and overall presentation.
BEST JESUS
Robert Powell – “Jesus of Nazareth” Powell plays to the Gospel Jesus in a haunting, sometimes scary way. He is a man who is aware of his divinity from the beginning, and often seems so deep in thought that he is on another plane of existence. He smiles (if you can call it that), maybe three times. But his playfulness with children (during Passover in the Synagogue) shows a man who is also capable of human emotion. An interesting side note to the flick is that Powell’s Jesus does not blink one time in the entire movie. Not once. Powell is still the benchmark for all cinematic Jesus’.
WORST JESUS
Jeremy Sisto- “Jesus” (NBC) I don’t have a problem with Sisto as an actor, but it feels as though the writers of the simply titled “Jesus” went out of their way– and completely overboard– on presenting a “Human” Jesus. This fella is just one of the boys, frolicking around in the Sea of Galilee, laughing and joking. You’re almost waiting for him to give Judas a “hot foot”. And by the way, he’s an immortal God, who came to be butchered to save the world. Probably not what the rough and tumble, hard living Jews of the time were expecting. There wasn’t a lot of laughing going on in Judea back in the day. This Jesus is the most unrealistic, biblically, and probably historically.
PONTIUS PILATE
This character is one that contradicts himself between the historical and the Biblical. Pilate ruled Judea from AD 26-36. The historical Pilate was a man of no nonsense. He was ordered to keep the peace at any cost, and dealt out punishment so ruthlessly that he was actually recalled to Rome twice. The Pilate of the gospels shows an almost meek man of justice, who can’t find it in his conscience to condemn a man on such vague charges (including sedition and treason). The only way to judge who is the best Pilate of screen is to take a little from “Column A”, and a little from “Column B”…
BEST PILATE
Sorry to cop out, but this one is a tie.
Rob Steiger in “Jesus of Nazareth” plays the best historical Pilate, despite his diminutive stature. He is short tempered, flies off the handle several times, and seems to be a man under a great deal of stress as he tries to rule Judea.
His sympathy for Jesus is minimal, despite uttering the biblical phrase, “Behold the man.” He does try to get Jesus a “Get out of Jail Free” card. He allows the crowd to decide Jesus’ fate via a supposed custom of freeing one condemned man during Passover. This custom has been open to much criticism and debate over the centuries. What Roman Procurator is his right mind would release a murderer to an already rowdy, Roman-despising crowd? Many believe it was added to the New Testament for dramatic affect, to separate the fledgling Church from the Jews, by placing blame on the then heavily persecuted Sons of Abraham.
Hristo Shopov (“The Passion of the Christ”), plays a more physically imposing, but biblically accurate Pilate. He is warned by his wife not to condemn this “Holy Man”, and seems generally enamored by the preacher from Galilee. Following more closely the Gospel of John, he has a more detailed, intimate discussion with the Nazarene.
Though he instructs his soldiers punishment of Jesus to be severe (and it most certainly is), he is shocked when he sees the results. Left with no other choice, tricked by the Jewish leaders to see Jesus as an enemy of Caesar, and with a crowd to control, he condemns Jesus to death. As Jesus drags his cross out of the city, he looks on with a look of remorse and guilt.
Steiger, the historical Pilate, condemns the man, stands, and storms off. Another days work.
WORST PILATE
Again, a tie. David Bowie (“The Last Temptation of Christ”) Telly Savalas (“The Greatest Story Ever Told”) Ziggy Stardust or Kojak? Pick your poison.
MARY
One of the slipperiest slopes in all of Christendom is the position and stature of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Most Protestant sects see Mary as a woman to be revered, but nothing more than the vessel through which the Son of God came to Earth.
The Church of Rome holds Mary to a dangerously near-Godlike standard, proclaiming her “Queen of Heaven” by Pope Pius XII. The “Hail Mary” is seen as direct evidence of “Mary worship” by Protestants, while Catholics claim it is merely a prayer for the Blessed Lady to intercede on behalf of sinners. Therefore, we will breakdown Mary in terms of who plays her role the best for both sides.
PROTESTANT MARY
Olivia Hussey is the stunningly beautiful, simple young girl who plays the role of Mary in “Jesus of Nazareth”. From the moment she is visited by the angel announcing her virgin pregnancy, she is obviously confused and overwhelmed. She knows something is going on, but not the momentousness. The same can be said for her husband, Joseph, who simply obeys the angels when prompted to move the family to Egypt. As Mary is hustled to the foot of the cross by the “Good Centurion”, she nearly faints, and is quickly rushed to the aid of the disciple John.
Hussey plays the role of a 1st century Judaic woman perfectly. She is illiterate, uneducated, and nothing more than a piece of property to be bargained with. To say she is a minor (if not absolutely necessary) player is an understatement.
CATHOLIC MARY
One of the underscores of Mel Gibson’s shocking “The Passion of the Christ” is the relationship he has with his mother. After his initial arrest, she utters, “It has begun, my Lord”. This is not a peasant woman from Nazareth. This is a woman who is in lock step with who her son is, what his mission is, and what his ultimate sacrifice entails.
She dutifully cleans up his blood after the slaughter of the scourging. One of the most gut wrenching scenes occurs when she makes a mad dash to her son, who has fallen under the weight of his three-hundred pound cross.
Gibson expertly flashes back to Jesus as a toddler, and the doting mother running to his rescue as he trips while playing. This was the one scene that brought tears to my eyes. Mary proves herself nearly immortal as she watches her son savagely nailed to the cross, and erected right in front of her. Her only response is clenching her fists into the ground.
When Jesus is taken down and laid in her arms, she simply stares blankly into nothingness. Surely this depiction of Mary is one of a woman who knew exactly who she was, who her son was, and that all of these things had to come to pass in order to complete his mission. This is the “Queen of Heaven”.
A PASSION PLAY
The most analyzed and anticipated of any Jesus flick is the trial and crucifixion. Crucifixion was the most ghastly, horrific, humiliating, and painful way to execute criminals, and Romans were experts at it.
Despite the thousands who were sent to the cross, little archaeological evidence has been recovered, save one very important foot. Said foot has a spike driven through the heel bone, as opposed to the traditional images of Jesus with a spike driven through both feet, one on top of the other. Again, this seems to make more sense.
The heel is an extremely sensitive area with many nerves running through it. To be nailed to the cross through the heel would have been agonizing. The converse– crucifixion through two feet– would have taken a much larger spike, and a very adept executioner to penetrate two feet worth of bone, muscle and cartilage, then finally through the cross itself.
Another concept that has been thrown out the window is the notion that Jesus carried the entire cross to Golgotha. It would have taken two stout, healthy men to carry such a heavy and cumbersome article. Jesus was the victim of a fierce scourging and crowning of the head with thorns. He simply wouldn’t have made it.
Jesus would have carried the crossbeam to his death, most likely tied to it. For the sake of argument, we will go purely historical on the crucifixion account. Perhaps a better way to analyze it would be most likely.
MOST LIKELY
After being bashed unmercifully by the faithful (most unaware that it was not meant to follow the gospel litany), “The Last Temptation of Christ” is by far the least glorious, and most realistic crucifixion scene (Willem Dafoe getting the odd choice of playing Jesus).
The Romans march Jesus to Golgotha, littered with the skulls and bones of those tormented before him. He is stripped naked, nailed through the hands with a small piece of wood between spike and flesh for support, and raised on a cross that is not much taller than he is.
All around him, other condemned are in various throws of agony.
This was not a special occasion for the Roman empire. Just another Jewish peasant and trouble maker hanging from the cross.
LEAST LIKELY
Mel Gibson noted that he wanted people to be shocked by his movie. The greatest shock is the fact that they somehow get the beaten-to-near-death prisoner to the place of execution. Gibson’s work is so riddled with errors, it is a shame that so many of the faithful (down to the Pope himself), see it as the benchmark in Passion plays.
The Romans were experts in torture. After a “good enough” beating with sticks, Jesus makes the mistake of standing up. Then Hollywood really takes over. The virtually insane torturers pull out the flagellum and proceed to lash Jesus over thirty times. This act alone would have knocked a man unconscious, and most certainly have killed him considering the lack of medical knowledge at the time concerning infection.
Gibson portrays the Roman soldiers as barbaric, drunken, foaming at the mouth half wits. A quick study in Roman soldier lore displays the opposite. The Romans were closer to Nazi’s, carrying out orders with swift precision regardless of barbarity.
Romans caught getting drunk while on duty would have received, at the very least, a reprimand. Jesus could not have carried the entire cross to Golgotha, even if he was the picture of health. This is Gibson taking poetic license, imaging the burden of the sins of the world onto one man. Perhaps he felt the mere crossbeam would not have hammered the point home.
When they finally reach Golgotha, spikes are driven through hands and feet in the “traditional” way, one foot on top of the other. Then, curiously, the cross is tipped over so that the soldiers may bend the nails (as if the prisoner were going to rip out the nails and make his escape). When the cross is finally erected, Jesus (Jim Caviezel) towers over those who have come to see the carnage.
.jpg)
