The first “New Testament” films set out mostly to provide as accurate account of what Jesus’ life was believed to have been like – it is the word ‘believed’ that is at the centre of controversy when it comes to films about religion. Religion is a belief system. Beliefs vary from person to person, denomination to denomination and are molded and shaped in society in order to fit in with our ever evolving popular culture, in other words a belief is made up of an individuals knowledge of a secondary account as in what others have told them is right to believe and their own personal experiences, this leads to most people who share the same belief’s never actually sharing exactly the same beliefs as to do so would mean they would have lived completely identical lives. This means that effectively there is no ultimate ‘crowd pleaser’ when it comes to filming anything to do with the figures or themes of a belief system and indeed such films are notorious for being the basis of death threats to the producers. So the question must be raised; with such a high risk factor and a huge chance of failing why do so many producers choose to depict religion in their films and how has an evolving audience allowed for the representation of Christian beliefs within film to evolve also?
A brief history of film representation of Christ and Christianity:
- 1898 – The Passion Play
- 1916 – Intolerance
- 1927 – The king of kings
- 1953 – the robe
- 1959 – Ben-Hur
- 1965 – The Greatest story ever told
- 1973 – Godspell
- 1973 – Jesus Christ Superstar
- 1979 – Monty Pythons life of Brian
- 1988 - The last temptation of Christ
- 1989 – Jesus of Montréal
- 1999 – Dogma
- 2004 – The passion of the Christ
It is not uncommon for the producers of religious films to be accused of blasphemy by religious groups. Blasphemy is “the crime of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to god or a religion and its doctrines and writings” (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law). In relation to Christian beliefs blasphemy is often regarded as an unforgivable sin. It is taught that those who disbelieve the teaching of Christianity and blaspheme may not ask for forgiveness as long as they continue to disbelieve. When the producers of Monty Pythons the life of Brian were accused of blaspheming they responded with the argument that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern religion, however, it does not lampoon the god that Christians worship and therefore is not blasphemous. Where Jesus does appear in the film (as he does on two occasions) he is depicted according to Christian beliefs and is distinct from the character of Brian.
Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” (Producer: John Goldstone. Director: Terry Jones) has been seen as a religious satire which depicts organised religion as hypocritical and fanatical. A satire is when subjects - usually ones which are seen as out of control of the general public e.g. Religion, warfare, political scenarios (although arguably the public are responsible for the election of the above once they hold power there is little else the general public are able to do by way of influencing such institutions) are explored with a comedic light which usually includes the creation of caricatures based on well known figures and an exaggeration of circumstance or persons to a comedic level. The aim of satire is to highlight the lunacy of a subject and hold it to ridicule primarily in order to then in turn encourage public debate which hopefully will then instigate a change in attitudes, awareness and approach to a particular topic.
In the life of Brian, Brian is born a few doors down from the house where Jesus was born and is initially confused with Jesus by three wise men at the start of the film. Brian grows up to be a somewhat idealistic young man who resents the continuing occupation of Judea. Whilst attending the Sermon on the Mount he becomes enamored with a rebel Judith. Brian’s infatuation with Judith and resentment of the roman occupation causes him to join the Peoples front of Judea – one of the many bickering movements who all have similar names (such as the Judean’s People’s Front). He is charged by the rebel group with the task of vandalising the governors palace with graffiti (“Romanes eunt domus”). When a guard catches him he does not send him packing but is so appalled by his bad Latin grammar that he instructs him to write out the correct message (“Romani ite domum” – Romans go home) one hundred times.
After a series of coincidental events resulting from a raid on the palace culminating in the meaningless babble Brian attempts to recite in order to avoid the roman guards, a small army of people come to think that Brian is the Messiah. Despite his attempts to correct the people on his actual status (i.e. not the messiah) and to teach them not rely on authority figures and to relish their individuality
He is arrested and sentenced to death. He is then crucified and abandoned by anyone who could help him. The film ends with people on crucifixes singing the highly ironic song entitled “always look on the bright side of life”.
The representation of Christ alongside comedy proved to be highly controversial and led to the film being banned in several countries; for eight years in the republic of Ireland; for one year in Norway (a fact which when on release in Sweden marketers used to create the films tagline “The film that is so funny that it was banned in Norway”); The film was not released until 1990 in Italy (eleven years after it was made) and was also not shown until 2001 in Jersey.
The films producers maintain however that the film is far more of a political satire than religious attack, for example; in the film there is a joke about the revolutionary groups opposing the Roman rule who are in effect more at odds with one another than the Romans for example “The People’s Front of Judea”, “The Judean People’s Front” and “The Popular Front” (with one member). This is a satire based on the multiplication of ineffectual left wing parties during 1970’s Britain. These groups would split every few weeks and end up opposing each other more than the British Government.
The life of Brian made no attempt to create an accurate depiction of the life of Jesus Christ therefore the scrutiny it came under was somewhat irrelevant by those claiming it was attempting to show Jesus in a bad light. However there are other films which have come under scrutiny for their attempts to show the “truth” of Jesus’ life. One of the most relevant modern examples of this is the “Passion of The Christ” (Director: Mel Gibson).
The Passion of The Christ was an attempt by its producers to produce a truthful and historically accurate depiction of the last days of Jesus’ life. However, many critics claimed that the films ‘truth’ was that the producers were obsessed with images of violence and blood and the film had little historical substance.
The passion of the Christ was intended to accurately depict the story of Jesus so much so that it is written entirely in the ancient languages of Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew and Assyrian Neo. The films plot follows the story of the Passion which is the story of the last occurrences of Jesus life ending with his resurrection following the crucifixion. However, in terms of truthful representation the film does rely highly on stereotypes in its portrayal of characters. A good and probably the most controversial example of this is the physical depiction of Jews within the film. With the exception of “good Jews” like Mary Magdalene (played by renowned beauty Monica Bellucci) and of course Jesus himself (played by handsome Jim Caviezel) the Jews in the film - particularly those represented in a higher positioning within society are depicted as physically ugly, strategically cynical and generally unpleasant. The depiction of Jews within the film is not necessarily as they are described in the Bible but instead harks back to film portrayals of William Shakespeare’s famous “evil Jew” Shylock. In fact the representation of Jews in the film was seen as so negative that there was a huge cry of protest from much of the Jewish community claiming the film overly accused Jews of the responsibility for the death of Jesus and therefore encouraged anti-semitism.
In terms of mise-en-scene and cinematography the film is highly stylised and visually striking (particularly with its use of symbolism and specific colours, or example; the images of ‘Satan’ are of a hairless man in a long black cloak with distorted features and a snake appears at several moments in the film representing the introduction of sin to the world in the biblical story of the Garden of Eden) indeed it was nominated for the Academy Awards Best Cinematography and Best Make Up (as well as Best Original Score). It was filmed mostly on location in Italy in idyllic places specifically chosen to represent the Italian Christian artist Caravaggio’s paintings. It was shot with an emphasis on the horror and gore of the torture suffered by Jesus justified by the films producers who said they wished to show the true brutality of the suffering of Jesus.
However the film was criticised for its violent focus and was branded by one critic as “relentlessly savage”. The graphic nature of the film is somewhat relatable to the horror genre in the sense of its expressly gory screen images. The horror genre itself is highly dependant on Christian religious teachings where such figures as Satan and various biblical demons are used time and time again as either the antagonist or the overwhelming ‘evil force’ behind the characters. The church is often seen in the horror genre as a sanctuary from evils for example in the exorcist the church is the opposing force of the evil that inhabits the main character.
Despite the churches overwhelming depiction in cinema as a force of good this is a fact not always true. For example in the film “Chocolat” the church is seen as an oppressive force threatening the happiness of those in the surrounding community. Even in mainstream family friendly cinema such as the “Sister Act” films the institution of the church particularly the higher figures within the church are depicted as somewhat stuffy, unrelenting, boring and outdated.
Even though films based on religion can be received very badly by certain authoritative bodies and for instance be banned from exhibition, whilst conducting my study I have found that as a general rule the more controversy surrounding a film the more successful it is at the box office (for example The Passion of The Christ netted around 611.1Million USD in worldwide profits). I think that this is partly because of the humans’ natural desire to break and experiencing the breaking of taboo but also because if a film based on religion is controversial it allows for a debate to be called for on a particular issue. Both films I have studied in depth although two completely different interpretations (one being an attempt at what some critics have described as a “sensationalist” look at the last days of the messiah whilst the other being a broad critical commentary on social and political of the current in relation to the biblical tale) both have allowed for a platform to be opened up for debate on issues of religion which in an increasingly secular society would normally be much smaller and thought of as taboo to discuss.
In the end all art is a form of expression (both these films were intended as artistic endeavors despite being different in style) which means that although these films may have been created to make money they were also created because the producers felt there was a need for them to be created. Undoubtedly religion is a theme that will constantly be brought into cinema as it affects so many peoples lives globally and in the current world we live in, dominated by political correctness particularly in relation to the now highly sensitive issue of world religion cinematic explorations of faith provide society with a much needed chance to voice and discover their opinions - even if they do hate the film.
Claire Elizabeth Reilly Media Studies A2 2007
Appendix
The Passion Play of Oberammergau, directed by Henry C. Vincent. One of the first films of its kind was originally staged on Broadway then toured in religious venues. Proved popular amongst Christians.
Silent movie directed by D.W.Griffiths – very high production values for its time, was for its time radical in terms of its non-linear narrative. A plot synopsis from says of the film “Intolerance and its terrible effects are examined in four historical eras. In ancient Babylon, a mountain girl is caught up in the religious rivalry that leads to the city's downfall. In Judea, the hypocritical Pharisees condemn Jesus Christ. In 1572 Paris, unaware of the impending St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, two young Huguenots prepare for marriage. Finally, in modern America, social reformers destroy the lives of a young woman and her beloved”
Cecil B. Demilles film focused on the passion and resurrection of Jesus a plot summary from says of the film “Mary Magdalene becomes angry when Judas, now a follower of Jesus, won't come to her feast. She goes to see Jesus and becomes repentant. From there the Bible story unfolds through the Crucifixion and Resurrection.” The film was very specific and tried to encapsulate absolute historical accuracy of the passion and resurrection, it was well received by the public.
Director - Henry Coster. Story line is based around a peripheral character – a tribune (Richard Burton) comes into possession of the robe Jesus wore to his crucifixion and has spiritual visions and nightmares which leading him to question his beliefs.
1959 – Ben-Hur “Ben-Hur (1959) is MGM's three and a half hour, wide-screen epic Technicolor blockbuster - a Biblical tale, subtitled A Tale of the Christ. The most expensive film ever made up to its time, and the most expensive film of the 50s decade. At $15 million and shot on a grand scale, it was a tremendous make-or-break risk for MGM Studios - and ultimately saved the studio from bankruptcy.
Ben-Hur proved to be an intelligent, exciting, and dramatic piece of film-making unlike so many other vulgar Biblical pageants with Hollywood actors and actresses. Its depiction of the Jesus Christ figure was also extremely subtle and solely as a cameo - it never showed Christ's face but only the reactions of other characters to him.” Taken from IMDB.com the film was well received by audiences and is still renowned today as a great biblical epic
- 1965 – The Greatest story ever told
An attempt at an accurate portrayal of Jesus’ life directed by George Stevens, however the film was heavily criticized by some for being too liberal and not accurate enough to the bible.
Directed by David Greene “John the Baptist gathers a diverse band of youthful disciples to follow and learn from the teachings of Jesus. These disciples then proceed to form a roving acting troupe that enacts Jesus's parables through the streets of New York.” (taken from wikipedia) The film received generally positive reactions and reviews.
- 1973 – Jesus Christ Superstar
“Based on a concept album project written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, and the subsequent long-running Broadway performance, this film tells the story of the final 6 days in the life of Jesus Christ through the troubled eyes of Judas Iscariot. Too often miss-labeled a musical, this film is a "rock opera." There are no spoken lines, everything is sung.” Taken from – directed by Norman Jewison this film was critically acclaimed and nominated for an Oscar (best musical score)
- 1979 – Monty Pythons life of Brian
Infamously controversial parody of Jesus’ life which enraged Christian groups throughout the world. Directed by Terry Jones as part of Monty Pythons Flying Circus (a comedy production company).
- 1988 - The last temptation of Christ
Directed by Martin Scorseze another controversial film which shows Jesus as a human with human faults, was banned by several Christian groups. The film is based around Jesus’ struggle to accept his fate as the son of god.
Directed by Denys Arcand it is based around a group of actors who put on a new style passion play which delights audiences by enrages the church
Director Kevin Smith, the last descendant of Christ (a catholic working in an abortion clinic) is sent on a holy mission to stop the attempts of two fallen angels to enter back into heaven through a church loop hole. Despite disclaimers in the film it received a negative backlash from Christian audiences however is a relative success drawing appeal from its “jay & silent bob” fan base in particular.
- 2004 – The passion of the Christ
Mel Gibson’s highly attempt at an accurate portrayal of the passion story
Bibliography
En.Wikipedia.org
The Media Students Book – Gill Branston and Roy Stafford
The Guardian (online)
Empire Magazine
The Observer (online)
www.screenonline.org.uk
For short summaries of film content see appendix
Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong! You don’t NEED to follow ME. You don’t NEED to follow ANYBODY! You’ve got to think for yourselves! You are ALL individuals!
Crowd: (in unison) Yes! We’re all individuals!
Brian: You’re all different
Crows: (in unison)Yes, we ARE all different
