Italy/UK, 1977
Judas: "Master, that scribe had every intention of greeting you in a friendly manner. He wanted to understand your mission - was it wise to discourage him? He has one of the most open minds in the Sanhedrin!"
Jesus: "Open your heart, Judas; not your mind. Open your eyes and your heart."
Part One
The challenge of adapting the Christ story to film is always immense. Many great filmmakers have dreamt of doing it - Dreyer pursued a Jesus project his entire life (he came closer to the spirit of Christ than any other filmmaker in "Ordet"). Orson Welles planned to put the Jesus story on film after completing "Citizen Kane" (Hollywood had other plans). Rare is the director who actually does it, and rarer still is the director who does it well.
Nevertheless, there have been scores of films about Jesus, a few of them great, a few of them popular. They range from the mediocre "Greatest Story Ever Told" (co-directed by David Lean and "Shane" director George Stevens) to the less-than-literal "Life of Brian." There is Scorsese's esoteric "Last Temptation of Christ," and the criminally underrated "Jesus Christ Superstar." Even Griffith included Christ's trial in his opus, "Intolerance."
But when one considers the great adaptations of the Christ story, two films immediately come to mind. Two films stand above the others in quality and spirit, both directed by filmmakers renown for their adaptations of great literature. These films are Pasolini's "Gospel According to Matthew" and Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth."
"Jesus of Nazareth" is one of the reasons I wanted to have a column about Christian cinema. From almost any perspective, it stands as the best adaptation of the Gospels ever committed to celluloid. It is unique as being the only film about Christ admired equally by cineaste and conservative Christians - it would not seem out of place in either a Lemstone or a serious film festival. For cinephiles, it is a miraculous work of art, a marvelous technical achievement. Over six hours in length, it is the cinematic equivalent to Bach's "Matthäus-Passion." For Christians, it is the most historically accurate adaptation of the Christ story. That it strays decidedly from the scriptural accounts on many points is only a testament to its strength: it remains the standard filmic version of the Gospel among the Christian community (excluding Bill Bright's "Jesus," which is more a missions tool than an actual film).
In his fifty years as a filmmaker, "Jesus of Nazareth" is Zeffirelli's only non-Shakespearean masterpiece, and is a testament to his powerful (if subtle) directorial faculties. The screenplay is written by Anthony Burgess, author of such visionary novels as "A Clockwork Orange" (he once wrote a novel from Shakespeare's point of view, and received critical acclaim for it - not an easy feat). Between them, and with the help of actor Robert Powell (taking his cues from Peter O'Toole), they create a profound and utterly real Christ. Their Christ reflects, in totality, the Christ we know from the Gospels.
What does it mean to "translate a book into cinema"? It doesn't mean that a screenplay quotes dialogue verbatim, or includes every scenario and every character. A successful adaptation translates the "spirit" of the text from one medium (literature) to the other (cinema). The adaptation varies from the original, not insofar as it follows exact plot points or lines of dialogue, but insofar as it remains true to the original's "spirit." A director can provide a poor translation even while directly quoting the original text, and he can likewise provide a good translation while creating everything anew. This is how adaptation works, and this is percisely what Zeffirelli does with "Jesus of Nazareth."
The film's cast is a virtual "dream team" of European and American talent, and there isn't a weak performance in the film. (The possible exception is Olivia Hussey as Mary. Then again, there has yet to be a really good cinematic Mary, and Hussey is undoubtedly the best - she plays the Virgin as an eccentric mystic, more town idiot than Holy Mother). The film itself, as a film, is extraordinary - an epic worthy of the title. It does not overstay one of its 371 minutes, and at no time does its energy or passion abate. It treats the sacred story with a delicacy and reverence that recalls early Renaissance painting (likewise, the composition of many shots throughout the film are direct references to Christian paintings). Christ is shown as both sharp and intelligent, especially when compared to other Jesus films. I couldn't help thinking about Zeffirelli's previous film, "Brother Sun, Sister Moon," the story of St. Francis. "Brother Sun" is a dated film - the portrayal of Francis is more in tune with 1960s San Francisco than 14th century Assisi. The temptation to make Christ something of a "hippie" is always strong, especially when "Jesus of Nazareth" was made. Zeffirelli's Christ is no hippie. He is, in speech and manner, straight from John's Gospel.
Indeed, if Zeffirelli draws from one Gospel more than the others, it is John's. The screenplay often quotes scripture directly, sometimes in the original context, sometimes with poetic license. In terms of pure citation, one Gospel is not favored. However, the Christ we see in the film is closest to the John's Christ. He is the starry-eyed mystic, hardly a Jew, hardly a man - an eagle, if nothing else. His words flow from the Torah only insofar as they must (this is no Matthew). He does not overemphasize the role of the Gentile in his kingdom (this is no Luke). He wanders the earth like an outsider, wide-eyed and alien. When, as a boy, he is taken to the temple, he looks as if he is seeing it for the first time. His golden blonde hair and blazing blue eyes are not a contextual blunder for the politically correct to mock. His hair and eyes are a mantel, a visual symbol, to separate him from everyone else - there is no mistaking him for John the Baptist, or one of the Prophets - this man is different.
A film of the length and scope of "Jesus of Nazareth" can hardly be examined with brevity. As such, I'm going to spread this week's column over three days. Today's installment is Part One, an introduction to the film and its place in the canon of Christian cinema. In Part Two, I will explore the film's portrayal Christ, as compared to the Gospels, the Hebrew Bible, and other Christian films. This portrayal is unique in the way it opposes many traditional interpretations of the Bible. Not to say this film ravages or misinterprets the Gospels - you'd be hard pressed to find a movie that remain truer to their spirit. The film, instead, challenges how the Gospels relate to the rest of Holy Scripture, and favors a universal Christ to the strictly Hebraic Messiah. He may have come to fulfill Jewish law, not destroy it - but after he leaves, it will be gone forever.
In Part Three, I'll move away from the film's interpretation of Christ and examine its moral assertiveness. "Jesus of Nazareth" is often praised for its historical accuracy, and the rich depiction of first century Judea makes it a surprisingly political film. Within this political matrix, Jesus is not neutral - the film is brilliant in the way it conveys Christ's radical views.
I love "Jesus of Nazareth" because I am a Christian. I do not believe you must be a Christian to love it. A work of art can be Christian and universal at once - consider Michelangelo's "Last Judgement," or Dante's "Divine Comedy." In Part Two, I'll examine the role of universality in this film, and explore how it dares to question the division between universality and Christianity.
Continue to Part Two
Go to Part Three
