• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No good Jesus films

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
In my opinion, there hasn't been a decent historical biopic about Jesus of Nazareth since Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1964 epic, The Gospel According to St Matthew.

7.1.jpg


Pasolini_Gospel_Poster.jpg



https://film.avclub.com/one-of-the-best-movies-ever-made-about-jesus-was-direct-1798266521

One of the most beautiful, passionate films about the life of Jesus Christ was directed by an atheist, Marxist gay man. Pier Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According To St. Matthew doesn’t so much attempt to deify Christ as return him to the sort of figure he is throughout the Gospels, someone who would have very much enjoyed breaking bread with Pasolini, the sort of person the modern church might push away. Throughout the Gospels, Christ simply enjoys the company of people, being around them and talking to them and eating with them. It’s fitting, then, that a Marxist would most emphasize that side of Jesus’ character. Here is a man who was not above the people, but came out of them. Those who killed him were those who held the power, and his resurrection was a triumph not just for Christ himself, but for all he represented.


Passolini was a gay Italian atheist with Marxist political beliefs. In spite of this, or perhaps more accurately because of it, he made what critics today widely hail as the greatest movie yet produced concerning the life of Jesus and arguably the best of the religious film subculture. Although Pasolini remained a firm non-believer, his film was dedicated to "the dear, happy, familiar memory of Pope John XXIII", the Pontiff who convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, and is still accounted by the Vatican as its favoured dramatization of the gospels.

This drama has a raw, authentic realism in its depiction of an impassioned young man inveighing against the rich and powerful, as he speaks out for the socially excluded and deformed, and walks towards his inevitable death. It is reverential and faithful to the biblical text without being even slightly gushy in its piousness.

In contrast, most recent iterations of the story have tended to be hagiographic and rather cheesy affairs - you could almost imagine halos and hands coming out of the sky - that look like they were budgeted by Evangelical pastors, with the exception of the brutal horror-fest that was Mel Gibson's Passion (which just robbed the story of its emotive power in a different way) or, failing that, they lapse into the semi-comical.

Will we ever see another moving and thought-provoking masterpiece of a 'Jesus movie'? Or are we consigned to an eternal hell of acted-out-sermons, horror-flicks and modernist renditions?
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm a big fan of Jesus Christ Superstar....

A bit too tacky and overly-theatrical for my liking, tbh. I don't find it gut-punching or particularly moving in its message, which the source material is. I think it strives too hard to give the narrative an edgy contemporary relevance but I recognise that its popular, and naturally this must be for a good reason.

Compare it with another stage-show Les Miserables, which, despite being set against the background of a French republican rebellion, has more of the grandeur and emotive power of the biblical story, as Valjean tries to live a redeemed life, with the overarching moral being the need to reconcile justice with mercy.

I'd personally like to see one that actually took into consideration the latest developments in historical Jesus scholarship, giving it a fresh but authentic feel.
 
Last edited:

BSM1

What? Me worry?
"The Last Temptation Of Christ." Poses the question as to when Jesus realized his Divinity.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
"The Last Temptation Of Christ." Poses the question as to when Jesus realized his Divinity.

The Last Temptation was provocative and entertaining but its completely unhistorical in its presentation (it's based upon a novel, so I guess that's hardly surprising), and doesn't really capture what scholars would recognise as the character of the Jesus of history. The film included a disclaimer stating "This film is not based on the Gospels, but upon the fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict", which pretty much sums it up.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
It's the one that got me to take a breath and think. I agree.

Which version of Superstar did you like and why?

I saw the original film and it didn't hold me, although I haven't seen last year's NBC live-production with John Legend as Jesus, which received overwhelmingly positive reviews.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In my opinion, there hasn't been a decent historical biopic about Jesus of Nazareth since Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1964 epic, The Gospel According to St Matthew.

Gospel-1.jpg


Pasolini_Gospel_Poster.jpg



https://film.avclub.com/one-of-the-best-movies-ever-made-about-jesus-was-direct-1798266521

One of the most beautiful, passionate films about the life of Jesus Christ was directed by an atheist, Marxist gay man. Pier Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According To St. Matthew doesn’t so much attempt to deify Christ as return him to the sort of figure he is throughout the Gospels, someone who would have very much enjoyed breaking bread with Pasolini, the sort of person the modern church might push away. Throughout the Gospels, Christ simply enjoys the company of people, being around them and talking to them and eating with them. It’s fitting, then, that a Marxist would most emphasize that side of Jesus’ character. Here is a man who was not above the people, but came out of them. Those who killed him were those who held the power, and his resurrection was a triumph not just for Christ himself, but for all he represented.


Passolini was a gay Italian atheist with Marxist political beliefs. In spite of this, or perhaps more accurately because of it, he made what critics today widely hail as the greatest movie yet produced concerning the life of Jesus and arguably the best of the religious film subculture. Although Pasolini remained a firm non-believer, his film was dedicated to "the dear, happy, familiar memory of Pope John XXIII", the Pontiff who convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, and is still accounted by the Vatican as its favoured dramatization of the gospels.

This drama has a raw, authentic realism in its depiction of an impassioned young man inveighing against the rich and powerful, as he speaks out for the socially excluded and deformed, and walks towards his inevitable death. It is reverential and faithful to the biblical text without being even slightly gushy in its piousness.

In contrast, most recent iterations of the story have tended to be hagiographic and rather cheesy affairs - you could almost imagine halos and hands coming out of the sky - that look like they were budgeted by Evangelical pastors, with the exception of the brutal horror-fest that was Mel Gibson's Passion (which just robbed the story of its emotive power in a different way) or, failing that, they lapse into the semi-comical.

Will we ever see another moving and thought-provoking masterpiece of a 'Jesus movie'? Or are we consigned to an eternal hell of acted-out-sermons, horror-flicks and modernist renditions?

I recently saw a couple of miniseries on Netflix (although they were originally produced by NBC), one was called "The Bible" and the other was "A.D. The Bible Continues." They had clergy people and theologians as advisors and consultants, so it seemed that they were trying to stay true to the Scriptures.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member

Excellent review, the critic raises many points about the film which illustrate what it got right and what so many subsequent efforts have gotten wrong or simply overlooked:


The Gospel According to St. Matthew Movie Review (1964) | Roger Ebert


Pasolini's is one of the most effective films on a religious theme I have ever seen, perhaps because it was made by a nonbeliever who did not preach, glorify, underline, sentimentalize or romanticize his famous story, but tried his best to simply record it.

The movie was made in the spirit of Italian neo-realism, which believed that ordinary people, not actors, could best embody characters -- not every character, but the one they were born to play.

Pasolini's Christ is Enrique Irazoqui, a Spanish economics student who arrived to talk to him about his work. Irazoqui had never acted, but Schwartz quotes Pasolini: "...Even before we had started talking, I said 'Excuse me, but would you act in one of my films'?" Schwartz describes Irazoqui as the "...son of a Basque father and a Jewish mother ... thin, stoop-shouldered, heavy-browed, anything but the muscular Christ of Michelangelo."

For his other roles, Pasolini cast local peasants, shopkeepers, factory workers, truck drivers. For Mary at the time of the Crucifixion, he cast his own mother...

Jesus is however often seen speaking, and his presence and appearance are unusual in terms of traditional depictions. Like most of Jewish men of his time, he wears his hair short -- none of the flowing locks of holy cards. He wears a dark, hooded robe so that his face is often in shadow. He is unshaven but not bearded.

His personal style is sometimes gentle, as during the Sermon on the Mount, but more often he speaks with a righteous anger, like a union organizer or a war protester. His debating style, true to Matthew, is to answer a question with a question, a parable, or dismissive scorn. His words are clearly a radical rebuke of his society, its materialism, and the way it values the rich and powerful over the weak and poor. No one who listens to this Jesus could confuse him for a defender of prosperity, although many of his followers have believed he rewards them with affluence.

The film, in black and white, is told with stark simplicity
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Which version of Superstar did you like and why?

I saw the original film and it didn't hold me, although I haven't seen last year's NBC live-production with John Legend as Jesus, which received overwhelmingly positive reviews.

I liked the original and have not seen the others. I may look up the one you mention.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I have only seen one Jesus film, and I can't remember the title. I remember that it was modernized, so Jesus and his disciples all had American clothing. It came out in the 90's but felt very 70's to me. After Peter betrayed Jesus, Peter walked for a very long time down a beach while sad music played. For about thirty seconds to a minute of the film the audience watched him trudge. He trudged very well. During that scene I had a lot of time to think -- too much time. I probably thought about everything from old pets to things on cereal boxes.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I have only seen one Jesus film, and I can't remember the title. I remember that it was modernized, so Jesus and his disciples all had American clothing. It came out in the 90's but felt very 70's to me. After Peter betrayed Jesus, Peter walked for a very long time down a beach while sad music played. For about thirty seconds to a minute of the film the audience watched him trudge. He trudged very well. During that scene I had a lot of time to think -- too much time. I probably thought about everything from old pets to things on cereal boxes.

A perfect illustration of my own frustrations with most Jesus movies!
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
In my opinion, there hasn't been a decent historical biopic about Jesus of Nazareth since Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1964 epic, The Gospel According to St Matthew.
https://film.avclub.com/one-of-the-best-movies-ever-made-about-jesus-was-direct-1798266521

One of the most beautiful, passionate films about the life of Jesus Christ was directed by an atheist, Marxist gay man. Pier Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According To St. Matthew doesn’t so much attempt to deify Christ as return him to the sort of figure he is throughout the Gospels, someone who would have very much enjoyed breaking bread with Pasolini, the sort of person the modern church might push away. Throughout the Gospels, Christ simply enjoys the company of people, being around them and talking to them and eating with them. It’s fitting, then, that a Marxist would most emphasize that side of Jesus’ character. Here is a man who was not above the people, but came out of them. Those who killed him were those who held the power, and his resurrection was a triumph not just for Christ himself, but for all he represented.


Passolini was a gay Italian atheist with Marxist political beliefs. In spite of this, or perhaps more accurately because of it, he made what critics today widely hail as the greatest movie yet produced concerning the life of Jesus and arguably the best of the religious film subculture. Although Pasolini remained a firm non-believer, his film was dedicated to "the dear, happy, familiar memory of Pope John XXIII", the Pontiff who convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, and is still accounted by the Vatican as its favoured dramatization of the gospels.

This drama has a raw, authentic realism in its depiction of an impassioned young man inveighing against the rich and powerful, as he speaks out for the socially excluded and deformed, and walks towards his inevitable death. It is reverential and faithful to the biblical text without being even slightly gushy in its piousness.

In contrast, most recent iterations of the story have tended to be hagiographic and rather cheesy affairs - you could almost imagine halos and hands coming out of the sky - that look like they were budgeted by Evangelical pastors, with the exception of the brutal horror-fest that was Mel Gibson's Passion (which just robbed the story of its emotive power in a different way) or, failing that, they lapse into the semi-comical.

Will we ever see another moving and thought-provoking masterpiece of a 'Jesus movie'? Or are we consigned to an eternal hell of acted-out-sermons, horror-flicks and modernist renditions?

Is there some need for more Jesus films? The story hasn't changed, has it?

.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In my opinion, there hasn't been a decent historical biopic about Jesus of Nazareth since Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1964 epic, The Gospel According to St Matthew.

7.1.jpg


Pasolini_Gospel_Poster.jpg



https://film.avclub.com/one-of-the-best-movies-ever-made-about-jesus-was-direct-1798266521

One of the most beautiful, passionate films about the life of Jesus Christ was directed by an atheist, Marxist gay man. Pier Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According To St. Matthew doesn’t so much attempt to deify Christ as return him to the sort of figure he is throughout the Gospels, someone who would have very much enjoyed breaking bread with Pasolini, the sort of person the modern church might push away. Throughout the Gospels, Christ simply enjoys the company of people, being around them and talking to them and eating with them. It’s fitting, then, that a Marxist would most emphasize that side of Jesus’ character. Here is a man who was not above the people, but came out of them. Those who killed him were those who held the power, and his resurrection was a triumph not just for Christ himself, but for all he represented.


Passolini was a gay Italian atheist with Marxist political beliefs. In spite of this, or perhaps more accurately because of it, he made what critics today widely hail as the greatest movie yet produced concerning the life of Jesus and arguably the best of the religious film subculture. Although Pasolini remained a firm non-believer, his film was dedicated to "the dear, happy, familiar memory of Pope John XXIII", the Pontiff who convened the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, and is still accounted by the Vatican as its favoured dramatization of the gospels.

This drama has a raw, authentic realism in its depiction of an impassioned young man inveighing against the rich and powerful, as he speaks out for the socially excluded and deformed, and walks towards his inevitable death. It is reverential and faithful to the biblical text without being even slightly gushy in its piousness.

In contrast, most recent iterations of the story have tended to be hagiographic and rather cheesy affairs - you could almost imagine halos and hands coming out of the sky - that look like they were budgeted by Evangelical pastors, with the exception of the brutal horror-fest that was Mel Gibson's Passion (which just robbed the story of its emotive power in a different way) or, failing that, they lapse into the semi-comical.

Will we ever see another moving and thought-provoking masterpiece of a 'Jesus movie'? Or are we consigned to an eternal hell of acted-out-sermons, horror-flicks and modernist renditions?
"Will we ever see another moving and thought-provoking masterpiece of a 'Jesus movie'? Or are we consigned to an eternal hell of acted-out-sermons, horror-flicks and modernist renditions"

I thought you were talking about what passes as christian today and how church is. Then i realized you were talking about movies.

So the question will church ever in this country have any depth? Doubt it.

"i the...................... Idiot.......... am like jesus"
4b833ef8-93ab-41d2-b959-4ff4fa3e537d-Joel_Osteen_in_LA.jpg
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I remember the one priest at my ex's church absolutely raved about the Passion of the Christ when it first came out.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I remember the one priest at my ex's church absolutely raved about the Passion of the Christ when it first came out.

I thought it was too honorific-apologetical, and bordered on torture-porn. It had majestic moments but whatever message the director had hoped to convey was completely undercut by all the needless sadomasochism and dreary, sugary theologizing.

It was also layered with an anti-semitic subtext which exonerated Pilate (whom historians recognise as a brutal and repressive governor) of any wrong, portraying him in a sympathetic light despite the fact that the one incontestable fact in all of this is that Jesus died by asphyxiation on a Roman cross.

What exactly was the message of this film? "Man gets horrendously tortured for no clearly explained reason by the evil Jews, as he is stalked and tormented by an Omen-like devil being, while the kindly Roman governor tries to spare his life but is stopped from doing so by those same perfidious Jews. Man suffers agonising death after scenes of yet more endless torture upon torture which is the central focus of the film, shot-after-shot, scene-after-scene. He then gets brought back to life, clean from all his wounds. End."

The devil does not feature in the gospel accounts of Jesus's death. He was killed by people for a given set of historically conditioned reasons. It was just silly theologizing of the source material.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Going to throw a curve ball here because the film is not about Jesus... Honestly

But it is extremely entertaining. Monty Python's Life of Brian
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Is there some need for more Jesus films? The story hasn't changed, has it?

.

Because it's an interesting story that has exerted a tremendous influence upon human history and a good director/scriptwriter is always capable of approaching it from a new perspective.
 
Top