• 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

Tranquil Servant

Was M.I.A for a while
In my opinion, there hasn't been a decent historical biopic about Jesus of Nazareth......
I hate to see "biopic's" that use the Michelangelo, blond hair, blue eyed, European depiction of Jesus Christ when in actuality Jesus was from Palestine and more than likely would've had dark features like dark hair, dark eyes, and dark skin.:expressionless:
7.1.jpg
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
What are you taking about? Life of Brian is a masterpiece!!!

In all seriousness, perhaps the reason why there’s no clear winners of “Jesus movies” is twofold?
One they need to be respectful lest they tick off Christians. At least if they’re doing a straight up retelling. So they tend to lack power and controversy. Or they focus a little too much on the umm “passion” aspect. And two, respectful religious movies tend to be boring and preachy by default. They are often vanilla and take very few chances, so as to respect religious feelings. The only exceptions I’ve ever seen were Dreamworks’ Prince of Egypt and Don Bluth’s The Small One. Both of which were relatively religiously neutral, despite being literal Biblical stories. And even then were constrained by the limitations put on family friendly movies.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
What are you taking about? Life of Brian is a masterpiece!!!

Life of Brian isn't about Jesus. :)

In all seriousness, perhaps the reason why there’s no clear winners of “Jesus movies” is twofold?
One they need to be respectful lest they tick off Christians. At least if they’re doing a straight up retelling. So they tend to lack power and controversy.

True, the Christian viewership present a bit of a problem in that pushing the margins can lead to flack and counter-demonstration.

But this isn't necessarily bad for ratings. All press is good press, no?

Or they focus a little too much on the umm “passion” aspect.

Indeed...not another Gibson-style passion film. Spare me that!

And two, respectful religious movies tend to be boring and preachy by default. They are often vanilla and take very few chances, so as to respect religious feelings. The only exceptions I’ve ever seen were Dreamworks’ Prince of Egypt and Don Bluth’s The Small One. Both of which were relatively religiously neutral, despite being literal Biblical stories. And even then were constrained by the limitations put on family friendly movies.

That's the kind of piousness I tire of seeing in recent Jesus movies. It is incredibly boring, lifeless and preachy.

Whereas, the story of a Jewish carpenter forging a movement of social outcasts in Roman-occupied Judea and Galilee, and preaching an inclusive message of a coming kingdom of God defined by a reversal in fortunes between the haves and the have-nots, who is betrayed by one of his followers and arrested by the ruling priestly class (clients of the Roman occupiers) who are fearful of this leading to dissension among the people, before he is passed over to the Roman authorities and brutally executed....but his followers claim he defied his murderers by rising from the dead and go on to spread his cult which in time becomes the largest religion in the Empire, displacing everything else...

Well, it's not a boring story. How sugar-coated versions of it can make it seem so honorific and piously wearisome is a triumph in itself.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Life of Brian isn't about Jesus. :)
.
That’s the joke!

True, the Christian viewership present a bit of a problem in that pushing the margins can lead to flack and counter-demonstration.

But this isn't necessarily bad for ratings. All press is good press, no?
.
If you’re a niche movie, probably not a good idea to tick off your core audience before you’ve even released. Only the most hardcore anti theists hate watch a controversial film about Jesus. That or pretentious artistic types. Everyone else will just assume all the bad press is the result of real life ultra sensitive Helen Lovejoy types, shrug and move onto something else. So no, not all press is good press.
Christians have cried wolf one too many times, so to speak.

Indeed...not another Gibson-style passion film. Spare me that!
.

Lol ironically when Gibson made family friendly edits on the requests from Christians wanting to show others the movie, it fared a lot worse in the theatre.

That's the kind of piousness I tire of seeing in recent Jesus movies. It is incredibly boring, lifeless and preachy.

Whereas, the story of a Jewish carpenter forging a movement of social outcasts in Roman-occupied Judea and Galilee, and preaching an inclusive message of a coming kingdom of God defined by a reversal in fortunes between the haves and the have-nots, who is betrayed by one of his followers and arrested by the ruling priestly class (clients of the Roman occupiers) who are fearful of this leading to dissension among the people, before he is passed over to the Roman authorities and brutally executed....but his followers claim he defied his murderers by rising from the dead and go on to spread his cult which in time becomes the largest religion in the Empire, displacing everything else...

Well, it's not a boring story. How sugar-coated versions of it can make it seem so honorific and piously wearisome is a triumph in itself.
Indeed. There’s only so much piousness I can stomach. I gave a pass to 7th Heaven when it aired because it at least tried to be balanced and realistic. Preachy but likeable enough to shrug it off. Plus I was a kid at the time lol

The story of Jesus is not exactly Shakespearen. Nor is it epic in the sense of say the Oddysey, Illiad or Aneid. But it has potential I suppose.

Though when I attended the after school Christian Kids Club as a wee tot I do recall all the movies being stories that were from the bible but not one with Jesus. Make of that what you will.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
My favorite Jesus film always has been the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar.

One of my favorite times was when I actually went and saw Ted Neeley live on stage. Definitely worth the ticket price.

Those were the days.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
That’s the joke!

I know, that's why I put a smiley face after the comment :D

The story of Jesus is not exactly Shakespearen. Nor is it epic in the sense of say the Oddysey, Illiad or Aneid. But it has potential I suppose.

Well, it has certainly produced some of the greatest and most poignant works of art in European history. If 'epicness' can be judged by its sheer importance to the Western canon, then I think it amply passes the test - because it's had a more enduring influence on our art, literature and culture than any other narrative.

I don't think you'll find many other stories that can claim the likes of Michelangelo, Leonardi da Vinci and Caravaggio, Fyodor Dostoevsky, William Blake, Handel's Messiah etc.

Actually, to properly understand and interpret Shakespeare's tragedies in their cultural context a good knowledge of the New Testament is recommended i.e. "the dramatic structure of Shakespeare's plays resembles the structure of Jesus' teaching in the gospels" (Hurtgen, Joseph, "Shakespeare's Use of the New Testament: Biblical Intertexuality in As You Like It and Romeo and Juliet" (2006).) In his play, The Merchant of Venice, for instance, the characters of Shylock and Antonio represent the Old and New Covenants, and illustrate how “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

The Jesus story recurs frequently in popular literature under various guises. It's about the "scapegoat" - a person who is accused unjustly of being the reason for a society's problems by the corrupt powers-that-be to deflect attention from the real causes, because he stood up for what was right and loses his life for it.

'Betrayed with a kiss', a 'voice crying in the wilderness,' a 'doubting Thomas', 'go the extra mile', 'a Good Samaritan', 'eat, drink and be merry,' a 'prodigal son, 'kill the fated calf,' 'apple of my eye,' 'baptism by fire,', 'blind leading the blind', 'a cross to bear', 'a house divided against itself', 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword'...these are all just a handful of numerous phrases from the gospels that have cropped up as themes in a whole host of novels and dramas.

Whole works of fiction have been produced based upon just one of those ideas.

The Jesus story, especially the betrayal, trial and execution, has become a foundational trope in Western fiction - if you look at Ned Stark and Jon Snow (the Prince that was Promised born in mean circumstances, betrayed, executed by a mob as a traitor, his body kept by a group of close friends and then he is resurrected a few days later) in Game of Thrones, or Aslan the Lion in Narnia, JK Rowling's Harry Potter or Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, they are all iterations of the archetype first created for Jesus by the gospel writers.

JK Rowling for instance was pretty open about it in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. “There is a lot of Christian imagery in the books. That’s undeniable. And certainly in Hallows [it is] very clear . . . That’s an allusion to a belief system in which I was raised.” As was noted in an article in American Prospect:


“Rowling initially was afraid that if people were aware of her Christian faith, she would give away too much of what's coming in the series. 'If I talk too freely about that,' she told a Canadian reporter, 'I think the intelligent reader — whether ten [years old] or sixty — will be able to guess what is coming in the books.'”

Since Tolkien practically invented the modern fantasy genre and he was a devout Catholic, it's inevitable that the Jesus story is literally everywhere in it, in the background of course.

So, you really can't escape this story and are probably reading themes originally derived from it unconsciously or consciously in various fictional texts.

See:

The Gospel of Jon Snow: Christ Allegory in ‘Game of Thrones’ - Areo


When a writer is trying to convey that a character is some kind of hero or redeemer, that character is often made to resemble Jesus Christ.

This comes up in just about every great fantasy franchise; Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and most recently, Game of Thrones all employ this framing. Having a character who dies and is resurrected or undergoes some kind of great sacrifice in a manner similar to Jesus indicates to a Western audience that that character is a savior or a redeemer.

Christ Allegory characters are pervasive in all kinds of (Western) fiction.

But there are other qualities. Perhaps they’re loved by children, or spend time in the wilderness/desert, or are exactly 33 years old. It’s common that they have the initials J.C. (as noted in this video by Cracked.com). They can be of the literary variety, such as The Grapes of Wrath‘s Jim Casy, or in action movies such as John Connor from Terminator. Some can be subtle like Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption or extremely obvious like Superman in Man of Steel.

Most of the Christ allegory characters at some point are dead or thought to be dead, only to come back. Alternatively, they can die a painful death in which they sacrifice themselves for the good of all mankind. And although death and resurrection are the most important aspects of a Christ allegory, there are also other small details, such as humble birth, being friendly with children, converting water into wine, or any number of things.

Both Jesus and Jon Snow were thought to be of low birth, but are secretly much more important than that.

Jesus is often depicted as befriending children. We catch glimpses of this with Jon — in the first season he says goodbye to Arya and gives her a sword, he serves as a mentor to Olly (even though that relationship finishes poorly), and is supported by the young and feisty Lyanna Mormont.

But these details are not nearly as important as his death; Jesus died and came back from the dead, and in the sixth season of Thrones, we see Jon Snow die and come back from the dead. Now of course, it would be superficial just to acknowledge that Jon was dead and is now revived, but we need to look a little closer at the circumstances of his death. Jon, like Jesus, was betrayed by some of the men he lead, including one he had taken under his wing to learn as a disciple.

Also worth noting is where Jon was stabbed — in his side. While Jesus was on the cross, one of the Roman soldiers pierced his side with a spear to make certain he was dead.

Let’s bring attention to this sign that made millions of viewers gasp in the episode where Jon gets killed: “Traitor,” it reads.

When writers make a character who is a Christ allegory, they’re trying to indicate something important about that character.

So why was Jon killed? Simply put, because he encouraged the Night’s Watch to love their neighbors, so to speak. By welcoming in the Wildlings, Jon shows that he cares about the lowliest of the world, and will fight for those who can’t quite fight for themselves. Jesus is commonly quoted as encouraging that all people love one another, (Love your neighbors as you love yourself) and to an extent, Jon is doing the same thing.

And Jon is fighting the White Walkers, who embody death. Jon says, “The Long Night is coming, and the Dead come with it.” While St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians reads, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (Corinthians 15:26, later quoted in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.)


It's a huge trope in Western literature and films that you find in so many odd places.

Honestly, it's re-hashed everywhere.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I know, that's why I put a smiley face after the comment :D



Well, it has certainly produced some of the greatest and most poignant works of art in European history. If 'epicness' can be judged by its sheer importance to the Western canon, then I think it amply passes the test - because it's had a more enduring influence on our art, literature and culture than any other narrative.

I don't think you'll find many other stories that can claim the likes of Michelangelo, Leonardi da Vinci and Caravaggio, Fyodor Dostoevsky, William Blake, Handel's Messiah etc.

Actually, to properly understand and interpret Shakespeare's tragedies in their cultural context a good knowledge of the New Testament is recommended i.e. "the dramatic structure of Shakespeare's plays resembles the structure of Jesus' teaching in the gospels" (Hurtgen, Joseph, "Shakespeare's Use of the New Testament: Biblical Intertexuality in As You Like It and Romeo and Juliet" (2006).) In his play, The Merchant of Venice, for instance, the characters of Shylock and Antonio represent the Old and New Covenants, and illustrate how “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

The Jesus story recurs frequently in popular literature under various guises. It's about the "scapegoat" - a person who is accused unjustly of being the reason for a society's problems by the corrupt powers-that-be to deflect attention from the real causes, because he stood up for what was right and loses his life for it.

'Betrayed with a kiss', a 'voice crying in the wilderness,' a 'doubting Thomas', 'go the extra mile', 'a Good Samaritan', 'eat, drink and be merry,' a 'prodigal son, 'kill the fated calf,' 'apple of my eye,' 'baptism by fire,', 'blind leading the blind', 'a cross to bear', 'a house divided against itself', 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword'...these are all just a handful of numerous phrases from the gospels that have cropped up as themes in a whole host of novels and dramas.

Whole works of fiction have been produced based upon just one of those ideas.

The Jesus story, especially the betrayal, trial and execution, has become a foundational trope in Western fiction - if you look at Ned Stark and Jon Snow (the Prince that was Promised born in mean circumstances, betrayed, executed by a mob as a traitor, his body kept by a group of close friends and then he is resurrected a few days later) in Game of Thrones, or Aslan the Lion in Narnia, JK Rowling's Harry Potter or Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, they are all iterations of the archetype first created for Jesus by the gospel writers.

JK Rowling for instance was pretty open about it in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. “There is a lot of Christian imagery in the books. That’s undeniable. And certainly in Hallows [it is] very clear . . . That’s an allusion to a belief system in which I was raised.” As was noted in an article in American Prospect:


“Rowling initially was afraid that if people were aware of her Christian faith, she would give away too much of what's coming in the series. 'If I talk too freely about that,' she told a Canadian reporter, 'I think the intelligent reader — whether ten [years old] or sixty — will be able to guess what is coming in the books.'”

Since Tolkien practically invented the modern fantasy genre and he was a devout Catholic, it's inevitable that the Jesus story is literally everywhere in it, in the background of course.

So, you really can't escape this story and are probably reading themes originally derived from it unconsciously or consciously in various fictional texts.

See:

The Gospel of Jon Snow: Christ Allegory in ‘Game of Thrones’ - Areo


When a writer is trying to convey that a character is some kind of hero or redeemer, that character is often made to resemble Jesus Christ.

This comes up in just about every great fantasy franchise; Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and most recently, Game of Thrones all employ this framing. Having a character who dies and is resurrected or undergoes some kind of great sacrifice in a manner similar to Jesus indicates to a Western audience that that character is a savior or a redeemer.

Christ Allegory characters are pervasive in all kinds of (Western) fiction.

But there are other qualities. Perhaps they’re loved by children, or spend time in the wilderness/desert, or are exactly 33 years old. It’s common that they have the initials J.C. (as noted in this video by Cracked.com). They can be of the literary variety, such as The Grapes of Wrath‘s Jim Casy, or in action movies such as John Connor from Terminator. Some can be subtle like Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption or extremely obvious like Superman in Man of Steel.

Most of the Christ allegory characters at some point are dead or thought to be dead, only to come back. Alternatively, they can die a painful death in which they sacrifice themselves for the good of all mankind. And although death and resurrection are the most important aspects of a Christ allegory, there are also other small details, such as humble birth, being friendly with children, converting water into wine, or any number of things.

Both Jesus and Jon Snow were thought to be of low birth, but are secretly much more important than that.

Jesus is often depicted as befriending children. We catch glimpses of this with Jon — in the first season he says goodbye to Arya and gives her a sword, he serves as a mentor to Olly (even though that relationship finishes poorly), and is supported by the young and feisty Lyanna Mormont.

But these details are not nearly as important as his death; Jesus died and came back from the dead, and in the sixth season of Thrones, we see Jon Snow die and come back from the dead. Now of course, it would be superficial just to acknowledge that Jon was dead and is now revived, but we need to look a little closer at the circumstances of his death. Jon, like Jesus, was betrayed by some of the men he lead, including one he had taken under his wing to learn as a disciple.

Also worth noting is where Jon was stabbed — in his side. While Jesus was on the cross, one of the Roman soldiers pierced his side with a spear to make certain he was dead.

Let’s bring attention to this sign that made millions of viewers gasp in the episode where Jon gets killed: “Traitor,” it reads.

When writers make a character who is a Christ allegory, they’re trying to indicate something important about that character.

So why was Jon killed? Simply put, because he encouraged the Night’s Watch to love their neighbors, so to speak. By welcoming in the Wildlings, Jon shows that he cares about the lowliest of the world, and will fight for those who can’t quite fight for themselves. Jesus is commonly quoted as encouraging that all people love one another, (Love your neighbors as you love yourself) and to an extent, Jon is doing the same thing.

And Jon is fighting the White Walkers, who embody death. Jon says, “The Long Night is coming, and the Dead come with it.” While St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians reads, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (Corinthians 15:26, later quoted in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.)


It's a huge trope in Western literature and films that you find in so many odd places.

Honestly, it's re-hashed everywhere.
All of which is more entertaining than the original story. I don’t mean to bash it, really I don’t. But artists do what they do and look at things from different angles or express emotion through their art, filtered through their own lives.
But you’re talking about various interpretations of the story, not the story itself. That’s a whole other field. Even Twilight can be reimagined into an scholarly epic that would please even the most pretentious of literature nerds, if one tried.

A straight retelling of Jesus would be dull. An artistic rendering would be interesting but lack authenticity. I’m not saying religion can’t inspire art, I have whole books chronicling such phenomenon in exquisite detail. But I’m saying the story of Jesus is either authentic or interesting, I don’t see it being both. Maybe a passionate cinematic Christian film maker can prove that wrong, I hope so. But cinema is a business, at the end of the day. Grand lofty artistic types don’t mesh well with business. Perhaps an underground indie pic is your best bet.

Also even as an ardent Potterhead I’ll say that Harry “I’m a Jesus” Potter is the least interesting character of the trio. Though a little more interesting in the books to be fair to Rowling.
So is Superman, DCs Jesus Christ. In fact most Jesus stand ins are pretty boring characters in otherwise good properties, for the most part.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
All of which is more entertaining than the original story. I don’t mean to bash it, really I don’t. But artists do what they do and look at things from different angles or express emotion through their art, filtered through their own lives.

Aesthetic merit is a subjective assessment, to an extent, I'm sure you agree. Some people adore Flaubert and William Faulkner, others deem them too verbose and flowery. Some critics regard Ernest Hemingway's style as much too simplistic, coarse and dumbed-down, while others regard it as an incredible literary achievement. Taste in literature varies.

That said, I think your being rather unfair to the original source material. Most commentators have recognised the underlying story as powerful, stirring and moving - which is the reason why it remains the most widely read and known tale from Greco-Roman antiquity and also why there are so many regurgitations of it in popular novels (like Jon Snow, Harry Potter, Aragorn and Gandalf, Superman, John Conner in Terminator etc.).

Why, for instance, did Albert Einstein - himself a Jewish atheist - contend that,


"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

("What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17.)​


Now, Einstein was a scientist and not a literary critic. But I'm sure we'd both agree that he was a genius in intellect and not likely to have found the story compelling if it were as boring as you argue, since his biographers note that he had very refined artistic tastes.

The Gospel of Luke-Acts (which is the account of Jesus's life most people are superficially familiar with), is widely considered by scholars of Koine Greek to be a literary masterpiece. After St. Paul, Luke's work accounts for the largest section of the New Testament and certainly the biggest chunk dealing with the biography of Jesus, hence why the popular understanding of Jesus is essentially the Lukan one.

Whomever wrote the text is considered to have great narrative flair, an erudite prose style and evocative imagery by those competent in this field of study. Mitchell Reddish, for instance, opines that Luke was a "gifted literary artist [who] writes with skill and creativity, crafting a Gospel that is sophisticated". Daniel J. Harrington and Edmund Gordon have likewise stated, "Luke was able to express his vision with great artistic skill," praising in particular, "the literary beauty of his Gospel and its compelling portrait of Jesus".

This is the consensus opinion amongst scholars. Professor Denis MacDonald has written an entire series of academic studies on the topic of, The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts noting, "Modern readers rightly view the New Testament Gospels and Acts as the foundational narratives of the Christian religion, but in their day these writings were avant-garde, imaginative, even revolutionary. Their literary creativity becomes transparent in comparison with writings about Jesus earlier than Mark" (p.1).

Unless these eminent scholars are all rubbish at their jobs, I'd venture to suggest that there must be truth to what they are saying.

A straight retelling of Jesus would be dull.

Then it's rather odd that the film universally hailed by critics as "a neorealist adaptation that is frequently cited as the genre's masterpiece", is also the most "austere, realistic, literal adaptation of the first gospel (made in 1964 by the great gay communist poet and film-maker who was murdered 38 years ago) and the cinema's most impressive biblical movie to date".

Pasolini used the Gospel of Matthew verbatim for the script's dialogue. No one has focused on one gospel so literally and realistically, and shorn of religious presuppositions being read into the text, yet's its viewed as a work of artistic genius.

Again, either these critics are terrible at their job or they must be getting something right.

Also see:


The Art of the Cinema -- The Gospel According to St. Matthew: The Outside Looking In


I have yet to see a compelling film about the Christ story as told from a Christian filmmaker. They range from blasé attempts to present the Biblical narrative as "history" -- and I mean this both as a criticism of rigid dogmatism and a criticism of the style they are often told in, one of boring high school history lessons lacking flavour and constructed like an overlong textbook devoid of pictures -- to glorified torture porn disguised as piety that should shock and appal for all the wrong reasons.

I have, however, seen several accounts of the Bible told by secular filmmakers that are utterly fascinating, full of metaphor and imagery, that examine their source material -- in particular, the Christ character -- through a lens more appropriate to examining a historical figure who still has an impact on today's world...Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew is another movie, this one made by an atheist, that examined Jesus from a Marxist context, that looked truly at the message of radical socialism and free love, and asked us what we can take from the story. While it is flavoured with mythological undertones, the movie never descends into the literal fundamentalism that modern Bible movies so often drown under.

Pasolini was primarily a poet, and, believing in the lyrical value of the Gospel of Matthew, he lifted all his dialogue directly from the source material. There is no embellishment to the fantastical elements of the story...

Terry Eagleton, also an atheist, described Jesus as a revolutionary in his book, "Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate." For Eagleton, Jesus was a radical who placed the poor, the broken and the outcast at the centre of his revolution against the politics of the time. These outcasts, those abused by the system and (rightly) dissatisfied with it were to be the new rebels, so to speak, the driving force behind a new social system, and from there in the centre, he could spread his message outward and establish a new, socialist society that looked after all of its members with equal consideration. To Eagleton, Jesus became a political figure, one who threatened the power and as a result was politically executed, becoming a martyr and proving his own point that society was broken and in need of change.

For Pasolini, Jesus was also a revolutionary, one who viewed society as broken and in urgent need of remaking, and who sought to do so by blessing the poor, the outcast and the sinners, and condemning the rich, pious and hypocritical...

There is no need to recount the plot as Pasolini follows Matthew precisely, adamantly adhering to what he considered its artistic value. What stands out then is his neorealism and simplistic imagery.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Aesthetic merit is a subjective assessment, to an extent, I'm sure you agree. Some people adore Flaubert and William Faulkner, others deem them too verbose and flowery. Some critics regard Ernest Hemingway's style as much too simplistic, coarse and dumbed-down, while others regard it as an incredible literary achievement. Taste in literature varies.

That said, I think your being rather unfair to the original source material. Most commentators have recognised the underlying story as powerful, stirring and moving - which is the reason why it remains the most widely read and known tale from Greco-Roman antiquity and also why there are so many regurgitations of it in popular novels (like Jon Snow, Harry Potter, Aragorn and Gandalf, Superman, John Conner in Terminator etc.).

Why, for instance, did Albert Einstein - himself a Jewish atheist - contend that,


"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

("What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17.)​


Now, Einstein was a scientist and not a literary critic. But I'm sure we'd both agree that he was a genius in intellect and not likely to have found the story compelling if it were as boring as you argue, since his biographers note that he had very refined artistic tastes.

The Gospel of Luke-Acts (which is the account of Jesus's life most people are superficially familiar with), is widely considered by scholars of Koine Greek to be a literary masterpiece. After St. Paul, Luke's work accounts for the largest section of the New Testament and certainly the biggest chunk dealing with the biography of Jesus, hence why the popular understanding of Jesus is essentially the Lukan one.

Whomever wrote the text is considered to have great narrative flair, an erudite prose style and evocative imagery by those competent in this field of study. Mitchell Reddish, for instance, opines that Luke was a "gifted literary artist [who] writes with skill and creativity, crafting a Gospel that is sophisticated". Daniel J. Harrington and Edmund Gordon have likewise stated, "Luke was able to express his vision with great artistic skill," praising in particular, "the literary beauty of his Gospel and its compelling portrait of Jesus".

This is the consensus opinion amongst scholars. Professor Denis MacDonald has written an entire series of academic studies on the topic of, The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts noting, "Modern readers rightly view the New Testament Gospels and Acts as the foundational narratives of the Christian religion, but in their day these writings were avant-garde, imaginative, even revolutionary. Their literary creativity becomes transparent in comparison with writings about Jesus earlier than Mark" (p.1).

Unless these eminent scholars are all rubbish at their jobs, I'd venture to suggest that there must be truth to what they are saying.



Then it's rather odd that the film universally hailed by critics as "a neorealist adaptation that is frequently cited as the genre's masterpiece", is also the most "austere, realistic, literal adaptation of the first gospel (made in 1964 by the great gay communist poet and film-maker who was murdered 38 years ago) and the cinema's most impressive biblical movie to date".

Pasolini used the Gospel of Matthew verbatim for the script's dialogue. No one has focused on one gospel so literally and realistically, and shorn of religious presuppositions being read into the text, yet's its viewed as a work of artistic genius.

Again, either these critics are terrible at their job or they must be getting something right.

Also see:


The Art of the Cinema -- The Gospel According to St. Matthew: The Outside Looking In


I have yet to see a compelling film about the Christ story as told from a Christian filmmaker. They range from blasé attempts to present the Biblical narrative as "history" -- and I mean this both as a criticism of rigid dogmatism and a criticism of the style they are often told in, one of boring high school history lessons lacking flavour and constructed like an overlong textbook devoid of pictures -- to glorified torture porn disguised as piety that should shock and appal for all the wrong reasons.

I have, however, seen several accounts of the Bible told by secular filmmakers that are utterly fascinating, full of metaphor and imagery, that examine their source material -- in particular, the Christ character -- through a lens more appropriate to examining a historical figure who still has an impact on today's world...Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew is another movie, this one made by an atheist, that examined Jesus from a Marxist context, that looked truly at the message of radical socialism and free love, and asked us what we can take from the story. While it is flavoured with mythological undertones, the movie never descends into the literal fundamentalism that modern Bible movies so often drown under.

Pasolini was primarily a poet, and, believing in the lyrical value of the Gospel of Matthew, he lifted all his dialogue directly from the source material. There is no embellishment to the fantastical elements of the story...

Terry Eagleton, also an atheist, described Jesus as a revolutionary in his book, "Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate." For Eagleton, Jesus was a radical who placed the poor, the broken and the outcast at the centre of his revolution against the politics of the time. These outcasts, those abused by the system and (rightly) dissatisfied with it were to be the new rebels, so to speak, the driving force behind a new social system, and from there in the centre, he could spread his message outward and establish a new, socialist society that looked after all of its members with equal consideration. To Eagleton, Jesus became a political figure, one who threatened the power and as a result was politically executed, becoming a martyr and proving his own point that society was broken and in need of change.

For Pasolini, Jesus was also a revolutionary, one who viewed society as broken and in urgent need of remaking, and who sought to do so by blessing the poor, the outcast and the sinners, and condemning the rich, pious and hypocritical...

There is no need to recount the plot as Pasolini follows Matthew precisely, adamantly adhering to what he considered its artistic value. What stands out then is his neorealism and simplistic imagery.
It could be an Occam’s Razor type deal where the simplicity of the story is why it resonates with people. People like messages of hope, people like messages of peace and tranquility. People like rebels and people like to feel important (God’s chosen.) I’m not trying to suggest the story of Jesus isn’t grand. But I have seen “interesting” interpretations turn even the most cliche, bland and derivative works into magnum opus like escapades.

Sci fi nerds can wax lyrical about Star Wars or Star Trek. Fantasy nerds write epic PhD worthy papers dedicated to worshipping Beowulf and it’s not a bad poem by any stretch. But the most interesting things about it are analysing it or having someone read aloud what we surmise the original Old English sounded like. The overall product is a little blasé, honestly. At least by today’s standards. Still a cool poem nonetheless.

Besides it’s pretty heavily religious from the getgo, given it literally started a religious movement. I’d be mightily concerned if there wasn’t thousands of verbose thesis papers pontificating on the importance of the story of Jesus floating around. That’s par for the course as far as these kind of stories are concerned. Of course one could argue that the original is already derivative, thus already containing elements of storytelling proven to be penetrative to the human psychye built in. That would be me being unfair to the Story of Jesus.
Also I never argued that it was boring in and of itself. Just that Jesus like characters tend to be boring. Jesus gets a pass because he has to be a literal role model.

Stories are powerful, true. But interpretations tend to be more interesting. They say a lot about a person, I find. And humans like to read deeply into things. Hell I’ve seen people wax lyrical about the importance of Twilight. You get out of a story what you want. There’s nothing really wrong with that, though.

I can write my own PhD like thesis papers worshipping Wilde or Tolkien or Harry Potter or I dunno, the brothers Grimm if I wanted to. So I do get it. Don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to be honest about literary discussion, while playing Devil’s advocate somewhat
 
Last edited:
Top