The Curates Egg

"Who do you say that I am?"

Last Easter (April 2005) I said that while films which depict Christ's passion can be very helpful in reflecting on his death they are not necessarily as helpful in reflecting on why it was necessary or what it achieved. On the other hand films which are not literally about Jesus but include a character who suffers for the sake of others, is treated as an outcast, or who gives of themselves sacrificially can often say more about the 'work of the cross' (atonement) than literal depictions of the passion story.

I gave four examples of films which included a 'Christ figure' and suggested that each helped to shed some light on a different aspect of atonement. Religious film critics have no problem finding such characters and the book I'm reading at the moment (Cinéma Divinité) list the four I used plus over 80 others! 

In mid March Ian and I went to a Lent talk at the Cathedral entitled The Passion in Film' and the speaker (Peter Francis) began by discussing 'Christ –type films' and showed us a clip of Spiderman 2 to illustrate his point (you need to see the clip to be persuaded that Spiderman can be a Christ Figure!) He was however focusing on the person of Christ rather than the work of Christ and whilst such films may say something helpful about the latter they are less helpful about the former. In other words they do little to answer the question "Who do you say that I am?"  (Matthew 16:15).

The Gospel According to St. Matthew

Unfortunately Peter Francis also felt that the majority of literal films of the Gospel story do little better. He suggested, and I tend to agree with him, that the filmmakers are often so careful to treat Jesus with appropriate reverence that he frequently comes over as rather distant or even lacking in emotion. This doesn't necessarily make them bad movies; they are often beautifully filmed, can be well acted and may be very moving. They can also be helpful in understanding the Gospel story – they just don't go very far in exploring who Jesus is. Films in this category would include Zefferelli's 'Jesus of Nazareth' (which is otherwise excellent) and particularly 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' in which Max Von Sydow (despite being a fine actor) actually manages to make Jesus rather dull. Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' would also fall into this category in terms of telling us little about who Christ is, although unlike the earlier reverential films which usually underplay the physical violence of the crucifixion Gibson goes to the other extreme. One exception to this tendency is the Italian film 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew'  (1964). The director (Pier Paolo Pasolini) sticks faithfully to the gospel but shows us a Christ who is very different from the 'Hollywood' version. He is charismatic, unselfconscious, urgent, zealous and demanding. Moreover he is clearly a man on a mission – to speak out for the poor, to expose the hypocrisy of their rulers, and to usher in a new kingdom. Perhaps this is unsurprising given that Pasolini was a Marxist - but it is refreshing to watch a film which seriously tries to answer the question "Who do you say that I am?" Amazingly Pasolini was also an atheist - and yet by being reverential to the text and filming in an unsentimental way, on location, with non-professional actors he created one of the most realistic and powerful depictions of Jesus to be seen. Some may find its style hard work, but for many it continues to speak in a meaningful way about the Gospel and the person of Jesus.

The Last Temptation of Christ

There is another type of film which may help us to think more about the nature of Christ and which rests between those which simply feature a Christ like character and the literal Gospel representations – those which deliberately retell the gospel story in an imaginative way.  Examples would include 'Jesus Christ Super Star' (1973) or even possibly 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' (1979). Peter Francis gave us two examples at the Cathedral; A Canadian film called 'Jesus of Montreal' (1989) in which an actor playing Jesus in a Passion play ironically finds his own life mirroring that of Christ, and Scorsese's 'The Last Temptation of Christ' (1988) which famously caused great controversy on its original release. Despite owning copies of both films on DVD I have never actually watched 'Jesus of Montreal' but shall endeavour to do so before this is published. On the other hand I have seen 'The Last Temptation of Christ' many times (including at the cinema when it first came out and before I considered myself a Christian) and have always been intrigued by it. In a way it is a response to those reverential films which underplay Christ's humanity because it offers us a Christ who has doubts about his own identity and the nature of his calling. Even on the cross he dreams of not being the Messiah and this dream includes the scenes where he marries Mary Magdalene and which caused such an outcry. I do understand why some Christians found these scenes, and others, offensive - but I think it is a serious attempt to explore the human side of Christ's nature and that it is a fine film. That this exploration exaggerates his humanity does of course make the film theologically flawed and potentially blasphemous – but at least it try's to answer the question "Who do you say that I am?" and in so doing can help us to find our own answers.

 Postscript

Probably it is as impossible to properly balance Christ's humanity and divinity in a film as it is for us to understand how it is possible for him to be fully both things. Not being able to understand however does not mean we should stop thinking about what it means or how it reflects on who Christ is. Any film which helps us to do that, even if it does exaggerate one aspect of his character, should be welcomed if it does so it in a thoughtful way.  

 Tim