|
Movie of the Gospel of John
Over the weekend I saw “The Gospel of John,” which, in a new departure for Jesus movies, follows word for word the Gospel on which it is based, taking three hours all in all. It’s quite an experience, and infinitely more worthwhile than the (in my opinion) worthless Mel Gibson movie that lately caused such a furor. When you’re reading John, the main focus is of course on Jesus’ descriptions of himself as a divine being—Son of God, Light of the World, Bread of Life, Resurrection and the Life, and so on. As best as I can remember, these radical Johannine statements have not been included in previous Gospel movies, or if they have been, then only briefly and selectively, since the earlier movies have tended to follow the more familiar and earthly account of Jesus’ ministry from the synoptic Gospels. To see Jesus’ entire Johannine discourses, these effusions of divine speech, performed dramatically rather than reading them on a page—including shocking statements such as “I am the light of the world,” “I and the Father are one,” “Before Abraham was, I am,” “If you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you will have eternal life”—and to see the other characters being stunned by them, with the Pharisees becoming increasingly furious, and Jesus’ followers becoming increasingly attuned to his message, adds a new dimension to one’s understanding of this Gospel. When Jesus leans down close to the man who has been paralyzed his whole life, and says commandingly to him, “Get up,” the man almost does a double take—and then he gets up. When Jesus converses with the Samaritan woman at the well (one of the best scenes in the movie), the woman initially responds with friendly sarcasm, “Oh, yes, Lord, give me those living waters!” but within a few moments she comes to believe him. With all its mysterious grandeur, one would never think of the Gospel of John as funny, but several times I laughed out loud at the sheer outrageousness of Jesus’s statements, feeling the shock that they are creating among the people listening to him. Henry Ian Cusick plays Jesus with warmth and fervor, as a man alight with the inner experience of unity with God that he seeks to impart to others. Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 03, 2004 02:20 AM | Send Comments
Mr. Auster, I have not been to a “contemporary film since Eastwood’s bloody, dark “The Unforgiven” which was the last straw for me with Hollywood. I have completely spurned contemporary film both on the oversexed HBO/Cinemax/Starz, et al to the movie theatre. You have, however, in one paragraph, convinced me thoroughly that I should go to see this contemporary film! You have given me hope that there is indeed knowledge I can gain from and “rapture” (the non-sexual kind) I can experience through viewing this film! I wonder though if it is playing in this anti-religious, atheistic area I live in… Posted by: David Levin on May 3, 2004 5:27 AMI rented “The Gospel of John” on DVD. I agree that “The Unforgiven” was repulsive. But to have refused to see a new Hollywood movie for the last ten or so years! Now _that’s_ a traditionalist. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 3, 2004 8:09 AMYou are both better for it, without question. The only argument for paying serious attention to Hollywood films is that it is valuable to be conversant with what remains of modern popular art. Even this is dubious on its face. Posted by: Paul Cella on May 3, 2004 2:13 PMI too must confess to rarely wasting time at the movies. I did see “Master and Commander” because I have been a fan of O’Brian’s sea novels, but it is far from usual Hollywood fare. It is the only movie I have seen in 10 years. When I think of all the great books I should read and reread, movies seem like throwing away precious time remaining to us. Posted by: thucydides on May 3, 2004 4:55 PMI have not gone out to see a movie since 1996, when I saw “Disclosure.” I must admit that I have rented a very few new movies and have seen a fair number on TV since then. Of the movies I have seen, only “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Sixth Sense” have stuck in my mind. On the whole, I can reassure David Levin that he hasn’t missed much. Posted by: Alan Levine on May 3, 2004 7:04 PMThat’s now three regular participants at VFR who say they haven’t gone to the movies in eight or ten years. I hardly ever go to see a movie in the theaters myself anymore, but I see many rented movies on video and DVD. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 3, 2004 8:20 PMAnd to think that the words “Iraq” and “insurgents” were not even mentioned once in this thread…until now! A pleasant relief. Today, it’s off to the Christian movie rental store (I am joking, of course…a Christian movie store in the Bay Area?) to rent “The Gospel Of John”. Posted by: David Levin on May 4, 2004 3:19 AMIt helps in seeing this movie if you’re familiar wtih the Gospel, as it follows it exactly, with much of the movie read by a narrator, and with each sudden change of scene that occurs in the Gospel occuring in the movie as well. To those not familiar with the Gospel of John, the movie may seem odd and broken up, more like a documentary than a theatrical film. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 4, 2004 3:37 AMI don’t know if this is kosher or not, but, as a regular reader of VFR I have often wondered about Mr. Auster’s religious beliefs. Reading your review of the Gospel of John and the intersting take you had on the Passion, I am very curious. Fill me in or tell me its none of my business, either is acceptable. No problem at all. I’ve referred to my personal background from time to time. By background I’m a Jew, I became a Christian believer about 15 years ago, and was baptized in 1998 in an Anglo-Catholic parish in New York. Sometime I should write down the story of how I became a Christian, which is pretty interesting. Here are a few comments at VFR where I touch on different aspects of this: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001657.html#7767 http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000687.html http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001148.html#3700 http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001930.html#10635 Discussion of Pro-Nazi website I do want to see “The Gospel of John” film when I can. Allow me to point out, though, that it’s not the first Jesus movie to follow a Gospel word-for-word. The “Matthew” video follows that Gospel word-for-word. Sorry everybody. In the post above, “langauges” I think it’s the first time a Gospel has been filmed word for word in a theatrical movie of this quality. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 4, 2004 7:30 PMIt’s apparently the first time a word-for-word rendition of a Gospel has been produced for a full-scale cinematic, commercial release. While recommending The Gospel of John, I should also mention the animated “claymation,” stop-motion (a technique I don’t understand at all, but it’s marvelous) movie The Miracle Maker. It is the best movie version of the Gospels I’ve seen. Perhaps it’s the best because the movie makers didn’t have to depend on a human actor, but could create Jesus as they envisioned him, and the Jesus in this movie, whose voice is supplied by Ralph Fiennes, is a divinely inspired creation. The movie’s only defect is that it’s way too short—only 90 minutes. Here’s a review of it: http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/miraclemaker.html Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 5, 2004 1:21 AMSounds interesting. I’ve seen the video on the shelf where I rent videos, but you’re the first person I’ve heard from who has actually seen it. Apologies for the lack of clarity in the post above. The first “seen” refers to simply seeing a video box, the second “seen” refers to you having actually viewed the film ! Posted by: Allan Wall on May 5, 2004 1:06 PM |