Professional Documents
Culture Documents
41
contemporary interpretations of Jesus person and work. Starting out by tracing the development taking
place in films about Jesus throughout the twentieth century, the focus then moves to a theological
reading of Mel Gibsons interpretation of the passion story for the twenty-first century in his movie The
Passion of the Christ.
Key Terms: religion and film, Christology, Jesus and film, glorification of suffering, images of Christ
The Rev. Dr. Arnfrur Gumundsdottir is Professor of Systematic Theology, with an emphasis on Feminist Theology, in the Faculty of
Theology and Religious Studies, University of Iceland. Her Ph.D. is from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago in 1996. She is the
author of Meeting God on the Cross. Christ, the Cross, and the Feminist Critique, published by Oxford University Press, 2010. She is also an ordained
pastor within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland.
C
42
factors are not irrelevant. Rather, the varieties of Jesus on the silver screen testify
to the conviction that Jesus remains relevant
to our society; there is an ongoing need to
tell and retell this story, in Hollywood and
in other international cinematic centers in
which commercial films are made. Viewing
the Jesus movies as a vehicle through which
filmmakers reflect upon their own time and
place not only makes these movies more interesting and more fun but also allows us to
see them as a starting point for understanding ourselves.3
Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir
43
Jesus Images
An important aspect of Jesus films is the characterization of the historical context of the gospel story.
Despite the fact that all the major movies recognize
the Jewishness of Jesus, in none of them does he
look very Jewish; instead, he often is depicted with
blue eyes and blond hair.5 The obvious contradiction between his appearance and his ethnicity raises
important questions about the interpretation of his
historical context.6 Regarding the contextualization
of the Jesus story, it is important to ask if there is
anything about his historical context that is constitutive for his incarnation.7 Furthermore: how much
freedom do we have to reinterpret the historical
facts, without in any way downplaying or denying
the historicity of the Jesus event? I think film is a
very promising genre for exploring the possibilities
of interpreting the message of Jesus Christ in different cultural contexts. In particular, film is a fruitful
way of exploring issues around the inculturation8 of
the gospel story, especially with regard to questions
of race, gender and ethnicity.9
From early on in film-making, it has been widely
accepted that one must render Jesus ethnicity relevant to contemporary viewers. Although images
of Jesus have varied greatly, depending on their
cultural context, Jesus maleness has remained an
essential marker of his historical identity. The stability and insistence upon male visual imagery for
Jesus demonstrates how maleness has been privileged above other historical particulars in the story
of Jesus Christ. I will maintain that his sex is indeed comparable to his ethnicity as historical particulars. Therefore Jesus could be portrayed as a
woman, as well as a westerner, as has been the
case in most of the Jesus-films of the 20th century. My point here is simply to recognize that
while the historical Jesus was indeed a man, his
maleness itself does not play an essential role in
44
perhaps what was meant to present an otherwordly look of DeMilles Jesus, is in tune with
his treatment of the lead actor during the making
of the movie. The actor was forbidden to appear in
public during the filming, and once in makeup and
costume, he was transported in a closed car and
wore a black veil when leaving for the set . . . He
even had to eat alone in a tent while on location,
and no one but the director spoke to him when he
was in costume.14 This token of ultimate respect
for the subject-matter took an interesting twist in
the great movies from the fifties, where the person
of Jesus plays a significant role without being very
visible on the screen. In those movies, Jesus is seen
from behind, or only his hands or feet, but never
his face, as for example in The Robe (1953) and
Ben Hur (1959).
The next major film version of the life of Jesus,
after DeMilles The King of Kings, did not appear
until the beginning of the 1960s, 34 years later,
with the not so original title King of Kings. Possibly
the relatively same title (with only the definite article missing) hinted at the aim of the producer
to replace DeMilles legendary movie. The Jesus
character in King of Kings is more human than his
predecessors, as he is allowed to express both his
feelings as well as the ignorance about the purpose
of his life. He is nevertheless as strikingly nonJewish in appearance, with his big blue eyes and
blond hair.
Two other films soon followed, namely the huge
Hollywood production The Greatest Story Ever Told
(1965), and the Italian film Il Vangelo Secondo
Matteo or The Gospel According to Saint Matthew,
which premired in 1964. The Jesus character presented in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and played
by the Swedish actor Max von Sydow, is blue-eyed
and middle-aged. He speaks straight out of the King
James version of the Bible (notably with a strong
Swedish accent), preaching about love, mercy and
salvation. This Jesus is definitely not very Jewish
(even if his Jewishness is recognized in the movie),
nor for that matter, very human. The cosmic
Christ the director wanted to portray is the divine Christ, totally at peace with his messianic
role, ready to fulfill the purpose of his life, i.e.
to die.
An Angry Jesus
The Italian director and renowned atheist Pier
Paolo Pasolini intended his movie, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, to be a clear antithesis to
the Hollywood adaptations of the life and work of
Jesus Christ. Filmed in Italy,15 the black and white
color makes a stark contrast to the picturesque
scenery from Utah and Colorado in The Greatest
Story Every Told, as well to as the close-ups of Jesus
strikingly blue eyes and well-tanned skin in King of
Kings. This Jesus is definitely very different. While
Jesus in King of Kings is the superlative good and
noble guy, and in The Greatest Story the stoic introvert, in Pasolinis movie we see the angry Jesus,
aggressive and very often quite ruthless, telling his
audience he is not there to bring peace but a
sword (Mt 10.3435).
Interestingly enough, Pasolinis film, despite the
harsh image of Jesus, was received with greater
enthusiasm and more general approval both by
critics and church officials than the contemporary
Hollywood versions. It is indeed possible that the
comparison played a significant role in Pasolinis
favorable acceptance. Many thought Pasolini did a
better job in portraying a plausible picture of Jesus
Christand his challenging, often quite provoking messagethan the Hollywood directors.
Pasolinis faithfulness to Scripture, following the
text from the Gospel of Matthew almost word for
word, also might have assured him the recognition
of the Catholic Church, who bestowed upon him
several awards and the honor of showing the film
to the eight hundred Catholic bishops assembled in
Rome for the second Vatican Council.16
Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir
45
Jesus of Montreal
The Canadian director, Denys Archand, an atheist
like Pasolini, made the movie Jesus of Montreal. The
scandal around The Last Temptation of Christ is most
likely to blame for the limited attention this film
received. What is unique about this film is that it
can be categorized as a Jesus film and/or a film
about a Christ-figure.19 Arcands main focus is on
the contextualization of the Jesus event, and the
impression the story of Jesus makes on peoples
lives. Like Jesus Christ Superstar, this movie is about
a group of actors playing out the passion story.
An actor is asked to revitalize a passion play that
has been performed at a church in Montreal for
many years. He gathers a small group of actors and
starts to write, direct, and play Jesus in a radically
revised play about the passion of Jesus Christ. The
play is well received by the public, but not by the
priest, who originally asked for the revisions, nor
by church authorities, who eventually banned the
play.
There are actually two stories being told in the
movie at the same time. One is the passion story
of Jesus, and the other is the story of the actor
who plays Jesus, whose life becomes an allegory of
Christs as he gradually becomes more and more
like Jesus himself.20 Towards the end of the movie
the Christ-figure dies. His friends and co-actors donate his organs, signifying the life-giving aspect of
his death. They also agree (with the exception of
the Mary Magdalene character) on establishing a
theatre in memory of him, originally the idea of
a lawyer, the demonic representative in the movie.
The movie is packed with criticism, aimed at the
society as well as the church.
46
Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir
47
Endnotes
1. Clive Marsh and Gaye Ortiz, Explorations in Theology and Film
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 2.
2. W. Barnes Tatum, Jesus at the Movies. A Guide to the First Hundred
Years (California: Polebridge Press, 1997), 1. See also Margaret Miles,
Seeing and Believing. Religion and Values in the Movies (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1996), X; Bryan P. Stone, Faith and Film. Theological Themes at the
Cinema (St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 2000), 4-5.
3. Reinhartz, Jesus of Hollywood, 10. Miles writes in her book Seeing
and Believing: Films, like paintings and plays, are not timeless objects;
they arise in, and respond to, concrete historical circumstances. Thus, they
cannot be adequately analyzed without reference to the social anxieties
and aspirations that promted their production . . . (18).
4. Schweitzer Pasolinis movie is probably the most obvious example,
but Pasolini saw numerous similarities between himself and Jesus, as he
is portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.
5. Telford, Jesus Christ Movie Star, 133.
48
6. This is true for the portrayal of Jesus in art for the last 2000
years, as is for example well documented in the documentary: The Face.
Jesus in Art (2001).
8. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, gives the following definition of inculturation: [a]ssimilation of something within a specific culture through observation, experience, and instruction. Theologically it is
the process by which the gospel is adapted to a specific cultural setting.
(Richardson, and Bowden, 41)