Jesus Movies: A Humble Critique

Henry Ian Cusick (Gospel of John)

Jesus movies. You know the type. Even the more recent ones of the bunch (History Channel's The Bible miniseries, The Passion of the Christ, Risen, et al.) seem to suffer from the same problems. (Please don't stone me. As Jesus was fond of saying, "I'm telling you the truth.") Dramatic inertia. Catatonic performances. Stilted dialog. Flat characters. They're boring. They're bland. They're largely unmemorable.

Most importantly, I don't really connect with or care about any of the characters. It all boils down to one reason: the filmmakers are too afraid to show any of these Biblical figures as being "real people." The poor actors are often overwhelmed with verbatim dialog from the Gospels, more mouthpieces for text than living, breathing characters in a story. I understand it's difficult to find a balance when you're making a film about a person over a billion people revere as divine. I sympathize. But I still think the medium of filmmaking is ultimately about creating something that rings true - that reaches its audience. Connects with its audience. If it doesn't connect, it isn't worth the effort.

With that preface out of the way, I'll make a full disclosure. I love Jesus movies. I've seen nearly all of them. I own many of them. Why? Because I'm a huge nerd. I like breaking down their various elements and comparing/contrasting them with each other. It can't be the weirdest hobby around, but it's up there. Another disclosure: I may point out their flaws with zest, but I still enjoy watching them.

The story of Jesus has been told countless times in cinema. How many characters can boast that many different portrayals in film? Nope, not even Sherlock Holmes or Batman (despite ubiquitous sequels and prequels and reboots).

I enjoy watching all these different actors doing their best to tackle extremely difficult roles, all these directors and screenwriters bringing their own ideas into the mix, all these composers spending sleepless nights trying to find music worthy of such an "important" story, all these poor extras milling about in the desert with their robes and sandals and turbans, pursued by frantic makeup artists dusting them with fullers earth.

One must ask oneself, why so many different films? Seems like every year, more are announced. Why do people keep wanting to retell this story? Everyone knows the narrative beat for beat. How do you maintain any sort of tension or intrigue when a story is so well known? Modern filmmaking is all about the twist at the end, maintaining suspense throughout, doing something "edgy" and "different." It's about complex characters, flawed characters, people we can relate to. There's truth in them, and the audience can see that. So far I've only encountered one narrative treatment of the Gospels that satisfies the plotting problems most Gospel adaptations encounter - The Chosen (2019) - but I'll talk about that more toward the end.

Unfortunately, many Jesus films bring little new or interesting to the genre (yes, "Jesus Film" is basically its own separate genre now), and therefore largely fail to justify their own existence. Most simply aren't what we would consider "good films," though they may have other merits in different categories. I tend to put more weight on the success of the role of Jesus, success being defined as a "yes" answer for the following two questions: "Would I follow this guy?" and "Does he act like a real human?" As you'll see when I go through some of the more salient examples from the genre, not a lot of them succeed in this regard. Many simply portray Jesus as a dull, boring teacher, too divine to even behave like a real human being would under the circumstance of, ya know, being alive.

Robert Powell (Jesus of Nazareth)

Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth (1977) comes to mind. While I think his performance was consistent, and he had a few moments of humanity, his dialog was textbook, and he seemed aloof, distant from the reality he was inhabiting, as though he were too good for it (which may be true, but c'mon, I don't get a super uppity vibe from him in the Gospels). Part of it was the odd choice to portray Jesus as never blinking, which doesn't really help with the humanity portion of the character. Were they trying to suggest Jesus' eyes were capable of lubricating themselves without blinking? What an intriguing theory. But hey, at least Robert Powell had charisma, which some other, more modern interpretations have sorely lacked.

King of Kings (1961) and The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) featured two more lead-weighted performances, with actors crippled beneath the burden of portraying the world's most famous carpenter (or stone mason, depending on who you ask). Jeffrey Hunter, a generally excellent actor who died far too young, was actually older than Jesus when he portrayed him, and yet King of Kings was humorously referred to as "I Was a Teenage Jesus" because of how young he appeared in the film. On the opposite end of the scale, Max Von Sydow, another great actor, was distractingly old, which robbed his character of energy and vibrancy.

Jeffrey Hunter (King of Kings)

Neither of these films came close to capturing Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity, though I give Jeffrey Hunter credit for what he was able to do under the circumstances. One scene in particular comes to mind, in which he goes to visit John the Baptist in prison (not in the Gospels, mind you). Jesus takes John by the hand, through the prison bars, and the wordless gesture carries with it an odd power the rest of the film seems to lack. Also, there's a scene in which Jesus is fixing his mother's chair before the Passover - which is a nice touch, even on its own - and offhandedly says he'll finish when he gets back. "You'll never fix the chair," his mother says, serenely. Jesus turns around with this look of shock, like, "Whoa. You're right. I'm gonna be dead in a week." Why couldn't the rest of the film have moments like that?

A later entry into the genre that maybe goes too far in the opposite direction is The Last Temptation of

Willem Defoe (The Last Temptation of Christ)

Christ (1988). This film received a mixed response from Christians, mostly because of the dream sequence at the end where Jesus is tempted by an ordinary life with Mary Magdalene. That's not my problem with it. I even like the Green Goblin as Jesus, despite the fact he doesn't look remotely Middle-eastern (can we stop with the blond hair and blue eyes already?). Willem Defoe offers an interesting portrait of his character, the score, by Peter Gabriel, is amazing, and the film is obviously well done, because Martin Scorsese. However, what The Last Temptation offers in good cinematic quality, characterization, and narrative intrigue is undercut by the unrealistic nature of Jesus' following in the film. He lacks magnetism, so I have no idea how he manages to gather that many people around him. I wouldn't follow him. He looks like he's perpetually on the verge of a mental breakdown. Interesting? Yes. Realistic? No.

I should probably address the myriad Jesus TV specials that came out in the late 90s. One, Mary,

Christian Bale (Mary, Mother of Jesus)

Mother of Jesus, starred a young Christian Bale as the lead. He's actually decent, when he's given anything to do. He's expressive, and brings a certain earthiness and vulnerability that a lot of actors don't, while also providing magnetism. If only the production values weren't so lackluster, and the music so overbearing, and the rest of the cast so nonexistent.

Another late 90s TV movie of some note was Jesus: The Epic Miniseries (1999), starring Jeremy Sisto. There was actually some fun, unusual stuff here. They took more license with the story, but it was done in service of the narrative, and in the spirit of the text. Some of the additions are 90s cheese, but a few actually work. I liked that Satan shows up in a business suit, presenting Jesus with visions of the Crusades, the World Wars, and starving children in Africa. It adds a sense of relevance and timelessness to the story. But the dialog is a mixed bag, and Jeremy Sisto is merely ok. He's down to earth and

Jeremy Sisto (Jesus: The Epic Miniseries)

human, compared to most. But his acting can be inconsistent, and his charisma just isn't there. It must be hard to find an actor in his early 30s who can pull off both magnetism and vulnerability.

As for the third and most pointless in the 90s TV Jesus special trifecta, Judas (1999), they literally cast a California surfer dude as Jesus. Super blonde. Super white. Super American. He's Shaggy from Scooby Doo. (Not actually, but he might as well be for what he adds to the feature.) Only good scene is Jesus and Judas sharing some good banter and having a wrestling match. Would I follow this Jesus? Depends. Does he have Scooby Snacks?

Visual Bible's Matthew (1993) is super low budget, and it shows. But its heart is in the right place, so you tend to overlook its lack of flash and pizzazz. Jesus, played by Bruce Marchiano, is very likable, even though his dialog is taken verbatim from the Gospel of Matthew. Watching it, I can't help but

Bruce Marchiano (Matthew)

feel, "This guy gets it." He doesn't look Middle-eastern, and his accent is a bit jarringly American, but he gets it. He understands, and as such, is noticeably different in his approach. Even while delivering run-of-the-mill dialog, he's constantly smiling and laughing, constantly touching people and kissing people and loving on people (and animals; he definitely loves the Rich Young Ruler's horse). It's really lovely to see. There's also a nice vulnerability to him, as exemplified in his scathing condemnation of the religious leaders of his day, wherein he literally screams at them with tears in his eyes, then collapses at the end and has to be comforted by John.

In the same vein, BBC's The Passion (2008), starring Joseph Mawle (of Game of Thrones fame), also presents a warm and compassionate Messiah. Due to lack of availability in the States, I've only seen whatever clips from it I could scrounge from YouTube, but I really enjoyed what I saw, despite the

Joseph Mawle (BBC's The Passion) 

peculiar casting of extremely white actors as Jesus and the disciples. Joseph Mawle is superb, so it's an easy flaw to overlook. He presents a vulnerability in the midst of his character's self-assurance, reflecting the interplay of Jesus's coexisting natures. In addition, the screenplay is excellent, and the dialog feels natural and genuine. 

The Gospel of John (2003) stars Peruvian-Scottish actor Henry Ian Cusick as Jesus, of Lost fame. He does what he can with the role, but watching behind the scenes featurettes, I get the impression director Philip Seville had a

Henry Ian Cusick (Gospel of John)

particularly severe version of Jesus in mind, and goaded his lead actor in that direction. Henry's performance has its moments. He sheds a tear for Lazarus, as per the gospels, and even has some genuine emotion in his voice a few times. Appearance-wise, he's not far off the mark, and I like that they cast someone small and slight versus the typical physique one sees in such films. But there's just something lacking from the portrayal, and I suppose it comes down to the typical failure to capture the essence of Jesus' dual nature.

We've come a ways since the Jesus films of yore, but Modern!Jesus in film still suffers from a lot of the same problems. In History Channel's The Bible, Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado plays Jesus. I admit he's likable. He's nice, he's chill, he smiles, he looks around the

Diogo Morgado (History Channel's The Bible)

right age (another gripe of mine in Jesus movies - they seem to always cast someone older for the role, forgetting that Jesus died at 33). But while watching it, I really couldn't see how anyone would follow this guy. He doesn't seem to understand the words coming out of his own mouth. There's nothing intriguing about him, nothing "true-to-life." He's just another mouthpiece for text, not a living, complex character.

What I notice in most Jesus films, even ones made more recently, is how stony people's expressions are. Jesus in particular seems to always have a problem with any sort of human expression. There ARE exceptions (Visual Bible's Matthew is atypical, as is the more recent The Chosen series, which I'll get into later on), but for the most part, Jesus' face will feature one expression for the entire film, with only slight variations. Mostly, he just looks like he's annoyed all the time, or bored, or superior to everyone around him. He's not interesting to watch, and usually, I don't get the vibe that he's invested in much of what he's saying. It is possible to deliver difficult dialog in a natural manner. It's also possible to look like you're actually thinking about what you're saying and not just rattling off memorized lines.

I think part of it is that actors have a notion that certain expressions are too "modern," as though in times past humans refrained from using various motions of their faces because they hadn't been discovered yet. Pure bunk. And even if it were true, they should use the full range of their expressiveness anyway, because they're playing to a modern audience, not people who lived back then.

Sometimes I just want to jump into a Jesus film and shake the oh-so-holy actor out of his self-importance, yelling, "Be a real human! Plz!" I don't understand why most productions are so afraid to show Jesus the way he actually was.

I need a scene where Jesus trips over a rock and falls down and the disciples start laughing and he's like, "Haha, very funny. Help me up." Or a donkey brays during one of his sermons and everyone busts up laughing (you just know it happened). Or where he's trying to mend Mary's door and accidentally breaks it, then shrugs and is like, "This is why I quit carpentry." He had to have had a sense of humor. Who would've wanted to be around someone who didn't? Certainly not me.

On that note, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (2005) broke records at the box office, and was the first Jesus film to be rated R. As an actor, James Caviezel tends to be a bit mystical, a bit...

James Caviezel (Passion of the Christ)

otherworldly. It's easy to see why Mel cast him as Jesus. Unfortunately, barring one gorgeous scene that I love to pieces (Mary and Jesus bantering about a table), he's given very little to do besides wear a lot of stage blood and prosthetics and say "ow" on cue. After a certain point, you could basically replace him with the fake body double they actually had on set, and no one would've noticed. The audience is put through the wringer, unable to maintain the type of investment in the narrative and characters that's needed to have real impact. "But wait," you say, "people were coming out of the cinemas sobbing." That's a different kind of impact. Specifically, a forceful bludgeon more likely to cause PTSD than an actual connection with the film or its characters. An audience doesn't automatically have to care about what happens to a character just because the character is Jesus. That sort of investment has to be earned.

Joaquin Phoenix (Mary Magdalene) 

Another more recent addition to the genre is Mary Magdalene (2018), directed by Garth Davis. This was a sadly underrated film with some stunning images and cinematography. It's soulful and deep, and I think captures well the mystique of someone like Jesus (played by a soft-spoken Joaquin Phoenix).

The dialog is particularly powerful, at times arresting. This one offered something new, beautiful and thought-provoking enough to justify itself as a piece of cinema, not merely a religious exercise. I'm not sure about Joaquin as Jesus - for one thing, he looks like he's 50, not 33 - but he does bring a quiet presence to the role, and even some touching humanity. (I will eventually add this one to my collection just for the opening scenes of Mary floating under the water, accompanied by a transcendent score by Hildur Guðnadóttir and Jóhann Jóhannsson.)

Finally, for the pies de la resistance, we have The Chosen (2019). I'm a little iffy on the way they're presenting this multi-season series (avoiding all the existing streaming services) but it's their show, so I guess they can present it to their audience however they want. They have literally done the impossible, with a crowd-funded, 10 million dollar budget.

Jonathan Roumie (The Chosen)

They've made a good quality, well-scripted, well-shot, well-acted, non-hokey series on the life of Jesus that actually manages to be entertaining, intriguing, and thought-provoking. Jesus, played by Jonathan Roumie, is a little older than I'd prefer, but it's a small gripe. He's honestly amazing. He looks Middle-eastern, he's warm and human, he has range of expression, and it's easy to understand why people would be drawn to him. Best of all, he's funny, and it's not a sort of humor that clashes or feels forced. It seems very natural when he tells the leper he's just healed that "green is definitely [his] color," or he blows raspberries at some nearby children. This is gonna be one to watch. I'm shook.

So I suppose the vast majority of problems associated with Jesus films boil down to skating over necessary bits of character development, using characters as mouthpieces for text, and not bothering to give the audience a reason to invest, or care about what happens to any of them. We often can't find commonality or connection with Jesus' character, in particular, because he's so two-dimensional. The spark of truth is missing from his words and deeds. We don't see a real human being speaking words from the heart, or doing acts spurred by love, compassion, and a sense of destiny. We intuit that "Jesus" is just an actor delivering dialog he doesn't understand, or performing acts he doesn't believe in. He's not engaged. He's just following the script. The audience picks up on that. 

I'd better stop before this post gets any longer. I really could go on and on for days on this subject. On a closing note, I actually feel that Jesus films are getting progressively closer to the truth, baby steps at a time. One can only hope so, with the benefit of so much trial and error. It will be fascinating to watch how the genre develops down the road, assuming it remains as enduringly popular. I have a feeling it will.