Jesus

From a motion picture perspective, the "Jesus" film is primitive and flawed for audiences who are familiar with cinematic convention. From a biblical story-telling perspective however, it is brilliant. I'm therefore rating it at just "5" - half-way between love and hate, as I shall explain in this review.

That the producers achieved what they set out to do is indisputable: it's the most watched movie of all time. That the film is clear and truthful to the Gospel account of Luke is indisputable. That we need to consider the intended audience is also indisputable. Released just two years after Zeffirelli's magnificent masterpiece, "Jesus of Nazareth", this film comes across as is a lifeless clone... IF you've seen the Zeffirelli film, that is.

But what if you haven't -- what if you couldn't; maybe because you live in the jungle some place away from TV sets and westernised living? Then some chaps come into your village, set up a sheet between trees, wait for dark and then display these "magic pictures". NOW which film is the most powerful? The tables are turned, and all of a sudden, the "Jesus" film comes out tops. The film is not sophisticated, but it's not meant to be. Its power is not due to the imagery, but due to the Word of God that it illustrates.

Now, what about all the narration? It makes it sound like one of those old 16 mm "Fact and Faith" films that my maths teacher showed in school way back. Like an old newsreel. For a start, narration makes the translators' tasks much easier- it is, after all, the most translated film in history. However, during the climax, we actually loose the narrator altogether - a very unusual device, and I'm still not sure if it works that way or not. If I was cynical, I'd say the narrator went off for a coffee break, but I think they did it that way to help draw the audience, sitting spellbound on the hard earth, more into the story. The idea of any cinematic style has long left the screen, so it probably really doesn't matter, and on the primitive level, it certainly works.

Again, desperately failing not to be cynical, I see this film as perhaps the Protestant answer to the Catholic "Jesus of Nazareth" that it desperately tries to copy in part, and which was released just two years earlier. It reflects the fundamentalist ethos that it's okay to "use" film for religious purposes, but it is not okay to be absorbed by it. Art can be tolerated so long as the message is loud and clear. I don't mean to be cruel or mean; I admire and respect the folks who made this. However, I guess I just fail to understand why the producers were not able to get a few more talented people to guide the project to completion. It is a prime example of blinkered movie vision. In the end, it doesn't really matter, however, because the purpose of the film is to help non-Christians encounter Christ himself in his resurrection power - not to have a great night out.

As a side note, I have figured out a way to really enjoy this movie. Get something useful to do like washing the dishes or painting a wall. Then, put the movie on in the same room, and listen to the soundtrack as you work, and forget it even has moving pictures. The film makes excellent audio, and it has a wonderful added bonus: whenever you get really curious, all you need to do is take a peek at the screen, and low and behold, as if by magic, there's a moving picture of what you've just been listening to! A quite awesome way of listening to the Bible on tape. Because the visuals are almost entirely incidental, you can "listen" to the movie and not miss a thing!

On this film, I'm really sitting on the fence. For achieving what it set out to do, which is basically tell the story of Jesus to primitive audiences, I'd rate it 10 out of 10. As a film, with any depth of artistic talent, I have to be honest and give it a 1 out of 10. So I have to settle for a 5 rating. Which is one higher that the 4 that I hated myself for originally giving it, before writing this review and finding a valid reason to mark it up at least one notch.

Here in the Bible belt of the United States, particularly in our Southern Baptist churches, when you say the name "Jesus Christ," most of us envision such a person as Brian Deacon, who stars as the title character of "Jesus" (1979). The plot of "Jesus" is generally well-known even by non-believers. The opening scene displays John 3:16-17 from the King James Version. Though the film claims to be entirely from The Gospel of St. Luke, it also mixes elements from Matthew's Gospel (i.e.: a more complete Lord's Prayer said by Christ and the use of the trinitarian baptismal formula).

Sadly, the acting in "Jesus" is almost as wooden as the oil-painted icons of the Eastern Church. Brian Deacon delivers a sort of solemn, meek interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth--making the scene in which he casts out the money-changers from the temple--look as if he is only frustrated, and not righteously angry. However, in the film's defense, the acting in "Jesus" is much more a product of its time in that this was generally accepted as to how Jesus acted.

"Jesus" is perhaps one of the greatest films ever made, not because of its production values or acting, but because of its content. This 80-minute film, translated into God knows how many languages, has communicated the Gospel to millions all across the globe. "Jesus," the forerunner of such films as "The Gospel of John" (2003) and "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), is one of the finest examples of evangelical film-making. Recommended for everyone.

For any searcher, this movie gives an account that is closer to the truth of the four gospels than any other movie about Jesus. One not to be missed, but to be seen and thought about as to who Jesus really is. Filmed in several locations of where Jesus actually walked, the movie takes away the Hollywood hype and myths about Jesus and represents what the viewer really needs to know. Is Jesus who he claims to be? Is he the Son of God? Watch this movie and then make your own decision.

The story of Jesus as told by this movie is faithful to the Bible version. It does not flinch from some of the uglier parts of the story, such as the crucifixion. Jesus was a soft-spoken man, with dark complexion and long hair. This is more accurate than portraying him as a blond-haired, blue-eyed WASP.

One question, though: why was this movie ever rated G? The proper rating is PG-13, although it would have been rated PG because we did not have the PG-13 rating at the time.

To write about such a delicate film as about Christ Himself in this age of an extreme political correctness is a tough task. This work appeals immensely to all the believers and works out fine to convert all the newcomers. To the non-believers, this work will seem dull and boring, but then, let's be straight - this is the most accurate, the most precise and elegant retelling of the Gospel According to Luke. Since I am a Protestant Christian myself, I must say that this film really did help me to understand who Jesus is and what He was doing among us the people on Earth. The play of Mr. Deacon is very good, he does an extremely difficult work and he does it well. I remember my eyes were wet with tears during the Crucifix scene, and then my heart leaped violently with joy during the final scenes. The film is very well done, by seeing the sandy dusty plains and hills of Israel, you feel the smell of age, you do believe in the truth of the plot and you do follow the film scene by scene. A very serious and thoughtful work.