Jesus de Nazaré

I have seen Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" with other members of my church, and came away recommending that they now see "Jesus of Nazareth". It is truly my favorite movie. I first saw it when I was 14 years old, and remember being so completely moved by the whole experience. The difference between these two movies is that you have to rely on your knowledge of the bible for "The Passion". Jesus of Nazareth allows you to truly become emotionally attached to the actual person of Jesus. I insist that my two teenage children and husband watch it with me every Easter. We are always moved to tears by the end. I am always disappointed that the networks choose to show "The Ten Commandments" every Easter, and not "Jesus of Nazareth". Isn't the story of Jesus the reason for the season of Easter?

Was Jesus the Divine Son of God or simply a daring revolutionary? There have always been questions concerning Jesus and who He really was, and therefore, there will probably always be films about Him and His ministry on Earth. Whether or not Jesus was who He claimed to be, the Savior of the world, one thing is certain: He is alive in the hearts of millions, and this film helped capture the spirit of the Christian beliefs, making Jesus not so much an icon but a living, breathing Son of God, perfect in every way, Who loved us enough to die for our sins.

There have been many versions of the life of Christ, and many actors who have brought their own personalities to the part. William Defoe was a fearless leader in "The Last Temptation of Christ." Brian Deacon was friendly and cheerful in "Jesus." Max Von Sydow spoke with authority and passion in "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Jurgen Prochnow was cold and mysterious in "The Seventh Sign." Jeffrey Hunter was untouchable and almost with little personality except to complete the mission assigned to him in "King of Kings." All of these men have contributed, but I would have to say that none of them were truly convincing, just because there are so many aspects to Jesus, and, being human, they were unable to really portray the Son of God affectively.

Enter Robert Powell. This man looks as if he were born to play Jesus, from the physical features to the very heart and soul of the Son of Man. He manages to combine the elements of his peers who attempted the role, and you don't see the actor....you see Jesus Christ. You can sence the love and the passion flowing through Him, and at the same time, you can see His authority and discipline. For the first time, we have a Jesus who is "one hundred percent man and one hundred percent God."

This is also possibly the longest movie I've ever sat through, but it held my attention, nevertheless. Zeffirelli manages to keep it captivating, with a powerful soundtract and a cast of famous actors that are jam-packed but never overused. Not only do you see an affective Jesus, but you also see a wonderful group of people who were affected by Him. If the real Jesus was anything like the way Robert Powell portrayed Him, then I don't have any problem wondering how Christianity has managed to grow and be spread, impacting countless lives....including mine.

"Jesus of Nazareth"....you do your title-name proud. Truly this Man WAS the Son of God.

Over the years, numerous attempts have been made to transfer the life of Christ to the screen, and one that succeeds is Franco Zefirelli's JESUS OF NAZARETH. The story is a straighforward retelling of the synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark, and Luke), starting with the divine revelations to Mary and Joseph of their roles as Jesus's earthly parents on the the Resurrection. The score is beautific and reverent, and the big name actors who populate the film are well-cast(no Shelley Winters or John Wayne, thankfully). Also, British actor Robert Powell gives Jesus the proper reverence and poise. Zefirelli was correct to cast him; with his angular features, wavy brown hair and light eyes, this Jesus looks like every church icon and Sunday School picture I've ever seen, something Zefirelli was aware of and used to great effect. While he passes on accuracy for effect with Jesus, the apostles, it must be noted, all resemble the Hebrew peasants, publicans, and sinners they most certainly were. The length is tolerable, primarily because Zefirelli doesn't waste film on needless, arty panoramas or slow-moving dialogue. Zefirelli does keep the action moving, but one annoying technique he employs is the now dated-looking zoom close-up, but this happens infrequently. Highly recommended.

I recently watched this movie meticulously as I had the job of transcribing most of it to paper for a later production translation. I had seen this movie when it was originally broadcast in the 70's. Being a visually oriented learner, creative type and fundamental but immature in my Christian faith...I was distracted by the handsomeness of Powell and his blue eyes and aforementioned preoccupation of my own perceptions.

That said, I would say that this is the best movie made about the life of Christ that I have seen and I've seen numerous. Robert Powell does make the character of Jesus very human and believable...and also gives the viewer a sense of the divine...Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. In short, a viewer can look forward to meeting this Jesus and not feel condemned...and can walk away forgiven.

But there are people in this world who are fundamental and want to see a Jesus as described in The Bible as accurately as possible for a human to portray. Personally, I believe that God can inspire a man to play the role of Jesus to a certain extent. It's my opinion that Powell was inspired...not totally, but to a certain extent. BTW doesn't God want all of us to act like little Jesus'? Obviously, no man can portray the character of Jesus fully...there is only one Jesus.

I would still like to see a Jesus that matches the biblical description: - he was not handsome according to the prophet Isaiah. - he was so beat up during his passion that he was not able to be recognized to be a man...again the prophet Isaiah. - His beard was torn out...again, I believe that's Isaiah.

In my opinion, "The Passion" surpasses "Jesus of Nazereth" in that part of the story...but it too falls short of the points above.

All in all, Jesus of Nazereth is an excellent road sign to point men to the truth.

With Franco Zeffirelli's 1977 made for television masterpiece and Anthony Burgess' screenplay, religious film simply does not get any better than this. Much as I admire Mel Gibson's monumental depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life in "The Passion of the Christ", I still believe that the yardstick by which all 'passion play' genre films will be judged in future generations will be "Jesus of Nazareth".

After completing "Brother Son, Sister Moon", Zeffirelli turned (the Jewish) Sir Lew Grade down flat for this project, stubbornly refusing to engage on the project for a year and a half. As his other stage and screen projects turned to dust, however, he finally accepted the task. What finally convinced him was his conviction that the film could be compassionate towards the Jews, and thus could help undo some of the past hatred for which Christianity was renowned.

Burgess and Zeffirelli was a match made in heaven: Burgess turned in a script that took great liberties with the sacred text. Zeffirelli was uneasy with his liberalism, and sought to bring the script back to a more faithful rendition; yet Burgess' awesomely effective dramatic structure remains. Interestingly, Ingmar Bergman had already been asked to turn in a treatment, apparently before Zeffirelli was ever approached. However, the Roman Catholics who had been the original driving force for the project strongly objected to Bergman's idea of a series of mini lives of Jesus, as seen from the viewpoint of different characters.

Bergman was dismissive of the final Zeffirelli project, and it is certain that it would have been an entirely different film had he been asked to direct. While there is much to respect about Bergman, he would have been totally incapable of producing the beauty, purity and meaning in the hidden text that is so apparent in the final film.

Less than seven years later, Zeffirelli estimated that 750,000 people had seen the film. I saw the original transmission on American television in 1977, (it was aired nationwide at least twice in two years), and I also have an original and ageing VHS (PAL) copy. I plan a London revival of the series during Lent 2007, to mark the film's 30th anniversary. Back in 1977, it was the talk of the nation - in St. Louis, I heard of one lady who was instantly healed of cancer as she watched the crucifixion scene.

Interestingly, the resurrection scene nearly never got filmed. In fact, what we do see on screen is simply screen test material rescued from the editing bin at the final hour! The information above is documented in Franco Zeffirelli book, "Jesus: a Spiritual Diary" (1984: NY. Harper & Row) and Ingmar Bergman's "The Magic Lantern" (1988: London: Hamish Hamilton). However, there is no substitute for watching this masterpiece: in a word, it's awesome!