| Films about Jesus have always reflected the spirit of the era The release of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" was accompanied by all sorts of scandals, which quick-to-hand journalists hastened to call unprecedented. Nothing of the kind. Scandals have always arisen around films about the earthly life of Jesus. Initially, they were caused by the fact that the very fact of transferring the image of the Savior to the screen was perceived as blasphemy, and the first attempts of this kind were made back in 1898. Then the folk mysteries of the Passion of the Lord, which were played out in different European countries, were captured on film. (The most famous, in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, will once again take place in 2010). Over time, cinema ceased to cause rejection by the believing public, and it became clear that films about Christ are a powerful missionary tool. Cecil B. deMille, who directed King of Kings in 1927, boasted in his autobiography that the film “told the story of Jesus of Nazareth to more people than any other work except the Bible.” But scandals also accompanied his appearance. The Jews were dissatisfied, fearing that the film would cause a wave of Judeophobia - at that time anti-Semitism in the United States was widespread. De Mille heeded their concerns, portraying the main villain as the high priest Caiaphas, who in horror turns to Jehovah after the crucifixion scene: “Deliver Your people from Your wrath, I alone am to blame for this.” Such an expressive title in the silent film clearly contradicted the gospel “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27.25), shouted by “all the people” in response to Pilate’s exhortations. The director did this because he himself understood what a powerful impact cinema can have on the simple-minded masses who are ready to literally perceive the text of Scripture.
DeMille was also the first director to consciously rely on the support of American Christians when showing a film. As a result, his film broke all the box office records of the 20s, and then for another 25 years it was shown in cinemas at Easter, and many parishes rented it for their missionary work.
The popularity of “King of Kings” prompted fashionable director Nicholas Ray to shoot a remake, which was released in 1961. This time Catholics were up in arms against the film. A statement from the Catholic Legion of Decency called it "misrepresentative of Scripture and theologically and historically inaccurate." Catholic protests were probably caused by Ray's emphasis on the humanity of Christ in his film. This interpretation of the image of the Savior did not raise any objections among the Protestant public. These were the years of the rise of liberal Protestant theology, in which the social role of Jesus came to the fore. At the same time, the director could not be blamed for not taking into account the interests of the Catholic audience. In the film, Magdalene asks the Virgin Mary to put in a good word for her with Christ. “Are you asking me to intervene?” Maria asks, and the scene ends there, leaving the audience wondering what happened next. If she had intervened, it would have been closer to the Catholic interpretation of the image of the Mother of God, if not, to the Protestant one. Ray chose to bypass the controversial issue, but still did not avoid the displeasure of the Catholics.
The film, in which the social role of Jesus dominated, was nevertheless made not by a Protestant, but by a Marxist. In Catholic circles in Italy, Pier Paolo Pasolini's decision to make a film about Christ was treated with great caution. And indeed, Jesus in the “Gospel of Matthew” (1964), compassionate with the Jewish poor and angry at the rich, was somewhat reminiscent of a revolutionary of the sixties. (By the way, the first person Pasolini invited to play the role of Jesus in his film was the poet and citizen Yevgeny Yevtushenko.) But Pasolini’s cinematic gift saved him from simplifying the image of the Savior. Powerful visuals (the film was shot in the documentary style of Italian neorealism) and the unexpected use of ethnic sacred music gave amazing authenticity to what was happening on screen. The film's release did not cause the expected scandals; in the United States it was nominated for three Oscars, and critics joked that the unbelieving director managed to cope better than others with the task of depicting the “true God.”
Jesus the man reigns supreme in two American musicals, Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell, produced in 1973. The films reflect the spirit of the counterculture, in which Jesus is primarily a rebel, pitting his mystical insights against the establishment in the hope that they will overturn the status quo. By sticking flowers into the muzzles of police rifles, hippies believed that they were following the precepts of Christian love. Jesus the Superstar behaved in much the same way. Not surprisingly, both musicals lacked the Resurrection scene.
Meanwhile, the counterculture was replaced by a wave of conservatism, which among American Protestants resulted in a powerful rise of politicized fundamentalism. When, in the second half of the 70s, the pious Franco Zeffirelli started filming the six-hour television series “Jesus of Nazareth,” he inadvertently told reporters that he wanted to show Jesus “as an ordinary person - soft, fragile, simple.” This was enough for fundamentalists to launch a powerful campaign against the film, since, unlike their liberal co-religionists, they exalted the divine nature of Christ. As a result, one of the main sponsors of Zeffirelli's project, General Motors, refused financial support. The largest car manufacturer has always been sensitive to the mood of consumers and realized in time that money on the “fragile Jesus” would be wasted. Those who fight against the “humanity of Christ” turned out to be even holier than the Pope, who, on the contrary, blessed Zeffirelli’s project.
It is curious that around the same time, Islamic fundamentalists carried out a powerful international campaign against the release of Muhammad, the Messenger of God (1977), which practically disrupted the film's distribution in Muslim countries. Apparently, this successful example also inspired American fundamentalists. When Martin Scorsese first tried to film Nikos Kazantzakis' novel The Last Temptation of Christ in 1983, Jerry Fowels' Moral Majority literally bombarded Paramount Pictures with letters threatening a boycott and succeeded - the project was shelved. When Scorsese finally managed to find money for the film and release it in 1988, the threat of boycotts was carried out to the point of burning down cinemas. Moreover, Catholics also supported Protestants in their fight against the film.
In fact, they closed ranks a little earlier. Jean-Luc Godard's Viva Maria (1985) drew official condemnation from the Pope, and its release in the United States was accompanied by boycotts and pickets by the Moral Majority. The conservatives' indignation was understandable: Scorsese showed Christ doubting his higher destiny and almost giving in to the temptations of the flesh, while Godard had the Virgin Mary working at a gas station and St. Joseph as a taxi driver.
Now conservative sentiments are on the rise in almost all Christian denominations. Therefore, the emergence of new “Passion of Christ” is quite natural. Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic. The divine nature of Christ is important to him. It is evident from the scene of the Resurrection of the Son of Man in the flesh, bearing traces of a terrible execution. The Virgin Mary has no doubt about the highest destiny of her son, whose faith is not shaken by his terrible torment. And finally, these very torments - the passion of Christ, depicted with extreme naturalism, lead the viewer to the idea that they would be beyond the capabilities of an ordinary person. Before him is a suffering God. Quite in the Catholic spirit, Gibson uses elements of Tradition in the film (developing the theme of the pious wife of Pilate, barely mentioned in Scripture). But this does not confuse Protestant viewers (who have no respect for Tradition), since the director diligently follows not only the spirit, but also the letter of Scripture. The director's creative imagination is limited to the image of the devil appearing to the Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane. Yes, Marina Magdalene is identified with the nameless harlot whom Christ saves from stoning. As a result, the film received the approval of the Pope, and in the United States both Protestants and Catholics came to see it “with the whole parish.” Gibson's traditionalist approach also appealed to the Russian Orthodox Church, whose representative called the film a useful "potent medicine."
But Gibson was unable to avoid scandal, like almost all of his predecessors. This scandal was connected not so much with the content of his faith, but with its fervor, which prompted him to depict the torment of the Savior with extreme naturalism. For liberal Christians, this turned out to be too much, especially in connection with the “Jewish theme.” Too detailed depictions of the abuse that the Savior suffered from his people could fuel anti-Semitic hysteria, they decided. The liberals' concerns were fully shared by Jewish organizations such as the Jewish Defense League, which staged a number of protests. In Europe, the protests were much louder than in America - in the US, the danger of anti-Semitism is currently insignificant, while in Europe it is more than relevant. The film was most harshly condemned in Germany, where Catholics, Protestants and Jews issued a joint statement. In this country, given its history, they prefer to nip Judeophobic sentiments in the bud. The film also caused a negative reaction in France, where the protests of Jewish organizations were supplemented by criticism from the left-wing intelligentsia (whose position is traditionally strong in this country), who considered the film “tasteless religious propaganda.” Boris FALIKOV |
|
