Many of us have probably seen previews for or heard news about the upcoming film "Son of God," due to release Feb. 28. As the title clearly implies, it is a movie chronicling the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The movie employs scenes from "The Bible" miniseries that aired last year and will include deleted and additional footage. If you haven't heard anything about the film, check out one of the trailers below:
Thinking about this release reminded me of a project I did my senior year of college. In this project I explored the interplay between the biblical Gospels, "Jesus films," and culture. My underlying thesis was that any film, TV show, etc. depicting Jesus better reflects the producing culture than it does the actual, historical Jesus. For the project I studied the films The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) and Jesus (TV movie, 2000).
What I concluded by the end was that each film clearly reflects the cultural times, trends, and tendencies of its era. For example, the Jesus of Greatest Story is a Jesus for the 1960's. This Jesus is stoic and removed from earthly life (a "heavenly" being if you will); the type of Jesus "needed" to combat the revolutionary movements of the 60's. This film's Jesus is also depicted as a hero in the style of an American Western, a popular film genre of the era. Meanwhile, Jesus offers a more "modern" Jesus fitting with the culture of the early 2000's. This new and improved Jesus is an "earthy" Jesus trying to discover his identity. He even briefly considers a romantic relationship. If it weren't for the ancient garb, 2000's Jesus could easily be mistaken for any young millennial searching for their identity and meaning in a complex world.
Now that we face a new Jesus film, I am fascinated by what kind of Jesus will be depicted and how he will reflect our culture in 2014. When the film comes out I hope to analyze it for myself, but first I'd like to explain how I went about studying each Jesus film so you can join me in better understanding our cultural Jesuses from the Jesus presented in our Scriptures.
To study each film, I applied a method of biblical interpretation called "redaction criticism." This method compares biblical texts with their source materials and notes how the author "redacts," or changes, the original text. Changes might include additions, deletions, or word and stylistic alterations. For example, it is commonly assumed that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke both used material from Mark as well as from other sources in compiling their gospels. We can compare the passages in Matthew or Luke that clearly borrow from Mark and observe how Matthew/Luke make changes. From there we develop theories on possible theological or artistic motivations for making those changes.
For instance, compare Matt. 16:13-23 and Mark 8:27-33. Both stories are almost identical (even word for word) with the exception of a few places where Matthew changes the story. Two changes stand out. First, whereas Mark 8:33 says that Jesus "rebuked" Peter (same word for rebuking demons), Matthew 16:23 changes "rebuke" to the weaker verb "said." It's just a statement, not a rebuke of a demon. Second, Matthew adds an entire section of praise for Peter from Jesus in 16:17-19. In Mark's version, Peter says "You are the Messiah" and immediately gets "rebuked" (the first of 2 times). In Matthew, Peter receives praise from Jesus and only gets "told" off later when he tries to convince Jesus not to die.
Biblical scholars note these changes (along with many similar changes in Matthew's Gospel) and conclude that Matthew tends to portray the disciples as constantly improving in their faith. Meanwhile, Mark holds a negative view of the disciples, observing their faith shrinking and increasing thickness with each chapter. The reason for this is because Matthew and Mark are emphasizing different aspects of discipleship to best convey different messages for different audiences.
I suggest we can treat Jesus films as a "cultural text" and apply the same method. In the case of such films, we know the primary source material--the biblical Gospels. However, no film uses the Gospels as its only source. Jesus films also borrow from pop culture, Christian (and cultural) tradition, and the director's imagination/experience. Even films with dialogue taken only from the Gospels (such as The Gospel of John) still use other sources in what they visually depict on screen.
So, as we watch any Jesus film, we need to note what is borrowed from the biblical Gospels, what is added to the Gospel narratives, and what is left out. These places in the dialogue and plot that differ from the biblical narratives are crucial for understanding the cultural Jesus being presented in the movie. When we note these changes, we need to ask, "Why present Jesus in that manner? Why make that change?" Even noting camera angles and music can tell us about what kind of Jesus we are seeing on screen.
I'll explain more of how this can work in my next post and will maybe even throw out of few ideas based on the trailer. Until then, let me know what you think about approaching Jesus films in this way.
