Jesus of Nazareth 1977 - The Greatest Adaptation Ever??? Or the Most Unsettling?

Both???

Before starting a quick shout-out to

C. M. Setledge

for the reminder to do this essay, which is one I’ve meant to do for quite some time.

There’s a lot of ways to interpret a character like Jesus on screen. Certainly you can go for a more hard-headed adaptation, you can do the joshing, cheerful big lug like the Chosen certainly did or you can go somewhat differently from any of these.

Jesus of Nazareth is a 1977 portrayal of the events of the New Testament and while the 6 hour movie might not be for everyone it certainly is a good take on the classic stories. But the uncanny thing in this movie is just how Jesus NEVER blinks.

He may lower his eyes, he may look away but he never blinks. Never seems to not be staring penetratingly through those around him, and seems always to be looking on those around him expectingly.

There’s a weight to this portrayal. An ancientness, and honestly it hit me when watching this film how though he does indeed look to be a man in his 30s he also seems impossibly old, impossibly ancient looking down across the centuries at these ‘young pups’ talking and lecturing him on proper comportment, on the law and talking to him at times as though he were an imbecile.

Just to contrast it, in the Chosen he seems quite young, like he’s new to a lot of things. This makes the two portrayals quite different from each other.

Jesus in the 1977 film also is a man who looks on the sneering, cunning Matthew with expectation and proposes he goes to his home, where he’ll end up telling him parables only to then push the weeping, regretful Matthew to apologize to a honestly hot-headed Peter (who like Mathew is really well-portrayed also).

What is so interesting about this depiction of Jesus is how uncanny he seems, a few times one catches him scratching at the earth, with a strange curious look in his eyes or he’s found studying those around him reproachfully.

This portrayal seems like a human portrayal of the God of the Old Testament, which is appropriate as the entire idea of Jesus Christ is that he is the physical manifestation of the God of the Old Testament.

This can be observed in the Synagogue scene where he flies into such a rage that he just about throws people off their feet, tramples everything he can and his very luminiscent eyes become aglow with hatred and anger.

Same thing happens in the below scene when he’s confronted by the pharisees in the Synagogue after healing a blind man.

Towards the end of this scene (arguably the best of the movie) he shouts at the Pharisees, of how they have hollowed out the law, and serve the letter of the law without a thought for the ‘Heart of the Law’ a regular theme throughout the movie as he lectures on this topic.

The heart of the law as he intertrepts it is compassion, mercy and justice, and that which man should show to one another as no man is perfect.

At the same time, he carries a very strong presence, seems always taller than all others around him, and though I’ve heard this portrayal criticized for being too ‘dour’ he seems to still smile (such as the scene with the children), and does seem to genuinely care for his Apostles at a few points smiling at them.

He also is indeed dour to an extent, worrying over his ‘children’ and being keen to remonstrate them and such.

Honestly I’m not sure I’ve an argument regarding this particular point save that I do not think dour is quite the right word. Providential would be more appropriate.

There is a dignity to this Jesus, he speaks in an elevated manner. His English is closer to that of Tolkien or the 19th century than that of more recent portrayals, he speaks well and in a deep, booming voice. He talks with the weight of providence because he is supposed to BE providence.

His is the last word on all matters and woe betide he who would seek to correct him. This is probably what makes him such uncomfortable viewing for some as he speaks as though he were standing in judgement of ALL.

I must admit to quite liking this depiction of him. He’s as he is supposed to be; a tall, providential God who forgives certainly but he has his limits.

I have also heard him talked about as ‘hippy Jesus’ and I was not certain what this meant and was told he’s too skinny. He seems slender to be sure, but not all that skinny. I must admit that he doesn’t behave like a hippy, but rather talks with an edge to his voice, a hint of menace to the Pharisees in a few scenes and the scenes from the Bible of turning a son against his father and so on, and his ‘Get Behind me Satan’ scenes are all there.

He’s presented here, never speaking as I imagine ‘Hippy’ Jesus might. He seems too aggressive, too providential for that as a major aspect of the mythical Hippy version is that Jesus doesn’t get angry. He meekly goes to his fate, and seems to just constantly joke, or otherwise try to make people feel better.

This movie’s interpretation of the character is quite a bit different from that and I cannot help but think I prefer this discomfiting figure who would boom and shout about the Heart of the Law, of the importance of his teachings and yell about what he strove to teach his people all those millennia ago.

In all, I can see why some might not like him. Others such as

Isaac Young

I’m sure quite like this adaptation which would make sense as it is right up his alley, I could also see the likes of

Brother Alexander

enjoying this movie for what it is.

I myself found myself liking it, but also annoyed there wasn’t the walking on water scene something Chosen did masterfully in a visual manner.

There’s more to this portrayal, with the prayer scene of ‘My Father’ which is an uncanny scene, as Jesus teaches the prayer, he speaks as though a man in rapture. He seems to genuinely be in bliss or something and it is unsettling also and strange. It is a good scene.

Over-all in the grand scheme of things where the Chosen portrayal seems more human than divine in a way, this one seems far in a way more divine and almost eldritch or otherwordly than mortal.

He is unsettling, as mentioned he is not of this world and seems always watchful always staring, always studying. He seems to like his followers, but speaks constantly of the ‘Kingdom of Him’ or ‘My Kingdom’ or ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’ and is stern and sharp with those who speak ill of it or otherwise behave hypocritically.

It is also interesting how he forgives the one prostitute with a smile, with a warmth he hardly shows the hypocrites around him. Addressing only Joseph of Arimathea with any visible affection.

In this scene he seems genuinely moved by the prostitute, and he comes across as tranquil and gentle rather than harsh. It is a good scene.

The crucifixion to my knowledge is well done but the Passion did it better. This goes without saying, as I’m sure many will be quick to say.

But this begs the question; what lies at the heart of a ‘good Jesus’ adaptation/portrayal? Is it a compassion fellow, speaking cheerfully all the time like in Chosen? Is it like Scorcese’s idiotic buffoon who falls into Satan’s well poised trap? Or is it this oen with his harsh, providential and heavy manner?

I’d say yes but no to two of these; the heart of the character lies in the Divine aspect. If you cannot show the truly otherworldly element, if there’s no hint of something more to him than the adaptation has failed.

There must be more than ‘he’s just a nice guy’, there must be something of the Valkyrie Profile Lenneth’s Lenneth or Athena from Age of Mythology, or Baldr from Hercules Legendary Journeys or even Maben from that series.

Jesus can be portrayed as human certainly, but under Christian beliefs he’s not really all that human. He’s supposed to be divine, otherworldly and somehow as though he doesn’t fully belong in some ways even as he does belong.

There is a flavour to him that must not be relatable or as though we can see ourselves in him, there must be a wildness and an element of him looming over us. This is a figure whom ought to seem more imposing than the likes of say Charlemagne, more eloquent and charismatic than Augustus, more beautiful than Jehanne D’Arc and more magnificent than Kiyomori, gentler than Mursili II, more wrathful than Shirakawa, more patient than Tokugawa Ieyasu.

He must be more than all of us.

And if you’re not a Christian and not keen on his story, it should strike as even stranger, as even more imposing and even more imposing in some ways than any other movie character. This isn’t simply a human but a God. Now, if you say ‘I’m not Christian’ once more, I get that but the figure should still be striking I think to you, as I’ve met a great many Atheists, Shintoists and others who have said, ‘well if you’ll portray this figure I expect him to be imposing, or striking’ and when confronted by other portrayals they’ve said, ‘that’s it’.

Somehow I think this one will make the difference. As this adaptation while not perfect to be sure, in a few key scenes comes close to the Christian ideal of the figure and is daunting and magnificent.

So over-all what do I think? This movie could have used another edit, it speeds through some elements near the end at blinding speed, neglects some GREAT stories and seems to end quietly when it shouldn’t. Yet it’s also a solid portrayal. Probably the best portrayal of Jesus, if also one of the most frustrating as it seems that the director was far more nervous about some stories and was also limited by technology at the time.

If it sounds like I don’t know if I’ve made up my mind about this one, it’s because I haven’t. Strictly speaking I dislike watching religious movies. Religion is something I am passionate about sure, but outside of two particular animated films, I’m uncomfortable with seeing it onscreen. I can’t explain it, I like paintings, I like analysis books, and I like discussions of these things but not movies or tv series.

I imagine someone like Mel Gibson and the staff at Chosen could have mitigated these problems, but had they Powell’s powerful presence and combined that with their tech and what not, it’d make for quite the show. So there’s stuff they have over this ‘77 movie and stuff it has over theirs.