I watched this when I was young and haven't seen it since, but it made quite an impression. An intense portrayal and Robert Powell has long been considered the best to have played Jesus, with justification, in my opinion. I still remember it, over 40 years on so that must count for something.
I saw this at 7 years old, we lived two doors down, maybe a quarter mile away from the little Primitive Southern Baptist church my mom occasionally took me & my younger brother to. The step dad wouldn’t go.
If the wind was blowing right in the summer you could hear the preacher screaming his fire and brimstone sermons and when we watched Jesus Of Nazareth I was convinced that was exactly The Holy Spirit, the One I’d read about and heard the shouting about.
It made an impression on me, over the years I’ve reflected back on some of the scenes in my mind, some a few times. Seeing them again after all this time I still feel the power of the portrayal. Need to watch it again. Great article too btw.
Seems this movie left quite the impact on you, it must have been quite something to see this at 7 years old.
My mentor had a saying that all good art is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that I think you might be onto something. This portrayal was a powerful one.
I do recommend you watch it over, you can find the whole thing all 6 hours on youtube.
Oh and thanks, if I’m honest I don’t ordinarily do reviews of these sort of movies. But am glad you liked it.
I beg to differ. The hippie Jesus is clearly the one in "Godspell". The insanely long trailer (typical of the 1970s) provides a good little sample: https://youtu.be/b4xLOrpNbHM?si=3pOaLjYVHRCPRqrr.
That opens up consideration of the other major musical adaptation, "Jesus Christ, Super Star." Oddly enough, the film version came out in the same year as the film version of GS, 1973. Here's one of Judas's best solos: https://youtu.be/URWa0rbB1Kw?si=Hg4nQPMumNg8av8S.
Both of these musical adaptions tap into the spirit of the late sixties and early seventies. In both, Jesus is a rebel against a somewhat modernized establishment. GS portrays a more gentle, almost carefree Jesus. JCSS is more nuanced as it shows Jesus in a wide variety of moods. It also fleshes out the supporting cast. Mary Magdalene becomes a casualty of unrequited love who will follow Jesus no matter what, but doesn't really understand him. Judas becomes a practical politician worried (ironically) that Jesus is following a path likely to lead to his own destruction. He ends up as more of a tragic figure than a villain. He discovers too late that he's been wrong about pretty much everything.
In contrast to the movies discussed in the original essay, the musicals don't really capture the divine nature of Jesus. In fairness, they weren't trying to. The focus on both is on moral teachings and their potential to regenerate society. Jesus's resurrection is more symbolic, a way of saying that his example lives on after his human life has ended.
This kind of adaptation may strike some as bizarre. But cultures have been putting their own spin on inherited religious traditions since, well, the beginning of religion. In the late Hellenistic period, a Jewish writer dubbed Ezekiel the Tragedian devoted himself to recreating the the great stories of Jewish tradition in Greek literary forms. His work doesn't survive, but the historical writings of Josephus do, and he went a step further by trying to present Judaism in a way more attractive to Roman audiences. For example, Moses comes across as more of a Greco-Roman hero type, so beautiful that everyone is jealous of him. A great military commander, he has to flee Egypt because of the jealousy of other leaders, not because he's killed an overseeing beating a Hebrew slave (as in the original Exodus account).
Early Christians followed a similar pattern. There were no musicals, though in the noncanonical Acts of John, Jesus gets a dance number, and his words were later set to music by Gustav Holtz (The Hymn of Jesus). The Ninth Century Saxon gospel, The Heliand, makes Jesus a war chief and his disciples sub chiefs. Renaissance artists portrayed Jesus against the background of Italian cities and crowds. African artists have made him Black. Asian artists have made him Asian.
To be sure, there is some danger of the original tradition getting lost in such artistic exuberance. But at their best, they provide bridges from contemporary circumstances to earlier societies. Such manifestations show that the tradition remains alive, even if some of them end up being silly or wrongheaded.
Wow! That was longer than I intended. But The Brothers Krynn often post material that puts my brain in overdrive.
Happy to have put your brain on over-drive, and I agree that this portayal was not ‘Hippy Jesus’ I have no idea why some thought it was a portrayal of him in that manner when he doesn’t seem to be that sort of fellow in this moive.
But interesting facts there, especially the Saxon one.
CGI never helps the story. And the story is what's missing from modern films.
It's why books are always better than movies. Because movies are someone else's imagination. And let's face it, our own imagination is always the best [to us]! I know mine is. 😉👉
Those are both excellent. It's annoying how many times I've been morally bested by a cartoon Joseph. Fun fact about the Miracle Maker: Jesus is voiced by Ralph Fiennes, otherwise known as Voldemort.
I haven't seen this particular adaptation, but the clips you included look like it's one I'd enjoy. As you say, there's something of a desire for majesty and power.
I specifically -do not- like the Chosen in principle. It's made for a modern audience, has modern errors, and makes Christ and John the Baptist look bad. I specifically was angry when Christ was telling John not to uphold the teachings on marriage, and they portrayed John as "doing it for the likes" type of mentality. There is some strength in how they do their portrayal of the Apostles, but again, most of it gets lost in the modernist portrayal - I have to stop the show and talk to my wife about it to gain the efficacy. About what we're told of them from tradition, some of the stories handed down in the apocryphal writings, etc. It's the same with their portrayal of Jesus. So I get frustrated, and baited by the people that know me, by the portrayal.
I have no such qualms about The Passion. I can't think of any criticisms, honestly. When it specifically is centered on one part of Our Lord's life, and it's His Death and Resurrection; you're protected from a lot of these things. We watch it at least once a year, on Good Friday, in my household.
I watched this movie when I was a kid but I have not seen it since. I watched a few scenes now and I like the portrayal and the accuracy. I much prefer this style over styles like The Chosen. But I will want to watch it again now.
I haven't seen this one previously, however I think, after reading your review & watching the clips U attached, I may actually enjoy watching this one. Maybe it's just me but I've always felt Yeshua was always portrayed way too passively, He would never have been a doormat. Thank U for including me in this, I greatly appreciate U🥰🥰👑👑💜💜☯️☯️🧿🧿🌴🌴
I agree, it's why this more fiery and passionate portrayal really impressed and pleased me, as this portrayal is one that is 'inhuman' in a way and yet the most human. I think this might be the most accurate portrayal of all times.
One of my favorite commentators, apologists, Patrick Madrid on Relevant Radio has commented extensively on this depiction of Our Lord’s life. So much so that I went to my local library to check it out. I loved it and plan on watching it a couple of times a year. According to Madrid it’s the gold standard because of its scriptural accuracy. I would agree.
I haven’t seen this one, but it sounds good. I’m more of a fan of this “otherworldly” approach. When I read the gospels, it does strike me how strange Christ must’ve seemed to the apostles and everyone else.
Regarding depictions of Christ on film, I have mixed feelings too. I’ve seen some really good movies, and they can help us understand the gospels. But although they’re functionally similar to icons, when you think about it, something about a person playing Jesus always feels a bit off. That said, respectful and accurate portrayals are always welcome if they’re done out of love.
Very good points, and I think the otherworldly approach was indeed better than the others. I do recommend this interpretation, I think you might like it. Though I must confess to not being familiar with a lot of interpretations of Jesus on filme due to my not watching religious movies very often.
I remember having to get special permission to watch it because in theory, I wasn't allowed to watch that much television in such a short time. I had both daily and weekly limits, which this series far exceeded.
The other thing I remember in the lead-up to the broadcast, is being surprised at how much it was being discussed around the schoolyard, almost like it was a hockey series.
I don't remember much about the film itself, except the intense stare you mention. On the big things I remember grown ups discussing is that it was Zefirelli on TV, so a "real" televisual film, which seemed to be a mind-blowing concept at the time, and a big part of the appeal. I should watch it again.
If I made my own adaptation, I would do it from Paul's perspective. Jesus would only appear in the minds of Paul's correspondents as they read his letters.
That’s awesome, I must admit to having daily and weekly limits on video-games and tv as a kid also (that was in the 90s though).
That said, I’m astounded everyone was discussing it back then even as I think that’s to be expected given the intensity of the portrayal and how well shot it was.
I’d love a Paul movie, and for it to be made that way. Great idea!
Your review makes me want to watch it again. And also I need to watch Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ.
Thanks, for your kind words James Ross! I felt a little nervous about this essay to be honest.
I watched this when I was young and haven't seen it since, but it made quite an impression. An intense portrayal and Robert Powell has long been considered the best to have played Jesus, with justification, in my opinion. I still remember it, over 40 years on so that must count for something.
Really? Amazing! That’s quite long ago, and for his portrayal to have burnt its way into your memory when it was 40 years ago is amazing!
Yeah his interpretation is a scorcher. I was astonished by it, I can see why you’d say it’s the best. I was struck dumb if I’m to be honest.
I saw this at 7 years old, we lived two doors down, maybe a quarter mile away from the little Primitive Southern Baptist church my mom occasionally took me & my younger brother to. The step dad wouldn’t go.
If the wind was blowing right in the summer you could hear the preacher screaming his fire and brimstone sermons and when we watched Jesus Of Nazareth I was convinced that was exactly The Holy Spirit, the One I’d read about and heard the shouting about.
It made an impression on me, over the years I’ve reflected back on some of the scenes in my mind, some a few times. Seeing them again after all this time I still feel the power of the portrayal. Need to watch it again. Great article too btw.
Seems this movie left quite the impact on you, it must have been quite something to see this at 7 years old.
My mentor had a saying that all good art is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that I think you might be onto something. This portrayal was a powerful one.
I do recommend you watch it over, you can find the whole thing all 6 hours on youtube.
Oh and thanks, if I’m honest I don’t ordinarily do reviews of these sort of movies. But am glad you liked it.
I beg to differ. The hippie Jesus is clearly the one in "Godspell". The insanely long trailer (typical of the 1970s) provides a good little sample: https://youtu.be/b4xLOrpNbHM?si=3pOaLjYVHRCPRqrr.
That opens up consideration of the other major musical adaptation, "Jesus Christ, Super Star." Oddly enough, the film version came out in the same year as the film version of GS, 1973. Here's one of Judas's best solos: https://youtu.be/URWa0rbB1Kw?si=Hg4nQPMumNg8av8S.
Both of these musical adaptions tap into the spirit of the late sixties and early seventies. In both, Jesus is a rebel against a somewhat modernized establishment. GS portrays a more gentle, almost carefree Jesus. JCSS is more nuanced as it shows Jesus in a wide variety of moods. It also fleshes out the supporting cast. Mary Magdalene becomes a casualty of unrequited love who will follow Jesus no matter what, but doesn't really understand him. Judas becomes a practical politician worried (ironically) that Jesus is following a path likely to lead to his own destruction. He ends up as more of a tragic figure than a villain. He discovers too late that he's been wrong about pretty much everything.
In contrast to the movies discussed in the original essay, the musicals don't really capture the divine nature of Jesus. In fairness, they weren't trying to. The focus on both is on moral teachings and their potential to regenerate society. Jesus's resurrection is more symbolic, a way of saying that his example lives on after his human life has ended.
This kind of adaptation may strike some as bizarre. But cultures have been putting their own spin on inherited religious traditions since, well, the beginning of religion. In the late Hellenistic period, a Jewish writer dubbed Ezekiel the Tragedian devoted himself to recreating the the great stories of Jewish tradition in Greek literary forms. His work doesn't survive, but the historical writings of Josephus do, and he went a step further by trying to present Judaism in a way more attractive to Roman audiences. For example, Moses comes across as more of a Greco-Roman hero type, so beautiful that everyone is jealous of him. A great military commander, he has to flee Egypt because of the jealousy of other leaders, not because he's killed an overseeing beating a Hebrew slave (as in the original Exodus account).
Early Christians followed a similar pattern. There were no musicals, though in the noncanonical Acts of John, Jesus gets a dance number, and his words were later set to music by Gustav Holtz (The Hymn of Jesus). The Ninth Century Saxon gospel, The Heliand, makes Jesus a war chief and his disciples sub chiefs. Renaissance artists portrayed Jesus against the background of Italian cities and crowds. African artists have made him Black. Asian artists have made him Asian.
To be sure, there is some danger of the original tradition getting lost in such artistic exuberance. But at their best, they provide bridges from contemporary circumstances to earlier societies. Such manifestations show that the tradition remains alive, even if some of them end up being silly or wrongheaded.
Wow! That was longer than I intended. But The Brothers Krynn often post material that puts my brain in overdrive.
Happy to have put your brain on over-drive, and I agree that this portayal was not ‘Hippy Jesus’ I have no idea why some thought it was a portrayal of him in that manner when he doesn’t seem to be that sort of fellow in this moive.
But interesting facts there, especially the Saxon one.
This is my favorite 'Bible Movie' mainly because of the cinematography.
The Jesus portrayal is pretty intense, I much prefer the scenes with Peter in them and a lot of the other, side characters were also very well done.
Otherwise, I have to agree with much of your other critiques of the film in general.
I give it a rotten tomatoes score of 87.
High praise, good sir! And yeah it is a VERY intense portrayal and the side-characters are AWESOME.
The cinematography is pretty darn good, arguably the best for any portrayal of that era until the making of the Rome series.
Before CGI
(which is a good thing…)
Yep, agreed. CGI can be good, but traditional means are usually better in film in my view or at least some of the time.
It’s why I appreciate Rome trying to do everything in sets or in a ‘false city’ of sorts which is meant to be a copy of ancient Rome.
CGI never helps the story. And the story is what's missing from modern films.
It's why books are always better than movies. Because movies are someone else's imagination. And let's face it, our own imagination is always the best [to us]! I know mine is. 😉👉
Exactly, it’s why I prefer to read and write.
Could one of the two animated films you value be the Miracle Maker? Claymation Jesus FTW
Never seen that one, I was thinking Prince of Egypt & Joseph King of Dreams. I’ll have to watch that claymation film though.
Those are both excellent. It's annoying how many times I've been morally bested by a cartoon Joseph. Fun fact about the Miracle Maker: Jesus is voiced by Ralph Fiennes, otherwise known as Voldemort.
That is a fun fact hahahaha! My gosh I didn’t know that!
Quand a Joseph, yeah we’ve all been bested by a cartoon Joseph at some point ;)
Excellent essay, Bravo!
I love both the Chosen and Jesus of Nazareth.
Portraying Divinity in flesh is a tightrope walk.
Love, Compassion, true righteous Anger, sorrow, pain, mercy, all combined at once, is a complex thing to depict.
Jesus literally carried the emotional weight of the world. I have no idea how that could be portrayed.
Very well said, I definitely do agree that it is a definitive tight-rope.
I haven't seen this particular adaptation, but the clips you included look like it's one I'd enjoy. As you say, there's something of a desire for majesty and power.
I specifically -do not- like the Chosen in principle. It's made for a modern audience, has modern errors, and makes Christ and John the Baptist look bad. I specifically was angry when Christ was telling John not to uphold the teachings on marriage, and they portrayed John as "doing it for the likes" type of mentality. There is some strength in how they do their portrayal of the Apostles, but again, most of it gets lost in the modernist portrayal - I have to stop the show and talk to my wife about it to gain the efficacy. About what we're told of them from tradition, some of the stories handed down in the apocryphal writings, etc. It's the same with their portrayal of Jesus. So I get frustrated, and baited by the people that know me, by the portrayal.
I have no such qualms about The Passion. I can't think of any criticisms, honestly. When it specifically is centered on one part of Our Lord's life, and it's His Death and Resurrection; you're protected from a lot of these things. We watch it at least once a year, on Good Friday, in my household.
Interesting, and I’ll be honest I’ve not been impressed by the modernist approach of Chosen and found it perplexing.
I really liked the Jesus of Nazareth movie it’s 6 hours long and is from 1977 you can find the whole thing on youtube.
I’ll open a tab and put it on the watch list!
I’m glad, am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it.
I watched this movie when I was a kid but I have not seen it since. I watched a few scenes now and I like the portrayal and the accuracy. I much prefer this style over styles like The Chosen. But I will want to watch it again now.
I prefer this sort of style also, it’s in a higher form of English and far grander it seems tonally thanks to that. Do check it out again.
I haven't seen this one previously, however I think, after reading your review & watching the clips U attached, I may actually enjoy watching this one. Maybe it's just me but I've always felt Yeshua was always portrayed way too passively, He would never have been a doormat. Thank U for including me in this, I greatly appreciate U🥰🥰👑👑💜💜☯️☯️🧿🧿🌴🌴
I agree, it's why this more fiery and passionate portrayal really impressed and pleased me, as this portrayal is one that is 'inhuman' in a way and yet the most human. I think this might be the most accurate portrayal of all times.
I wholeheartedly agree🥰🥰
One of my favorite commentators, apologists, Patrick Madrid on Relevant Radio has commented extensively on this depiction of Our Lord’s life. So much so that I went to my local library to check it out. I loved it and plan on watching it a couple of times a year. According to Madrid it’s the gold standard because of its scriptural accuracy. I would agree.
Interesting, and it sounds like Madrid is more learned about Scripture than I and obviously very wise. I really must agree with the both of you.
I haven’t seen this one, but it sounds good. I’m more of a fan of this “otherworldly” approach. When I read the gospels, it does strike me how strange Christ must’ve seemed to the apostles and everyone else.
Regarding depictions of Christ on film, I have mixed feelings too. I’ve seen some really good movies, and they can help us understand the gospels. But although they’re functionally similar to icons, when you think about it, something about a person playing Jesus always feels a bit off. That said, respectful and accurate portrayals are always welcome if they’re done out of love.
Very good points, and I think the otherworldly approach was indeed better than the others. I do recommend this interpretation, I think you might like it. Though I must confess to not being familiar with a lot of interpretations of Jesus on filme due to my not watching religious movies very often.
Will read shortly, am about to start walking.
Enjoy the walk madame
Awesome review any chance u review prince of egypt down the road?
Um, hadn’t thought about it yet to be completely honest, maybe in awhile. Maybe after August.
I remember having to get special permission to watch it because in theory, I wasn't allowed to watch that much television in such a short time. I had both daily and weekly limits, which this series far exceeded.
The other thing I remember in the lead-up to the broadcast, is being surprised at how much it was being discussed around the schoolyard, almost like it was a hockey series.
I don't remember much about the film itself, except the intense stare you mention. On the big things I remember grown ups discussing is that it was Zefirelli on TV, so a "real" televisual film, which seemed to be a mind-blowing concept at the time, and a big part of the appeal. I should watch it again.
If I made my own adaptation, I would do it from Paul's perspective. Jesus would only appear in the minds of Paul's correspondents as they read his letters.
That’s awesome, I must admit to having daily and weekly limits on video-games and tv as a kid also (that was in the 90s though).
That said, I’m astounded everyone was discussing it back then even as I think that’s to be expected given the intensity of the portrayal and how well shot it was.
I’d love a Paul movie, and for it to be made that way. Great idea!
You've given me a lot to think about. I will have to watch this again sometime with your observations in mind. Thank you.
You’re very welcome mon ami, I’m glad you liked it!