Robert Powell was good as Jesus, but those eyes… I am sure there were lots of Israeli Jews with big, bright, baby blues at the time.

Caviezel hands down. Your guy has blue dreamy eyes; might as well have the blonde one.

I agree with you . Jim Caviezel hands down .

I thought Bruce Marchiano was pretty good in “Matthew,” but Caviezel is the best.

Powell’s eyes doom him.  I can’t get past the blue eyes.  Caviezel is the best Jesus.

Don’t forget that Desmond from LOST played Jesus in the Gospel of John movie.  Gives a whole other perspective to “see you in another life, brotha!”

When I was a kid, Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth was my favorite. He showed a lot of gentleness and compassion. But I really loved Jim Caviezel and probably more but would like to see the full portrayal, from the reading in Isaiah to the passion. Oh, and not all Jews are dark skinned, dark eyed and jet black hair. I’ve lived amongst many fair skinned and blonde haired jewish people. In fact, King David was said to have golden hair and Esau had a ruddy complexion.

What! No mention of Ted Neely?  Ted Neely?  Come on - Jesus from Jesus Christ Superstar?  Okay, okay - I get it, but he did have a nice voice.

Peter Weller in Robocop was an OK Jesus.

Caviezel’s the best. He’s even more convincing in person. His eyes are the window to his soul, and his soul is pro-life.

+1 Gospel of John

It didn’t get as much attention as The Passion of the Christ, and the conceit of narrating the Gospel (Christopher Plummer as the narrator) is a bit off-putting, and yeah, some of the acting is standard fare for evangelical films. But overall I prefer it to The Passion of the Christ, and admire it for taking on perhaps the most difficult of the gospels, as opposed to dramatizing with legends, visions, or whatnot.

Why does everyone always desire a white euro Jesus?

Certainly our narcissistic tendency to wish to see ourselves in Jesus must be at play here.

Why don’t we wish to see, as Jesus did, the Other?

Where is the Jesus film that genuinely advocates a return to religion and faith as way of solving the problems of a society he sees wallowing in consumerism?

In the end the best we can say is: Jesus is the one talking to us in the most urgent manner, and his voice is irreplaceble, especially as we go forward to address the rights of the immigrants, the gay, lesbian and transgendered… and all of the dispossessed of a nation thaat foolishly believes itself to be exceptional, above aall others.

Claude Heater…this was a stroke of genius.

Jim Caviezel. Even though I’ve heard his dark eyes in the movie were contact lenses.

Claude Heater.  It has little to do with his acting (which was minimal) and more to do with the way his part was written.  In Ben Hur we only see the back of Jesus’s head, but He is omnipresent in the film.

I can’t believe you left out Victor Garber, who played Jesus in “Godspell.”

@Brendan:  Why does everyone portray a white euro Judas Iscariot?

Isaiah 53:2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

Close tie between Jim Caviezel and Robert Powell. Nothing will top the former’s depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion like Caviezel’s. But a lot of the credit for this belongs to Mel Gibson who insisted upon the most realistic portrayal of what Jesus Passion must’ve been like according to all the research available about the cruelties of Roman punishment and crucifixions at the time of Jesus’ Passion. As for Robert Powell’s portrayal of Christ, let’s not forget that his covered the three years of Jesus’ ministry and all the most imporant moments during this period. Granted, the crucifixion scene wasn’t nearly as tormenting for viewers as the Caviezel/Gibson version, it was very intense for the time and audience it was presented during and for. The Powell film was first aired during the late Seventies as a made-for-television-epic-series, and given the times, was it ever. Wonderful supporting cast and by far the most captivating. It portrayed Christ as both human and divine. All too many portrayals of Christ in years prior to Powell’s portrayal, save for von Sydows’ and Hunter’s ... were conducted in much the same way Hollow-wood used to portray our Founding (let me have a huge FAWWWWNNNNNINNNNG SIGHHHHHHH) Fathers, Lincoln and even FDR. Willem Dafoe and Jeremy Sisto ... they’ve gotta lotta years ahead of them to put those “memorable” portrayals behind ‘em. lol Well, in their favor they always will have Platoon and Law & Order, respectively to help audiences forget their hopefully all too forgettable performances as Jesus. Hmmm, looks like I didn’t help much in helping ‘em forget those “forgettable” “performances.” lol

for me, i loved jim caviezal’s JESUS - he’s very human in loving his mother, his pain is all too real… but he only did the last 3 days, plus snippets of earlier times…

for overall i suggest robert powell… he’s more like JESUS in his behaviour than anyone else, ecxept jim… jim was great, for 3 days… robert was great for year-3 years…

Great post Pat! But you force me to preempt my planned blog post for today to throw together a quick response to this post! Stay tuned ...

Caviezel for certain - he is the only one with approximately Semitic as well as manly features.  As for Powell, I call him the “wimp” Jesus - he even has a weak chin.  And the TV movie with Powell was also quite “wimpish” about our very courageous Faith.

@ Jeanne G.: Caviezel’s eyes were not contact lenses. They were digitally color-corrected in post-production from blue to brown. The result is not entirely convincing—a friend of mine joked that Caviezel’s faux-brown eyes looked like the color of root beer, and made him look a bit like a Docetist Christ, i.e., a divine Christ who appears in human form but hasn’t actually become human.

I do not know why? Except, of course, theu got it partially right in casting an African-American as Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar.

Authentically, both should be played very much the same, but, as many whites find a Jesus and Judas with big lips and kinky hair as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find Jesus associating with tax-collectors, we don’t get portrayals with all the features which are so destestable to many whites in our society.

Anybody with blond hair and blue eyes (Max Von Sydow, Jeffrey Hunter) should be immediately disqualified.

My perfect Jesus movie would be Christopher Plummer narrating,
Robert Powell ( blinking and not staring the entire movie),
St. Peter ..James Farentino,  Judas.. Rufus Sewell,
devil. donald pleasance, BVM Dorothy Mcguire or Olivia Hussey

capitalcee: You remind me of Brother Jed, the evangelist who used to visit our college campus every year and insist that Jesus had a haircut just like his. Men wore their hair pretty long back then, there is plenty of documentary proof of this—unless you are talking about Roman men, who were famous for wearing their hair short (see any statue of a Roman emperor or senator). Maybe Paul had short hair; he was a Roman citizen. I believe that at the time Jesus lived on earth, Greeks still had a fashion for very long hair in men, but I’m not certain of that. There have been many male fashions for longer hair over the millennia. The Biblical injunction is clearly against VERY long hair of the kind that women have generally had in most non-African cultures for most of recorded history. Men and women were supposed to dress differently, as they generally still do. Even when men and women wear jeans and t-shirts, they are generally cut differently.

Caviezel is probably the best, although I think they shouldn’t have taken such great care in trimming his beard and mustache in the movie.  Something tells me that Jesus didn’t shave his neck and trim his mustache with a pair of expensive trimming scissors.  My husband has a beard and mustache and they just don’t grow like that….I know…picky picky picky. Sorry.

“Claude Heater.  It has little to do with his acting (which was minimal) and more to do with the way his part was written.  In Ben Hur we only see the back of Jesus’s head, but He is omnipresent in the film. “

Agreed. By keeping Jesus’ (actually Heater’s) face at a distance or away from the camera, the director allows us to imagine “our” Jesus in the actor’s place—by far the most generally satisfying depiction of Christ in film.

This is not to detract from Caviezel’s or Powell’s significant accomplishments in the portrayal of Jesus—THE actor’s role that is virtually guaranteed to offend or displease a significant percentage of the audience even before they see it, and one in which success is largely measured by how carefully you thread your way through the minefield and emerge intact.  An actor playing Jesus has (in a way) the same task that any actor has—to make his audience believe that he is not reciting memorized lines, but that they are coming out of a real living person at the moment he says them—and that he is the kind of person who could think and say such things. But doing these things while portraying the incarnate Son of God does raise the bar a bit. There will therefore likely never be a fully satisfactory dramatic portrayal of Christ, because at some pre-verbal (if not pre-analytical) level, we KNOW that the One Who said those astounding things in the Gospels is not THIS guy up on the screen, no matter how much he’s made up to look like the man in the paintings.

Put me firmly in the Powell camp.  Yes, Jesus’s eyes were probably not Blue but IIRC, the director choose the Blue Eyes (and indeed highlighted them), not to make Jesus white, but to emphasize how different he was from everyone else.  I probably like the portrayal the most because you do get Jesus’ whole ministry, not just his last hours on Earth.  It helps put things in context.

My favorite DVD life of Jesus start’s the TV series “Lost”‘s Henry Ian Cusik (“Desmond”) as Jesus, and uses the Gospel of John from the American Bibole Society’s Good News Bible as it’s script.  Sure, you may be surprsed to find out that Our Lord spoke with a slight Scottish accent, but sticking to a Gospel for it’s plot means that the wierd parts (Mary Magdalene wore lipstick as the 13th Aposlte?) are few.

And I believe that Jeffrey Hunter was Jewish, so complaining that he didn’t look Jewish enough, or that he was too handsome, is a matter of taste.  (Why do you believe that Christ couldn’t have been handsome?  Yes, he was disfigured, but that was after the Romans had their way with him.)

I had goosebumps when Robert Powell came out to Pilate after being scourged and crowned with thorns. You can almost feel what Pilate must have been feeling at the sight of him in the doorway.

The Powell version was very moving to me.

I did love the Passion of the Christ with Jim Caveziel.

Both films were great.

The one I disliked the most was the one with Jeffrey Hunter. I felt absolutely nothing when watching that. Hunter’s acting was awful.

Jim Caviezel has blue eyes and they were changed for the film.  Just a little happy fact.  :)

Jim Caviezel, hands down, no contest.  He’s Jesus.  The Passion is the best movie about the death of Christ; also no contest.  I agree that it is a masterpiece.  It’s a Good Friday tradition.

Also, Maia Morgenstern IS Mary for me.  Her face is Mary’s face.

Yes, you did forget Henry Ian Cusik from LOST! I remember when his character, Desmond, first appeared on LOST and I said, “It’s Jesus! He’s come to save them!” No one around me knew that he had been in a movie portraying Jesus so no one else thought it was funny. But I did, darn it!

All those Jesuses with blonde hair and blue eyes I have dubbed “Surfer Dude Jesus” Caviezel is my favorite but I still like Robert Powell…

Though I generally like the Jeremy Sisto movie as a whole, I can’t ever watch it and not think of all the girls I was friends with in college referring to him as the “hot Jesus”.  It must’ve been the wind-blown hair!

I like Caveziel’s performance best, but I admit as has been said before, despite its likely inauthenticities, the bright blues of Powell are truly stunning and do really speak something different and loving.

Enrique Irazoqui was the best Jesus in cinematic history.  “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” is one of the best works of Italian film, and Irazoqui’s performance was the most significant that I can recall. 

He had beautiful hair, too.

Go watch it. Defoe’s performance was not great, but Caviezel is a close second for me.

How about that claymation Jesus from that movie the Miracle Maker?

Believe it or not, I saw a video at school with a young, pre-fame Hugh Grant as Jesus. It was a one act play, with a bunch of central-casting types auditioning to play…Jesus! Needless to say, the actual Jesus doesn’t get the part.

I love both Caviezel and Powell’s portrayals, and yes, I hope Caviezel someday does the “prequel” to the Passion—I would love to see him do the whole of Christ’s ministry, whether in English or Aramaic. (Do you suppose Mel is now to disgraced to direct?)

What I loved about that scene in Ben-Hur is not really so much the acting as the idea of the scene itself. Jesus stares down the mean arrogant Roman soldier, who just melts into butter before him. And because it takes place as we see Jesus from behind, the expression on his face is left to the viewer’s imagination—really cool.

Okay, Pat, here are my contributions. Cheers!

In my personal opinion, “Jesus” is a complete failure as a Jesus movie, mainly cuz it has made by CBS, and has a Jesus is far too human, at times he even seems confused about who He is. And it’s completely and totally inaccurate, both historically and in regard to the Gospel. And I agree, an actor who played Batman should never play Jesus. Now an actor who played Superman can get away with it, since Kal-El is almost a Christ figure…almost

I used to think jim caviezel until I saw robert powell. those eyes got it.  Mary

Any guy who could survive two shots of lightening while hanging on a cross for what had to be a terribly interminable amt of time deserves the Faithful’s Oscar, and that guy is Jim Caviezel. (Hey, he also “landed on Guadacanal,” and “served under” Nick Nolte, too. Not much time for Caviezel to spend in Purgatory. He’s already earned his “credit for time” or “efforts ... spent.”)

Yeah, it’s kind of embarrassing.
When I think of Jesus, I think of Robert Powell:  A blue-eyed Brit.  Not exactly a Jewish man of the first century.  Word, right after that image comes the recollection of Powell playing Catholic convert, Gustave Mahler in another movie. It all blurs.
To keep my focus, I, too, watch “the Passion of the Christ” on Good Friday.  I first saw it when it opened on Ash Wednesday where I live.  It keeps you grounded in the Passion narrative better than the other-worldly Powell-qua-Brideshead Revisted Jesus.
Now, how do we detox our memories of the not-so-good Jesuses?

my son and I just laughed our heads off all through this article.  Hilarious!

I agree with you. Jim Caviezel, without a doubt!

Robert Powell and the whole Franco Zeffirelli production is incomparable. Blue eyes, like the transcendent skies, only add to the unique quality. Josephus said Jesus is reported to have had “reddish” hair unlike most Jews of the time.

Franco Zeffirelli recreated something in drama and art which, faithful in gare part to ther Gospel, we will likely not see again in our lifetime. Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ is however a close second.

In any case, as someone has said, today Jesus is the only name which is anathema on television which was not the case on NBC in 1977.

Robert Powell.  I like a little “Brideshead Revisted” to my Jesus.  Makes him not seem like such a bumpkin, and someone who might have read a little Greek/Roman philosophy on the side.  He also can bring it in the righteous anger department.  No one whips a moneychanger like Robert Powell. Just please don’t wimp out my Jesus! That’s the worst.

I’d love to read you talk about your favorite Mary! (Olivia Hussey has my vote)

Jim Caviezel had a sweet tenderness with an underlying strength in his portrayal that was absolutely riveting. When Caviezel as Jesus came out before Pilate and the crowd, I remember his legs began to tremble and it was all I could do to hold myself together. A very subtle action, but truly heartbreaking. And trying to speak through his broken mouth….there were so many extraordinary moments that made the movie a masterpiece.  I sobbed through the whole thing - 3 times. Caviezel inhabited that part completely and I agree with the person who would like to see a prequel.  I’m sure it would be another blockbuster.

Re: blue eyes; brown eyes. Jesus received only one-half his genetic make-up from his Mother Mary, a Jewish woman of first century Palestine, who most likely had moderately dark to very dark eyes and deeper skin tones than is commonly found among people of Northern European ancestry. The genetic contribution from His Father, however, would have introduced a novel set of variables into the equation. An earlier commenter noted that the filmmakers may have chosen an actor with piercing blue eyes so that he would stand out among the other characters . . . how probable is it that the Father would have imparted to the Incarnate Word an appearance that made Him readily fit in with his compatriots, yet also to stand out?

For this reason, Powell’s piercing blue eyes work well for me.

For sure, Jim Caviezel. He is very convincing in his role as Jesus.

Another thing to keep in mind when we consider the actors playing Jesus versus what Jesus probably looked like is that the appearance of people in different regions of the world is not constant over time.  By the time it was the Roman Province of Palestine, Israel had been dominated by the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans, not to mention the occasional invasion by Egyptians.  Since then, the region spent much of the last 1500 years being dominated by Turks and Arabs.  Each probably left their fingerprint on the local populations.  Since at least the Romans and Greek invaders would have included at least a few people with blonde hair and blue eyes (in very small numbers compared to Northern Europeans, but almost certainly not a null set), it is possible that there Jews of the period who looked more European.
—
Now mind you, I expect that Jesus did have dark hair, eyes and skin that was darker rather than light… but either works for a dramatic presentation.  In the grand perspective what Jesus looks like doesn’t matter at all (if it had, we would have Church tradition or the Bible describe him).  Its what he said and did that matter.

What a great set of responses (2 or 3 bizarre exceptions) to an interesting topic.  This is a classy audience.

Whaddya mean Jesus wasn’t a blue-eyed, blonde Eurocentric anti-politically correct man who spoke with a Brit accent. After all these years of hearing from our “mother country” that the Almighty is “an English gentleman, after all, tsk tsk…” (with a wink n’ a nod, there chaps, for effects)...whodathunkit that Jesus had dark hair, looked Semitic and wasn’t a stand-in for King Arthur or his Germanic counterparts to his south east. Nicht Lohengrin oder Siegfried? Was ist los?
  C’mon, if we’re not going to rely on more English actors or even Yanks of Roma heritage, Italians or (if necessary) a Frenchman, couldn’t we have at least one Irishman? No more Brit accents but an Irish BROGUE. Too bad Pierce’s getting up there in the years. But if he needs a good Peter, he can always get a Kiwi to be the Master & Commander of His Church: Russell Crowe.

Wow, you pretty much put down Ted Neely as Jesus Christ in Jesus Christ Superstar….seeing that movie changed the direction of my life when I saw it at age 14…...I actually began thinking about Christianity and wanting to know more about it…...I think Jesus would approve, you never know what is going to reach out and touch people….just saying. :)

The Max Von Sydow portrayal was creepy.  I like the two portrayals by Robert Powell and Jim Caviezel.  But, it seems to me that for the most part, portraying Our Lord, is the Kiss of Death in Hollywood.  You don’t get good roles after that (except if you’re creepy.)

“King of Kings” was also called “I Was a Teenage Jesus” when it came out.

Take back what you said about Shatner or I’ll go Christian Bale on you @$$.

For what it’s worth, I have always liked Max von Sydow’s Jesus—the way he manages to inject some subtle humanity in a movie that seriously emphasizes Jesus’ divinity—but I agree that his makeup is a little odd.  It’s especially strange in light of the fact that the film begins with icons of Max-von-Sydow-as-Jesus; given that von Sydow’s makeup artist doesn’t seem to have had the icons in mind in the first place, it’s a little odd to see his work end up in that context.

I always really liked Jeffrey Hunter’s portrayal of Jesus. I thought he did a good job. It’s interesting you think he’s a little too good looking in his portrayal of Jesus. Come on and Jim Caviezel’s not good looking in his portrayal? I mean if your gonna say Jeffrey is too good looking, then you’ve got to say Jim is. That being said, I would still take Jim first,but I’d take Jeffrey second. I’m also one who didn’t really care for Robert Powell as Jesus.

I really enjoyed Powell in JoN, and it’s still my favorite life of Jesus movie. My only issue is he seemed to be angry all the time, and so serious. I thnik he laughed once during the film, and that was with children. I’m sure Jesus laughed, joked, and maybe even pranked with his apostles, and wasn’t so stoic all of the time! He was human after all.

Jim Caviezel hands down. He looked more like I, and most others would picture Jesus! He has the complexion, eyes and hair one would think Jesus had considering his ethnic background and the climate where he lived. As Redd Fox once said, “You don’t go walking around Israel for 33 years and come out looking like a white man”.

The early Christians held that Jesus and Mary had red hair like King David so who knows? And we can’t assume that Jews in 33 looked like Palestinians do today.

Robert Powell - the definitive Jesus in my meditations, although I think Jesus could easily have had light green or hazel eyes rather than electric blue.  I know a lot of Sabras (Jews born in Israel of Israeli bloodline) who are “gingers” with red hair and green-aqua eye color.  Whatever He looks like, we will know Him.

Another vote for Jim Caviezel right here!  His portrayal of Jesus was absolutely shattering, I consider it one of the finest performances of acting in the history of film.  Speaking of Jesus laughing and joking, the scene of Jesus playfully flicking water at Mary, I had never before thought of Jesus as amusing and fun until I saw that scene.  Great film!

For me, not only is Robert Powell the definitive Jesus and Olivia Hussey the definitive Mary, but Michael York is the definitive John the Baptist. I wonder if perhaps he didn’t carry over a bit of his character in “Logan’s Run” to “Jesus of Nazareth.”  Nobody shouts “You brood of vipers!” or “Repent” quite like him!

I think Robert Powell was the best - Jim Caviezel was a close second. I think ideally, Robert Powell in the Passion of the Christ would have been ideal. Although, he was not as tough looking and stong as Caviezel. Guess I’m still a litte confused.

But heck, how you possibly top this scene in Jesus of Nazareth? Do you remember it? To set the stage, Jesus is visting Matthew the tax colectors house before he became a disciple. Peter and the Disciples are aggravated at Our Lord for going into the house of their mortal enemy and the enemy of the people.. enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14epxvU8XIA

Jim Caviezel’s portrayal was life changing for me. He WAS Jesus. Unlike in Jesus of Nazareth where I was aware of Powell as an actor, in the Passion, I left the movie deeply aware of Jesus’s love for me - solely because of the divine love that eminated from this amazing actor.
A thought - Gibson could use our prayers. When the movie was in discussion stage I told my husband that I was going to start praying the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel for his family because to make such a movie in this day was tantamount to flipping off the devil (and Hollywood). I’ve been praying it for him ever since. Just this week I mentioned to my husband that I was discouraged about how little it seems to have helped and he said, “Just think what might have happened without the prayers!” (Don’t think it could’ve gotten much worse, but OK, I’ll keep it up!)

The other night my family and I watched St. Peter, starring Omar Sharif.  The WORST Jesus we have ever seen was portrayed by Johannes Brandrup.  Hoots, hollers and heckles followed him at every turn, from our teens down to our 7 year old.  (Our 3 year was just happy to see Jesus. Sweet, huh?)  So I loved seeing your worst picks!  Love the fan-blown hair Jesus.  I have to show the kids.  However, we all adore Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth.

@SDG: Thanks for setting me straight on how Caviezel’s eyes were made brown for the Passion. Good to know.

Max von Sydow: Jesus on qualudes (downers).

I prefer Dafoe and Powell. Especially Powell. Jesus of Nazareth is an overly long, corny, takes-itself-way-too-seriously, Italian operetta of a movie, but I LOVE it.

Daniel Dafoe in the Last Temptation of Christ
and Lothaire Bluteau in Jesus of Montreal

Both actors and both films say more about the most important center of our faith as Catholics.

Jim Caviezel’s portrayal was by far the best. And the Most Respectful to Our Lord.

Definately one of the best portrayals of Jesus is by Brian Deacon in the movie “Jesus”.  It’s a must see.  It’s how you can imagine Jesus actually being—full of life, not like the dull, somber Robert Powell Jesus.

Caviezel for me is first, and then Robert Powell. Both did extremely fine jobs as actors.

Going on four or five bizarre exceptions…

I haven’t seen the Scorcese film since its release on VHS (which was years before I became a Catholic…or even became old enough to drink). But my memory is having trouble recalling exactly why the movie as a whole—or Dafoe’s performance in particular—was so horrible.

Are the counterfactuals depicted in the film so corrosive of the Faith that the movie deserves to be so notorious? Going just by memory, it seems to me that the central point of the film was simply that Jesus could have got down off that cross in the blink of an eye, restored to Himself all earthly comforts without the slightest effort, and gone on to have a lovely and peaceful life…but He stayed up there, faithful even unto death.

We forget sometimes, I think, that even at the very instant of bodily death He was not trapped. Every last moment of torture required conscious acquiescence, submission, and restraint.

@Kevin asked re: “the Scorcese film” ...“Are the counterfactuals depicted in the film so corrosive of the Faith that the movie deserves to be so notorious?”
To even ask that question shows a clearly the problem with how you were Catechized.  Would you have a particular problem with someone, in your hearing, berating and tearing down your family members, even as a joke?  Youth ministry, queers in the clergy, and liberal and emotional abuse of the Novus Ordo Mass has eroded the Church to such a degree that there remains approximately only a very small percentage of “FAITHFUL Catholics” who love the Church.  I am sorry for you and all liberals you are in our daily prayers.+JMJ

Kevin and all: In defining divinity by choice, that in fact Jesus accepted his destiny triumphantly, in full awareness of another alternative, his spiritual example was greatly enhanced by a human dimension in The Last Temptation of Christ. That part of Christ’s nature which was profoundly human goes farther than any other movie to helping us understand him and to love him and to pursue his Passion as though it were ours.

Gazing upon this portrayal of Crist, the Pierced One and suffering with him become a fount of purification. That is why The Last Temptation of Christ shows us how the transforming power of Jesus’ Passion begins for us.

The other movies with their Eurocentric portrayals of Jesus do not come close.

@ Gerald: Please see my essay regarding the fatal theological, Christological and spiritual difficulties of The Last Temptation of Christ. (Incidentally, Dafoe’s first name is Willem, not Daniel.)

Steven: Thank you for the correction. Meant “Willem,” typed “Daniel”.

My point was, “fatal theological, Christologicals” aside, which have been debated mightily (if not resoundingly) by those that know far more than you and I, the film adaptation of the novel, informed by a concept of choice, and those choices Scorcese made cover a wide spectrum, especially as he chose to shun the usual kitsch conventions of Biblical film, and so underscored the authentic implications of HIs Passion. The “absurd” now yields its profound meaning. In the apparently senseless event, the authentic sense of our human journeying is fully opened up: meaning triumphs over the power of destruction and evil.

What’s given to us in The Last Temptation of Christ is a concision expressed in Jesus’ great choice and its the same process of searching and maturing that was to be undertaken in the infant Church.

In the Last Temptation of Christ it is not the words of Scripture that prompted a narration of facts: rather (as in the novel), it was the facts themselves, at first unintelligible, that paved the way toward a fresh understanding of the Word made flesh.

The movei’s explication of harmony between word and event not only determined the structure of its passion narrative: it was constitutive of our Catholic faith.

The credibility and historical importance of tis portrayal stems precisely from this interplay of meaning and history: where the connection is severed (as in most of the other movies so far mentioned in this discussion), the fundamental structure of our Catholic faith diminishes.

Just as the image of the Sacred Heart, enshrined in the childhood home of Mr. Scorcese, was a source of salific strength, the passion represented in the Last Temptation of Christ, a Jesus submitting to violence in the throes of his Passion is an image of hope: God is on the side of every last one of us who suffer.

@ Gerald: I’m sorry, but you can’t bracket or table the whole of theology and Christology and then hope to say anything even slightly meaningful about the implications of the Passion.
 
The film’s screenwriter, Paul Schrader, admitted two years after my essay that the film actually is blasphemous:
 

Actually, the whole issue of blasphemy is interesting, because technically, the film is blasphemous, but not in the way people think. The film uses Jesus Christ as a metaphor for spirituality. And, under a technical definition of blasphemy, if Jesus is regarded as something other than holy God incarnate, you’re being blasphemous. And so the film takes the character of Jesus and uses Him as a metaphor for our spiritual feelings and says, “What if this happened, what if He yielded to temptation?”

 
Incidentally, Roger Ebert was convinced of the film’s blasphemy by my essay, and said so in his book on Scorsese. He immediately went on to say that he didn’t think it mattered that it was blasphemous, but that is not an opinion any Christian can share.
 
Blasphemy is contrary to the first and second commandments. You cannot begin with a foundation of blasphemy, which is what the essential premise of Last Temptation is, and hope to build a structure in any way honoring the truth about God.

I remember and now have Powells Jesus on DVD, And I certainly agree that he is the best.

Who play the best Blessed Virgin Mary?

My rating is like this:

1.Stefania Rivi( in Joseph of Nazareth movie)

see picture here:
http://images2.cinema.de/imedia/9492/2189492,nNAXiVIEjJ6cQinF_vUhr_8pbcYuPIvy6OggEqGUCnRGjloOH

2….Melinda Kinnaman (Mary in “The Mother of Jesus” movie)

Picture here:
http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00004fFUdjfxV2c/s/750/0000194081alpha.jpg

3 OLivia Hussey in the Powell movie Jesus of Nazareth.

See picture here:

http://www.excerptsofinri.com/images/008mary.jpg

All are very good as Mary, but Stefania Rivi, as the far best and express this very sweetness and seraphic beauty that is just devine and very feminine.

@Steven: Thank you for the link to your piece, which I had not read before, and for the further comments. I’m grateful for the help in understanding, in detail, how my vague, faded, two-decade-old general impressions—that it wasn’t *that* bad, was it?, and the protesters were just a bunch of yahoos, weren’t they?—were for the most part quite faulty (though there were, in truth, plenty of yahoos about on both sides…and still are).
.
I am sorry, however, that in the process I have been exposed to the all-knowing eye of Bil as a “poorly Catechized liberal”. The priests who helped guide me into the Church—including a Chesterton-loving member of Opus Dei, and a former Vatican official who is now a bishop well-known for his orthodox teaching and liturgy—must be ever so disappointed. Not to mention the members of the two Extraordinary Form parishes I have been a part of over the years.

i see things now, i’ve never noticed before…
...
does anyone else notice that JESUS (passion of the christ) actually looks at mary for permission?
...
three primary instances i can recall… 1) scourging - HE seems done in, defeated but its not until he sees mary does he stand again; 2) carrying the cross - again, its his mother’s look that urges him off his back and onto the way; and 3) crucified - he doesnt respond to anyones slurs or orders, until he first sees his mother…

Steven: From the striking palm Sunday scene straight through the Passion itself,Defoe and the movie itself exert great power. Those who may well have never considered all of this end up witnessing an absolute conviction, never more palpable than in the final scenes that remove Jesus from His cross, creating for him the life of an ordinary man. It is mightily affirmable. It’s then and truly then that we see the veil, at the very moment of Jesus’ death, is torn in two from top to bottom. There are two things which we ought to learn from this: one one hand, it becomes abundantly clear that the era of the old Temple and is sacrifices is over. In place of symbols and rituals that point ahead to the future, The Last Temptation reveals the reality that has now come, the crucified Jesus (who freely chose to be crucified) reconciles us all with the Father. At the same time, though, this tearing of the Temple veil means that our pathway to God is now open. Other filmes do not align themselves to this reality. Scorcese’s movie shows that now God has removed the veil and revealed himself in the crucified Jesus as the one who choses to the point of death beceause he loves to the point of death. The Last Temptation of Christ opens the pathway to God.

@ Gerald: I see my name at the top of your latest comment, but you don’t seem to be interacting with anything I’ve said. I’ve lodged a per se objection to your whole line of thought. You can continue to make points, but my objection remains unanswered.

@ Kevin: You’re welcome!

Steven:
In The Last Temptation of Christ, in the depiction of Jesus’ Passion, all the filth of our world touches our infinitely pure One, the soul of Jesus Christ and, so the Son of God himself. While it is usually the case that anything unclean touching something clean makes it unclean, Defoe’s characterization makes it clear that it is the other way around: when the world, with all the injustices and cruelty that make it unclean, comes into contact with the infinitely pure one—then he, the pure one is stronger, through this contact, the filth of the world is truly absorbed, wiped out, and transformed in the pain of love, infinite love. Because infinite good is now at hand in the man Jesus, the counterweight to all wickedness is present and active within world history, and the good is always far greater than the vast core of evil, however terribly it may be.

If we reflect more deeply on this movie and Defoe’s Jesus, we might find the answer to your objection(s) of blasphemy. How is this heretical? Where’s the insult to God involving a statement that’s against faith? Where’s the assertion that “God is cruel or unjust” or “A mere work of man”? Where is the malediction upon the Supreme being as when one might say “Be gone with God”? Where is the contempt of God? Where’s the blasphemy?

Perhaps it’s time you revisit your notions of film and its art. It’s supposed to (as was not done many times by Hollywood’s kitsch, including Mr. Gibson’s endeavor)give us a healthy “shock”, drawing us out of ourselves, wrenching us away from our lukewarm cafeteria-Catholic resignation and away from being content with the humdrum—it should even make us suffer, piercing us like a thorn, but in so doing it should “reawaken” us, opening to a reborn heart and mind, giving us wings, carrying us aloft.

You see, Steven, it’s as Dostoevsky, a committed Christian,  has taught us, when he said: “Man can live without science, he can live without bread, but without beauty he would no longer live, becuse there would be no longer anything to do to the world. The whole secret is here, the whole of history is here.”

The quest for the beauty of truth that I am describing to you, that I am describing here, is clearly not about escaping into a cul de sac of the irrational, hiding behind a misapprehension of dogma, or into mere aestheticism.

Too often the movie portrayals of Jesus (man of those mentioned thus far in this discussion) are significantly illusory and deceitful, superficial and blinding, leaving the average (Christian, let alone Catholic) movie-goer dazed, instead of bringing him out of himself and opening him up to horizons of authentic freedom as it draws him aloft, it imprisons him within himself (especially in his preconceptions, his bigotries) and further enslaves him, keeping him from hope and joy. In this way Gibson’s Passion of The Christ was a movie most seductive but hypocritical in that it rekindled the will to power, to possession, and the domination of the other, its power turned into its opposite, taking on the guise of indecency, transgression and gratutitous provocation.

Movies like The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal posessed authentic beauty, however, unlocking the yearning of the human heart, that profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the Other, to reach for the Beyond.

Perhaps it’s been a long time sinxce you let the beauty of great movie touch you intimately, let it wound you, let it open your eyes. If you would let it, you might rediscover the joy of the art of film. You might redisover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence, the Mystery of which we are part; from this Mystery we can draw fullness, happiness, the passion to engage with it every day. +

The Passion of the Christ is the best because it is True and matches the Gospels - the others are not authentic because they run away from the main premise - that Jesus is the Son of God, has a Divine nature, and knew the Father’s will for Him. So, they look to make him like a confused human with all the accompanying human desires - a mere man. That Jesus also had a Divine Nature is completely lost in the 2 movies you refer to - I guess they’re ok if the viewer understands them for what they are - pure fiction.

There’s also a Jesus in Luc Besson’s “The Messenger” starring Mila Jovovich as Joan of Arc.

But I agree…Jim Caviezel best portayed the son of God.

@ Gerard: Thanks for addressing my point this time around. Why do you engage in idle speculation about how great movies affect me, instead of simply reading my reviews about movies I find great? The most recent such film was Of Gods and Men; you might start with my review of that film. Consider especially the opening paragraphs and the conclusion, and draw whatever conclusions you like about whether I let the beauty of a great movie touch me intimate, wound me, discover the joy of the art of film, etc.

I hope you’ll pardon me for saying that your concluding comments strike me as condescending sophistry. That is, if I disagree with you about Last Temptation, presumptively it seems to you that something may be wrong with me; that I may be in need of enlightenment; that with respect to film I may not be operating on as evolved or sensitive a level as you. I note this in passing—I’m not personally offended, but it does rub against the grain of my critical principles. People see movies in different ways. Film appreciation and criticism is a dialogue. I’m a professional critic as well as a lifelong film lover, but I tell people all the time that I don’t want to tell anyone else what to think, or to have anyone take my word for it. My opinion isn’t better than anyone else’s simply because it’s mine, and there is no definitive or final judgment on any film, or any work of art. That doesn’t mean all points of view are equally persuasive—they aren’t—but it does mean that in principle we should be willing to hear out and respond to contrary and contrarian points of view on the merits, without attempting to co-opt the high ground.

My opinion is that you have fundamentally misunderstood the aesthetic significance of the figure of Christ in Last Temptation. He is only putatively or poetically the Incarnate Son of God; as a dramatic icon, he represents the human experience of duality, of flesh and spirit, transcendence and finitude, sin and grace. The filmmakers, and perhaps Kazantzakis (I haven’t read him), have taken the two natures of Christ, along with his sense of vocation, his trial and his relationship with his Father, as a metaphor for the human experience. Last Temptation is not Jesus’ story, but our story.

As Shrader rightly states, this is a blasphemous move. You ask: “Where’s the insult to God involving a statement that’s against faith?” I answer: The film’s Jesus Himself blasphemes, even calling himself “the saint of blasphemy”! He says blasphemous things like “I know God loves me, I want him to stop.” He says “I want to rebel against everything, everybody… against God!... but I’m afraid. If you look inside me you see fear, that’s all. Fear is my mother, my father, my God.” He calls himself a liar and a hypocrite, selfish and unfaithful, full of lust. Speaking to Judas, he says that he (Jesus) will pay for his own sins with his life. Praying to God, he says that he fought and resisted Him, that he didn’t want to be His son, and asks if God can forgive him.

To ascribe blasphemy and sinfulness to God is itself blasphemy. If the film’s Jesus is God, the filmmakers blaspheme by ascribing blasphemy to God Incarnate; if he is not God, the filmmakers blaspheme by depicting Jesus as not-God. There is no third possiblility.

If the problem were limited to a problematic line here or there in an otherwise basically truthful or revelatory film, I could bracket it, look past it. But it’s systemic—it affects every aspect of the film’s vision. It is the film’s vision; it’s essential to the film’s conception of Jesus (because in reality Jesus serves as a metaphor for human experience) that he be fundamentally conflicted about himself, about God, that he agonize over his sins, etc. Because he is us.

This is why nothing you say about the film moves me in the slightest: Every time you say “Jesus” in reference to this film, I read “Jesus who is not God.” Jesus who is not God, because he blasphemes. Jesus who is not God, because he calls himself a liar and a hypocrite, selfish and unfaithful. Jesus who is not God, because he says he will pay for his own sins with his life.

Thus, when you say something like “Last Temptation reveals the reality that has now come, the crucified Jesus (who freely chose to be crucified) reconciles us all with the Father,” I read “Last Temptation reveals the reality that has now come, the crucified Jesus (who was not God) reconciles us all with the Father.” And that’s a meaningless statement to me. Hope that’s clear.

P.S. I also think that your criticism-from-without of Gibson’s Passion misrepresents that film on a basic level, but that’s a discussion for another time.

@Steven: That’s a great comment—almost an article on its own. The distinction between a bit of objectionable content, and profoundly heretical Christology that is woven into the very fabric of the film, is crucial I think.
 
Even though most of the outrage directed at the film was, to my recollection, focused on the actual “last temptation” sequence at the end, I can’t help but wonder if this part would in fact be the most salvageable if the film were to be redone. (Leave aside for the moment the question of why anyone would want to remake it.)
 
If done with sincerity, and without the ulterior motive of creating scandal and shock, posing the question “What would it look like if Satan tempted Jesus to get down off the cross, as He very well could have up to the very end?” could prove a useful (or at least not actively destructive) subject for meditation. If, that is, that ending were affixed to a movie about the real Jesus, rather than the “Jesus who is not God” you saw throughout Scorcese’s film.
 
I guess what I’ve been feeling my way towards in these clumsy musings is the proposition that however correct it is to criticize—even condemn and anathematize—the film, if you’re leading with OMG! JESUS IMAGINES KISSING MARY MAGDALEN! BURN THE HERETICS! you’re probably missing the point. Does that make any sense, or am I just trying too hard to get a silk purse out of this sow’s ear?

Definitley Robert Powel is the best Jesus, that has always been the face I imagine of my sweet Jesuschrist.

Steven:

As I see from your generous review of Of Gods And Men, you can authentically open yourself to the work of film. That’s encouraging, and at the same time discouraging in how much you can actually miss.

Of the films mentioned thus far in this discussion, The Last Temptation of Christ is the most distictive of all. In the other films we have clearly been offered views of the same landscape: from different directors, different writers, different producers, different actors, with much the same interests in mind. At first viewing Scorcese’s film seems to depict a different continent, photgraphed through a quite different lens, the lens of a committed Catholic. Yes, the director, Martin Scorcese is. Doubt this and all you have to do is witness his wondrous tableaux of The Sacred Heart in the fil, remembered from a time in his childhood when The Sacred Heart was enshrined in his home.

While other films, going all the way back to the silent era, present a rapid succession of incidents, of disputes and short, sharp sayings by Jesus; in The Last Temptation of Christ we move into a stately series of set-piece miracles and long spirallying discussions. Just the obvious miracles are depicted in the film. Deeply authentic Catholics should not be in need of miracles. That’s the point.

It’s fair to speculate if the Jesus of The Passion of the Christ, for example, is recognizably the soon-to-be-risen Christ at all. If we follow Scorcese’s lead: back to the very start of things and to the eternal character and plan of God, to the “word” with which he designed and triggered al creation.

For God spoke: Let there be light. And Jesus, as The Last Temptation claims, was and is this very same Word, the perfect and total expression of God’s will. We let the questions echo that this film knows well, about the power of speech, about its limits—and about the deepest aspiration of all: To express to another, to one that we love, all that we think and believe and long for and are.

Through the film we trace the intriguing strategy that shapes the first half of the story’s testimony. (It’s no wonder why our culture is quite obsessed with the language of the court room: witnesses, testimony and ross-examination! How indellible this true myth of Jesus is!) The idea is not original. The account we’re given by Scorcese is briskly told. He himself has been quizzed, witnesses examined, charges tested and refined. The whole film is one overarching trial. And who are the judges?

The Last Temptation of Christ invites us to assess this Jesus, to hear his opponents’ claims and his own, to make up our own minds on the defendant. As Catholics we are given the ultimate free will. In the last scenes of the film, as the wheels of Roman justice turn slowly but inexorably toward His execution, that the truth will become painfully clear: Of all the people in the court of the film, one and only one is the real Judge. He is standing in the dock, the “defendant” mocked and belittled. And his verdict upon all those ranged around him hangs on just one decision of their own: their verdict on this Judge himself… Our verdict on this Judge himself.

How are we to grasp this film’s claims? Scorcese has in view a function for his story so remarkable that many movie goers can miss all sight of it. We can watch his film scene by scene, savor its more elaborate dialogs and fuller telling of the events—but fail to see the movement into which he is inviting us and through which he offers, step by step, to lead us.

Other movies dealing with the life, passion, death and ressurection of Jesus believe the truths of Him to be too elusive, and their viewers to need sustained and careful help if these truths are to be grasped. (Perhaps this is the target audience of your reviews.) Scorcese’s strategy is the bravest of all. He sees the majesty and depth of his task with a poet’s eye: If his viewers are to see what is there to be seen, they must be “re-born”—and once they are re-born, they will see with all the clarity what has made possible their rebirth.

This film is one of the very few with the language to do justice to the process through which we as committed Catholics must go—and through which The last Temptation of Christ will steer them. In short, this is rt as the midwife of this extraordinary birth.

Only in this film are we ready to hear the dialog of Jesus and his closest friends, the long farewell on His night of betrayal.

And following his last temptation, knowing that everything was now finished, so that the old Order migt be brought to the final completion, tells us all we need to hear.

Everything is the mystical vision of The Last Temptation of Christ comes full circle. At the moment of Jesus’ death Jesus himself declares “It is completed”. And, Steven and all, that completion becomes clear as light rises on Easter morning. The “re-born” viewers are shown the source of their re-birth. The serpent has been driven away. All creation is made new.

Would be curious if you believe that Jesus had/has a Divine Nature and was/is the Son of God?

@ Gerald: Alas, I see you’ve gone back to stream-of-consciousness meditation on the film without engaging my objections to it. Go back and reread your own last post, and every time you come across the name “Jesus” substitute “Jesus who is not God,” and there in a nutshell is my response to your post.

Also, Gerald, I see you continue to resort to condescending sophistry: Those who prefer other Jesus movies aren’t sophisticated enough to appreciate Last Temptation like you are (and by extension my criticism is aimed at this unsophisticated audience, etc.).

Steven: You, because of your reading of the film, insist on substituting “Jesus who is not God” each and every time Jesus is mentioned in my post. That is, you say, the nutshell of your response to my post.

My response to your post comes from a more orthodox source and it is whaat I believe each and every time I write, or think… or even live the word Jesus:

“The word became flesh so that thuw we might know God’s love: “in this love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only son into the world, so that we might live trough him. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” CCC: paragraph 1, sec. 458.

This is the hypostatic union portrayed in ThE Last Temptation of Christ. The other movies mentioned in the course of this discussion promote remote versions of Jesus even in their passion sequences.

In The Last Temptation of Christ we are witness to the Word becoming flesh, which makes us “partakers of the divine nature.” “For this is why the word became man, and the Son of man: so that man, by entering into the communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become the son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” CCC paragraph 1, sec. 460.

There is nothing ‘stream-of-conscious’ (as you say) about the great deposit of our Catholic faith, especially as revealed in the Cathechism
of the Church.

My criticism should not be interpreted, as you say as “condescending sophistry,” for it is the authentic teaching of our Church. My aim is simply with charity to help in some small way to awaken those, luke-warm in their faith, to a movie that genuinely gives anyone who watches it, a sense of the hypostatic union.

If I have any criticism at all of many Catholic movie-goers it’s that they may not be as formed in their faith as they could be.

One might have a personal preference (or even political point of view), but if it’s not aligned with our great deposit of faith, it’s not authentically Catholic.

In the end, all that matters is that we all have to do everything we can every waking moment of every waking day for ourselves and for all our others to achieve everlasting salvation face to face with the face of God.

Gerald: The film’s Jesus blasphemes, not once or twice but pretty much continually throughout the film. He ascribes idolatry, rebellion, lust, lies, hypocrisy, selfishness, unfaithfulness, and blasphemy to himself. He says he will pay for his sins with his life and asks the Father to forgive him. That is the megalithic immovable object at the center of the film against which all your words of praise dash and break into pieces.

Gerald: It’s all very well and good to talk about God becoming man in order to divinize humanity etc., but one of the biggest problems with this film, as Lloyd Baugh pointed out years ago, is not its low Christology but its low *anthropology*. The Jesus depicted in this film is not just any man, but one of the most pathetic men around: weak, neurotic, sinful, self-loathing, etc. I used to object to this aspect of the film simply on the grounds of historical unbelievability: I found it hard to believe that a man like *this* could have attracted so many followers or started a movement that would change the world. But increasingly, over the years, I have come to object to the film’s depiction of Jesus on theological grounds: but, I repeat, my theological objection is not (or not simply) that the film shortchanges Jesus’ divine nature, but that it shortchanges his *human* nature.

To Steven and all:

In most films the idealized Jesus is nothing for wretched sinners like you and me to identify with, to see ourselves in. The Jesus of The last Temptation of Christ does ascribe idolatry,lust, lies, rebellion, as well as a whoe host of low attributes to himself BECAUSE He is the one who has come to take away our sins, to have mercy on us. To do this he has to be one of the most pathetic men around. He IS weak, neurotic, sinful (but not sinning!), and self-loathing. By his very existence and then some, he has to show us the way, as he still does every day. In short, He is ours. He is not an alien. He was not formed as an individual of some master race. When we see the lowest of the low, we (should), see the face of Jesus.

I can well understand how you can wonder just how such a “pathetic” would have attracted so many, as He still does. But, afterall, the Flesh Made Word did not come to us to simply be some kind of uberman. None of us re such, yes, alas, we are all sinners, making our way along this pilgrimage with our eyes on eternal salvation.

And my point about those who don’t “get it” is moreover a deep sadness at how many of us, indexing ourselves as Catholics, were not as properly formed in our faith, as to havethe confidence given by God’s grace, to see the truth of him, whether it be in a film like The Last Temptation of Christ, or in the very brokeness of ourselves.

THIS (non columnist Greydanus) Steven TRIED to watch some of that “memorable” Dafoe sinematic classic “Last Temptation” one night some 20 or so years ago and the only “temptation” I remember from this DULL waste of time and my curiosity, was wanting to take chunk of a 2x4 I’d just cut earlier and wing it at the tube. In my book, there are only three men who could come close to capturing the same Jesus we’ve all read about since our childhoods; Jim Caviezel, Robert Powell and Jeffery Hunter, with Caviezel’s performance being the tops when it comes to just portraying Our Lord during his Passion. Let’s pray for Caviezel’s future success, ability to avoid the wiles of Hollowland (as what happened to his former director, Mel Gibson ... and pray also for Mel so he gets back into his former far better ways. Imagine Caviezel playing St. Paul? ANy other suggestions?

@ Gerald: “The Jesus of The last Temptation of Christ does ascribe idolatry,lust, lies, rebellion, as well as a whoe host of low attributes to himself BECAUSE He is the one who has come to take away our sins, to have mercy on us. To do this he has to be one of the most pathetic men around.”

Ah, I see. So in order to help take the speck out of someone else’s eye, Jesus HAD to have a log in his own eye. In order to heal the blind man, or even lead him, Jesus had to be blind himself. And in order to raise Lazarus, he had to be dead.

If I want a good likeness then Ted Neely gets my vote.  Not sure if it’s the acting, the handsome looks or both.

However, if you want to talk non-traditional, pop culture icon, then it’s Victor Gaber (Godspell) all the way…afro and all.

As represented in The Last Temptation of Christ Jesus trul teaches us what entering into communion with him is: He offered his own flesh, his own blood to make a living tent of salvation for us. As the living Word, he allowe himself to be penetrated in body and spirit by our ceatureliness.

Perhaps it’s time to recognize him, so that he might help you open your entire being, always more, to His Presence; so that he may help you to followhim faithfully, day after day, on the streets of your life, whether you see his depiction on a movie screen or as one of the many so alienated from the Body of Christ.

The Last Temptation has brought many to the truth, the Light of the world

Neely and Gaber, along with Defoe and Bluteau hit the mark, with their Christain truth: the Creator and Lord of all things makes himself a “grain of wheat” to be sown in our land, in the furrows of our history, contemporary and otherwise. He made himself bread to be broken, shared, eaten. He made himself our food to give us life, his same divine life.

“Perhaps it’s time to recognize him, so that he might help you open your entire being, always more, to His Presence; so that he may help you to followhim faithfully, day after day, on the streets of your life, whether you see his depiction on a movie screen or as one of the many so alienated from the Body of Christ.”

I have no idea who you’re addressing here, or whether “you” is singular or plural, but your constant co-opting of the enlightened high ground is tiresome and, I suspect, not helpful spiritually to you.

Steven: The ‘you’ I address is anyone seeking to be with Christ. Not just a theory or a way of life inspired by Christ, but the gift of his very person. Anyone who wants this is the ‘you’.

And, as Christianity is first and formost a gift: God gives himself to us—he does not give something, but himself. And this does not only happen at the beginning, at the moment of conversion. He constantly remains the One who gives. Hecontinually offers us his gifts. And, as given in The Last Temptation of Christ, He always procedes us. This is why this sacrifice, this central act of Christian being emerges in the film as gratitude for having been gratified, joy for the new life he gives us.

We don’t get this from mere biopics of Christ, aas they are the engraving, not the painting, and ertianly not the illuminated icon.

As film as icon, The Last Temptation of Christ contributes more to the celebration of our faith in a way to make somehow perceptible, in time and space, realities that are seen and unseen.

And there is a great need, since there’s such aa poverty in either traditional Hollywood biopics, or even outsider biopic of Mel Gibson who is not truly in league with the Church of Rome.

As another alternative treament of the true myth of Jesus, I can only wonder how you would approach the story of Christ’s suffering death and resurrection as depicted in the Narnia series, serving a lion named Aslan, as Jesus.

What about the crucifixion of Harry in Last Exit To Brookyln?

These films, I assure you, reassure many who are part of the world of culture (and, moreover, the culture of the world) that they have noting to fear from openess to God’s word, which can never… will never destroy us, but rather is a constant stimulus to seek ever more appropriate, meaningful and humane forms of expression.

Because I tell you whether you are dealing with any authentic film (or any form of art for that matter), if it is to be at the service of our humanity, will also be open (not closed) to transcendence and, in the end, to God. Some films, like the ones I am trying here in my small way to champion, carry within them that code. And it’s one that should be recovered. Sadly, however many of the other films mentioned in these postings are bankrupt of such code.

No, Gerald, you don’t have to wonder. My take on Narnia is not hard to discover.

I don’t see that you have anything new to say, nor do I, really. Feel free to hold forth as long as you like, which is apparently at length. I trust at this point the relevant principles are sufficiently clear to all interested and discerning readers. Cheers.

Steven: Nor do you. To sum: In all that we have said so far, it is clear that not only has a theological interpretation of the Passion and the Cross been given, together through our weak, creaturely interpretation, based on the Cross, of the fundamental Catholic matters at hand, but also that an existential dimension is invoved: What do these interpretations of these films mean for me? What does it mean for my path as a human being? In the Last Temptation of Christ and I would say even in the offering of The Passion of the Christ, many can see the incarnate obedience of Christ these films presented as an open space into which we are admitted and through which our own lives can find a new fervent context. The mystery of the passion and the Cross does not simple confront us; rather, it draws us in and gives a new value to our lives.

And so, as we’ve amply demonstrated, the Son of Man who gave his life for the ransom of many, can be portrayed with equal value in different ways in different films, allowing all, not just one select group to find relevance as authentic Catholics in their pilgramage to salvation.

As we proceed onto Holy Week then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, allow ourselves to be more deeply penetrated into the truth of the Cross, in order to grasp at least remotely why and for what purpose it hapened.

One thing is astonishingly clear from the outset: with the Passion and the Cross of Christ, crass movie depictions of any kind, especailly all the ones discussed here, as championed by you and I, were definitivelu surpassed. Something new happened: Jesus’s death as our reconcilitaion and salvation.+

Well I am a baptist and I grew up watching Jesus of Nazareth. I love Robert Powell as Jesus. I like Jim to but Robert is my favorite. I had to watch Jesus of Nazareth every year on Easter because my grandmother and mother made me and I love it the most. But I would have to say it Jim is a great one to but Robert will always be my favorite

They were ALL terrible! Not one portrayal came anywhere remotely close to the Jesus of scripture. The Bible says He was “unlovely”. He didn’t stick out. He wasn’t pretty. In fact, He was so plain no one would have even noticed Him if not for the Words He spoke and the miracles He did. He knew who He was and He was not the spaced out, unsure weirdo that every movie shows Him as. Even Passion has Jesus as a guy who isn’t sure who He is. The real Jesus was confident of Himself and knew exactly why He was here and what His mission was. And He blinked His eyes like normal people do. It looked like Powell had been stoned for a week in that movie. How can you possibly keep from blinking for three and a half years…lol! We are still waiting for someone to direct an actor based on a script by someone who has actually read the scripture a lot and prayed about it. Please!

The non-blinking ruined Robert Powell’s performance for me. So did the rest of his performance. He looked and sounded like a religious kook, constantly quoting Scripture as if in a trance.

Among the worst films of all time was that atrocity produced by Eunice Kennedy, “Mary: Most Angry of Women,” or whatever it was called, in which Jesus gets all his ideas and parables from Mary, and Mary brings about Pentecost by screaming at the Apostles that they need to man up and start spreading the Gospel.

everybody responds to tv/movie jesus differently… every jesus responds to mother/apostles/pharisees/sadducees differently…
.
everyone of us… how do real jesus respond to us??? how do we respond to jesus???

When I saw “The Passion of the Christ” I didn’t care about Jim Caviezel because I couldn’t really see his face because it was full of blood.I could only see him in side view at the resurrection.“The Greatest Story Ever Told”  I love this movie and Max von Sydow is not so creepy or a Beatnik Jesus.Claude Heater in “Ben-Hur” I did not see this movie yet.I don’t like Willem Dafoe in “The Last Temptation of Christ”,he was just so Over Acting and it is based on a novel not the gospels.Christian Bale he’s just so serious here in “Mary:Mother of Jesus”.Jeremy Sisto is a good player and Ted Neely is funny-looking.Jeffrey Hunter in “King of Kings” looks like Jonathan Scarfe in “Judas”.Robert Powell in “Jesus of Nazareth” looks a little funny.There are more who portrayed Jesus who are not in this webpage.

i was thinking,when robert powell dies would the people in heaven be confused with robert powell’s old face in these years,i mean he’s old right now and he no more looks like jesus

are these all the jesus movies you know,what about “Jesus” (1979),“The Gospel of John” (2003),“Judas” (2004),Matthew (1993),The King of Kings (1927),The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964),and many more what about these

Robert Powell is the Jesus i have always thought of when i think of Jesus. Jim Caviezel was incredible and its a shame tbey colored his eyes to brown and let his blue eyes shine like powells. why do people think isralites are all dark eyed skin etc.i have lived amoung many and they mostly have been fair skinned and colored eyes. also as someoe mentioned here King David was blue eyed and blonde.i believe Christ would have powerful blue eyes since its the most beautiful eye color and Psalm 45 said he was the most beautiful of the sons of men refering to his physical. i am not being discriminating as i myself do Not have blue eyes.

Powell hands down, the best Jesus on film. Caviezel wasn`t even close to the Christ I was brought up to be, even though the film was good, but Powell is such a spitting image, it`s almost scary in a good way. His acting, and the movie Jesus of Nazereth, the best movie, and complete movie of Christ. All the others, not even remotly close.

In my humble opinion, the best JESUS portrayal goes to (drumroll, please.) Jim Cavizel. The dude who portrayed JESUS in Gospel of John comes a ridiculously close second. I had to be careful watching that one, because I thought he was rather, umm, sexy. Especially when HE walked up close to the woman caught in adultery. I would have melted, so…Cavizel was beautiful as JESUS, but I tend to think the real JESUS as being beautiful (I know what it says in Isaiah 53.) Those are my two favorites. Don’t forget Marchiano in the Encounter where stranded motorists meet with my SAVIOR playing the roll as a diner server.
To the woman who tried to pray to St. Michael on behalf of Gibson, and you said it didn’t seem to work, thats because we as CHRISTians aren’t suppose to pray to angels. You can go directly to the FATHER in the name of JESUS CHRIST alone. Not Mary or any saint or angel. I used to be Catholic. Your effort were noble, but GOD didn’t hear those prayers, therefore they weren’t supposed to work.1
Timothy 2:5
Good News Translation (GNT)
5 For there is one God, and there is one who brings God and human beings together, the man Christ Jesus,
John 14:6
Good News Translation (GNT)
6 Jesus answered him,
      I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except by me.
When we pray to anyone other than GOD, JESUS CHRIST, HOLY GHOST, we are essentially praying to the devil. I learned the hard way. Not trying to be mean, but please take this as a friendly warning, in the name of JESUS CHRIST.

I believe that Jefferson Moore plays Jesus the best in the perfect stranger movies. Jim comes in second in the passion

ROBERT POWELL WAS THE BEST IN HIS ROLE OF JESUS. NO OTHER ACTOR COULD HOLD A CANDLE TO HIM.  WHEN I THINK OF THE WAY HE COULD LOOK RIGHT THROUGH YOU IT LETS ME KNOW THAT HE MUST REALLY FEEL THE LORD INSIDE HIS SOUL.  GOD BLESS HIM. HE REACHED ALOT OF PEOPLE IN THE PAST BY HIS PORTRAYAL OF JESUS.

Robert Powell made the most convincing Jesus of all.  I have seen most betrayals of our Lord but, none as convincing as what he brought to the role. God Bless him in all that he does because he reached alot of people who were not true Christians.

I just saw the movie Jesus with Jeremy Sisto as Jesus. I have seen most of the one’s mentiond above but none moved me like Jeremy Sisto’s Jesus.
His voice,kind smiles,and looks he gave people in the movie was very touching and real. It was truly something to watch