(avg. read time: 38–76 mins.)
For the first time, and in anticipation of what will be a larger review series beginning next month, we will be looking at an adaptation of the story of Jesus: The Greatest Story Ever Told. Of course, this one is a layered adaptation. It is a 1965 movie (the rights for which were acquired in 1954 and the director of which began work in 1958) based on a 1949 novel based on a 1947 radio series based on the Gospels. Unlike many other adaptations of the Gospels since then, it was supposed to be a major box office release, but it proved to be a disappointment, unable even to recuperate what was a rather large budget of $25 million (=over $249 million today), not to mention the editing, marketing, and distribution costs. In addition to having a poor commercial reception, it also received a poor critical reception. While some of my reasons are different from those noted among the early critics, I am inclined to agree that this was not a good adaptation. It is certainly better than the one I reviewed last month, but that is not saying a lot. I have written much more about this movie than I would have liked to, but I found there was so much to comment on. But if you want the short version of the review, I can say: do not waste your time on this particular visual adaptation of the gospel story. You would be better served watching something like The Gospel of John or Jesus of Nazareth (I have not watched The Chosen yet, but that is what I plan to start reviewing next month). If you want the long version of reasons why I think this, continue at your own risk.
Since I have obviously given positive reviews for The Lord of the Rings and Ben-Hur, it should be clear that I do not mind movies being on the longer side. Unfortunately, the most widely available cut of the movie being almost 200 minutes long occupies something of an unhappy medium (the original Cinerama version ran 260 minutes, and the original theatrical version ran 225 minutes). It runs longer than movies like The Gospel of John or even King of Kings, but it runs shorter than a miniseries like Jesus of Nazareth. It does not have enough material to work as well as the miniseries, one effect of which is that its all-star cast is largely wasted in cameos—like John Wayne being the centurion at the cross, Sidney Poitier being Simon of Cyrene, Roddy McDowall being Matthew, or Angela Lansbury being Claudia, among others—rather than in more substantial roles like the miniseries. But it also is not as tightly written as a shorter movie, which raises questions of why the movie had to be as long as it was without being long enough to be a series. Since The Greatest Story Ever Told began as a radio adaptation, surely it could make sense for it to be a limited TV series.
On that point, something that always interests me about biblical adaptations, and especially for the Gospels, is the choices made for what to include, as well as what to exclude. The Gospel of John is a visual representation of the titular Gospel. The movie known simply as “the Jesus film” is primarily a presentation of the Gospel according to Luke. But most adaptations tend to involve a more thorough mixture of materials from the various Gospels. Even Jesus of Nazareth is not a full performance of the entirety of the Four Gospels. That naturally calls my attention to what is included/excluded and raises the question of “why?” While the answer to that question is not always clear, even when the film is an adaptation of another adaptation, I still find it interesting to document what was included/excluded.
The director, George Stevens, was apparently a stickler for editing his movies. In this case, he had to do so much editing for the many, many shots he took (amassing over six million feet of film, roughly equivalent to the amount of film for all three Lord of the Rings movies) that he spent around a year-and-a-half on the task after filming wrapped up in the summer of 1963. And yet he still ended up with a bloated mess. I have never seen either the original Cinerama version, nor the original theatrical release, nor other re-edits. But the version that is available on DVD today has so many odd choices in the editing, including various scenes that are too quick that one wonders why they needed to be included in this film. There are also many shots of “dead air” where we cut to still, silent scenes or what are supposed to be reaction shots from crowds who show no reactions, as they simply stare in the camera’s direction. Indeed, for as long as the movie is, there is remarkably little in the way of dynamic camera action with many still, flat shots of still, flat people. There are exceptions, of course, and it is not as if these features are bad in themselves. But there is so much of it in the movie that it is difficult not to notice. We will make note of these and other issues as we go.
Prologue
The movie opens with a narration of John 1:1–5 in an apparent church setting. Unfortunately, much else from John has been left out. Events from John 2 and 6 are briefly referenced as having happened offscreen. We have one quote from John 3 (you will surely never guess which one). There is nothing of John 4 or 5, only a few lines of teaching from John 6 are quoted in a completely different context, John 7 and 8 are almost absent (with one exception I will note later), and most of John 13 and the Farewell Discourse (as well as Jesus’s prayer in John 17) are absent, as is most of John 20–21.
Since the relevant portion of John’s Prologue ends with referring to Jesus as the light, the scene then transitions with someone walking in the darkness carrying a lamp. We will never find out for sure who this is, as what the scene focuses on is another transition to the baby Jesus’s upraised hand framed by something like an iconographic halo with the declaration of the narrator, “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” Unfortunately, this particular iteration of that story does not live up to the declaration.
Herod
The next scene features the Magi and their caravan coming to King Herod, played by Claude Rains, best known for his role as Captain Renault in Casablanca, in what would be his final film. Apparently, he has already heard that they were asking around about a child. I will say that the visual representation of Herod is quite good here, as he looks old, worn out, disheveled, and just this side of completely unhinged (for more on Herod, see here and here). And while people tend to talk too quietly in this movie, his voice at least fits with his appearance.
But this presentation is a pointless change from what is implied to be a question directed to him as the ruler in the city. What is also pointless is the change made to the story when Herod asks where the Messiah is supposed to be born. In Matt 2, whence the story is drawn, the answer is straightforward and comes from the Jewish authorities. Here, his advisors needlessly confuse the matter saying that Hosea said Egypt (alluding to Hos 11, which is cited in Matt 2 for other reasons), Isaiah said Nazareth (which is also not what is said), and another adviser refers to “Micaiah” (for some reason) as mentioning Bethlehem, after which Herod himself recites the prophecy of Mic 5:2. (For more on the use of Scripture in Matt 2, see here.)
With one exception, I do not think it adequately serves the larger purpose in the story to have Herod know the prophecy and recite it rather than to abide by the text. However, it does serve as an excuse for lengthening this scene, as Herod airs his indignance about how he built the temple, and yet the priests look down on him. At this point, his son Antipas (played by the great José Ferrer, who is one of the bright spots of this film) supports him by saying that the priests envy Herod because he knows the prophets better than them and has more faith than them. I get that this is supposed to be bravado, but it is hard to see anything in the movie that could make us see how from Herod’s perspective he might think that, especially considering how little either he or (later in the movie) his son care for matters of “faith.” And whether you know Herod only by what is written in the Bible, or you know Herod as well from what you can read in Josephus, such a characterization is simply laughable.
Now you might have thought the needless variation from Matt 2 that accomplishes nothing would be over with this, but you would be wrong. After his spiel for which the Magi are simply his captive audience, he tells them to bring him word about the child and where he is so that he may go worship him, only to then tell one of his guards to follow them. This change is not only pointless; it is self-defeating. Herod already knows that the child is in Bethlehem. And the distance at which the guard and his comrades follow them in the dark will mean that they cannot pinpoint the location any closer than that. The guards also do not do a good job of following, as they are easily discovered from a distance, which causes the Magi to not return to Herod, rather than an angel warning them. Herod thus ensures that he will not know the additional information that he needs to know by his own action. Since the same end is reached, there is no reason the story could not have played out as it does in Matt 2.
Bethlehem
Interestingly, the area is presented in the film as being cold. There is even snow on the ground as the caravan heads to Bethlehem. This appears to be a way of representing the traditional date of December 25 as the day Jesus was born. This is a point on which many would note that the movie is simply following traditional artistic depictions rather than being accurate to what Scripture says. But here I would disagree with many who claim to know better, as I have argued elsewhere that December 25 is not at all an unreasonable day for Jesus’s birth (see here and especially here). On this score, at least, I think the movie is fine, even if I do not take it for granted that there would have been snow on such a day.
As they approach Bethlehem, we are introduced to another odd decision. For all that angels are prominent in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, we never see one in these opening scenes. As such, the shepherds from Luke 2 are supposed to be drawn into Bethlehem by seeing the star and the caravan, at which the Magi are in front, rather than by the angels, as in Luke. But despite the obvious head start by the Magi, so that they are at the edge of town before the shepherds in the distance get moving, the shepherds somehow make it to the place before they do. I am not going to make the usual complaint here about the shepherds and Magi being featured in the same scene, since that is a staple of nativity scenes, and I think it is pretty clearly a conflation that fits a visual adaptation to encapsulate disparate parts of a story in a common setting. We will see other conflations, and ones that are less understandable, as the movie continues.
When the Magi come to Mary and Joseph, we hear in narration that she is thinking about a promise. Specifically, she is thinking of the promise conveyed to her by Gabriel in Luke 1:32–33. In line with his instruction in Luke 1:31, she names him Jesus. The Magi then bring their gifts, each time offering commentary on their significance. Again, this is common extrabiblical addition, but for the scene itself, I do not know why the commentary was needed. Given how much dead air there is in this movie as a whole, I would think it would have been more appropriate for Stevens to follow the approach of Ben-Hur in having this scene done without dialogue.
As I mentioned previously, the Magi then leave because they see Herod’s soldiers in the distance. Joseph looks out and hears an angel tell him to take the child and get out. The words fit Matt 2:13, but this was supposed to have been in a dream. Again, for whatever reason, angels cannot be shown in these opening scenes, and this is the only statement implicitly indicated to be linked with an angel, although the angel is presumably just using Joseph’s own voice in his head.
Herod later learns of the situation and reflects on how the stars once upon a time foretold that he would be king. He does not believe that this child is the child of God, as he thinks such a person only exists in the imagination. Yet he admits that it is the child of imagination that he fears, which is reminiscent of the dialogue about how to fight an idea in Ben-Hur.
This scene also features a possible justification for making Herod recite the prophecy of Micah by the fact that he now thinks to recall Jer 31:15 (albeit in a bit of a mangled form), which is another text cited in Matt 2, as an inspiration for his command to slaughter the infants in Bethlehem. As he sees it, he will take it upon himself to fulfill prophecy, but it will be this one, rather than the one from Micah. I think this is an interesting way of working in this reference to Jer 31:15 as part of the text of the movie, and I say that it provides possible justification for making Herod recite the prophecy of Micah because that piece of dialogue now serves as a set-up for the fact that Herod knows Scripture. But this is difficult to square with what we know of Herod from the sources, and I do not know that it was really needed anyway. The same end could have been accomplished without explicitly quoting this text. After all, in Matthew’s text, the quote from Jeremiah is part of the narration, unlike the quote from Micah, which is said by characters within the story being told. So why not simply leave this to narration over the scene at Bethlehem? That would save some of the dead air in how that scene was shot, and the crutch is then removed from the perceived need to have Herod quote Micah. Indeed, more narration throughout would have helped this movie’s problem of dead air.
Speaking of the scene from Bethlehem, there is not a lot to say about it because, quite understandably, it happens so quickly. Bethlehem is presented in what is a roughly appropriate scale, but perhaps the number of children is slightly too high. Frankly, the presentation, because of how rushed it is, remains confusing. Herod said to kill every newborn boy, which makes a clearer parallel with the pharaoh of the time of Moses, but this deviates from the text of Matt 2:16 with the directive concerning every boy two years old and under. But not only does the dialogue not match the biblical text; it does not even match how it is portrayed, as the aftermath of the Slaughter of the Innocents features children who are clearly older.
In any case, after this, a soldier returns to tell Herod that not one has been left alive. Herod smiles at the news, and then he dies immediately like he was nodding off to sleep. What an odd portrayal. If you want to read more about how Herod died, read Josephus, Ant. 17.168–192.
In the Desert of Calif … I Mean “Egypt”
After multiple shots showing Joseph, Mary, and Jesus going to Egypt, right after Herod dies, we get a quick scene of Joseph reciting Isa 9:6 (a text not cited in this part of Matthew or Luke, but which is a text regularly associated with Advent and Christmas) in which he hears the report of Herod’s death. We know it is set in Egypt not because the text of Hosea was used in narration here—which would have made sense—but because we see tiny pyramids in the background. Indeed, this location would otherwise be difficult to associate with Egypt because Stevens was dedicated to shooting the external shots of this movie in the western U.S., particularly in California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. The apparent reason for this was not to save on the budget (which I do not know for sure how much would have been saved, given other issues), but because Stevens thought that the American Southwest had superior grandeur and was more fitting for his intention of romanticizing the area where his movie is set. As I have said before, I understand that not all of these productions can be shot somewhere in the vicinity of the actual locations, but this was one of the more distracting cases for me personally, simply because I have seen so many pictures of locations like this, or I have seen them in other movies, and I know how different the landscape in Israel is. I know it is not as much of a hang-up for everyone, but it is for me.
We Are Altering the Deal
After that quick scene, we then cut back to Jerusalem to see civil unrest after Herod’s death. Antipas is presented as his presumptive successor, but he did not take over in Judea; that was Archelaus’s domain. This is arguably something of a conflation, simply because Archelaus is never identified in the movie. Two other conflations also appear here. One is the Jewish people tearing down the golden eagle over a gate, which is an impetus for Antipas to call upon the nearest Roman governor for aid, but this event took place near the end of the reign of Herod the Great led by Judas and Matthias (Josephus, Ant. 17.149–163). This event and the general unrest are also conflated with the rebellions that happened after Herod’s death and with the one that happened in 6 CE, which followed Archelaus’s removal and Roman governors taking control of Judea. In addition to the conflations, there is an odd scene of some place being burned when the legions come in. It looks to be Bethlehem, given the surroundings, but I have no idea why this event is being presented to even suggest something like this.
As part of his takeover, the Roman governor (who I think is supposed to be Quirinius) dictates that the high priest named Shemaiah (a.k.a. Sir Not-Appearing-in-History) give him his priestly vestments. After all, they are to be kept in his headquarters, so that those who defy the Romans will not be allowed to wear them. It is odd that this is suggested to be some kind of paradigm shift that came with the Romans. Herod himself removed four high priests and even had one assassinated early in his reign. Archelaus also removed two high priests. The Romans continued a practice that had already been ongoing of rulers exerting authority over the high priesthood, which obviously contributed to the corruption of that position.
The several shots that follow are supposed to convey the people’s wish and hope for a deliverer. There are many crucifixions as a result of the rebellion, which leads mourners to come out. Crowds gather in Jerusalem for prayers and sacrifices. And we see early indications of a trend of there being many wide, flat shots, sometimes of nothing particularly interesting, like reaction shots of unemotional crowds. I cannot help but think more editing needed to be done here, or at least that a clearer, or that the people at the helm needed a more coherent vision.
Introducing John the Baptist and Jesus
After some time with these transitional shots, we are then introduced to John the Baptist, first by his booming voice. He is appropriately played by Charlton Heston using his Moses voice from The Ten Commandments. The scene largely fits Matthew’s version of John’s introduction in Matt 3, except that John himself references Isa 40, which makes it more like John’s version in John 1. But that is really the only aspect that makes the scene particularly like John’s version. The reference to Mal 3:1 in this context is more like Mark’s version, but unlike all versions, it is John who references it. For whatever reason, the Scripture references that the narrators of the Gospels make cannot be done in narration in the adaptation. Indeed, voiceovers and narration appear to be rather haphazardly utilized throughout the movie without a clear pattern of rhyme or reason. Using them at least for Scripture references like this could have been provided the rhyme and reason.
In any case, this is also the scene where we first encounter the adult Jesus, played by Max von Sydow, who was an atheist or agnostic at the time. I only mention this about him because he initially shuddered at the idea of being offered the part of Jesus because he thought of Cecil B. DeMille’s movies like Samson and Delilah and The Ten Commandments. I guess he did not want to be in a good biblical movie. He said that the script convinced him that this role of Jesus would not be a “religious cliché,” and supposedly it fit with Stevens’s vision of a movie that was both “reverent” and “universal.” You would think of all things to show as particularly Christian it would be the gospel story, but that is not how the movie operates. The framing, juxtapositions, and strategic omissions are worth noting.
As for von Sydow’s actual portrayal of Jesus, I will say that I do not really blame him for his performance, because I know from his other movies that he can obviously do better. He has a powerful voice on par with Heston’s that also has a more soothing quality. But in light of most other performances in this movie, I can only guess that Stevens insisted that so much of his delivery should be unnaturally flat. It does not necessarily feel out of place with the rest of the movie that his deliveries should be so flat because he is generally surrounded by other people who are acting so flatly, but his flat delivery does not comport with what he is actually saying and how it would make sense for him to be saying it. It is true of his performance as a whole, but we will draw attention to particularly illustrative examples as we go. It is all the more noticeable when juxtaposed in scenes like those with Heston and Ferrer, who are at least allowed to present more range in their performances.
I cannot say I fully understand why baptisms are portrayed as people submerging themselves and John pouring water over where they submerged, since the pouring is not even making contact with them at that point. It is almost like Stevens is trying to represent multiple modes of baptism at once, but it ends up looking awkward. Also awkward is the fact that John asks Jesus his name, which is in none of the Gospels. Only Luke tells us specifically about their familial relationship, and such details have been omitted from the movie to this point. But that is not in itself reason why John should ask Jesus his name. He could just as well do what he does in the other Gospels and act in recognition that he is the one whom he spoke of who was coming after him and greater than him.
There is also an odd aversion to the biblical text when John says, “Is it not you who should baptize me?” (cf. Matt 3:14) and Jesus responds, “Why do you ask me this?” John quotes Mic 5:2 in response, but it is Jesus’s response that is strange in light of the biblical parallel. There, in Matt 3:15, he said, “Allow it now, for thus it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Of course, this is only odd on the first impression. When you see the movie as a whole, it makes more sense that Stevens and co. would omit this point from the text being adapted. Much of the overarching sense of Jesus’s mission is missing in this movie. This is not to say that there are no statements to this effect, for most of them are in the second act. But a movie that adapts parts of all four Gospels manages to have less than any one of them in conveying a sense of Jesus’s mission. Little from John in this regard is represented. The predictions of his death and resurrection, though appearing multiple times in multiple ways in all the Gospels, do not clearly appear even once. The statements about him giving his life as a ransom for many or laying down his life for others are nowhere to be heard. His sense of eschatology that characterizes his teaching throughout is so muted that it is arguably not present at all, since the traces that remain are recontextualized. He only refers to fulfilling Scripture in two cases, one of which is a singular text from Isaiah (with no equivalent of referring to the fulfillment of “the Scriptures” as a whole), and another of which is a statement from Matthew that gets recontextualized in a problematic speech. But I will get to that later.
Jesus in the Wilderness
Anyway, to get on with the story, the next scene is Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness. This is drawn from Matt 4:1–11 // Luke 4:1–13. Yet another odd choice is how quickly this scene goes. Stevens inflates this movie with a lot of wide shots and reaction shots that provide no reaction. But this one is only slightly extended by having Satan (played by Donald Pleasence) show up in a cave with a fire going. He offers Jesus food and Jesus refuses. For some reason, the order of temptations hereafter follows neither of the orders in Matthew or Luke. In fact, it is the reverse of Matthew, so that the temptation to “do homage” to him is first, followed by the temptation to cast himself down from the height of this mountain (rather than in Jerusalem, since that would be too dynamic for this movie), which is only then followed by the temptation to turn a stone into bread. Considering that this encounter started with an offer of food, it would have been more natural for him to follow up with tempting him to use his power to provide his own food, rather than limiting himself like he has. If the scene is to be extended at all beyond the beginning, I would think the last temptation would be the place to do it, as Satan could make some point about how Jesus is supposedly the Son of God but God has not gifted him like the kings of the earth gift their sons, and that he can give him all these kingdoms only for the cost of worship. But no. Changes simply must be made without accomplishing anything of significance.
We then get more shots of Jesus wandering in the wilderness with a voiceover promising what is to come. For some reason, Jesus says to an audience of no one in the wilderness, “All the tribes of the earth shall see the Son of Man coming in the cloud of heaven with power and great glory.” This is a quote of Matt 24:30 (cf. Luke 21:27) that is completely out of place. And he does not even say the similar line later at his trial of Matt 26:64 // Mark 14:62 // Luke 22:69. I am just wondering what this line is doing here completely devoid of context that would give it its sense. The world will never know.
The First Disciples
The film cuts back to John the Baptist at the Jordan in a scene with multiple shots from a crowd that is not particularly reactive. Agents of the powers that be have come to accuse him of being treasonous for baptizing in the wilderness. If you are wondering how to make sense of this claim historically, I cannot help you. John was definitely an outsider to the religious establishment, and one can see evidence of his adversarial relationship with them from the Gospels. But why describe this in terms of “treason”? Historically, it is a non-starter. In the context of the movie, it is meant to set up why John is arrested, because the filmmakers do not want to stick to the reason for his arrest given in the Synoptics (Matt 14:3–4 // Mark 6:17–18 // Luke 3:19–20). His confrontations with the agents could have simply been as they were in the Gospels, and Herod could have taken it upon himself to come to John to hear him speak. But that would require movement, and this movie is not a fan of that happening too often.
Jesus shows up on the scene, and we see further contrast of delivery between von Sydow and Heston. And here Jesus takes some of the disciples with him in a way that is more similar to the narration in John 1, but with some notable differences. For some mysterious reason, Judas (played by David McCallum long before he was Donald Mallard on NCIS) is made one of the first followers of Jesus who had previously accompanied John. The other followers that join at this point are Andrew, John, and Andrew’s brother who is erroneously called “Peter,” since I guess we are supposed to forget that this was Jesus’s name for him, not how Andrew introduced his brother to him. And while John joins, his brother James does not. But James, one of the central three among the Twelve, mind you, is not introduced until much later in the movie and that in such a way that the viewer who did not know better would never guess that he and John were related. The change to Judas’s story at the expense of James was entirely unnecessary. He did not need to be one of the very first disciples for his conflict to be effectively presented later in the movie. Jesus of Nazareth handled a more tragic presentation of Judas significantly better, and it is my go-to example of how to do that characterization of Judas well.
The First Pastiche of Teaching
Jesus’s first teaching to these disciples recites John 6:27, 33, 58, mixed with parts of his teaching on worry in Matt 6:25–33 // Luke 12:22–31. I do not have a problem with this idea in and of itself. For at least some of Jesus’s teachings, I think it is likely that he reiterated them dozens of times in various settings, including with his disciples by themselves. Since we are not given strict chronological presentations in the Gospels, it is also possible that some of these teachings were merged or juxtaposed in different ways at different times, sometimes differently to how they are presented in any of the Gospels. The issue I have with the inclusion of snippets of John 6 is how it cuts around ever signaling that his teaching on this subject caused great offense to his followers and to the rest of his audience. There is no representation of that anywhere in the movie. Indeed, while there is conflict in Jesus’s ministry in this film, it is often represented as happening in the distance with authorities who never come into direct contact with Jesus until late in the story. The many stories of controversies with the Pharisees are almost entirely absent (it is not one of the items of Jesus’s story that is reiterated at multiple points, despite the diversity of the issues). The worst that Jesus experiences in this regard prior to his final entrance into Jerusalem is a rather poorly done scene in Nazareth that we will get to later.
In this same setting, since Jesus mentioned the kingdom of God in his teaching about worry, one of the disciples asks him when the kingdom of God will come. He gives a version of Luke 17:21 in response. The statement is often translated as conveying that the kingdom of God is “within” someone, but it is better translated as “among” or “in your midst.” It is conveying the significance of Jesus, his mission, and of what he will accomplish that the kingdom is, in some senses (see here for example), already here. It is not about saying it is an entirely interior thing that is within each individual person.
After this teaching, we see an awkward scene of Jesus and the disciples suddenly powering down to go to sleep. What makes it awkward is not only the execution, as this all happens so quickly. But it is also awkward because it is happening as the day is dawning, only for them all to wake up while it still appears early in the day. The only thing this appears to accomplish is that it allows for Peter to wake up, look for his coat, and accuse someone—who turns out to be James the Lesser/Little—of stealing it.
In turn, that event in the story is a catalyst for Jesus to say that Peter should give the man his cloak also, since he is poor in spirit and in need. This is mixing different parts of what are presented in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, and again the problem is not that Jesus speaks them here away from that context. The problem is how it is presented, in that it is juxtaposed with Jesus saying Matt 7:1–2, so as to warn against any and all negative statements against the action of another, which is how the statement is often used, but it is not what it means. In Jesus’s teaching, it is a warning that serves as a preventative against hypocrisy and as a reminder of the need for more exacting self-examination, lest one see the speck in someone else’s eye while missing the beam in their own. Instead, simply for objecting to this action of theft (at least, as he perceives it at the time), Peter is given this teaching and more of the teaching not to worry, all with the framing of words that Jesus is never recorded as saying, “Thieves and murderers walk in darkness. You must be their light, Peter, not their judge.” This is one of those aspects of the movie that shows how poorly this film represents Jesus, as one would scarcely imagine that this Jesus had a ministry of teaching in which judgment had a rather extensive role (on which, see the series here). For as much as Jesus referenced judgment and hell, as well as judgment in the context of the kingdom of God/heaven, in this movie only John the Baptist uses such language.
A Sloppy Sandwich of Scenes
Our next sequence involves an intercalation that comes off sloppily. John is now accused of blasphemy, which is only vaguely intimated, and this is used as an impetus for arrest, and the priests are to go to Pilate to speak on the matter. Then we get the intercalated scene of Jesus interrupting the sequence here to show him looking at Jerusalem from a view that is not possible in the actual surroundings of Jerusalem (since the Mount of Olives is a lot closer than this) and Jesus says what he says in Matt 23:37–39 // Luke 13:34–35, though the setting here is closer to Luke’s rendition. After this brief scene, the sequence concerning John’s arrest continues. Intercalation in itself is not a bad strategy in storytelling, as it can accomplish a number of good ends. What makes this pointless is the fact that the sequence the dialogue from Jesus intercalates is itself pointless, because Caiaphas and the informants go to tell Pilate about John the Baptist to ask permission to go to Herod, since John is working in his territory. This whole side-track was not needed, as it does not fit the stories as told in the Gospels, none of this explanation was needed, and we did not need to be introduced to Pilate (played by Telly Savalas debuting his signature baldness) in this way. This all could have just been done on Herod’s own initiative, as in the source material.
Introducing the Family from Bethany
It is also around this time that we are introduced to Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha, although they are not all introduced by name at once. Since it is clear from Luke and John that they were close to Jesus and his other disciples, I am fine with them being introduced at an earlier point in the story, though I do not know why we are not given more distinct characterizations of the sisters to help us differentiate them more beyond waiting to hear which one is named which.
This is also the setting in which we get more remixes of Jesus’s teaching. First, one of his disciples asks him which commandment is first of all. This resembles Matt 22:34–40 // Mark 12:28–34 // Luke 10:25–28, with the resemblance to Mark’s version being the closest and Lazarus being the one whose response Jesus praises. Given that the Synoptics feature such a teaching in different settings, I think it is perfectly fine to show yet another setting in which he could have taught on this matter. The issue is that, unlike the Synoptics, there is no setup for this exchange. It just begins. It also hard to square Mark’s particular ending for this episode with part of the exact same response now being given by Lazarus and Jesus saying the exact same thing to him with these being different episodes in the life of Jesus. Of course, I say that Lazarus only gives “part of” the exact same response because he only says that to love one’s neighbor as oneself is better than all burnt offerings and sacrifices, but the scribe in Mark’s version referred to what Jesus actually called the greatest commandment of loving the Lord God. This is one of those small changes that go with the much more pervasive omissions that ultimately empty the gospel story of so much crucial content.
There is then a brief exchange about the fact that Lazarus is wealthy, that he is called a good man, and that he gives a third of what he earns to God. In response to the first point, Jesus says Matt 16:26 // Mark 8:36–37 and then Matt 19:24 // Mark 10:25 // Luke 18:25. The latter teaching in particular makes sense to invoke here, given its larger context, but the use of the former represents the only time any part of that particular teaching appears in this movie. In response to the second point, Jesus says Matt 6:21 // Luke 12:34 and Matt 6:24 // Luke 16:13, which, again, makes sense as a warning about pursuing wealth, attachment to earthly possessions, and how where one’s treasure is will be where one’s heart is. In response to the final point, Jesus tells the story of Mark 12:41–44 // Luke 21:1–4. As an illustration of the point, it is effective, of course, but it is strange that it would be invoked so far removed from its context in both Mark and Luke at a point in the story before it would have happened (since both of those Gospels link it to Jesus’s final visit to Jerusalem).
A Herodian Interlude
As we continue with the side story about John, we are now in the palace of Herod Antipas. Quite contrary to the Gospel records, he shows no interest in John, thinking he is just some eccentric teacher out in the wilderness, and he has more important matters to attend to. His tune only changes when he hears that he has been speaking of the Christ who is to come. That obviously rings a bell for Antipas, and it does provide a throughline with the opening, but this just further illustrates how this side story has been one long excuse for itself to pad out the runtime. The point could have been made with briefer storytelling in line with the Gospels, but these various scenes add minutes here and there. All they really needed was some hint of his interest in matters of faith while relying on his hostility with the priests. And since he has the sense that the priest do not like John, that at least piques his interest as to what he is talking about. And even though he enjoys listening to some things he says, and even some of his declarations of judgment on people he does not care for, he thinks John crosses the line when addressing him and his own sin, which leads to the arrest. It is simple, it is interesting, and it is to the point, as opposed to this circuitous fluff.
Capernaum as an Encapsulation of Adaptational Problems
When we return to the main storyline of Jesus, he has returned to Capernaum with his disciples. As they approach, James suggests going in by another way as he runs down his brother Matthew, who is at his post as a tax collector. This is leading up to the calling of Matthew/Levi as presented in Matt 9:9–13 // Mark 2:13–17 // Luke 5:27–32. For whatever reason, the movie makes Matthew not only a tax collector, but he is also a more generally profligate sinner. It is not necessarily an unreasonable assumption, though, given how “tax collectors and sinners” or “tax collectors and prostitutes” are associated in flocking together (Matt 9:10–11 // Mark 2:15–16 // Luke 5:29–30; Matt 11:19 // Luke 7:34; Matt 21:31–32; Luke 15:1; 18:11).
Jesus’s dialogue with Matthew is only partially reminiscent of the story of Matthew’s calling. One major insertion crowbarred into it is Jesus’s declaration “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” This comes from John 14:9, where it reinforces a larger theme of John, but the expression as such was rather specific to the situation of responding to what Philip said in 14:8 (cf. 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 12:45). It just seems like this line was randomly pulled out to pad this scene because the writers wanted to extend the dialogue but found that they were not resourceful enough to extend it in a natural fashion.
In any case, Matthew’s reaction is delayed, but he eventually responds to the call to follow Jesus. And he follows him into the local synagogue. Jesus and his disciples are sitting in while someone else gives a message that Jesus does not agree with, voicing his objection audibly but ever so softly. He notes how in the Scriptures it is written, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” which is a reference to Hos 6:6. This was something Jesus referenced according to Matthew’s version of the story in Matt 9:13, although the setting was markedly different. He also says Luke 17:3 here, followed by Matt 7:12 // Luke 6:31. Interestingly, this is literally the only time Jesus references repentance in this entire movie, and it is not even a call to repentance as such (a marked departure from Luke’s version of this story in Luke 5:32). Both in terms of the vocabulary and the imagery, repentance was more significant to Jesus’s teaching than this movie would make you think (see the series noted above on Jesus and judgment).
Consistent with this distortion is another declaration the writers have made up: “Our God is a God of salvation, not revenge. Only through faith is there salvation. And only through love is there hope.” The last two sentences are obviously trying to link to Paul, especially in 1 Cor 13, and that will be even more manifest later. But no content is given to these things, in contrast to Jesus and Paul’s teachings. What is the content of faith? By this movie alone, you could only vaguely guess at it. What is the hope in question? It seems pertaining to salvation, but salvation from what and for what? And what is meant that only through love there is hope? It sounds pleasant, like something a person would buy a framed quote of at Hobby Lobby to hang on their wall, but there is nothing really to drill down into, as there should be with aphoristic sayings. There are all kinds of ways you could read the statement, but I do not want to be too presumptuous. And, of course, the first statement can only be read charitably if one takes it as a way of making the second part secondary rather than denying it altogether (such negation idioms can be found elsewhere, after all). But in light of how the rest of the movie treats matters related to judgment, I think it is rather more likely to be a denial that God will dispense vengeance or retribution, which is not consistent with what Jesus taught. He does, indeed, aim for our salvation. He desires to save rather than to condemn. But if people adamantly refuse the way of salvation he provides, it has been made clear that he will condemn sin and sinners who have made themselves inseparably united with it.
After this, he says Matt 7:7 // Luke 11:19 to call for people to seek, but he extends it beyond what the Jesus of the Gospels ever said. After he says, “Ask, and it will be given to you,” he adds, “Have faith, and you shall be made well.” The closest Jesus gets to saying such a thing in the Gospels is when he assures a few people that their faith has been the conduit for their healing (Matt 9:22 // Mark 5:34 // Luke 8:48; Mark 10:52 // Luke 18:42; Luke 17:19). It is not held out as a promise as such. Of course, this merely serves as a lead-in for the healing of a paralytic, which seemingly adapts the famous story of the Gospels, but the setting and details of the story are remarkably different (cf. Matt 9:1–8 // Mark 2:1–12 // Luke 5:17–26). And after some incredibly stilted performances from everyone involved, including the man whose life has been changed forever, the man responds, “You have made me walk.” Jesus says, “No. It is your faith that has made you well.” You will also not find this statement anywhere in the Gospels. There is no denial of his own power and work in order to put emphasis on a person’s faith, even in the aforementioned cases where he does refer to faith making someone well. Their faith was the conduit, but it would not have accomplished anything without him.
If you want to see better versions of both a healing in a synagogue and of the whole sequence with Matthew, you should watch Jesus of Nazareth. The healing in the synagogue is better in terms of performance and delivery. And the sequence with Matthew from his calling to his joining the disciples and his reconciliation with Peter is one of my favorite parts of the entire miniseries. I also think it is one of best executed and creatively adapted scenes, particularly for how it uses Jesus’s parable of the two sons (often called the Parable of the Prodigal Son) in Luke 15:11–32. One day, I hope to write more about it, but all I will say for now is that it and the scene of the healing in the synagogue accomplish what this sequence tries to accomplish, and they do so with plenty of creativity and passion on display while remaining closer to Scripture.
John Is Arrested
All of this is followed by returning to the side story of John. We see his arrest at dawn before a crowd has assembled. In light of other changes that have been made, this is a sensible alternative to arresting him on the spot when Herod is present. However, the execution, unsurprisingly, is clumsy. When they first try to bind John, he just walks away into the water, at which point we get some hasty cuts of a soldier leaping at him from his horse, followed by others joining in, and him fighting them off by dunking them in the water while calling them to repent. I am not sure if it is supposed to be funny, but it definitely comes off as goofy. He continues the struggle with them after he has been imprisoned in Herod’s palace. Only in this scene does he say anything about Herod’s wife and adultery, which was supposed to have been the impetus for his arrest. Unfortunately, Herodias will not even play a significant role in manipulating Herod into killing John. The whole sequence with Herod and John comes off as him delaying killing him for no particular reason, especially since John makes clear that he wants Herod to kill him. Still, one positive I can find in this whole side story is that the interactions of Herod and John are notably better performed and more natural than most other interactions in this film.
A disciple named Simon, presumably Simon the Zealot, comes to Jesus and his disciples at night to report that John has been arrested. Jesus responds by saying Matt 11:11 // Luke 7:28. The next scene then features a mix of teaching from Matt 11:28–30 and John 6:35, as well as John 10:14, 16b after an interlude featuring Nicodemus and Joseph going with a member of the Sanhedrin named Sorak to investigate Jesus.
Then we cut back to John and Herod yet again. This time, the report has reached him of Jesus. This, too, is out of step with the Gospels, where part of the reason Herod thinks that Jesus was John resurrected was because he was not aware of Jesus before he had John executed. And yet, this notion is included much later in the movie prior to Jesus’s execution, where it makes absolutely zero sense to include now that it has been established that he knew of Jesus by name while John still lived. This scene also features John daring Herod to kill him so that he may live. He explains what he means by saying, “My body’s worth nothing. You can do what you like with it. But my soul is eternal, and you can’t touch it.” That is a statement that appeals to popular beliefs today, but you will find no such thing said by John in the Gospels, by anyone in the Gospels, by the earliest Christians more generally, or by anyone who believed in the eschatological resurrection, as John did. Despite Max von Sydow’s belief that Jesus was not being presented in this movie as a religious cliché, the fact is that both Jesus and John are clearly presented in ways appealing to popular spirituality at many points throughout.
Back to Capernaum
We then have another montage of Jesus and his disciples walking about with voiceovers of his statements from Luke 9:23, as well as Mark 10:15 // Luke 18:17 and Matt 19:14 // Mark 10:14 // Luke 18:16. This is also where we get our introduction to the other James (traditionally known as James the Greater) without any indication that he is related to John. He asks Jesus to return to Capernaum. After he does so, we see Jesus walking through a crowd where Satan appears to say, “Hail, Son of David” and then abruptly leave without anything further from him or Jesus. It is almost like this was supposed to be an example of Jesus telling the demons to be silent so as not to declare who he is before the time was right, but the filmmakers either forgot to include everything else, or they cut the extra material and were left with an editing mess.
It is in this setting that we also get a presentation of the Pericope Adulterae in John 7:53–8:11. Its setting in Capernaum is entirely out of place, since the story is set in Jerusalem. Jesus is not yet teaching so as to be interrupted. There is no ambiguity about the proceedings, as the text is missing the man with whom the people say she had been “caught in the act” who should have been suffering the same punishment, but the film scene simply has her confess that she did what they say she did. And thus the famous line about the one who is without sin casting the first stone is made to be a general one about being utterly sinless, rather than one that can potentially operate at multiple levels (as the people could be said to be transgressing by not observing the Torah’s directives properly). Moreover, the adulteress is made to be “Mary of Magdalene.” Not only does this show how lazy the screenwriters are that she should be called neither Mary Magdalene nor Mary of Magdala, but it also does not work with any early source. She is never identified as such in the story, nor is she identified as such in tradition, which has often linked her with the prostitute in Luke 7. Apparently, they could not find any better way of introducing her into the movie (again, in contrast with Jesus of Nazareth).
There is then another montage of people talking about Jesus, one part of which mentions one of his multiplication miracles to feed people. This exemplifies another failure of this adaptation. Some of Jesus’s deeds are presented, including one of which will be given quite significant focus. But for such a long movie, it is remarkable that more of them are mentioned than shown, and that so few are actually shown at all. Each Gospel has a different balance of content for Jesus’s words and his deeds prior to the major gospel events, but they all feature several examples of both. In this movie, we see three healings, one of which is quick and not the focus of the scene (as we are not even sure what she is healed from, since no clarification is given of if this is the woman with the issue of blood or not), one raising from the dead (besides his own resurrection), zero exorcisms, zero multiplication miracles, and zero of the other kinds of miracles. The movie does not even compensate in the way the Gospel according to John does, where the smaller number of miracles narrated is still correlated with longer stories about the miracles. With the exception of one miracle, the scenes where these deeds are the focus are short. Of course, many of the scenes of Jesus’s teachings are short as well, given how sentences from various contexts are mashed together, but there are so many of them compared to these scenes.
Death of John the Baptist
For the last time, we are then brought back to Herod Antipas’s palace. Herod has come to speak with John while he is in his cell about Jesus. He insists that he will imprison Jesus, and he will share the same fate. John assures him that his swords will be useless against Jesus. After all, he is the one prophesied, and he refers to his birth in Bethlehem. Herod mentions how his father took measures to ensure that the prophecy would not be fulfilled, but then John informs him of the truth. This is one of those few scenes in the movie that I think is unequivocally good. The way it is performed conveys a lot without saying too much, especially as we see Herod’s reaction to the news that this child of Bethlehem avoided his father’s massacre, like a nightmare from the distant past suddenly returning. In the end, Herod refuses the offer to go hear Jesus—as we should have seen him doing with John—and tells John that he came to wish him farewell for the fate he is about to suffer.
The rest of the sequence, however, plays out in a way that is not nearly as well done. Herod is supposed to be having a party at his palace, and we hear a crowd in another room, but he returns to his seat in an empty, poorly lit room. We hear in the distance how John is being taken away while issuing his call to repent, and finally he is decapitated. But again, Herodias played no role in manipulating Herod to execute him in this fashion and to bring the head on a silver platter. Because that purpose has been removed, Herodias’s daughter coming into the room by herself to dance seductively for Herod in mostly distant and often flat shots loses any purpose it had in the story. I guess we are just supposed to think she is into that, given how she paws at him here and has done so in a previous scene. Nothing comes of it, and it is simply here to pad out more time.
Another Pastiche of Teaching
After this, we see one of Jesus’s most extensive continuous teaching segments as he says, in this order, Matt 5:10–11, 3–9, the first part of 13, the first part of 14, the first part of 16, and 6:9. There is then a quick cutaway to Caiaphas and Pilate being told of Jesus’s deeds, specifically in curing the cripple earlier in the movie, and others that never appear: turning water into wine, feeding the 5,000, and walking on water. The fact that we never see these events, but we do have multiple scenes of von Sydow flatly delivering lines that are part of teachings, proves to be a fine illustration of how this movie failed as a visual adaptation.
Another example comes from the next scene, when Jesus puts the question to his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” They give some of the same answers that they do in the Gospels, but the scene also has an expanded interaction regarding who they say he is. Judas simply says that he is a great teacher and leader, Thomas simply reiterates that he only knows that he is Jesus of Nazareth (again, following the stereotypical negative characterizations of Thomas), and Peter makes the confession that he does in the Synoptics. Jesus’s response shows that this version is closest to Matthew’s in Matt 16:13–20. What makes this fail as a visual adaptation is how static and still everything is. This is especially clear in Peter’s reaction shot when Jesus tells him what he tells him in Matthew’s text. Like most reactions filmed in this movie, the shot is flat and unemotive. Whether you think his reaction to such a promise as he received would be joy, being overwhelmed, or something similar, I am quite sure that it would not be nothing.
A Lethargic Rejection at Nazareth
In any case, this is quickly followed by the exchanged recorded in Luke 13:31–33 and by Jesus returning to Nazareth. This is supposed to be the scene in which he is rejected in his hometown. The scene borrows part of Luke’s version, but without the setting in the synagogue for no apparent reason. He says what he does in Luke 4:18–19, 21, after which someone in the crowd ever-so calmly accuses him of blasphemy. The rest of the interaction from Luke is only vaguely similar to what happens here. The attempt to stone him is written rather differently from any version of his rejection at Nazareth, since the movie’s version is impelled by a demand for a sign (whereas in Luke’s version Jesus references such a demand without the crowd actually saying it). Specifically, they demand that he heal the blindness of old Aram (played by Ed Wynn, who was best known for his work in earlier Disney movies like Alice in Wonderland, Mary Poppins, and Babes in Toyland). He replies to the demands for the sign that “It is written, ye shall not tempt the Lord your God,” which was not quoted in any biblical version of the story at Nazareth. But Stevens and co. wanted an excuse for declarations of blasphemy, which are spoken like the actors are on downers and struggling to stay awake. Jesus responds with John 10:37–38. Then the scene awkwardly ends when one man insists on stoning Jesus and hits him in the back with a rock, which has no effect, other than making Jesus turn around as if to say, “Really, dude?”
The Raising of Lazarus
Lazarus then warns Jesus about soldiers coming to arrest him. Jesus and his disciples thus leave for the Jordan River, where “it is safe.” I take it that this is supposed to be inspired by John 10:40, where Jesus returned to where John had baptized people, and he went there after eluding the grasp of the crowd. But it is odd to specifically say that “it is safe” there when this movie earlier showed a bunch of soldiers arrest John at the same place. Jesus does not even have crowds gather around him here, as he does in the biblical text. In any case, on the way out, Jesus heals old Aram anyway in what is a quick scene, where the latter’s reaction to being able to see for the first time is decidedly understated.
Not long after, a message comes to Jesus that Lazarus is on his death bed, thereby signaling that the rest of the scene of John 11 will be coming soon. But before that, one of the disciples asks if men are like circles in the water (I am guessing he meant ripples) that float away and disappear. After all, he remembers that John once stood here and prayed, and he felt good when he listened to him. This is the impetus for Jesus and the disciples reciting the Lord’s Prayer. The impetus is thus reminiscent of Luke 11, but the version of the prayer is the most popular one from Matthew plus the traditional (but not biblical) ending to the prayer. I think this would have worked better without the part at the opening about Lazarus. Since that story continues after this, it just makes this scene appear like a misplaced interlude. If the message about Lazarus had come after, and we got the dialogue of the disciples from John 11, I think it would have worked better.
The scene of Lazarus’s raising is by far the longest scene strictly devoted to a miracle in the movie, as it is nearly ten minutes long. If you want a sense of how long that is in movie terms, the chariot race proper in Ben-Hur (1959) is close to the same length. There are some curious deviations from Scripture, such as Martha’s response changing from what it was in the central exchange in John 11:21–27. It also does not make sense for the door Jesus opens to Lazarus’s tomb being just a regular door made of stone, rather than a stone that is rolled away from an entrance. Those issues aside, I think the scene is one of the few good visual adaptations in the movie. I like that there are allusions to Deut 32 and Ezek 37 here, as they are certainly appropriate for the occasion. Then the scene is extended with people going around proclaiming what has happened (at least Bethany is thus accurately portrayed as being close to Jerusalem). To further convey the significance, three witnesses go to the gates of Jerusalem, one man who has just showed up in this scene to say that one who was dead is now alive, another (the man from Capernaum) to proclaim that he was crippled and now he can walk, and another (old Aram) to say he was blind and now he sees. Finally, the whole latter half of the scene is overlaid with the Hallelujah chorus from Handel’s The Messiah.
My problem comes not so much with the scene itself. Rather, my problem is in how unbalanced this all feels. This one scene is five percent of the runtime (including credits and interlude), and it is one of the few times the score is allowed to shine (otherwise, the score is nothing to write home about). This is treated like the climax of the movie and not the climax of the first act. The actual climax of the movie draws music from the same source, but the whole scene is considerably shorter. And that later scene is significantly shortened, whereas this one is extended. I am not sure why there is such a distorted emphasis on this scene, but at least something good came of it.
Oddly, a scene that is not extended is the one of the report of Jesus’s raising miracle reaching the authorities. This is a rather significant scene in John 11, and I would think if any scene to this point ought to have been extended, it should have been this one. If you are so concerned about showing the leaders talk about Jesus and John, surely the best scene to extend is one from the Gospels the features a resolution concerning Jesus. It could have been an occasion for mentioning some of his other miracles, rather than just having a brief, randomly placed cutaway.
Jesus’s Speech in the Temple
When we return to the main storyline, Mary is anointing Jesus’s feet, and the scene most closely follows the Johannine version. This is then followed by the triumphal entry, although it does not follow any particular version closely. Nothing is especially worth commenting on until we get to Jesus’s action in the temple. The action is portrayed as him objecting to the sacrifices as such, since he recites the line from Hos 6:6 again. As he proceeds to overturn the tables and empty the cages of birds, his deliveries remain flat, and his physical expressions are restrained. On the spectrum of similar scenes, the performance that is supposed to show Jesus’s zeal is closer to Tommy Wiseau’s destruction of his room than to Charles Foster Kane’s destruction of his. The stilted delivery combined with the restrained and soft action is remarkably dissonant and leaves much to be desired, particularly when compared with a similar scene in The Gospel of John (although that is not the same event).
Jesus then teaches in the temple by saying Matt 5:17–20 and Matt 23:3, 9, 14. There are more texts woven into his speech that we will address later, but two points should be noted here. One, despite how frequent Jesus’s conflict with the Pharisees was, this is the first time this conflict is pushed to the fore. Otherwise, his opponents have been shown to be the Sanhedrin without differentiation (except that Joseph and Nicodemus are shown to be amenable to him). Two, the placement of the text from Matt 5 here is not simply out of keeping with the placement as such relative to the rest of Matthew, but it also loses its function in this move. By this point in Matthew, the audience has been prepared for the notion of Jesus fulfilling Scripture in some ways, but the rest of the Sermon on the Mount shows yet other ways in which he fulfills the Law and the Prophets, which also provides a framework for understanding his teaching as a whole and how it relates to Scripture that came before his ministry. Unfortunately, there are no follow-up examples that illustrate the point. It is thus left unmoored to anything that would give it substance when placed in this new context.
The rest of the speech is a remix of John 12:47b, which is followed by 12:46, which is followed by 12:47a, which is followed by a fuller reiteration of 12:47b, which is followed by 12:35–36, which is followed by 1 Cor 13:13, which is followed by Matt 18:20. On the one hand, it is certainly strange that they made the statement in 1 Cor 13:13 a climactic teaching of Jesus, especially since that statement obviously relies on content previously provided, which is not clearly articulated in this movie. On the other hand, I have outlined this teaching to show how assiduously the writers have avoided any statement that implicates Jesus’s role in judgment (as I have noted previously). Here, they specifically avoid 12:48 and its statement on judgment (see here for this and others). Quoting the other texts is not a problem in itself, but it becomes a problem of distortion when no other canonical statements that balance these out are given. Yet again, Jesus is said to bring salvation into the world, but the movie lacks a clear sense of what this salvation is from and what this salvation is for because of its distortive emphases.
As Jesus leaves the temple, someone in the crowd decides to lead a recitation of Ps 23, and then soldiers come to confront the crowd. You see, the great disturbance at the temple that day was apparently not this action of Jesus so much as it was this action that none of the Gospels attest to. It is also completely at cross purposes with the Gospel narration. The authorities wished to arrest Jesus, but they did not want to do so with the crowds around for fear of how they might respond. Thus, they bided their time and waited for the opportune moment, which was supplied by Judas informing them where they could find him (which also proved helpful for them because it was outside the walls of the city) and when he could take them there. But this is completely the opposite tactic, and it makes clear to everyone, not just his disciples, that the authorities wanted to arrest Jesus. There are not even any reprisals of the soldiers that they stirred up this unrest and killed people (including the formerly lame man that the camera focuses on later) without arresting Jesus.
Judas
Thereafter, we see the presentation of Judas’s betrayal. On the way to the Sanhedrin, he runs into Satan, not knowing it is him, and Satan says nothing to him. Well, that was wasted. This could have been an opportunity to show Satan “entering” Judas, as Luke 22:3 says (cf. John 13:2). This does not necessarily need to be showed explicitly, but all that would have been needed was for Judas to show consternation about what he is doing, Satan appearing before him, maybe saying something, and then disappearing. After this, Judas could look around, wondering where he went, and then set off more resolutely.
Judas’s coming to the Sanhedrin allows him to express his affection for Jesus. He says he has been Jesus’s friend for three years (something like a traditional chronology of Jesus’s life). And after he expounds on this, he promises to give Jesus to them as long as no harm comes to him. I will say that this version of this kind of portrayal of Judas was not bad, and the actor does well with his script. But I would still say that if you want a better rendition of this kind of portrayal, I do not think you can find better than Ian McShane in Jesus of Nazareth, which is also helped along by overall better, more fleshed out writing for Judas. Unfortunately, it has been par for the course in this movie that most of the well-done scenes are secondary and do not involve Jesus at the center.
The Last Supper
The Last Supper scene does not closely follow any particular version of the story, as it draws primarily from a mix of Luke and John. The way it is set is obviously meant to resemble Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting. But while that works for an artistic rendition, the impracticality of it is apparent in that they are all put on one side of a long table for no apparent (in-scene) reason. And because so many indoor scenes in this movie are poorly lit (so that I am not sure you can really call this moody [lack of] lighting), we get the same effect here. One result is that Judas is back at the Supper, but he is barely visible, being on one of the dark edges of the shot. You would have difficulty picking him out if Jesus did not refer to him by name and look at him.
As I said previously, the dialogue of the scene is a mix of the Gospels, primarily Luke and John. We have John 13:33, some version of Peter’s insistence that he will die for Jesus (which is, of course, followed by his prediction of Peter’s denial, all of which is a mix of John 13:37–38, Luke 22:33–34, and Matt 26:35), John 14:3 and 5–7, the words of institution for the Eucharist that most closely resemble Luke, John 13:34, John 13:27, and John 13:31. The order of statements is strange, as it has been at many points throughout the film. Further adding to this is the use of statement similar to John 12:24 after all of this as a way to assure Andrew that what is coming must happen. What is also strange is Peter’s muted reaction to Jesus’s prediction, which is quiet and bashful, which are not qualities most readers would associate with Peter at this point in the story.
Jesus Is Arrested
A further oddity comes with a quick scene that contributes nothing. That is, for no apparent reason, we quickly cut to Pilate saying to his wife that the sound of silence is the best sound of all. And that is it. What a way to waste an appearance from Angela Lansbury. And it exemplifies the amount and varieties of padding in a movie that has trouble justifying its length.
Yet another oddity appears with the scene of Judas being paid his thirty pieces of silver. In another example of padding, this scene is given two segments on either side of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. That scene itself, drawing mostly from Matthew and Mark, is fine, and it even includes a rare acknowledgement that he came into the world for the events that are about to happen. But the bookending scene of Judas is strange in that when he is paid, the man has him hold out his hand while he drops each … and … every … single … piece … one … by … one. At the least, we are spared by the intercut scene from actually seeing all thirty individual pieces counted. But this is still awkward, as one would think that the pieces would be counted out and then given to him, rather than this exercise in seeing if he can hold all thirty coins in his hand. And only at the point immediately after the thirtieth piece is counted out does Judas say, “I don’t want the money.” Then the members of the Sanhedrin say, in divergence from the Gospels, “Give it, then, to the poor.”
Jesus’s arrest also has some odd choices being made. On the one hand, Peter draws his sword, but Jesus rebukes him before he can even use it. On the other hand, Jesus uses an interesting phrase in questioning the soldiers by referring to how he taught in public and then saying, “Why now do you come and take me like a thief in the night?” The “thief in the night” imagery appears in Matt 24:43 and 1 Thess 5:2 (cf. Luke 12:39; 1 Thess 5:4; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15), but not here in the Gospels. And yet again, an opportunity is missed for linking these events with the fulfillment of Scripture. The setup was clearly there with Jesus’s statement about this being why he has come into the world, but the writers decide to avoid this matter yet again.
The Hearings and Denials
Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin does not follow any particular version thereof that is in the Gospels. Aram is the first witness brought forth, but this is simply a way of merging Jesus’s trial with elements of the story of John 9 in a peculiar fashion. What is even stranger is that this witness is called, but no others are, as the false witnesses mentioned in Matthew and Mark make no appearance. Nicodemus speaks up to challenge the proceedings, as he notes that Joseph and other like-minded fellows are not present, and the proceedings are remarkably rushed. Caiaphas ignores his concerns by insisting that Jesus has spoken blasphemy, and he proceeds to question Jesus on whether or not he is the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus simply responds with “I am,” but not with anything else that accompanied such a declaration, particularly his statement about how they will see the Son of Man seated at God’s right hand.
One interruption to this scene involves a cutaway to Peter sitting outside around a fire. It is there that Satan first identifies Peter as “a friend of the Nazarene.” The dialogue does not quite match any version of the narration of Peter’s denial, and so I was confused that this dialogue was supposed to count as Peter’s first two denials, as he only denies Jesus one more time later in Jesus’s sight. As with the similar portrayal in The Passion of the Christ, I do not recall hearing the crowing at dawn in this scene.
To return to the flow of the main story, Jesus is sent to Pilate. Their dialogue features John 18:36a, 37–38a, which is unsurprising, given how popular these lines have been. There is not much in the scene itself to comment on, but I find it curious that the scene of Jesus appearing before Pilate is shortened relative to all the material presented in the Gospels, whereas the scenes before the Sanhedrin and Herod Antipas are extended.
Speaking of Herod Antipas, this movie also features Jesus being sent to Herod, as narrated in Luke 23:6–12. Herod is obviously drunk, and maybe that is supposed to be the excuse of why his line about Jesus being John come back from the dead appears here in a context where it no longer makes any sense. He also invokes Mic 5:2 again, providing a throughline of this text’s impression on his mind.
Anyway, that scene is quickly over as Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate. In the process, he is whipped, given his crown of thorns, and is taken out before the crowd. An odd moment here happens when John 3:16 is suddenly included in narration. It is not clear who is saying it, but it is mostly said over the image of Satan on the screen. I am not sure what this juxtaposition was attempting to accomplish, so we will just move on.
Jesus Is Crucified
Pilate introduces Jesus to the crowd with the statement “Behold the man” from John 19:5. Satan then speaks out from the crowd, initiating the call to crucify him. In contrast, a woman calls for him to be released. This leads to conflicting chants to Pilate. We then have the scene with Barabbas, followed by Satan leading the crowd in declaring, “We have no king but Caesar.” Pilate then washes his hands (as in Matthew’s iteration of the story in Matt 27:24), and Jesus is sent away. The narration over Pilate’s last shot recites the part of the Apostolic Creed referencing how Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate. Nothing is particularly spectacular about this scene, but nothing is especially wrong with it either. Since the movie is dedicated to having Satan show up so much on screen, I think this is an interesting use of the character as an agitator. But that was supposed to be the work of the Jewish leaders aiming to put pressure on Pilate to carry out what they wanted to do. Yet, they recede into the background in this scene. I am also not sure why the part of the Apostolic Creed was featured here if that kind of motif was not going to be set up previously.
Jesus’s crucifixion and everything leading up to it is as it has been traditionally portrayed, so there is no need to pick on the movie for any particular errors in that regard. I will say it is questionable why the scene of Luke 23:27–31 is included here, when none of what it exemplifies has appeared elsewhere in the movie. There is no motif of coming judgment on Jerusalem; the warnings of judgment more generally are muted; and the notion of his resurrection as vindication is absent, not least because his predictions of the same are gone. We also see intercut scenes of Judas throwing the money away (without anyone around for him to throw it at) and killing himself by throwing himself into the fire pit in the temple. I cannot say I understand why this change was made. I also cannot understand why Stevens and co. made sure to feature Sidney Poitier in this movie only to give him a non-speaking part as Simon of Cyrene (who is shown as carrying the cross together with Jesus rather than for him).
The crucifixion scene involves Jesus saying all of the “seven last words” or the seven sayings of Jesus on the cross (Luke 23:34, 43; John 19:26–27; Matt 27:46 // Mark 15:34; John 19:28, 30; Luke 23:46). The darkness at the crucifixion is presented as clouds, and so a thunderstorm follows. I am curious where this idea originated, as it was also in Ben-Hur, but you will not find a storm as such in any of the Gospel narrations of the events. In the midst of the storm, we hear, “Truly, this man was the Son of God, pilgrim.” Okay, the centurion did not say “pilgrim,” but it is just that distracting for John Wayne to be here saying that line and only that line. And that is all that came from years of advertising that Wayne would be in the movie (promotional material as far back as 1960 advertised this fact). At least it is more than Poitier got.
Burial
Some brief scenes follow this to address Jesus’s burial and the state of the disciples. The Sanhedrin come to ask for a guard at Jesus’s tomb, which belongs to Joseph of Arimathea. They ask for the guard because of some prophecy that they do not specify. After all, they cannot refer to Jesus’s own prophecy within the scope of the movie, because he never once predicted his death and resurrection in the days leading thereto. We also see some of the disciples out at the Jordan River, even though none of them are supposed to be there. They did not leave the general vicinity of Jerusalem and Bethany until after Jesus’s resurrection. But it is not as if the writers are that concerned about details.
Easter Sunday
Easter Sunday is then introduced with the second Hallelujah chorus in this movie for a scene that is substantially shorter than the one about Lazarus. Jesus makes but one appearance. Up to that point, Mary Magdalene mentions a prophecy about Jesus’s resurrection, but again, this is not attributed to Jesus because he does not say anything to this effect in the movie. It also does not match the emotional state of Mary and the other disciples according to the Gospels, wherein she and they are in mourning, and the women intend to go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’s body. She then goes to the tomb by herself (which is closest to John, though others are implicitly mentioned there), where she encounters an angel, making this whole episode something of a mix of John and Mark, minus the other women being present. She is then soon followed by Peter, John, and another disciple, who are all here without her needing to return to tell them that Jesus’s body is missing.
This is then followed by Jesus’s only appearance, which is not really a match for any of those in the Gospels. We do not even see his appearance, as such, as we simply cut to him being surrounded by his disciples and talking to them; none of the other interesting narrative details are present. His last line does draw some from Matt 28:19 and 20, but it presents a flat note to end on with all the distracting callbacks to various parts of Jesus’s teaching without clear reasoning, besides a focus on hitting what the writers perceive to be the highlights of the Gospels. The last line is as follows: “Go now and teach all nations. Make it your first care to love another and to find the kingdom of God. And all things shall be yours without the asking. Do not fret, then, over tomorrow. Leave tomorrow to fret over its own needs. For today … today’s troubles are enough. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” The first sentence is from Matt 28:19, although there the language from the text is of “making disciples” along with teaching and baptizing. The second sentence is not from any particular text, but it summarizes multiple teachings. The third sentence is not anything in particular, though it is reminiscent of this movie’s version of the teaching on worry in Matt 6:25–33 // Luke 12:22–31, which is also invoked in the fourth and fifth sentences. And then the sixth sentence is the last part of Matt 28:20. As with so much else in this movie, we are thus left with a mishmash of texts that focuses on certain aspects of Jesus’s teachings while avoiding various elements of eschatology (including judgment), Jesus’s identity (notice how Matt 28:18, for example, is not here), and the place of the major events in the larger story. After all, this would have been the place to say that these things happened according to Scripture, not before the disciples witnessed Jesus’s empty tomb or his appearance.
Conclusion
So that is The Greatest Story Ever Told. Why did it fail? I think one would need to do more study on the reception of this movie to answer this question on an historical level. And it would not do simply to recite the words of critics who do not represent views of regular moviegoers and who have different concerns than they do. I do not pretend to offer the reasons of those who actually bought tickets to watch this movie back then or refused to buy tickets. But in my own estimation, I have attempted to show that it failed for a few reasons.
One, most basically, it is simply not a well-made adaptation. It is too bloated with unnecessary material. And it is full of performances that leave much to be desired. These issues and the various cuts that exist show—unlike movies with similar complex histories of cuts like Blade Runner—a lack of clear vision as to what is crucial to the telling of the story and why. Thus, it lacks the focus of shorter films that have a clearer idea of what they want to emphasize and convey, and it lacks the scope of a work that is trying to be something closer to a comprehensive visual adaptation. We end up with a movie that haphazardly mashes teachings together in an attempt to hit perceived highlights while skipping over a lot of other material, some of which appears to be strategic. Besides the focus on teachings leading to such a mishmash of a variety of teachings with only a few being more fully articulated, that focus also means that we get plenty of telling without showing when it comes to Jesus’s deeds. There are exceptions, of course, but there is an excessive emphasis on talking bits as opposed to Jesus’s deeds, where the focus is skewed in favor of sayings more so than in any of the Gospels.
Two, the focus on selected and mashed up teachings of Jesus, while largely avoiding other matters, is a symptom of the movie’s larger problem that could be described as the avoidance of particularity. Stevens and co. tried to make this story have something of a more universal appeal without realizing that it had the appeal it has had throughout history without giving up its particular character involving links to Scripture throughout, the articulation of Jesus’s mission, the foreshadowing and realization of the major gospel events, Jesus’s teachings on eschatology (especially the kingdom of God), and declarations of Jesus’s identity. Instead of being deeply interwoven with a larger story in these various ways, Jesus appears in this movie as a talking head who sometimes does remarkable works that we only occasionally get to see, and as someone who dies and is resurrected because … well … he did in the Gospels, even if the movie has stripped away the context, as they have with so many of Jesus’s teachings that have been mashed together. We are not given a Jesus who is as he is in any specific Gospel or as he is in an aggregated picture derived therefrom. In an attempt to strip Jesus’s teachings and his ministry as a whole of so many particular details that gave context to the whole, the movie has left behind a version of Jesus’s story that seems designed to appeal to no one in particular. This was a case of, “it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Three, the combination of these problems appears to leave us with a failed promise on properly conveying “the greatest story ever told.” The movie does not do particularly well at telling its story, leaving the title to be an empty promise. The title also implies a conviction not only of how good this story is, but also of how important it is. That conviction is lacking in the actual execution. After all, if you thought the story was so great, why change so much of it, move small pieces of it around so much after denuding the material of context, and tell so much without showing? If you want a good visual adaptation of the greatest story ever told, you should look somewhere else than the movie bearing that title.