The following comes from a Mar. 4 story on Atlantic.com.
Jesus Christ is serious business. The remarkable ratings of The Bible miniseries on the History Channel led to the release of the new film Son of God. Producers played up the fact that it had been 10 years since Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was released and grossed at the box office more than $600 million internationally. In its opening weekend, the Son of God made $26 million—not bad, given that its content had previously aired on television.
Both films are serious for their revenue generating, their strategic niche marketing to the religiously devout, and their tone, style, and approach. The Passion was two hours of brutality. Some reviewers screamed that it was a horror flick, not a holy one. Gibson was intent on accuracy (or at least how his particular Catholicism viewed the sacred story). The characters did not speak English and he had the color of actor Jim Caviezel’s eyes digitally altered from blue to brown and gave him a prosthetic nose to make him look “authentically” Jewish. The Son of God is serious in its own way. A “political thriller” and an epic “love story,” the film features overtly evangelical themes of the virgin birth, miraculous healings, vicious crucifixion, and the resurrection.
Jesus films have not always been so serious, and they have not always been directed toward particular segments of the Christian community. In the 1970s, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar used whimsy, even silliness, to tell the old, old story, and both sought mass appeal. Neither film grabbed the market share Passion of the Christ did, but they were popular for their day. Why did so many Americans of the 1970s gravitate to inventive, artistic, and playful accounts of Jesus, while today Christ films are brutal and interested giving in a literal-seeming interpretation of the Bible?
Jesus Christ has played a prominent role in the American cinema since its modern genesis. In the beginning of the 20th century, directors D. W. Griffith and Cecil DeMille not only made the son of God a star on the silver screen, but also consciously set him in conversation with the nation’s most visible problems. After Griffith’s Ku Klux Klan-glorifying film Birth of a Nation (1915) had Jesus appear to bless white supremacy, Griffith tried to prove his love for liberty with Intolerance (1916). In it, nasty Jews crucify the peaceful Jesus. Understandably, this had American Jews crying racism, much as blacks had done with the first film.
Ten years later, DeMille produced the first major “talkie” that starred Jesus, The King of Kings (1927). A relatively benign bio-pic, The King of Kings offered Americans a way to contain diversity within unanimity. From the 1880s to the 1920s, the nation changed dramatically in its demographics. Massive immigration had brought to the shores millions of non-Protestants and peoples deemed non-white. They had their “kings,” spiritual and political, but DeMille’s film was there to remind everyone that Jesus was the “king of kings.”
In the 1970s, for the first time, popular Jesus films emphasized playfulness, new sonic and visual aesthetics, and even “camp” to present the gospel tale.
In the early Cold War, the star of Moses rose above the cross of Christ with The Ten Commandments (1956). Another DeMille feature, it was both a box-office and critical success. Filled with sexual innuendo, light and dark flesh wrapped in eye-catching dress, and cutting-edge special effects, The Ten Commandments made its political point clear. Before the opening credits, DeMille is on screen before the audience. He explains, “The theme of this picture is whether men ought to be ruled by God’s law or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Rameses. Are men the property of the state or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.” Take that, Soviet Union!
But in the 1970s, for the first time, popular Jesus films emphasized playfulness, new sonic and visual aesthetics, and even “camp” to present the gospel tale. People had just experienced the ‘60s, with its passions and social strains (including several assassinations of public figures). Hippies and their religious analogue, the Jesus People, defined themselves by experimentation. For the former, it meant drugs. For the latter, it meant relating to Jesus in new ways. Their “buddy” Jesus “took a bad rap.” The new vernacular even had a new Bible, The Way, which translated biblical texts into what seemed then a “cool” idiom.
Set in New York City, Godspell presented Jesus in a superman T-shirt and suspenders holding up us his multi-colored pants. His followers ask questions in a quirky manner and overact on purpose. Perhaps the richest moments occur in a junkyard. Surrounded by garbage, Jesus and his followers retell the parable stories. Broken toys and hole-filled socks work with the words to teach us how to love one another.
Jesus Christ Superstar most certainly had its serious moments. The frustration of Judas is matched by the erotic devotion of Mary Magdalene. When Jesus goes before Herod, however, camp takes over. With a high-pitched voice, wearing sunglasses, and being massaged by women and men, King Herod dances as he invites Jesus to “walk across my swimming pool.” The new focus on humor, even giddiness, went beyond the films too. Americans could purchase “Jesus Laughing” from Ralph Kozak’s company in the late 1970s, which featured Jesus with an open-mouthed smile.
What was unique about the 1970s? One main difference was that evangelicals and Catholics had yet to form tight political bonds and had yet to become a powerful niche market.
Neither Godspell, nor Jesus Christ Superstar endeavored to convert unbelievers to Christianity. If they had a particular audience in mind, it was those who loved the theater. Both originated as stage productions. Tim Rice, the writer of Jesus Christ Superstar, explained later that he was fascinated with Jesus as a human and not as a divine figure. Following the theological controversy of the 1960s that had some leading religious thinkers emphasizing the actions of humans and not the powers of God, Rice tapped into this humanistic concern. In some respects, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar wanted to have their communion bread and eat it too. They followed the Jesus People movement by repacking Jesus in the idiom of cool, but also indulged in the new theologies that wanted to dispense with his divinity. In both films, Jesus failed to return from the dead.
The attempted combination of respect and irreverence appealed to some and frustrated others. Billy Graham claimed that Jesus Christ Superstar “bordered on blasphemy” and some evangelicals picketed it. Film critic Roger Ebert maintained that the “simplicity” of Godspell and its “strangely irreverent” qualities made it “endearing.” For Ebert, anything that could “brighten up this miserable world” was worth the price of admission.
In the years after Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar, major motion pictures about Jesus returned to their serious ways. Martin Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ (1988) had more Americans outraged than were lining up to see it because the film had Jesus contemplate leaving the cross, marrying Mary Magdalene, and raising a family.
So what was unique about the 1970s? One main difference was that evangelicals and Catholics had yet to form tight political bonds and had yet to become a powerful niche market. By the time of Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, an entire industry of the devout had been created. It boasted singers like Amy Grant, athletes like NBA star David Robinson, restaurants like Chic-fil-A, and painters like Thomas Kinkade. Those markets, along with conservative media outlets, made the Son of God and The Passion not only possible, but lucrative. In fact, a main sponsor of The Bible miniseries was the dating site Christian Mingle….
To read the entire story, click here.
In the production, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR , Our Lord only dies. There is no resurrection. In GODSPELL , there is a hint of the resurrection when the cast sings “Long live God” But both productions are basically silly and as Billy Graham stated, bordered on blasphemy. THE PASSION OF CHRIST,on the other hand, because it was true to the Gospels, was ridiculed by the media, even though it did very well at the box office. In order to adequately tell the story of Christ, the film must be accurate, with no political correctness added. The film must also be serious, and uplifting, and should be inspirational. As I told my parishioners when THE PASSION OF CHRIST was released, this film could be said to be a sacramental, as it has led many souls to piety and to the return of the sacraments. The older films, because they were made by people who had the faith had an intimacy with the divine implanted in them, and so they could lift the viewer to religious fervor. The newer films, including some sold by Ignatius Press, are shallow and uninspiring., and by the scandal they could cause, should not be recommended.
I saw The Passion of Christ at the theater but left to go to the rest room for the scourging part. I don’t care for violence. I came back at the end of it and there was enough blood around for 2 people so I think they overdid it. My son was a young teen at the time and the graphic violence didn’t bother him but I think that some young people aren’t bothered by blood and gore.
Even as a 7th grader, in a Catholic school preparing for confirmation, I knew “The Way” was a novelty. But hey baby, it was the 7o’s and everything had to be cool, right? Truth is truth and is usually not in vogue so carry on and don’t be distracted by today’s novelties!
People are looking for truth.
Secularism, materialism and relativism are empty.
Sorry. Jesus Christ Superstar, Godspell and Brother Sun Sister Moon were among the catalysts for my journey to my adult conversion to Roman Catholicism back in the mid 1970s. My faith has grown and deepened over the years but these movies and several books started my questioning which led to my conversion.
Bill: You make a good point. Different movies for different audiences and a changing culture. I saw Godspell when I was younger and I thought some of the music was very prayerful. Perhaps I wouldn’t think so today – that was years ago – but it spoke to me to where I was at the time.
Find God in all things.
To me, there is only one film that is THE life of Jesus. This is “The Gospel According to St. Matthew”, produced by Pier Paolo Pasolini in Italy in 1964. There are several versions of the film, but the one released by Legend Films has a beautiful colorized 90 minute version extremely well dubbed in English, and the same DVD has the original 137 minute black and white Italian film with English subtitles. There is nothing like this before or since its release.
Hollywood has always been filled with evil, glamor, filth, egotism, materialism– and mockery of God, His Son, Jesus Christ, and Our Blessed Mother, Mary! Best for sincere believers, and all people of moral conscience and decency– to avoid Hollywood, period! Fr. Patrick Peyton produced excellent religious films, which I loved to watch, many years ago, with his wonderful Family Rosary Crusade!
Having seen the “Son of God” with evangelical friends, all of us anxious to see this new film, we all left disappointed. We agreed that it was a good thing that the film was made, but none of us were impressed, nor do we expect it to lead to acclaim as a film nor lead to widespread conversions.
Much was wrong with this portrayal of Jesus, but then of course no one can really portray Jesus accurately but Jesus.
The saddest part was that this movie concentrated on portraying the dramatic highlights of the story of the life of Jesus and gave short shrift to the teachings of the Son of God that lead us to follow Jesus.
The most important aspect of Christianity is not the dramatic story of the life and death of Jesus Christ, but of His message of the pathways of salvation for each one of our eternal souls.
Thanks for your comments, Maryanne. God bless you.
The “Hippy Jesus” concept is bad enough, but what about the “Hunky Jesus” contest that is an established Easter tradition with the perverts in San Francisco? Would I have to explain what “Hunky” is all about? Check out “Hunky Jesus” on Google.
Is there any outrage from the Catholic Church on this?
Yes, Lin, I’m part of the Church and I am offended on behalf of believers and am aggrieved at all attempts to sexualize Jesus, including those portraying Our Lord as hunk, of having patched together a band of homosexuals, or of being married to Mary Magdalen, etc.
I believe that for many reasons the Catholic Church as a whole does not stoop to debate perverts who wish to discredit Christianity by any means possible these days. One reason is that the Church is busy with extensive endeavors which are believed to be far more worthy of the followers of the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Passion, says the author, is two hours of brutality? Hardly! The brutality, the scourging and crucifixion, total about ten minutes. The Passion was, however, certainly two hours of intensity! And rightly so! For no motion picture can ever come close to what actually happened on that Good Friday two thousand years ago. Bottom Line? Any picture, motion or otherwise, that leads people to Christ, or closer to Christ, is worthwhile! Brutality or not!
Could you fix the misspelling of hippie? Hippy means something else.