Local News
‘The Gospel Of John’ Creates Vivid Illustration
Published: November 20, 2003
A remarkable undertaking, “The Gospel Of John” is an epic rendering of the life of Jesus Christ taken directly from the Scripture for which it is named. The script of the three-hour film, which opened in Atlanta on Nov. 7, is a combination of dialogue and narration, including the entire text of the American Bible Society’s Good News Translation Bible. The setting is created in amazing detail, and the cast is well chosen; in fact, the only drawback is the decision to never stray from the full text of the Gospel.
The exteriors were shot on location in Spain, and the arid landscape, along with painstakingly researched interior sets and costumes, creates a complete world that helps the viewer imagine what life in the time of Christ might have been like.
Scenes of Christ and his disciples leaving bustling market towns and setting out along dusty roads on foot demonstrate a lifestyle hard to imagine in our world of malls, cars and interstates.
Costume designer Debra Hanson deserves special credit for creating a wide range of clothing that delineates each character’s place in society, from Jesus’s and the disciples’ rough-hewn garments, to the Pharisees’ luxurious robes, to the Roman soldiers’ vivid red uniforms. Even the soundtrack incorporates music and instruments contemporary to the time of Christ.
“The Gospel of John” focuses primarily on Christ’s miracles, his conflict with the Judaic religious hierarchy and his persecution and resurrection. The miracle scenes, especially the creation of wine at the marriage at Cana and the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, are handled in a believable manner, and the scene in which he confronts the moneychangers at the Temple is very striking. The depiction of the resurrection is both simple and elegant. The text of this Gospel is insistent on the truthfulness of its claims, especially the position of Jesus Christ as Messiah and Son of God. The film seems designed to verify these claims also.
One of the most interesting choices made by director Philip Saville is the expansion of the role of Mary Magdalene, sympathetically portrayed by Lynsey Baxter. She appears several times throughout the film, traveling with the disciples, even before she is named in the text. Significantly, considering the current interest in her and her role in the Gospels, she is prominent in the Last Supper scene and in the scenes in the garden leading up to Christ’s arrest. She is the only woman present and seems to be on equal footing with the eleven remaining disciples after Judas Iscariot leaves to fulfill his betrayal.
Henry Ian Cusick heads a cast that looks completely at home in the meticulously realistic setting. Cusick’s Christ radiates calm and goodwill; at times he almost glows with confidence. He completely understands his destiny, and he never wavers from it.
Stuart Bunce plays John the Baptist with an almost wild-eyed fanaticism appropriate for a prophet, and Daniel Kash brings a touch of humor to the role of Simon Peter. Stephen Russell creates a discerning Pontius Pilate. In each case, however, there is a sense that the actors could do more if they were not held in check by the narration.
The parts of the Gospel’s text that are not direct dialogue are narrated by Christopher Plummer. Although Plummer does a fine job, the very fact of the narration takes away from the impact of the story. Hearing descriptions of what is happening and explanations of the characters’ reactions as the events are taking place is redundant and takes away from the drama of the story. Some editing might have helped to strengthen the message. For example, the scene in which Jesus spends his final evening with the disciples before he is arrested, which should lead to the emotional climax of the film, loses some of its impact because Cusick must impart the majority of Christ’s lessons to the disciples at this point in the film via a very long and verbally complex dialogue. Meanwhile, the other actors are given nothing to do but wander through the garden and caves or sit and listen to him. The message may be important, but the way it is depicted does not make for a riveting climax.
The portrayals of the disciples especially seem to suffer as a result of the strict adherence to the text. Because little description is given of the disciples in this Gospel, for the most part they are interchangeable and appear only in a group to serve as an adoring audience for Christ.
The most compelling secondary characters are the men about whom some personal information is given: Simon Peter, who most often questions Christ; Nathanael, whose conversion is described; and John himself, who is not named until the end of the film. The others, even Judas Iscariot, are not given the opportunity to distinguish themselves from the group. It made one want to know more about the characters: how they were feeling, what they were thinking, how they interacted among themselves, and, most importantly, how they made the leap of faith to devote their lives to Christ. These questions become especially pressing considering the politically charged atmosphere presented in the film. Their dedication to Christ put the disciples in conflict with the established practices of their religion, not to mention in mortal danger.
Possibly, though, that is part of the point of the film—at least it prompts the questions. Although “The Gospel of John” succeeds more fully as an illustration of the Gospel rather than a true dramatization, it does vividly construct a picture of what Christ’s life might have been like. For a re-creation of the Gospel that begins with the claim that “the Word is God,” a strict adherence to the authority of the text is, perhaps, inevitable.
Jane Wilson, a local writer and movie enthusiast, holds a doctorate in English from The University of Georgia. She is a parishioner at St. Pius X Church, Conyers.
If you found this review helpful and would like to read more articles about movies and other cultural events, please let us know at editor@georgiabulletin.org.
