AFTER EARTH: A Review

Rated PG-13. Running time: 1 hour 40 min.

Cyber instructs his son about the dangerous trek he must make.

© 2013 Columbia Pictures

Even though I walk through the darkest valley,

   I fear no evil;

for you are with me;

   your rod and your staff—

   they comfort me. 

Psalm 23: 4

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do 

with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. 

        1 John 4.18

Director M. Night Shyamalan, rather than directing from a script written solely by himself, takes on a story originally suggested by Will Smith, with co-scriptwriter Gary Wita (who also wrote The Book of Eli) joining him. According to the press notes, Smith had envisioned this father-son story as a survival tale resulting from a camping trip gone awry in today’s wilderness. Instead, it has been enlarged to a tale set a millennium off in the future with a space ship replacing a SUV. So, seven years after The Pursuit of Happyness in which the father-son pair survived on the streets and subway bathrooms of San Francisco, we have them fighting for their lives on a planet where both animal and plant life are bent on destroying anything human.

The title refers to the fact that there has been a mass migration from Earth due to pollution caused by war and industrial and civic pollution. Young cadet Kitai Raige (Jaden Smith) has just failed to advance to Ranger status because of his headstrong rebellion against his superiors while in the field. He is very despondent because he so wants to win the respect of his disciplinarian father, the famous United Rangers General Cypher Raige (Will Smith). The latter is gone so much that a distance has opened up between the two. The father has just returned, and the son, after angrily telling him the bad news during supper, stalks off to his room. Fortunately his wise mother Faia Raige (Sophie Okonedo) is there to explain their son’s behavior and advises Cyber to pay especial attention to the boy. He accepts this, saying that he can and will take Kitai with him on his last trip. Even better for her, he reveals that after this next mission he plans to retire to spend more time with the family

As the father and son are getting ready to board their ship, three Rangers, recovering from their battle wounds, respectfully approach the General, thanking and saluting him for saving their lives. This seemingly small scene will take on more importance at the end of the film. Before they can reach their destination, the spaceship is terribly damaged while passing through an asteroid belt, forcing them to seek a landing spot for emergency repairs. Unfortunately the closest planet is under a quarantine forbidding anyone from landing on it. However, they have no choice, and the landing is so rough that the ship breaks apart, the tail section fallen almost 200 kilometers behind. Everyone is killed but the father and son.

It is in that far off tail section that an emergency beacon and oxygen-containing disks are contained. Cyber’s legs are too badly injured for him to make the trek it is up to Kitai to make the trip. Succeed or die. Oh yes, that tail section also included the container in which a deadly creature called an ursa was being transported. Ursas are vicious creatures that track humans through their fear.  Earlier we are told that to avoid being killed by one a person must become a “ghost” by eliminating all fear, ghost in the sense that he is invisible to the predator as long as fear is held in check.

© 2013 Columbia Pictures

Through a series of short flashbacks we learn that when he was a young child Kitai had watched helplessly as an ursa killed his older sister Senshi (Zoe Kravitz), so the teenager must wrestle with his inner guilt and fear that he had in the past been a coward, as well as the present outer dangers of the hostile planet. Yes, the planet turns out to be the earth, the creatures of which have mutated into predators seemingly designed to kill their former tormentors. Cypher tells his son, “Fear is not real. It is a product of thoughts you create. Do not misunderstand me. Danger is very real. But fear is a choice.”

Just how difficult the choice of not to fear we soon see when oxygen supply is cut short when some of the disks are smashed. With the earth’s air too polluted, Kitai has enough oxygen to return his father, but not enough to reach the tail unless he takes a perilous shortcut that probably will result in his death. Against his father’s orders, Kitai refuse to return, and…. The film offers plenty of thrills for adventure lovers, climaxing, of course, in the encounter with the hungry ursa.

Visually the film is also exciting, from Kitai’s cool body-clinging survival suit that changes color when danger is near and contains a two-way camera in the wrist so that Cyber can monitor his movements to the computer-enhanced terrain so beautifully verdant. The screening audience became so thoroughly caught up in the story that they applauded at several key moments, especially in the final scene when we see the strict father at last showing his approval in a very moving way. The film will not become a classic, with many of the critics displaying their disapproval. However, I found it very enjoyable, with the comment about fear being intriguing.

Like most sci-fi stories, this one seems to presume that religions have been supplanted by science and reason, so the equivalent of the assurance of the line from the 23rd Psalm is Cyber’s assuring Kitai that he will be with him every step of the way by means of their communication system. And his observation about fear being fueled by thinking of possible bad future consequences means that one must take no thought of the future but concentrate solely on the present moment reminds one of “Carpe diem” (“Seize the day”) in the film Dead Poets Society—or better, of the one who said in regard to our worried over food and clothing, “Do not be anxious about tomorrow…”

The review in Visual Parables will contain six questions prior to the one below. This one might lead to some discussion about science fiction and its treatment--or lack of--of religion. I also want to call your attention to a classic sci-fi novel that I hope some day will be made into a film:

7. What do you think of the way in which so many sci-fi authors write off the Christianity and the church (or any other religion for that matter)? How do they under-estimate the ability of organized faith to adapt to new circumstances? For those seeking a sci-fi novel that takes a very different tact with faith see Walter Miller’s 1960 classic The Canticles of Leibowitz. Wikipedia has a good article on it at” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
For an amusing trailer of a fictional movie adaptation of Miller’s novel, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8MY5-DsYpvs

No--The Chilean Oscar Nominee

Rated R. Our ratings: V -5; L -7; S/N -2. Running time: 1 hour 58 min. (English Subtitled)

The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites,  and made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labour. They were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them. The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, “When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.” But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live.
Exodus 1:13-17

Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker,
   but those who are kind to the needy honour him. 
The wicked are overthrown by their evildoing,
   but the righteous find a refuge in their integrity.
Proverbs 14:31-32

Although the Hebrew midwives were at the bottom of society in ancient Egypt, they were brave enough to exercise the one power that they did have, the power of saying “No” to Pharaoh’s murderous command. Chilean film director Pablo Larrain's film claims that an advertising campaign concocted by the same pitchman who was selling a drink called Freedom would also lead to the freedom of his people by convincing them that if enough of them said “No” at an upcoming plebiscite, they could oust the dictator who had destroyed their democracy.

In 1988 dictator Augusto Pinoceht's police still rule the streets.

Sony Pictures Classics

       In 1988 the people of Chile had suffered under the harsh military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet for 15 years. Thousands of them had been shot and imprisoned for even being suspected of opposing the regime. Pressured by foreign governments, the Pope, human rights groups, and even by the requirement of Pinochet’s own constitution, the General called for an election in which the people had two choices—a “Yes” to continue the dictator in office for 8 more years; a “No” for those who wanted to restore democracy. Pinochet is supremely confident that the people will support an extension of his term of office.
Director Pablo Larrain and screenwriter Pedro Peirano’s film, in turn based on an unpublished play by Antonio Skarmeta, is difficult to watch at first because of its technique. The director used old video cameras to shoot the action so that they blend in more with the actual TV footage of the time that he uses so frequently. More irritating is that in most scenes the cameras are hand-held, providing mostly close ups and medium shots that are jerky and unsettling. However, the story is so engrossing that we get over any irritations, and we marvel at the premise that the creator of cheesy TV commercials could have such a vital role in the ousting of a brutal dictator.

     The film begins with René Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal) pitching to clients his commercial for their beer, ironically named in view of what will unfold. “Freedom.” They are puzzled by the unorthodox razzle-dazzle approach, especially the use of a mime. He employs advertising jargon from North America to explain to them “the social context” of their product. Rene is very much a member of the new generation, riding his skateboard back and forth to work. Because of his reputation for creativity it is to him that the coalition of opposition parties turn to direct their TV campaign to convince the public to vote “No” in the referendum. The government has given both sides 15 minutes airtime to make their case during the 4 weeks of the campaign.

     At first Rene’s former activist wife Veronica (Antonia Zegers), who has left him because she despises his work of selling frivolous products to the wealthy, scorns his freelance campaign because of the widespread belief that the election is rigged. Rene also has to convince the opposition politicians that a light, positive approach is better than a heavy-handed one using scenes of past beatings and imprisonment. They are sceptical, especially when he uses that mime again, and one of the leaders walks out in disgust when Rene shows them his ad. The opposition politicians are convinced that the election is a fraud, so they see it merely as an opportunity to make their case to the people before the government’s iron curtain of censorship descends again. Rene, asking do they want to win the election, convinces them that his campaign can indeed lead to victory by stirring the large group of apolitical TV viewers to go to the polls and vote.

     Inspired by the “We Are the World” campaign, Rene hires famous singers to sing a tuneful jingo “Happiness is coming, Chile!” Filled with upbeat images akin to those in Coke commercials, his presentations paint a picture of the bright future that could return to Chile if the people vote “No.” The word is incorporated into a logo that includes a rainbow, the latter representing the 17 opposition parties. Stan Freburg-like humour is employed in skits, such as that of a couple in bed, one of whom continually responds with “No” to her lover’s request. In another a comedian is bombarded with pleas to say “Yes,” but instead opens his mouth on which is pasted to his tongue the rainbow logos and “No.”

     Much of the film shows the alternating meetings of the two campaign committees, that of the General’s agents disdaining the opposition’s seemingly frivolous approach, until polls begin to show once inactive members of the public supporting the “No” side. The actual videos of both the “Yes” and the “No” campaigns are interspersed throughout the story. At one meeting the “Yes” committee members complain that all of the talented, best-known artists are working for the other side. Even internationally known Hollywood stars contribute their services—we see the actual ads featuring Jane Fonda, Christopher Reeve, and Richard Dreyfus.

     Adding to the tension is the fact that Rene’s ad agency boss Lucho (Alfredo Castro) heads up Pinochet’s campaign. However, Rene is apparently so valuable at the agency that he is not fired over his freelance work. More dangerous are the anonymous phone calls and threats he begins to receive. He becomes so worried that he takes his young son, of whom he has custody, to stay with Veronica—who now regards him with more respect. Matters become so tense that at the end, when a large majority of the people do vote “NO,” Rene and his colleagues fear that the government dictatorship will resort to its old violent tactics and refuse to give up power.

     What happens is so surprising and refreshing that Chile should be added to the list of Iron Curtain nations that overthrew their tyranny non-violently, as well as those more recently in North Africa. The overall events are true, but the story is fictional, and according to its critics, very simplistic, leaving out many persons and intense work by other groups that made possible the Chilean revolution. However, as a political movie extolling the power of people saying “No,” the film is a delight. (I kept thinking of Thoreau’s “Essay on Civil Disobedience” while watching it. If you want to learn more about the actual history of the revolution, then you should go to the long article “Oscars: Real History Behind the Film 'No'“ edited by Peter Kornbluh at the following site: http://portside.org/2013-03-08/oscars-real-history-behind-film-no. We can be thankful that the film’s Oscar nomination has brought it to greater public attention than such a foreign language film usually receives.

For Reflection/Discussion
1. In what ways is this film similar to Argo? How does the main character in each movie use unorthodox measures to achieve his goal?
2. What do you think of the visual symbols: such as the name of the beverage Rene is selling “Freedom; “ the mime;” the use of a rainbow; the constant employment of the large graphic  “No”? The use of the soap opera stars and the helicopter atop the tall building?  Theater of the absurd, maybe, but--?
3. How do the various characters’ view of Rene change during the course of the film? What does Veronica overlook in Rene at first when he takes on the “No” campaign: after all, who is the head of the “Yes” campaign? What could this portend for Rene’s future career?
4. Our Age of Enlightenment Founding Fathers maintained that in public discourse the side employing the facts (truth) in a rational argument would win: but does Rene’s campaign follow this? How is what he calls his society’s “the social context” very different from the 18th/19th centuries? How are images as important, or mores so, than rational arguments in today’s world? (You might think back on political ads in our own nation: do they appeal to the mind or to our emotions?
5. Why did Rene not want to use scenes and stories of Pinochet’s past brutal tactics in the campaign? What effect did he think, and fear, these would have upon the minds of the majority of people who did not participate in the political process? How was his campaign ironically a positive, rather than a negative one, despite the logos?
6. How did you feel at the end of the film? As a believer where did you see the God of the prophets at work in the story?

The Bible, Fifth Week

The Bible episodes really did improve, the half covering the New Testament being far superior to the first, where it seemed to be the stories containing R-rated elements—violence and sex—that drew the producers’ interest. Although there are still points to quibble about—and I will raise some of them later—for the most part I felt a sense of relief as the series concluded with what it calls “the apostle John” exiled on the island of Patmos. This latter was an important part of my relief because of the artistic restraint in dealing with John and his Book of Revelation. More on this a little later also.

I am glad the fifth week’s episodes were so good, because during the first commercial break I discovered that Turner Classic Movies was airing The Robe. I kept going back to this enjoyable classic during the remaining breaks, and was very tempted to stay with it. Only my promise to finish blogging about the Bible made me return, for which I am glad, Episodes 9 & 10 being well worth watching.

                                          

                         

The trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate were well staged, with actors Adrian Schiller and Greg Hicks as High Priest Caiaphas and Governor Pontius Pilate respectively excellent in their roles. The one is convincingly shrewd and manipulative as the wily priest, and the other arrogant and well aware of his authority. Dieogo Morgado was not quite up to their level, his Jesus at one time being very vacant-eyed and perhaps a little too subdued: this Christ was not as pictured in the Gospel of John, calm and very much in control despite his captivity. However, during the scourging his cries and moans conveys well his humanity. Jesus might be the Son of God, but his suffering was not play-acting.
     
                              

                       

Mercifully the scourging was a lot briefer than in Mel Gibson’s The Passion, but the depiction was just as effective. The sense of frustration and agony that Mary—a non-Biblical but dramatically effective touch—feels is well depicted. Her frustration because the iron grate of the gate kept her from rushing to her son’s side, and agony over the pain of seeing him suffering such injustice. It is interesting that they showed Pilate going to Jesus in his cell, rather than bringing him into the audience room with his accusers.

The Gospel of Matthew’s mention of Pilate’s wife and her dream is expanded so that we see her in several scenes. In this version Pilate has no excuse for his miscarriage of justice, having been given fair warning by his wife. When it came to presenting Jesus and Barabbas to the crowd, the speculative episode of the temple guards vetting the crowd was a good touch. By rejecting admission to the courtyard of all known supporters of Jesus (no doubt at the insistence of Caiaphas) insured that the mob could easily be manipulated by the priests. When Pilate, obviously wanting to release Jesus, tries to argue with priests and crowd about choosing either Jesus or Barabbas for release, I was glad that Matthew 27:25 was left out. This is the passage that has been so widely misused by anti-Semites because the mob says, while Pilate is washing his hands,” His blood be on us and on our children!’ There should be no charge that this film is anti-Semitic, as was done in the case of The Passion.

The carriage of the cross was almost as brutally depicted as in The Passion, the guard almost constantly whipping the bruised and battered Jesus. Mother Mary is there also, played by co-producer Roma Downey. Although very appropriate in the portrayal of the young Mary, she still seems too youthful at this point, very much like those older women in TV commercials aimed at the AARP generation. The best depiction of Mary at the time of the Cross is in Pier Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According to St. Matthew in which he cast his own mother as Mary, there being no mistaking that she had aged during a time devoid of cosmetics and age-fighting vitamins. To change the subject, did you catch a quick glimpse of Satan in the crowd of onlookers?

The Crucifixion is depicted in all its horror, and it was noticeable that all of the so-called “seven last words of Christ,” gleaned from all four gospels, were used. Especially appreciated was starting out with the most startling of those “words,” those from the Gospel of Luke Christ forgiving his enemies. At the end of the ordeal, when Christ’s body is lowered from the cross, there is a carefully staged “Pieta” in which Mary, flanked by the disciples John and Mary Magdalene, weeps as she holds the body of her son. Meanwhile, much is made of the Gospel of Matthew’s description of a storm and great earthquake shaking the temple and tearing the curtain that veils the inner sanctuary.

The Easter events are considerably condensed (glancing at my watch, I noticed that there was little time left for the Book of Acts, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation), but rather skillfully done. Peter and Mary rush to the tomb, and when she is alone, the camera shows us from the inside of the tomb looking up when Jesus appears to her. We can understand how, against the bright light outside, she might not recognize her master. Back at the upper room, Thomas is present when Christ appears, but still refusing to believe at first. It is a nice touch that Peter is breaking bread and pouring the wine, referencing the Eucharist that will become the central ritual of the church, when Jesus makes his appearance.

After the Ascension of Jesus into heaven, the scene called Pentecost was done with admirable restraint. I was glad that the filmmakers did not try to emulate any of the countless paintings in which actual tongues of fire are shown over the heads of the disciples. (The Book of Acts sees this description of the presence of the Holy Spirit as a simile, “Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them.” (Acts 2:3) Instead, there is the disciples praying together the Lord’s Prayer when the sound of wind, the cloths being blown about as the disciples speak in foreign tongues that they did not know. Outside the crowd of Jews, gathered for Passover from all over world, hear the disciples proclaiming Christ as Lord in their own languages.

Paul falls off his horse when Jesus appears to him.

 Events move quickly, the introduction of young Steven and his all too quickly following death by stoning, the healing and preaching of Peter and arrest by the authorities, the persecution of Christians by Paul, his conversion, and his widespread ministry to the Gentile world. Peter too is led by the risen Christ to go with the Roman soldier sent by the officer Cornelius to share the gospel. (In the Book of Acts it is strange dream about eating both ritually unclean as well as clean animals that convinces Peter to go to a ritually impure Gentile.) We get a few snatches of Paul’s letters as he dictates one to his scribe, and when Romans come to arrest him, he sends some of them off for delivery.

Below: Peter heals a beggar inJerusalem and then journeys to Antioch

to baptize the Roman officer Cornelius.

                              

The narrator tells us that all of the disciples met death as martyrs, and we see the fate of some of them, including the beheading of James in Jerusalem and the killing of Thomas in India. Then came a very brief depiction of John’s fate on the island of Patmos where the Romans had exiled him. (Although a great many scholars believe this was another man named John, the film maintains it was the disciple.)

                               

                          

                                          The disciple John has been exiled to the island of Patmos when

the resurrected Christ appears to him.

Fortunately, rather than trying with special effects to portray the bizarre apocalyptic visions of the writer, the film emphasizes the real purpose of the Book of Revelation, to bring comfort and strength to John and the persecuted church. Jesus is shown—and as in his other post-resurrection appearances, John can see the nail holes in his hands—declaring that he is “alpha and omega, the beginning and the end,” that he is making all things new.” In response to his master’s promise that he will come again soon, John utters the prayer, “Come!” The effectiveness of this conclusion is only slightly marred by camera moving in for an extreme close up on Jesus eye and then pulling back very quickly to reveal the earth as a globe in a brightly lit up space. It is a no doubt well meant attempt to show that Christ is Lord of the World, but the last shot is so artificial looking that it would have been better had the last thing depicted was the face of Christ. Still, all in all, Episode 10 was very satisfying, showing far better judgment in the selection of material from that in the Old Testament portion of the series.

Two further matters: 
To compare this depiction of the life of Jesus with other films, you can scroll way down the screen where you will find a blog on the top ten Jesus movies.

And, you might want to watch the film mentioned before, The Robe. Based on Lloyd C. Douglas’s novel about what happened to the Roman centurion who won at dice Christ’s robe at his Crucifixion, it is a rewarding film. Best scene is when the centurion travels back to Palestine and meets a woman who sings a beautiful Song of the Resurrection. I remember my seminary New Testament professor saying that it was the most authentic depiction of the way that the early Christians spread the stories about Jesus.

The Bible, Fourth Week

With the Fourth Week episodes I can say that the series has really hit its stride. There are still points of criticism, but when I compare last night’s two hours depicting the ministry of Christ to the other “Life of Christ” films, I must say this one holds up pretty well. During the first hour I thought the teachings of Jesus were overshadowed by his miracles—but then one of my favorite Jesus films, the animated so-called children’s film, is The Miracle Maker—and then in the last hour largely devoted to Jesus in Jerusalem, quite a number of teachings are worked in, from John’s gospel, as well as the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for those who haven’t read much about the New Testament). At least they included his admonition to love our enemy, and the Beatitudes (see the opening verses of Matthew 5) were recited as Jesus leads his disciples on the road and then is seen teaching on top of a hill.

If they could not have found a Mediterranean actor, then the producers made a good choice of actor Diogo Morgado to play the crucial role of Jesus. Made up with a beard and long hair, it would seem that Rembrandt’s series of great portraits “The Head of Christ” was the model for Jesus. In the early scene in which Jesus heals the crippled man let down through the ceiling by his friends, Jesus’ smile is luminous as he bends over the man. His first statement that the man’s sins are forgiven outrages some of the pious onlookers. One man in particular (presumably a rabbi or synagogue leader who will reappear often as an accuser) draws the proper conclusion that Jesus must be claiming the prerogative of God, and therefore is blaspheming. Backing up his claim, Jesus orders the bedridden man to rise and walk—and he does. Throughout last night’s two episodes this Jesus is a very compassionate figure, very much in contrast to the angry, always in a hurry Jesus that Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini depicted in The Gospel According to St. Matthew.

Jesus is often angry and in a hurry in Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew, like a revolutionary prophet.

I recall hearing just two of Jesus’ many parables, but the first one used—that from Luke’s gospel of the two men praying in the temple--was well used, reminding me of how creatively the parable of the Father and Two Sons (often reduced to “The Prodigal Son”) was placed in Franco Ziferelli’s great mini-series Jesus of Nazareth. In both films the parable was taken out of its gospel of Luke setting and used in a new context to make a point. In the latter's film Jesus tells the story of an obedient and a disobedient son to bring the faithful Peter and his hated neighbor, the tax collector Matthew, together, each one seeing himself portrayed in the parable. In last night’s episode Matthew is also one of the characters, sitting at his table and collecting money. The Jewish leader whom we saw first condemning Jesus speaks scornfully of Matthew, whereupon Jesus tells the story of a Pharisee who offered up a boastful prayer about how good he was, followed by the tax collector who merely asked for God to be merciful to him, a sinner. Jesus, drawing out the moral that it is Matthew, and not his accuser, who is closer to God, directly calls out to Matthew to “Come” and join his band of followers.

The disciples themselves are not happy over a despised tax collector joining up with them—and this is another good point of the episode. Although only a few of them emerge as persons, they are not depicted as plaster saints, but as men (and a woman—to the producers credit they show Mary Magdalene in many scenes, her inclusion no doubt based upon Luke 8:1-3 where “other women,” two more by name, are said to have traveled with Jesus and provided “out of their resources” for their daily needs). My biggest criticism of the interchange between the disciples and Jesus is one of omission: when Jesus asks them who do they say that he is, and Peter gives the right answer, Jesus does not follow up by telling them that he must go up to Jerusalem and suffer the cross—nor is there the rebuke “Get behind me, Satan” when Peter contradicts his master. However, this theme is well handled when the crowd, fed the miraculous fish and loaves, starts chanting “Messiah!” Realizing that they mean by “Messiah an earthly king, Jesus is troubled by this. Eventually he makes it plain to his disciples that he will be a suffering Messiah, not an earthly king using violence to gain power.

One other deviation from the source that bothered me was Jesus’ observation that not one of the stones of the beautiful temple would be standing. For some reason they had Jesus make this warning to a child, not to his disciples who had been overly impressed with the magnificent building that Herod had built. What in the world would a child understand about this? In the gospels this prediction of the temple’s destruction is accompanied by a series of apocalyptic warnings about the end times, but this too is left out.

There is much more that could be said, including the most unusual shot of Jesus of any Jesus film that I have seen—a view of Jesus from under the surface of the stormy Lake Galilee—

but I will close with just three more observations:

Unlike the film known simply as Jesus, said to be the most viewed of any of the Jesus films because so many missionaries have been using it all over the world, this version clearly shows that the unlettered peasant from Galilee did pose a threat to Roman law and order. In several scenes we see how ruthless Roman Governor Pontius Pilate is, and how fearful the Jerusalem priests and Pharisees are that Jesus might disrupt the fragile peace then existing. The priests are well aware that their positions depend upon the good graces of the Romans. More than once Pilate threatens to close down the temple if there is any disturbance, so when Jesus shows what a large following he has when he enters the Holy City and then promptly upsets the tables of the money changers in the temple, the high priest is very anxious to remove the threat before the arrival of the biggest day of the year for the temple, the Feast of Passover.

The scene in which Pilate tells the crowd that they must pay for the aqueduct bringing water into the city was well done—until his soldiers bring out their concealed weapons and start slaughtering everyone. This unhistorical incidence of violence seems gratuitous, designed to appeal to the action movie lovers in the audience. However, in the Passover Eve sequence I was very impressed by the juxtaposition of the three prayers—Jesus’ at the Last Supper with his disciples; the Romans, Pilate and his wife, praying to their ancestors; and the anxious priests at the temple, ready to arrest and put on trial the usurper from Galilee.

The last observation actually stems from the reaction to last week, the depiction of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Until right wing columnist Glenn Beck’s observation, I had not noticed any resemblance between the Moroccan actor playing the devil and President Obama.  A second look, and I can see some resemblance, but I think Mr. Beck’s remark actually reveals more of his politics and his view of the President than anything else. Isn’t it interesting that this became the subject of so much speculation and discussion of a series whose producers were as surprised as anyone about this unintended consequence?

Wow!

The Bible, The Third Week

We’re now three fifths of the way through the History Channel’s reworking of the Bible, and what a reworking it is! The scriptwriters seem to inflate the violence of the Bible (and there is no denying that there is a lot in the original text) in every possible way, from the Ninja fight scene in the story of Lot and his visitors at the doomed city of Sodom on to the New Testament, with even the holy moment of the Annunciation taking place amidst Roman violence. Wow!

Last week I wrote: “This makes me wonder what the producers have decided about the huge section of the Bible after Kings David and Solomon, which includes the great prophetic writings. Out of the background of the violence of holy war and the ban arises Jeremiah and the exile of Israel, and the even the grander book of Isaiah with his concept of shalom and the nonviolent Suffering Servant, the latter shaping Jesus’ understanding of his mission.”

I now have the answer, and it is one that I find very disturbing because I believe that the producers have little or no understanding of the theology of the Scriptures, especially of what for Christians unites the writings sacred to the Jews with the story of Jesus and the church. The 3rd week left off with King David and his young son Solomon playing with a model of the temple. The 3rd week jumps ahead almost 300 years to the reign of Zedekiah, “the 21st king,” the script tells us. Thus there is nothing about the ministry of Elijah, a prophet who became an important figure in Jewish folklore, namely that he would be the forerunner of the Messiah (which is why all four gospels begin with the ministry of John the Baptist, who dresses and preaches like Elijah.). Worst of all, there is nothing of the ministry of Isaiah the 8th century B.C.E. prophet of social justice and peace, who urged the king to trust that God would prevent the mighty Assyrian army from conquering Jerusalem.

Isaiah’s promise of an era of Shalom when ”the wolf shall live with the lamb” (see Isaiah 11:1-9) marks the transition from the view of God as a violent war God to that of the God who desires not the destruction of Israel’s enemies, but the God who seeks to use Israel to call the nations so that God “shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah 2:4; also see Isaiah 49:6). More on this later: for now let’s get back to the program.

The prophet Jeremiah confronts King Zedekiah.

At least we are given a glimpse of the prophet Jeremiah bearing a huge yoke across his shoulders as a sign that the nation would soon become captive to mighty Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The prophet tells King Zedekiah to surrender to the army outside the city walls, but the king does not listen to him. Thus we are treated to lots of battle scenes during which the Babylonians batter down the city gates and rush in to slaughter the inhabitants. Amidst all the blood there are two scenes that are moving: when Jeremiah looks up and sees the temple in flames; and the capture of the fleeing royal family, after which the Babylonians kill the two young royal princes while their anguished father is looking on, and then, the Babylonian uses his thumbs (as earlier in the case of Sampson) to punch out Zedekiah’s eyes.

  

King Cyrus and Daniel

Three stories from the Book of Daniel are used to show life for the Jews in Babylonian captivity under King Nebuchadnezzar—Daniel interpreting the King’s dream and thus gaining royal favor; the story of the three men cast into the fiery furnace because they would not bow to the king’s golden statue; and Daniel thrown into the lion’s den.

The film’s handling of history seems very muddled at this point, the latter story supposedly taking place after the Persian King Cyrus conquers Babylon without a battle. In the Book of Daniel itself it is King Darius, a successor to Cyrus, who reluctantly orders Daniel to become supper for the lions. To muddy things further, in the Book of Ezra we are told that shortly after Cyrus conquers Babylon, he issues his decree allowing the Jews to return home. (The filmmakers take a Fundamentalist approach to the Book of Daniel in the belief that it is a historical book dealing with events of the 6th century B.C.E., whereas many scholars believe it was written several centuries later to bolster Jewish resistance against the Seleucid Empire. For a scholarly article see the Wikipedia’s “The Book of Daniel” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel.)

The series moves on to the New Testament with the last words of the first hour, “This isn’t the end…it’s the beginning.” Maybe so, but the emphasis upon violence continues. The Jews are now under Roman rule, and as we see in the depiction of a crucifixion, it is a harsh rule. The depiction of the Annunciation, in which an angel appears to Mary, telling her that she will give birth to the Messiah, has to be the strangest ever filmed. She is out in a street of Nazareth when Roman soldiers appear, brutally pushing and shoving people around. She moves through a door, and the angel appears to her announcing the GoodN\ews/Bad News. (The good thing about this, and all of the other angel depictions, is that they are not the glowing, feminine winged creatures of Victorian art, but look like mortals wearing hoods.)

Joseph saves Mary from the anger of their neighbors.

Joseph, much younger than tradition makes him out to be, is understandably upset when he discovers that Mary is pregnant, but he comes to her defense when the villagers are about to attack what they consider to be a fallen woman. The events of the journey to Nazareth quickly follow, with the couple arriving at the Bethlehem inn amidst a rainstorm. A rainstorm! This is a peculiar touch, because the shepherds are close by where they can see the Star (imported from the Gospel of Matthew’s Magi story, Luke mentioning angel messengers, but no bright Star). Everything is telescoped into a single night, with cutaways to one of the kings visiting King Herod to discover where the prophesized new king will be born, the king ordering out his soldiers, the arrival of the shepherds at the manger, and then the Magi with their gifts (no Drummer Boy, thank goodness), Joseph’s dream about Herod’s soldiers, the flight to Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents (more opportunity to show some bloody action).

The Birth of the Christ Child.

Jump to “25 years later” and we have John the Baptist, Jesus’ baptism, and his temptations in the wilderness. I am always interested in the creative ways this is depicted—my favorite being a long scene in the CBS miniseries Jesus in which Satan takes a female and a male form and even demands that Jesus “empty himself of his divinity—and the makers of this film add their own touch of creativity. Actor Diogo Morgado truly looks wracked with thirst and hunger when Satan tosses him a large round stone and tempts him to turn it into bread. And in the 3rd temptation (the script follows Matthew’s order) in which Satan offers Jesus sovereignty over all the kingdoms of the world we see Jesus upon a throne with a Roman (I think it is Pilate, whom we see in several scenes with Herod Antipas) offering him a crown. The golden crown quickly changes into thorns, and there is a flash of a hammer driving nails into his hands. This is an inspired way of revealing that Jesus has chosen a far different way than Satan’s for living out his calling to become the savior of the Jews (and of the world. I hope there will be more such creativity in the remainder of the series.

This depiction of Jesus envisioning his crucifixion makes the exclusion of Isaiah the prophet from the Old Testament portion of the series all the more heinous because it is obviously the Book of Isaiah that formed the model for the kind of Messiah Jesus chose to follow. In the last portion of Isaiah, written much later during the Babylonian Exile than the words of the prophet of the first 39 chapters who resided in Jerusalem, there are a series four “Servant Poems” in which God promises to raise up a Servant who will become a “light to the nations,” “nations meaning Gentiles.

In the last of these poems (Isaiah 52 & 53) this Servant is seen as voluntarily taking upon himself the penalty of guilt and suffering of everyone else, so that, we read in Ch. 53:5 “But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.” To leave out this prophet is inexcusable. Granted, even at 5 hours, the time available for covering the Hebrew Scriptures was limited, but to choose the violent story of Sampson over the story of Isaiah and that of the prophet of the Exile shows that the producers just “don’t get it” when it comes to what the Bible is really about! They chose a violent action story over the theologically important story of the Book of Isaiah. Leaving out Isaiah is comparable to writing a history of the founding of the United States without mentioning the Declaration of Independence.

History Channel's The Bible, Second Week

(Note: this is my 3rd blog on the series: scroll down to see the one on Week One. It includes some references to other films that might interest you).

Moses has appointed Joshua to be the new leader of Israel.

Well, now we have had four hours of History Channel's The Bible, which might better be called Fight Highlights of the Bible. The second week’s events took up where the first week left off. Moses has died within sight of the Promised Land, but leadership of Israel has been passed on to Joshua, who has sent two spies to reconnoiter Jericho. This is the strategic city that stands between them and the Promised Land. When the spies are discovered, there is a chase and a fight in the narrow city streets. The writers seem to want to pack as much swordplay as possible into this series, presumably because they think that’s what the public wants. Maybe they are right—last week’s episode reportedly drew over 13 million viewers, surpassing all three network program offerings. (14 million according to the History Channel.) We’ll see about tonight’s episodes, which again are of very mixed quality.

The good news is that we have left behind Genesis with its mixture of myth, legend, and tradition-bound history, so the producers' literalistic approach to the Bible is not as much an issue (at least for this viewer). The bad news is that in picking which of the multitude of The Bible's stories to include, they left out the stories of two strong women—Ruth, the Moabite ancestress of King David, and Deborah, one of the judges of early Israel. At least they included with the guys Rahab the Harlot in the story of the spies in Jericho, but the role of the film Rahab is less heroic than the original in the Book of Joshua. Rather than volunteering to help hide the spies, she is forced at sword-point to help, and she does not provide or let down the rope by which the pair escapes over the walls. They climb down using the same rope and scaling hook by which they entered the city. This rewriting of the biblical story seems strange to me, given that producers Roma Downey (of “Touched by an Angel” fame) and Mark Burnett “(Survivor” and “The Amazing Race”) are biblical literalists.  As we’ll see they take liberties with the other stories as well. By this I do not mean leaving out details for the sake of condensing, but of changing the details of a story.

It is understandable, given the series’ emphasis upon violence (weren’t the Ninja Angels in the story of Lot and Sodom hilarious last week?), that the one story included from the Book of Judges would be that of Sampson. And the color blind casting of black actors Nonso Anozie as Samson and Sharon Duncan Brewster as his mother is almost as intriguing as the story itself. The huge brawny actor looks like he could be a World Wrestling Entertainment star. With his slaying of so many Philistines before Delilah tricks him into revealing the source of his strength, and his bringing the temple down on himself and his taunting enemies (Delilah is shown in the doomed crowd), adventure fans are well served. But is the Bible well served? What kind of image of God and of the Book regarded by believers as his word does this and the other episodes leave with the viewer unacquainted with the Bible?

Delilah giving the sleeping Sampson a haircut.

In the episode with Samuel the people plead for a king despite the prophet’s warning that a king would become a tyrant. His reluctant choice of Saul proves disappointing, as we see when the king is about to enter into battle but Samuel has not come yet to offer the necessary sacrifice to God beforehand. Saul goes ahead himself and sacrifices the lamb. Samuel is very upset with the king assuming his priestly role. Then when Saul disobeys Samuel’s order to destroy the entire enemy, including women, children, and livestock, the prophet kills the captured king (though not by decapitation as in the Bible) and disowns Saul, telling the king that he will anoint someone else. The film glosses over somewhat the brutality of the Israelites’ holy war and what the Bible calls “the ban,” meaning total annihilation of the enemy. Scholars have long debated the ethics of this, especially in that the author(s) of the two books of Samuel claim that this order comes from God. More on this in a later blog when I want us all to think about violence and the Bible.

King Saul

The portrayal of King Saul, both in the script and by actor Francis Magee, was the strongest factor in this second part of the series. He is shown as a man in over his head, tragically worried that young David will supplant his own son Jonathan on the throne. With a few more scenes inserted this section could have been even more moving, the tension between Jonathan and his father caused by his strong friendship with David could have been more developed, adding to the tragedy. For example, when David receives word of the death of the king and his son there is little of the lamenting over them that takes up all of Chapter One of 2nd Samuel—just David's comment, “How the mighty have fallen.” Also, backing up a little, the depiction of Samuel's choosing David to supplant Saul is disappointing, the prophet simply coming upon David after he has killed a wolf with his sling, and anointing him almost straightway. The biblical story of Samuel going to Jesse's house and examining all of David's brothers while the overlooked (by Jesse) youngster is out watching the sheep is such a delightful one, in keeping with the biblical tradition that God usually chooses what is considered the lesser person to carry out his missions.

Even more disappointing is the way in which the prophet Nathan is portrayed, minus the passion and artistry of the angry prophet chronicled in the original story. Although Hollywood made a muddle of the story in David and Bathsheba (trying to justify the adultery on the basis of “true love”), I still recall so many decades after seeing the 1951 film Raymond Massey's portrayal of Nathan. Equally disappointing is Nathan's direct approach in his accusation of the king. The prophet’s clever use of the story about a poor man whose lamb is stolen by the rich neighbor, thus “capturing the conscience of the king,” is left out entirely--just a declaration of guilt and the curse upon the illegitimate child the guilty pair has produced.

The episode ends with David and his new son Solomon playing with a model of the temple that David has been forbidden to build, leaving “the rest of the story” to be completed this coming Sunday. The 3rd Week will bring us to the midpoint of the series, with the story of Jesus and the Book of Revelation yet to come. This makes me wonder what the producers have decided about the huge section of the Bible after Kings David and Solomon, which includes the great prophetic writings. Out of the background of the violence of holy war and the ban arises Jeremiah and the exile of Israel, and the even grander book of Isaiah with his concept of shalom and the nonviolent Suffering Servant, the latter shaping Jesus’ understanding of his mission. Thus it is still too early to judge the success or failure of this ambitious attempt to portray the Bible on film, but I suspect that the verdict will not be favorable, given what we have seen thus far. Still, I hope for continued success for the series because at least it has even the secular media taking notice, which reminds me of the old Hollywood dictum that even bad publicity is preferable to no publicity.

History Channel's The Bible, First Week

I am beginning these remarks about Week One of the History Channel’s The Bible during a commercial break in The Vikings—strange that the HC should debut both big budget series on the same night! Anyway, now that I have seen the entire first installment, I can go beyond my first bog when I had watched but ten short excerpts from the series.

I am not nearly as enthusiastic about the series as last week. The literalistic approach gets in the way more than I had hoped it would—and yet at the same time, some of the looseness with biblical text also bothers me. I was a bit surprised that the episode began with a storm-tossed boat in which Noah tells his family, “In the beginning God…” and over the next few minutes he recites a digest version of the Genesis creation story. Biblical scholars believe that Genesis was written as the opening of what came to be called the Pentateuch at the end of the kingdom of Judah in the 6^th century BCE, possibly during the Babylonian and Persians period when the old stories were in danger of being forgotten by the Jews because of their captivity. And yet in this episode, set in prehistoric days, it seems that Noah is the author, or at least the transmitter of the Genesis stories because he is quoting the text as we now know it.

The Bible is such a large and complex book, no, a library of books, that we expect much has to be left out of the presentation, even one of ten hours in length. Noah in two or three minutes relates the events of the six days of creation, the camera showing us the natural beauty of the sea, the fish, animals and birds, concluding with a close up of Adam, his face covered still with the mud from which he has been created Then in but a few seconds we have the tale of the Temptation and Fall, immediately followed by Cain murdering his brother Abel. When Noah says that on the seventh day God rested, the storm has stopped, and he walks out onto the deck of the huge ark to enjoy the sunshine. The camera rapidly draws back, revealing a rainbow, and then the ark becomes a speck, and we move high into the stratosphere so that the curvature of the earth is visible, and we go even higher to see that the entire planet is flooded—not, as most biblical scholars believe, just the plains of the Fertile Crescent, but the whole darn planet.

Thus this is indeed a literalistic interpretation of the Jewish/Christian scriptures. It could be very puzzling or even misleading for non-believers who have known of this story only because they have seen so many children’s wooden and plastic toys labeled “Noah’s Ark.’ Misleading in that the God depicted might seem not only wrathful but unjustly arbitrary. We see people outside the ark being drowned by the deluge. Why them? Why are Noah and his family tucked safely inside? I do not recall any mention of the pervasive wickedness of those drowning, nor of the contrasting good and righteous life of Noah. Now Cecil B. DeMille would never have made that mistake: he would have clearly shown the audience how wicked the people were by pushing the old Hays Code to the limit and staging an orgy of nearly naked revelers, as he did in his Ten Commandments.

Moving on, my initial good feeling about the Abraham sequence was partially fulfilled, though I am puzzled why the script has everyone calling the patriarch “Abraham” from its beginning, when his original name was Abram (and Sarah’s Sarai). The name change is the Genesis author's way of showing that when the patriarch enters into the covenant with God, his whole life is changed, as well as the future of humankind.  If you want to see a really satisfying depiction of the life of Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah, be sure to see the Bible Collection’s Abraham, in which the great actor Richard Harris portrays the patriarch in an unforgettable way. The sacrifice of Isaac is the climax of this almost two-hour film, and when Abraham hears God’s call to sacrifice his son, the agony of the father’s heart is expressed both in his words and the horror we see in his eyes. This is the film to see to gain a good understanding of the patriarch—and as an added bonus, the film stars Barbara Hershey as Sarai/Sarah.

I said my good feeling for the Abraham segment was “partially fulfilled” because the part dealing with Lot and Sodom was handled very poorly. When Abraham gave food to the three mysterious travelers, we see that they, when the three pulled back their monastic-like hoods, consisted of an African, a Chinese or Japanese, and from the quick glimpse of the third, a Caucasian. When the three show up at Lot’s house in Sodom, and the neighbors try to break in and carry them away, the three pull away their robes and hoods, revealing that they are wearing armor. Then drawing his two swords, the Asian fights off their attackers, exercising nimble jumps/somersaults and killing all within sword-reach. For a moment I thought the producers must have lifted this bizarre scene from a Ninja movie!

Apparently The Bible’s producers wanted to get to Moses and the Exodus ASAP, because the film jumps over the richly dramatic Jacob and Joseph sagas to arrive at Moses and Pharaoh’s son fighting each other. Unlike the excellent animated Prince of Egypt, these two are not loving friends, but bitter rivals, the blood-son anxious about succession to the throne. The major events of the Exodus story are told (see my previous blog for the Burning Bush episode) in rapid succession—the various plagues, quick cuts to Pharaoh saying “No” to Moses, and then the Passover (if there was any mention of the meal shared by the Hebrew families, I do not recall it), and the rush to the Red Sea, the chase by Pharaoh and his army, the parting of the sea, the drowning of the pursuers, the miraculous giving of Ten Commandments, and the passing on of leadership to Joshua. A better, far more poignant, rendering of this story is the animated Prince of Egypt in which Moses and Ramses grow up as loving brothers. This depiction makes the later conflict between the two princes of Egypts more tragic, with the Egyptian Pharaoh, after his army has perished in the Red Sea, calling out Moses' name, but in this version it is a lament.

 It will be interesting to see if the second week’s episode is as mixed a bag as this week’s. Before closing I want to make one more comment on the Sacrifice of Isaac episode. The patriarch’s total obedience to God carried to the extreme that he submits to the command to sacrifice his only son is easily misunderstood. In the 1997 film about a father’s burning the evidence that might implicate his son in a murder Before & After. Jacob (Liam Neeson), wanting to justify his illegal act, tells his wife Carolyn (Meryl Streep) the story of Abraham and Isaac. “Very obedient, Abraham. Very righteous,” he says with contempt, “But when they tell the story, they always miss the point. Who would want him for a father?” Of course, neither Jacob nor most people who read the biblical story understand the culture of Abraham’s time, one in which the sacrifice of the first born to a god was commonly accepted in order to obtain from the god the guarantee of future fertility, both of the wife’s womb and that of the fields. This is why the Hebrew prophets were so adamant that the people have absolutely nothing to do with their pagan neighbors’ especially their religion that included the sacrifice of first-born babies to appease the gods/goddesses.

 The producers of The Bible, who perhaps use a narrator too much (when Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt we don’t have to be told this is what happened!), could have had either the narrator or the patriarch himself say something about how everyone was expected to sacrifice their first-born. Liam Neeson’s Jacob is the one who missed the point of the story, not the readers of the story, the point of the story being that faith in God must transcend our loyalty to family, and that trusting him “to provide the lamb” will be rewarded.