User:Numairnj
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Judas (2004)
Johnathon Schaech ... Judas Iscariot Jonathan Scarfe ... Jesus Christ Tim Matheson ... Pontius Pilate Fiona Glascott ... Claudia Procles Owen Teale ... Flavius Bob Gunton ... High Priest Caiaphas Mark Womack ... Peter Rory Kinnear ... Andrew Enzo Squillino Jr. ... James Suzanne Bertish ... Rohab Harry Peacock ... John Paul Haigh ... Matthew Georgia Mackenzie ... Mary Magdalene Elliot Levey ... Eliakim Danny Scheinman ... Joshua
It is not fair to compare this film with "[[The Passion of the Christ]]" for several reasons. First, "Passion" was made for the wide-screen cinema and "Judas" was made for television. They are different media that require different approaches.
Second, "Passion" is not as biblically accurate as some would like to believe or argue. Why? Because Gibson chose the harmonizing approach which requires one to pick some story elements from the four gospels and reject others. He also blends story elements from the gospels with popular Catholic devotions such as the Stations of the Cross and the sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary. He also includes elements from the visions of Sister Anne Emmerich, a 19th century nun. If one is looking for biblical "accuracy" then a Jesus film should be based on only one gospel like Pier Paolo Pasolini's "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew." Furthermore, the truth is that biblically accurate does not always equate with historically accurate. Gibson chooses the biblical depiction of Pilate (principally from John and Matthew) over what we know about him from the history provided by Josephus and Philo. Pasafist criticizes "Judas" for depicting Pilate as cruel and then manipulative for changing his mind. In fact, this is exactly how Pilate is remembered by Josephus. "Judas" clearly chooses historical accuracy over biblical accuracy. Had Mel Gibson chosen this path, only for the depiction of Pilate, he might have avoided the controversy over anti-Semitism (for the record, I do not think that "Passion" is anti-Semitic). Mind you, I do not note these points as a criticism of "Passion;" I happen to think that it is a very well made and powerful film. I just do not base this conclusion on biblical "accuracy."
A better mode of comparison lies in the styles of the Gospels themselves; they were written as popular literature employing elements from Greek biography, historiography, and Jewish novels.That is, they used generic elements that were accessible to a wide public to communicate the Gospel. We should expect any contemporary re-tellings of the Jesus story to do the same with contemporary audiences and this is what we often find. Pasolini employs the visual heritage of neorealism for his Italian audience, Jewison used the musical to tell the Gospel, and as many have noted, Gibson uses visual elements of the horror film (especially in the opening) in "Passion." All of these films successfully use contemporary genres to tell the Jesus story and I think that if the Gospel writers were alive today they would be choosing these popular modes rather than ancient biography.
This long introduction is to argue that this film deserves to be judged on its own merits and intentions and not against another film or the ambiguous notion of biblical accuracy. To this end, I believe that the film succeeds very well. It asks the question that has plagued believers for centuries: Why did Judas betray Jesus? Only John offers an explanation and, while convenient (the Devil made him do it), it is not entirely satisfactory to contemporary audiences. We want what was not important to the Gospel writers, a motive. This film provides an historically plausible answer through the powerful performance of Johnathon Schaech as Judas. Some historians argue that "Iscariot" derives from "sicarii," the name for the dagger bearing bandits and revolutionaries, many of whom were from the Galilee. The film clearly employs that understanding to present the viewer with a reason for Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Is it biblical? Perhaps not. The truth is that we do not know and cannot ever know exactly what the Gospel writers expected their audiences to already understand about Judas that did not have to be explicitly depicted in the story. However, by providing a creative retelling of the story of Judas, the film does use the Jewish method of midrash, a story-telling form well known in the time of Jesus. Some scholars even argue that the Gospels themselves employ elements of midrash (e.g., Matthew uses Jesus as the basis for a midrashic re-telling of the story of Moses).
This film is also clearly American in its visual sensibilities by using visual motifs from the Western genre (e.g., when Jesus heals the withered hand on the Sabbath). I also believe that it succeeds in this fashion to communicate the gospel to a contemporary American audience. Finally, there is the matter of Jesus' language. Perhaps, the contemporary sounding language sounds obtuse to those who might prefer their Jesus to speak King James English. However, the Gospels again provide a point of reference here; their Jesus speaks a popular form of Greek ("koine") that would have sounded equally strange to those who preferred Homeric classical Greek. So there is a precedent in the literary style of the Gospels for the dialogue choices in this film. Does the language always succeed in "Judas"? No, but on the whole it was not a terrible distraction to me.
This is not to suggest that the film is not without flaws. Johnathon Schaech is clearly a stronger actor than Jonathan Scarfe and this does have an effect on the viewer's perceptions of Jesus. Also, it is difficult to view Tim Matheson in a toga as Pilate and not think of "Animal House." However, these flaws are overshadowed by the powerful ending of the film as some other disciples find Judas and pray kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead and a prayer, like the Shema, that Jesus probably prayed regularly throughout his life) over his body. Without having to say it through dialogue, the film visually illustrates Jesus' command the love our enemies and by having the voice of the disciples become the voice of Jesus, the viewer is given the assurance of the resurrection without having to depict it (a narrative technique that the Gospel of Mark uses because it has no resurrection stories). All in all, a successful undertaking with moving moments that faithfully communicates the Gospel without having to be biblically accurate.
