Mary Magdalene gets a trailer and a website

We've known that a film about Mary Magdalene was in the works since FilmChat/Deadline broke the story in January 2016, but until now there's been very little to go on. For a while now we've known that Rooney Mara had the title part and that Joaquin Phoenix was playing Jesus, but aside from the various photos of them smoking on set, the filmmakers have been keeping things relatively tight.

Now, however, there's an official website for the film and a trailer, which you can see below (click for HD/fullscreen)

The website is fairly barebones for now, but the trailer shows us quite a lot. For a start Phoenix's portrayal of Jesus looks like it will be one of the most interesting we have seen. Aside from his acting pedigree, there's also the rather weathered look of his preacher from Nazareth. Historically, actors playing Jesus were often made as photogenic as possible - even getting Jeffrey Hunter to shave his armpits in King of Kings (1961). More recently there's been a tendency towards more grittier productions, especially since The Passion of the Christ (2004), but Jesus, bloodied face aside, has still tended to have good teeth and skin. In comparison, Phoenix's Jesus looks well worn. At 41, Phoenix is quite a bit older than Jesus probably was, but the harshness of the lifestyle, probably evens this out a bit. Hence we get a Jesus who looks like he has experienced the ups and downs of real life.

We also see a lot of images of Jesus smiling, but not always winningly, as well as a good range of other emotions, including fear and anger. Various films have focused strongly on one of these before, or incorporated several of them in a more toned down form, but this seems a very emotional Jesus, but also one who is, not necessarily intended to appeal to audiences enough to carry the film. The real star here - at least if we take the film's title seriously, is Mary Magdalene.

I know far less about Rooney Mara than I do about Phoenix, but her figure here seems far more photogenic and appealing than Phoenix. I'm not quite sure photogenic is the right word here as it suggests a degree of personal taste. Put it this way, swap their costumes for 21st century office attire and it's clear who would fit in more naturally.

That said even Mary's clothing here gives a suggestion that her character is wealthier than most of the other characters, and certainly compared to Jesus. If I'm right on this then it touches on a key fact about Mary that tends to be overlooked. The main piece of background information we have about her, from Luke 8:1-3, is that she was one of the group of women who funded Jesus and his followers. In fact, her name comes first amongst those benefactors, and it would not be inconceivable that this meant she was the highest of his donors. In this light the smearing of her as a prostitute, seems like an almost deliberate attempt to bury an uncomfortable fact.

The other piece of information this passage gives us is that "seven demons had gone out" from her. Given its run-time, the trailer goes into this relatively deeply. The first part of the trailer includes a voice over where one male character says "You have brought shame on our family", followed by another man saying "there's something unnatural inside you". We then see several shots of Jesus and Mary with Jesus saying "Your family says you battle with the demons", Mary saying "If there's a demon in me it's always been there" then another shot of a smiling Jesus reassuring her that "There are no demons here".

But what follows is also more interesting. There are apparent conflicts with a seemingly resentful Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), reminiscent of Abel Ferrara's Mary (2005) and the non-canonical Gospel of Mary. There is also a scene where Jesus seems to be encouraging Mary to carry out baptisms. Most interestingly of all, Mary asks Jesus "Is that how it feels to be one with God" and Jesus replies that no-one has ever asked about how it feels. None of this is really that unexpected given this is supposed to be a film about Mary, though it looks like it will be a more interesting and self-respectful portrayal than the one we find in Magdalena Released From Shame (2006). Be prepared for a string of stories about a feminist Mary Magdalene between now and the film's release.

Speaking of which it looks like the film will be release over here in the UK on the 16th March, Australia on 22nd March and the US on March 30 (Good Friday). There are a few more details on the official website, but it's fairly sparse at the moment.
HT Peter Chattaway.

The Bible (2013) - Part 6*

I've not written a great deal about The History Channel's miniseries The Bible yet mainly because it's not due to air in the UK until the autumn and no-one thought it would be worth sending me a preview DVD. By the time I was sent one, the airing was over, I had other things on and then reviewing every episode just threatens to become a big chore. I will be writing something about the series and the DVD release as a whole soon, but for now I'm working my way through them and writing about them when the mood takes me.

Episode 6 is the first from the New Testament and the breakneck speed the series has whipped through the Old Testament in just 5 episodes (about three and a half hours) shows no sign of abating. In some ways this is necessary and those of us who would like to see things fleshed out a bit more are in a tiny majority; the series' viewing figures show that the producers got this just right. In other ways though it's a bit annoying. This episode starts moments before the annunciation and it's preceded by a long, drawn out and violent fictional example of the Romans collecting taxes complete with slow motion shots and scenes of extras clashing in the streets. It's the kind of scene that has happened a lot in the series, and it's beginning to infuriate. I can't deny that these scenes do add some historical context - whilst fictional they are nevertheless, in a sense, truthful. The problem is that whilst these scenes attempt to add that context they strangely also lack context themselves. The Romans violently extorting their taxes, but we don't know why. Sure, sometimes they probably just did, but the lack of motive, or back story, or explanation makes good history into bad drama. And for this scene to play out, at some length, whilst other key scenes, like the annunciation, or Jesus' birth, are done and dusted in a similar length of time is a bit frustrating. I did mean to start this post with a rant, but, well there you go.

It's a particular shame because the annunciation is particularly good. In fact it's one of a handful of scenes where the creativity of the storytelling is at the fore. Because it's in the middle of this carnage, symbolising the extent to which the Jews are under Rome's thumb, that an angel appears to Mary. It's a bold move, given extra power by intercutting between multiple scenes. "He will be a saviour" the angel says, as a soldier chops a Nazarene just around the corner. So many of these films portray the moment as one of serenity, it's quite powerful. The intercutting is used a few times in this episode to great effect. Another hugely effective moment is in the temptation scene where Satan's promise of kingship is accompanied by alternating images of an enthroned Jesus receiving a golden laurel wreath and a beaten Jesus being tortured with a crown of thorns.

At the same time I can't help wondering if this was inspired by the intercutting in The Passion of the Christ for example Mary seeing the adult Jesus stumble under the weight of a cross compared with footage of the boy Jesus stumbling up a couple of steps. I say this because the preview footage of the crucifixion scenes looked incredibly similar to those in Gibson's film and there's another element in this episode that also seems to be inspired by that particular Jesus movie - the temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Here the temptation is the one at the start of Jesus' ministry. Jesus is fasting in the desert, kneeling on the ground in prayer when a snake weaves its way past him. The snake is, of course, Satan who quickly changes into human form. But the use of the snake is striking as is the fact that the human Satan does all the talking. And the human Satan also looks a lot like the one in Gibson's film - tall, hooded, bald-headed and with a thin face.

Some of you probably thought I was about to say President Obama then, because this series will probably go down as the one that made Satan look like the current inhabitant of the White House. I don't want to go into this as some have done, suffice to say I think it's undeniable that the two look similar. It's no good the producers trying to distance themselves from this fact by wheeling out the actor in a different lighting, clothing and make-up and showing that in real life he looks nothing like the president. In the film he does. At the same time, however, the claim that this was a deliberate decision (even despite persistent and repeated denials by the filmmakers that it wasn't) seems a bit stupid. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps it was someone's subconcious, but to suggest it was a deliberate political statement seems fairly silly. I'd love to know what actually happened, but no-one will ever really know. For some reason there was rather less hoo-har about the fact that they chose David Brent to play Herod Anipas.

I was actually fairly surprised at how far through the gospels this episode got, ending with Jesus' calling of Peter. I quite liked this portrayal actually. It had its faults, but it was a fairly original take. I liked the image of Jesus wade through the water to get to the boat, the idea of him dipping his hand into the water, the shot of him from below the waves (a fish eyes' view?) and the final pan around an astonished Peter's boat, intercut with the execution of John the Baptist.

And as a watch that final moment I'm reminded of some of the things this production does really well. There are some great images - some of those of the magi are actually pretty staggering, CGI or not. The music is really emotive, memorable and hasn't yet annoyed me. I'm not saying I'd complain complain if they found another theme to weave in here or their, but overall it seems to strike the right, um, note. Where things have been a let down in general is the dialogue and the delivery of that dialogue. I can't quite work out which is primarily to blame, but either way both are at fault.

That's more or less it for this episode. Apologies if the writing is junk and littered with spelling mistakes, but it's one of those if-I-don't-do-it-now-(badly)-it'll-never-get-done-at-all thingsand there have been a lot of those over the last two years.

*Yes sorry it's going to be confusing, isn't it, that the show aired as five double episodes, but the DVD/Blu-ray has 10 single episodes. Here's a simple trick if only saw it on telly and you're easily confused: take my episode number and divide it by two. It's a miracle!

History of the World, Part II coming to Hulu next week

42 years after Mel Brooks' original comedy film History of the World, Part I was playing in theatres, a sequel series – History of the World, Part II – starts streaming on Hulu next week. The series premieres on Monday March 6, 2023 with two episodes landing each night for four days.

The longer running format allows for an even wider range of historical characters than the original film's five and the trailer, promises a good variety of historical characters, including the biblical characters Noah, Jesus (played by Jay Ellis, pictured above), Judas and Mary Magdalene.

IMDb still seems to be filling in the details but it looks like while Brooks exec-produced the series and wrote it (alongside David Stassen) and will also be narrating it, he isn't directing it or playing a lead role. That said the assembled cast is impressive. The eight episodes will feature Danny DeVito, Wanda Sykes, Taika Waititi, Sarah Silverman, Seth Rogan, David Duchovny, The Good Place's D’Arcy Carden & Jason Mantzoukas, Richard Kind (A Serious Man), Brooklyn 99's Joe Lo Truglio, Jack McBrayer (30 Rock) and Lauren Lapkus (Big Bang Theory).

I found the original movie a bit hit and miss. Moses dropping a third tablet with five additional commandments was a great gag, as was playing him as an exaggerated Jewish stereotype, and there were one or two good gags in the Last Supper section (starring John Hurt as Jesus) and a few others besides, but parts of it really dragged. Indeed this is how I tend to find Brook's movies, I always find myself wanting to like them more than I do. That said, I still haven't seen the producers, and really I should.

Anyway, I'll hopefully be able to access this and offer a few comments over the next few weeks.

The Robe (1953)

The Robe is famous for being the first major widescreen movie. It's a distinction that brings it far greater attention than the spate of other Roman-Christian movies released around the same time but means that it's other achievements are somewhat overlooked. It is, for example, considered to be one if the great composer Alfred Newman's best scores, indeed it's one of the very few Bible film scores I listen to other than when watching the film itself. At times subdued, subtle and whimsical. At times bombastic, dominating and capturing all the self assured pomp of the Roman Empire at it's height. Yet the same refrains weave in and out linking the characters and tracing their journeys.

Which isn't to say the film, based on Lloyd C. Douglas's novel, doesn't have it's weaknesses. For one thing the advantages of the new technology are still being realised. Many of the compositions aren't quite right either leaving things too cramped in the middle, or leaving too much space there. And some of the performances, Victor Mature's in particularly, are the kind that bring the genre into disrepute. The most common charge is of being overly camp, but this doesn't fully do it justice. A degree of camp is clearly intended, and arguably merited, for Jay Robinson's performance as Caligula, but it still goes over the top and clashes with the heavily reverential tone of many parts of the film. Mature's problem is different. With him it's not so much that he is intending to be camp, but over doing it, but that he appears to be be trying to play it down the line, but ends up in the camp camp anyway. There's just a desperate earnestness in his face which nevertheless fails to convince. But then perhaps that's because he knew that some of the dialogue is so weak that even Olivier would have struggled to redeem it.

Which isn't to say that moments of the film aren't transcendent and superbly executed. Andrew Greeley describes Douglas's decision to keep Jesus off-stage as "a master stroke of narrative technique" and it's hard to disagree. Recently I segued scores of short clips from Jesus films into one short telling of the life of Christ and this was the one I chose for the Via Dolorosa. Whether it was the novel's influence or the impact of the Hayes Code, the decision was made not to show Jesus' face at all during the film meaning that the camera's attention is far more focused on the reactions of those watching it. And it's one scene where Mature, who becomes the focus of the scene in Jesus' "absence", absolutely nails it. The score dominates everything here. There is almost no intra-diegetic sound here at all save the occasional sound of a cracked whip. Cruel and powerful sounding it grinds on mercilessly and inevitably to the next scene's awful climax. By focussing on the horror of the faces of the onlooking cloud it becomes far more powerful than Mel Gibson's relentlessly unflinching look at the brutality itself. They know the awfulness of the fate that awaits Jesus and it haunts not only them, but through their faces us too.

Moments later the film's other great scene unfolds, again due in part to the decision keep the face of Jesus hidden. Instead the camera focuses on the soldiers who get on with the job, and it's perks, whilst being lashed by the wind and the rain, stuck in a part of the world they despise. They care not one bit about the man who is dying, they just want him to get on with it so they can get back to the barracks. By opting to defer until later the moment at which Richard Burton's tribune Marcellus sees the light the scene regains it's tension. Burton is humanised by his desire to be professional and not completely unaffected by his prisoner's suffering, but again the focus is one those on the fringes of the traditional story.

There's two other moments that linger in the memory [the first is as Richard Boone's Pontius Pilate absent mindedly asks for the bowl to wash his hands just moments after he has already made his famously symbolical gesture. The confusion on his face as his servant respectfully reminds him of his error and Boone's noirishly delivered response "Did I? So I did." conjure up an image that is no less effective for being historically unlikely.

The other is the film's very final moment as Jean Simmons's Diana chooses to accompany Marcellus to his death for a faith she has so newly discovered that she barely comprehends it. The scene itself is not particularly well exceptional and it's marred by the worst of Robinson's excesses. Even the moment when Diana chooses death with Christ/Marcellus over life without them and the start of the procession to their fate is unexceptional. Yet somehow by the time they reach the end of the hall way, figuratively if not actually joined in union with Christ, something has changed and there is a moment which transports the viewer to another place.

Simmons role is not insignificant Babington and Evans in their seminal work on Biblical Epics suggest that the way Mature's purity of mind contrasts with the viable sexuality of his body embodies the tension at the heart of the biblical between morality and sexuality¹. As the star of several such epics a good case can be made therefore for Simmons as Mature's female equivalent. Whilst her attractiveness and sexuality were always apparent, a strong morality seemed to run through the majority of her roles. This, then, endows The Robe with one other distinction: whilst the king and queen of the biblical epic don't share much screen time, it does at least cast Simmons and Mature together and it interweaves the fictional story of Marcellus' spiritual death and resurrection impressively with that of the physical death of Jesus.

1 - Bruce Babington and Peter William Evans, "Biblical Epics: Sacred Narrative in the Hollywood Cinema", Manchester University Press ND, 1993, p.227

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Daniel

My church is looking at Daniel next term so I thought I'd make a couple of posts about portrayals of Daniel in film. There have actually only been a handful - and the most significant is the version that is part of the Testament: The Bible in Animation series (1996).

The series used different animation styles for each episode, here, as with the Creation and Flood episode, they animators used oil paint on glass. This creates an unusual effect, which is certainly very unlike anything most children are used to. That said the Testament series has always set it's sights on a wider audience than just children, hence why this production stands out from the whole host of cartoon about Daniel in the Lions' Den.

Its use here is interesting as Daniel narrative is told as a story within a story. A mother tells her son the tale of Daniel as a way of giving him hope. This contrasts with most of the series where the stories are usually experienced first hand. So the washy animation reflects the fact that the story is presented less concretely than some of the other stories. It also leads to a rather gruesome appearance to some of the less child friendly moments in the story. The non-realistic animation makes these shots more permissible, yet paradoxically more disturbing at the same time.

Watching the "Testament" series over ten years after it was first made, it becomes apparent that many of the actors who were involved have subsequently risen to greater prominence. In this case it's Bill Nighy who now has a great deal of Hollywood experience behind him. He plays Belshazzar, who, bizarrely, begins the Daniel sequence as an intrigued friend of Daniel's.

Episodes from the Book of Daniel included in the film are as follows:

[extra-biblical episode - intro]
Jerusalem Captured - (Dan 1:)
Daniel and his Friends Train - (Dan 1:3-21)
The King Dreams - (Dan 2:1-30)
Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd Dream - (Dan 4:10b-27)
The King's Dream Fulfilled - (Dan 4:28-35)
The Writing on the Wall - (Dan 5:1-31)
[extra-biblical episode - Start of Darius's Reign]
Daniel and the Lions' Den - (Dan 6:1-28)
[extra-biblical episode - conclusion]

I found the character rather hard to relate to. I'd always thought of Daniel as humble but steadfast whereas here he often comes across as obstinate. By contrast, King Darius is shown as fairly weak, although that is largely as a result of the biblical material.

The most notable omission in this film is the jump from chapter 2 to chapter four. The script is able to do this because of Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams. Strangely it is the first, and most popular of these - the dream of the statue with feet of clay - which is omitted. The script starts off with the events of chapter 2 with Nebuchadnezzar having a dream that he wants his Magi to tell him as well as interpret. But when Daniel correctly declares and interprets the dream it has become the one from Daniel 4 (where Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a tree). It's an innovative way of editing the story, although as a result it pushes Daniel's friends into the wings even more.

In addition to this, there are a number of deviations from the Biblical accounts. Firstly, Daniels faces a common enemy throughout the film in the form of the Chief Magus. Secondly, when Daniel's friends refuse to eat the meat provided they make do with little more than water, rather than vegetables and water as the Bible claims.

The other deviation are fairly minor: as Nebuchadnezzar goes mad there is no voice from heaven; Daniel is present when the hand writes on the wall, and Daniel prays that those who set him up in chapter 6 are saved. But this is acceptable artistic licence in the whole.

Kingdom Coming or Going?

Not quite sure what to make of the various bits of news coming out of New Zealand about Kingdom Come. On Saturday the Timaru Herald noted that accommodation booked for the film had, once again, been cancelled, and took that as evidence that the "pin may have been pulled on the movie". However, yesterday the Dominion Post quoted Ernie Malik, a spokesman for the film, as clarifying that despite some financial difficulties the film is still being made.

I've also had this confirmed (or at least repeated) by some of the comments on my original post about this film, which also mention that Catholic Mexican actor Eduardo Verástegui (pictured above) is lined up to play Peter. That information has also been posted at Wikipedia citing his official website, but I certainly can't see anything there to support such a claim.

The Dominion Post article says that filming is now due to start in April, so hopefully we will have some more concrete information by then.

The Ten Commandments (2007) - Review

Much of the early criticism of this year's The Ten Commandments has focussed on the animation quality which many reviewers consider to be below par. Whilst it may be true that the standard of the CGI here may not be quite up to the standard of Pixar's The Incredibles, overall I think the harshness of that criticism is a little unfair. The animation of people appears to be the hardest task in the world of CGI, and there are very, very few films which can hold a light to Pixar's family of superheroes. But the CGI in The Ten Commandments is comparable with the brief moments that humans enter the fishy narrative of Finding Nemo or the scary world of Monster's Inc., yet was achieved with a small fraction of those films' budget. The danger is that in demanding only the absolutely highest standards of CGI that this particular form of artistic expression is closed to everyone but the biggest two or three studios. Smaller filmmakers haven't got a change to compete. Twelve years ago Lars Von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg struck a blow for smaller filmmakers with their Dogme 95 manifesto. It seems a shame that twelve years later, to many critics' eyes, computer animation is only for the rich.

Given the amount of criticism levelled at the animation it surprising just how much visual creativity is on show in this film. Liberated from the technical restraints of cranes etc. the "camera" is able to swoop about indoors, produce some impressive backdrops, and get low and high angles that an actual camera would struggle to achieve. When Moses throws his staff to the ground in Pharaoh's palace its transformation into a snake is threatening shot from the floor. There are also a number of interesting dissolves.
It's also hard to imagine a live action film would be able to give the same prominence to the pillars of cloud and fire which lead the Israelites in the wilderness. They are present in the other films, of course. Cecil B. DeMille was never one to miss such an obvious opportunity for showmanship. But in a live action film, such a spectacle is just a bit too showy. In contrast, whilst the biblical account is certainly impressed by it's presence, it also implies that it quickly became the norm. Commandments captures the way that these pillars were reassurance of God's presence and leading, rather than simply divine pyrotechnics.

Films about Moses are, of course, so numerous, and so well known, that reference and homage are easy, but originality is difficult. Commandments has examples of both. Moses has died on screen before, but the film adopts an interesting approach. Moses's perennial thorn in the side Dathan is present once again, and here he even looks like Edward G. Robinson who played him in the 1956 film.

In some places, however, the "borrowing" perhaps goes a little far (here, as in The Prince of Egypt such as the crocodiles who snap at baby Moses's basket), but overall the various nods to the other films are fairly deft. That said, when the credits sequence uses animated hieroglyphics to highlight the increasing enmity between Moses and his cousin Ramsees, it's a clear reference to The Prince of Egypt's most impressive sequence, but it's also very effective in it's own right.
One of the things that is very different about this film is the wealth of material it manages to cover in such a short space of time. DeMille's gargantuan epic ran to 220 minutes, and still didn't cover as much of the story of the Exodus as this film does. At 88 minutes (including ending credits) this film is shorter even than The Prince of Egypt's 1 hour 39 minutes, and yet by avoiding silly sub-plots and distracting songs it covers far more material. In addition to the usual prologue, burning bush, plagues, exodus, and Ten Commandments, we're also treated to the stories of the water from the rock, manna and quails, and an extremely downplayed version of Aaron and Miriam's rebellion.

One of the things that will have attracted many of the film's viewers, are the big names that are providing the voices. Moses is played by Christian Slater in his least Nicholson-esque role yet, who is adequate rather than outstanding. But Ben Kingsley (who took the lead role in 1996's Moses) and Alfred Molina do well as the narrator and Ramsees respectively. Less impressive is Elliot Gould as the voice of God who seems to lack sufficient gravitas and kindness to really carry the role.
One unusual aspect of the film is the relationship between Moses and God. Whereas most of Moses's relationships are fairly conventional (enmity with an insecure Ramsees etc.,) Commandments breaks new ground by depicting Moses seeking out God and not just the other way around. When the Israelites complain that it's his fault they now have no straw to make their bricks with, he goes out into the desert to hunt out his Lord.

So whilst this is not a great film, and whilst the computer generated animation is not at the same standard as many of the big-budget productions, this is a reasonably solid telling of the story of Moses, which will be particularly appealing to younger children.

Evan Almighty Review

It wasn't until the unexpected success of The Passion of the Christ in 2004 that Hollywood really started to sit up and take notice of the market for religious themed films. Tom Shadyac, however, was way ahead of them. Shadyac was the producer and director of 2003's Bruce Almighty, a film that opted for the unlikely combination of comedy and theodicy. Given that studios now seem to be giving the green light to seemingly any religious film project that comes its way, it's not too much of a surprise to find Shadyac given another bite of the cherry.

Four years can be a long time in Hollywood, and in the period since Bruce Almighty, the star of that film, Jim Carrey, seems to have started to fade, whereas his sidekick, Steve Carrell, is very much on the ascent. Whilst his work on Anchorman, The 40 Year Old Virgin and the US version of The Office hasn't been to everyone's liking, Carrell has become a star in his own right. The producers of this film can't have been too disappointed, then, when Carrell agreed to take the lead role in Carrey's absence.

Carrell reprises his role as Evan Baxter, (the newscasting nemesis of the original film's Bruce), who is promoted in the film's opening scenes to the post of senator. It's an awkward start that begs the question as to why such a change was required. Was the script originally conceived without Carrell? Were the senatorial scenes considered too humorous or too critical to allow Baxter to remain a newscaster?

In any case, the film quickly leaves any trace of Baxter's previous life behind him and submerges itself in its new narrative. The Baxter's move into their huge new home, Evan starts his cushy new job, and one by one we're introduced to a whole new cast, including his wife Joan (...of ark, geddit?) and his three sons (who are not called Shem Ham and Japheth in case you were wondering).

Life as a senator starts off very positively. Even before Evan's first day he is given a swanky office courtesy of leading senator Congressman Long, who wants Baxter's support for his controversial bill. God however as other ideas, and, once again takes the form of Morgan Freeman to get Evan's attention.

God's plan is to get Baxter to build an ark, which leaves him a huge variety of ways to announce his message. So there are personal appearances, frequent recurrences of Gen 6:14 ("Make thee an ark of gopher wood"), pairs of animals tracking him to work, and facial hair that won't go away.

Anyone familiar with Tim Allen's The Santa Clause franchise will no doubt spot the similarity. Indeed there is a significant amount of "borrowing" in this film, which, strangely, doesn't seem to reference the original works all that often. Take for example the scene where a flock of birds all simultaneously swoop into the office of a terrified Evan and then proceed to attack him.
It's straight out of Hitchcock's The Birds, yet there's nothing that could be considered an actual tribute to the original. None of Hitchcock's memorable shots is reproduced, nor is there any other kind of reference - visual or otherwise.

There are numerous places where this film draws on others. For example, perhaps the major theme of the film is about following the supernatural revelation given to you, the difficulties of convincing those you love that it's validity, and carrying on in with your calling in spite of the jeers of your neighbours. It's actually very well executed, and surprisingly touching for a slapstick comedy. But I couldn't help wondering whether the main reason that I loved these scenes was because of the powerful effect Field of Dreams has on me.

Even though Bruce Almighty was, in many ways, an updated version of Goerge Burns's Oh God, it felt fresh and original. Whilst it's not one of the all time great films, it's still pretty good, and combining comedy with more serious spiritual issues made it relatively novel. In contrast Evan Almighty either falls back on re-treading those same ideas, or those from other films. Whilst it's certainly a long way from a bad film, at its best it's merely entertaining.

That's not to say there aren't some standout moments. This is apparently the most expensive comedy ever made and it boasts some pretty impressive visuals. The scenes of the animals approaching the ark far surpass anything produced by previous films about Noah, particularly the scenes with the animals. Similarly impressive are the climatic final scenes.

But what kind of God does Evan encounter? Both this film, and the original portray a God who is down to earth, laid back, likeable, has a good sense of humour, and who is powerful, but chooses to involve his people. Here, as with the first film, God is brought into the film by a human request. Evan may not get the answer to prayer he was expecting, but, as God points out, he was the one who wanted to change the world.

Interestingly Freeman's God is far more the God we see revealed in Jesus than the God of the original flood story. When Evan questions his motives he replies "let's just say that whatever I do I do it because I love you". It seems to contrast with his prediction of a flood, but ultimately he's shown to be true to his word. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the God of the Almighty franchise is that he's a God who prefers to work through his people. While he may laugh at their plans, and use their prayers as an opportunity for growth, he longs to make the world a better place primarily by relying on "one act of random kindness at a time".

Despite such a positive portrayal of the one, true, Almighty the way much of the Christian media has clamoured to promote this film, regardless of its quality, is rather disappointing. Overall, it's a great film for Christian families to take their kids to, an interesting enough film for adults of faith, and just about entertaining enough to be worth the entry fee. It seems unlikely, however, that a run-of-the-mill comedy such as this would inspire anyone to a new, or more profound, faith.

Biblical Studies Carnival: Aug. 2010

Photo by Tim Parkinson, used under a Creative Commons Licence

It's been a while since I reported on the Biblical Studies Carnivals, in part because they seemed to die a bit of a death in the early part of the year.

Thankfully Jim West has resurrected them. I believe he started last month with a look at July's blog posts, and now he has posted the August 2010 Biblical Studies Carnival. Jim very kindly mentions this blog twice, once for the 1000th post, and once for my Gospel Comparison of the Disciples. Thanks Jim.

The latest Top 50 Biblical Studies related blogs has also been posted.

Noah's Ark (1928) - Review

Noah's Ark came at the end of two distinctly different eras in the cinema. Firstly the age of the silent movie was drawing to a close. The Jazz Singer had opened everyone's eyes to the potential of talking pictures and both cinemas and studios alike were making the necessary changes to take advantage of the new technology.

In the meantime studios were stuck with the problem of what to do with half finished films which had been, thus far, shot as silents, but risked being seen as outmoded unless drastic action was taken. The solution that many studios took was to complete some of the remaining scenes with sound so that the films were part silent but also part talking. Hitchcock's The Lodger, where only the opening sequence is silent, is one famous example, particularly because it's so innovative with its use of sound.

In Noah's Ark, however, sound occurs more haphazardly. Characters talk, but then go back to miming again moments later. The soundtrack takes advantage of the new technology more effectively using sound effects to complement the action to good effect.

It was also the end of the first golden age of the biblical epic, which, despite the popularity of bible based films since the dawn of cinema, had peaked during the 1920s. The director of Noah's Ark, Michael Curtiz, had already made his name with a string of biblical films including Sodom und Gomorrah, Samson und Delila¹ (both 1922) and Die Sklavenkönigin (The Moon of Israel - 1924). The following year DeMille's The Ten Commandments had been a huge success and the great showman has followed it up four years later with his version of the life of Jesus in The King of Kings.

DeMille's movies, as well as others such as Ben Hur (1925) set new benchmarks for production scale, and Noah's Ark certainly follows suit. The size of some of the sets, and the impressive special effects are truly awesome. The scenes of the flood, complete with a storm and torrents of water appearing from nowhere, are truly impressive. Tragically the quest for drama went too far and several extras were drowned during the filming of these scenes.

The problem with the ever-growing spectacle of the biblical epics was that the depression was just around the corner - something that, bizarrely, this film seems to predict. The combination of reduced cash flow, and the birth of the Hays Production Code brought the end to the first golden age of the biblical epic. The trend would not really get going again until the 1950s. By then Curtiz had moved into more film making including now classic films such as Casablanca and White Christmas.

It's actually the modern story which is overarching in this film. Whilst there is a brief prologue which features footage of Noah, a statue of Jesus and a montage of stock market clips, the story proper starts in 1914. In the first of the film's three catastrophes, a train carrying the major characters crashes and a young, blond German girl (Mary) is pulled from the wreckage by buddies Travis and Al. Travis and Mary fall instantly in love, but their relationship is threatened by the outbreak of the first world war and a Russian spy who had also been aboard the train. Despite getting married the couple are separated due to the war, and are not reunited until Mary finds herself in front of Travis' firing squad. An explosion intervenes and leaves the couple trapped by the rubble along with an old preacher who tells them the story of Noah.

This then forms the context for the Noah story. The actors from the first part of the film take similar roles in the Noah story (à la The Wizard of Oz): so Noah is played by the same actor as the old preacher; Travis and Al pair up with Japheth and Ham; Mary doubles as Japheth's sweetheart, Miriam; and the Russian spy is the evil, idol-worshipping King Nephilim. The minor actors also double up in a similar fashion.

However, the story of Noah is just a pretext for a re-run of the Travis-Mary story. Miriam is chosen at random to be sacrificed to King Nephilim's God Jaguth. When Japheth comes to her rescue he is enslaved only to be freed by the arrival of the flood. Once the pair are safely aboard the ark, the script reverts, almost immediately, to the end of the modern story.

It's difficult to know quite how much Curtiz was influenced by DeMille and vice versa. Around the early 1920s both men borrowed D.W. Griffith's idea of paralleling a biblical story with a modern melodrama. Curtiz's Sodom und Gomorrah and Samson und Delila seem to have come out slightly before DeMille's The Ten Commandments, but Curtiz's Moses film
Die Sklavenkönigin (The Moon of Israel) definitely came out afterwards. But given the time taken to film such large scale films, and that the two men were working in different continents at the time it's certainly possible that the two were almost completely unaware of what the other was doing.

What is clear, however, is the way in which Curtiz draws on aspects of all three of these previous films in making Noah's Ark. There are a myriad of visual and textual references to other biblical stories, especially those he had already filmed, as well as some to the story of Jesus. So there are people crushed under golden calves, climbing up mountains, burning bushes, lightning writing on tablets, people being blinded and forced to drive a mill, falling temples, water falling lava like from above engulfing those in its path, stabbings in the side, references to Golgotha, and words taken from the Lord's prayer.

Unfortunately, in the midst of all these biblical references the actual story of Noah is lost. The old preacher's story gets so taken up in pagan temples, dramatic floods, and the love between the protagonists that it's unlikely it helped those he'd sought to illuminate. The film never gets behind the character of Noah and has precious little to say about the events that occurred once everyone was on board.

It's a shame because some of the film's sequences are incredibly well executed. In particular the scene where the animals rush towards the ark, capturing the urgency and the chaos of the scene is masterful. DeMille would have shown animals marching in in precise double file. Here Curtiz is more than happy to adhere a little more loosely to a literal reading. This makes the scene far more natural and realistic, as well as putting it in line with idea of the animals being sent by God rather than gathered by Noah.

Unfortunately the film's weakness detract from such merits. The modern story is mediocre and overly melodramatic, whereas the Noah episode gets lost in its own technical proficiency. It was the last time Curtiz made a biblical epic, and the last time a film solely about Noah made it onto the silver screen.

1 - The extent to which Curtiz was involved in Samson und Delila is unclear some sources list him as only the costume designer, whereas others list him as supervising director and credit him with the film's success.

Mary German DVD Release

Abel Ferrara's Mary is released on DVD in Germany tomorrow, and I'm struck by just how different the German cover (on the left) is to the French version (right). I own the French version, and the colour tones and lighting of that cover appear to emphasise the film's biblical component, whereas the German version seems to stress the modern day angle. Given that very little of the film is set in the past (or rather a film of the past) this is perhaps gives a better sense of what the film is about. On the other hand, aside from loyal Ferrara fans, the film's religious angle is probably its biggest draw (or perhaps third behind Binoche). I also wonder, though whether this is to do with the predominance of Catholicism in France and of Protestantism in Germany.

For what it's worth it looks like the DVD has both English and German soundtracks, but only German subtitles. My previous posts on this film include my review and some scene analysis with extensive quotes form the film.

Jesus Flickfest 4

Thanks to Bill Millar for sending through details of this year's Jesus Flickfest. For those not in the know, Jesus Flickfest is an annual film festival that occurs in the run up to Easter in Winnipeg, Canada. As ever there's an eclectic mix from Last Temptation of Christ to Inside Bob Dylan’s Jesus Years via the festival's traditional high point - the sing-a-long Jesus Christ Superstar. Perhaps the highlight of the programme (reproduced in full below) is Roberto Rossellini's Il Messia, but there are no shortage of good titles, as you can see:

Directors Cut:
*L'Inchiesta [The Final Inquiry]
Son of Man
Il Messia
The Colour of the Cross
Jesus de Montreal
Je vous salue, Marie [Hail Mary]
The Last Temptation of Christ
The Book of Life
Il Vangelo secondo Matteo
& hopefully Ferrara's Mary

Music
Cotton Patch Gospel [Harry Chapin musical based on Clarence Jordon's writings]
Singalong Jesus Christ Superstar
Johnny Cash: The Gospel Road

Documentaries
Inside Bob Dylan’s Jesus Years
Jesus, du weisst [Jesus you know]
Jesus Camp

Drama/humour
Mary, Mother of Jesus
Peter and Paul
The Miracle Maker
The Nativity Story
Life of Brian
Johnny got his gun
Jesus
Un Bambino di nome Gesu [A Child called Jesus]

Brazilian Biblical Telenovelas

For some time now I’ve been meaning to write about the various biblical telenovelas that have emerged from Brazil in the last decade. As their description implies, telenovelas are extremely long running TV series – somewhere between a US TV series and a soap opera – which may run for between 30 and 200 episodes. Whilst the first, 1951’s Sua vida me pretence ("Your Life Belongs to Me") originated in Brazil, they have been popular across South America since the 1960s and more recently have gained growing audiences in various other parts of the world, notably Asia and the Iberian peninsula. Indeed while Wikipedia’s claim that telenovelas are the "most popular non-English-speaking scripted forms of entertainment in the world" is both unsourced and unlikely (given books, music and video games all fall into that category), it nevertheless gives you a suggestion of the form’s popularity across the world despite most of the English speaking world being entirely unfamiliar with the term.

The development of biblical telenovelas is interesting not least because it represents a seventh type of format for biblical screen drama¹. The sheer running length means that the vast majority of the material is invented. Huge casts play fictional roles in made-up sub-plots supporting an overall narrative which combines the silver thread of a biblical episode with other archetypal plots such as the love-triangle, rags to riches etc.

What's remarkable about all of these biblical telenovelas so far is that they have all been made by the same company - Rede Record. Prior to beginning these series, Record TV was a significant way behind Brazil's leading production company, Globo. Indeed, not only did Globo specialise in telenovelas, they also had so much market dominance that the only programmes in the annual top ten ratings were those made by Globo a dominance that dates back to the 1960s.² Record had tried to compete with telenovelas set in contemporary times, it was only when they struck on the idea of producing biblical telenovelas that they started to get places in the top ten.

So far Record have produced the following biblical series:

-A História de Ester (Esther, 10* 2010)
-Sansao e Dalila (Samson, 18, 2011)
-Rei Davi (David, pictured, 30, 2012)
-José do Egito (Joseph, 38, 2013)
-Os Milagres de Jesus (Jesus' Miracles, 35, 2012-14)
-Os Dez Mandamentos (Moses, 242, 2015-16)
-A Terra Prometida (Promised Land, 179, 2016-17)
-O Rico e Lázaro (Daniel†, 181, 2017)
-Apocalipse (Revelation, 155, 2017-8)
-Lia (Leah [and Jacob], 10, 2018)
-Jesus (Jesus/Acts, 193, 2018-19)
-Jezabel (80, 2019)
*First number cited is the number of episodes for each story.
†The title translates as "The Rich (man) and Lazarus" - the parable which Jesus tells, but the story is set in the time of Daniel in exile in Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar on the scene.

That's a reasonably comprehensive list, though if you look at some of the popular stories that haven't been covered yet - Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Lot - are all in Genesis. I don't know if Rei Davi (2012), which I wrote about in 2014, goes so far as to include Solomon, but otherwise most of the stories that have been covered before to a significant level have now been done.
Moreover, adding up all those episodes gives a total of 1171 episodes, and each episode has at least a running time of about 30 minutes. Wikipedia says Os Dez Mandamentos (The Ten Commandments, 2015-16) lasts for 60 minutes. Given it featured an incredible 242 episodes that means it ran for around 242 hours - more than an hour of material for every minute of Cecil B. DeMille's famous epic of the same name. Perhaps it's not surprising that of all the stories these telenovelas have told, it was this one that was edited into a feature film. Os Dez Mandamentos - O Filme (2016) cut all that material down to just 2 hours (according to IMDb) and then again to 78 minutes for the DVD. Whilst some good samples of these shows are available from the Record TV website, US Netflix or on YouTube etc. this film is the only complete material with English subtitles that can be bought in permanent form, at least that I have found. I'm expecting my copy any time now.

What's also interesting is that Record TV is owned by the founder of Brazil's Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) an evangelical group that is part of a growing conservative movement in Brazil - jumping to around 22% of the population in the 2010 census vs 70% Roman Catholic. Officially the country is secular. This is a very different background to the UK and it's hard to think of, say, The God Channel finding itself in such a position.

This becomes more significant because telenovelas have a reputation for being used in the past to shape social attitudes. The most famous example of the former is the Mexican telenovela Acompañame (Accompany Me, 1977-78) which promoted family planning, saw a very significant rise in family planning-related activity in those years, and commissioning of further family-planning messaged productions.³ As a result another four series were made with similar aims.

It's the kind of thing that liberal/atheists hate and conservative/evangelicals love. It's either a great step in evangelism and making inroads into the culture, or it's a worrying trend aligning with a move to the right in many countries at the moment. It's hard not to see the rise of such telenovelas as part of a wider cultural movement that saw a right-wing, Catholic-turned-evangelical win Brazil's 2018 presidential election.

In any case I'm interested to find out more about the subject and hope to review Os Dez Mandamentos - O Filme once my copy arrives. There's an interesting chapter on these productions by Clarice Greco, Mariana Marques De Lima and Tissiana Nogueira Pereira in "The Bible Onscreen in the New Millennium" (ed. Wickham Clayton) for those seeking more information, and enough material to watch on Record TV's website to get a good feel for the phenomenon.⁴

=======
1 - In addition to feature films, short films, television series, mini-series, TV plays, live broadcast stage-productions. A further potential format is the soap-opera, but I know of no such venture based on the Bible.
2 - Greco, Clarice, Mariana Marques De Lima and Tissiana Nogueira Pereira (2020) “The Phenomenon of Biblical Telenovelas in Latin America” in Clayton, Wickham (ed.) The Bible Onscreen in the New Millennium: New Heart and New Spirit. Manchester: Manchester University Press p.71.
3 - Basten, Stuart (2009) "Mass media and reproductive behaviour: serial narratives, soap operas and telenovelas". The Future of Human Reproduction: Working Paper #7.St. John’s College, Oxford & Vienna Institute of Demography. p.4-6
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20121119022224/ https://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/PDF/Soaps_-_Number_7.pdf
4 - My tip would be to search for the individual titles listed above on the Record website and then watch the various video clips. Google translate is useful for getting the gist for those who, like me, don't speak any Portuguese.

The Resurrection on FilmPart 3 - Luke's Gospel

This is the third in a series of short posts for Easter this year looking at film portrayals of the resurrection. The idea is to take each of the Gospels in turn and look at one or two films that have sought to portray the resurrection in a manner that fits with that particular Gospel. Yesterday I looked at the resurrection in Mark's Gospel and so today it's onto Luke.

There are three Jesus films that strike me as reflecting something of the ending to Luke's Gospel. Firstly there is the recent Lumo Project version The Gospel of Luke (2016). A few of the relevant scenes from this film can be viewed online. This time the narrator is Richard E. Grant, but it's obvious that much of the footage - at least of the initial resurrection is that we find in their version of Mark (and indeed John).

As I say in my review of Mark there's an interesting tension in this between reflecting the distinct portrait of these events that Mark provides and the purported historical events that stand behind them. But one of the disadvantages of this approach is the footage doesn't always act out clear stage directions from the text, so here there are no men in dazzling clothes and no-one puts their face to the ground.

The Road to Emmaus scene is new though and as with other films has Jesus half covering his face to explain why Cleopas and his companion don't recognise him. This seems to me to be a rather odd approach. If Jesus meant to conceal his identity surely he could have done it more effectively: If he meant to be visible then why not make it more plain and uncover his face?  This halfway house just makes it seem like a key test of faith is the ability to recognise faces in bad light.

The second film to mention when talking about Luke's resurrection is the Genesis Project's extended version of Luke's Gospel, from which the Jesus film (1979) was edited. This also employs the partial face covering tactic on the Road to Emmaus (pictured), but does present the other aspects more or less as directed. I don't really like the soft focus in the upper room scene though.

Lastly, as films go, I tend to think The Miracle Maker (2000), whilst a harmonised Jesus film is a fairly Lucan take on proceedings. That said after the resurrection the script seems to switch to John as the primary source, such that there are a further 3 episodes not found in Luke. However, the shape of the narrative at this point remains Lucan with the discovery by women, Simon seeing Jesus (24:34), the appearance on the Road to Emmaus, and then just a single appearance to the disciples in the upper room. The Johanine inclusions are more flourishes within that broader narrative than the text that defines the text of the narrative.

For whatever reason very few films feature the Road to Emmaus episode, although this has increased in recent years, but this is certainly the first film I think of when this episode comes to mind. Again we get the same tactic with face-covering. The one portrayal of this scene that does something different is the BBC's The Passion (2008) which uses a different actor in various parts of the resurrection episode - certainly a more interesting, and not necessarily a more controversial, way t solve the question of why Jesus was not recognised.

The Kingdom of Israel: Part 2

One of the most interesting things about the Hebrew Bible is the emergence of different voices offering conflicting opinions, sometimes even within the same book. Arguably one of the most divisive issues in this respect seems to be the role of Israel's kingdom in relation to God's will and plan. The solemn warnings by the prophet Samuel at its inauguration take a very negative view of kingship whereas the rules of David and Solomon are idealised even despite their personal faults. By the later period of the kingdom the focus has shifted again. The main issue is no longer whether or not having a king is the right path, the key question is the manner in which the king walks along that path.

This varying status is complicated by the length of time between the events described and their final editing into 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. The length of time covered by these books is roughly around 500 years, even before other questions around authorship and so forth are examined.

Disappointingly, very few biblical films examine the morality of Israelite monarchy as an institution, preferring instead to focus on individual rulers within the Kingdom of Israel and issues surrounding their lives. Indeed the most significant examination of this question occurs not in a Hebrew Bible film, but in one about Jesus; Roberto Rossellini's Il Messia (1975). Rossellini's focus here, as in many of his films, is on power and it's abuse, and so the scene where the elders of Israel persuade Samuel to create a monarchy is pivotal in showing the abuse of power in Israel and how Jesus comes in the opposite spirit. His Messiah is cut from a different cloth.

The potential for the corruption of the monarchy system is illustrated in other ways however, namely the depiction of Saul and his fall from grace. This is particularly well embodied in Orson Welles' portrayal and the inaugural Israelite king in Saul and David. Whilst the quality of the film is poor, Welles' heavy, sweaty body evokes memories of his earlier role as corrupt cop Hank Quinlan in A Touch of Evil (1958). The impression of corruption and decay is only heightened by the cheap and poorly lit throne room set and the generally amateurish feel of the production as a whole.

As might be expected, other films also portray Saul in a harshly negative light. Whilst a modern day therapist might look at the story of Saul and see a man troubled by mental health problems, filmmakers tend to be less specific. One notable example being 2013's miniseries The Bible. There, even in his early days as a hero Saul comes across poorly raising his crown to the sky at his coronation like a victorious sportsmen lifting aloft his new trophy. It's notable as well that in a film packed with actors bearing typicall rugged, American good looks, Saul's face is far less attractive. Indeed, few films demonstrate much empathy for Saul, a tradition that goes all the way back to the early silents David and Goliath (1908), Saul and David (1909), David and Saul (1911) and Death of Saul (1913).

This is quite in contrast, however with the general depiction of his successor, David. The majority of David films introduce us to him before he becomes king, and focus on him as a young man, notably before the trappings of power have corrupted him. This enables the audience to sympathise with him, meaning that, where presented, his later failings are somewhat rendered more understandable.

The most notable exception to this trend is 1951's David and Bathsheba. Whilst the film does encourage sympathy with the king, not least by casting Gregory Peck in the lead role, it's focus is almost entirely on David's latter years. His heroics against Goliath, a time when he was purer and more in touch with his god, are preserved only as a late flashback as David reflects on where it all went wrong. It nicely highlights the recurring, but subtle minority report of Saul/Kings, that power corrupts the ideals of youth.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Solomon who in his youth choses God's wisdom over riches, but ends up pursuing the latter, ultimately bringing his kingdom to the verge of bankruptcy a weakening te tribal confederation to the verge of breakdown. Such a story though is far less appealing and so films have tended to focus on the more glamourous aspects of Solomon's reign, most notably the visit of the Queen of Sheba and the implied romance in La Reine de Saba (1913), Solomon and Sheba (1959) and The Bible Collection: Solomon (1997). Whilst the damage that is done by Solomon's pursuit of wives, concubines and the political power this affords him is included in certain films, such as 1997's Solomon, generally these aspects are amongst the less memorable moments of the films.

It would be Solomon's son however who oversaw the disintegration of the kingdom of Israel, but none of the major productions treat it as anything other than a contextual footnote on the narrative arc of another story. The divided kingdom features, primarily in the handful of films about Elijah - Athaliah, Queen of Judah (1910), Sins of Jezebel (1953), Living Bible: Elijah a Fearless Prophet (1958) and Testament: Elijah (1996) - but is perhaps best captured by the 1936 film Green Pastures where instead of portraying one particular king, it condenses them all into a single king who has set his face against God and persecuted the generic prophet who speaks out against him.

And it is through the lens of the prophets that cinema witnesses the fall of Judah (although the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel is absent in a Hollywood history of the world), most notably the story of Jeremiah, although perhaps also the films about Judith (see Judith, film). Two major productions tell the story of Jeremiah - the fifth 'hour' of the The Bible miniseries (2013) and the 1998 biopic Jeremiah. Whilst both have their faults, not least the earlier film's mawkish love story, they also capture the chasm that has gradually appeared between the monarchy and leadership of the Jewish nation, and their supposed God. The warnings of Samuel have come to pass and Israel is about to be stripped of her monarchy forever. The two films chronicling the last days of Judah focus not on the waning monarchy, but of the rising prophets. The 1998 film is far more concerned with the ins and outs of Jeremiah's life, his struggles with God, than on the inner workings of the seat of power. Part of that focus is also on the more depressive aspects of Jeremiah's personality as manifest in his walk with God, this creating a fascinating contrast with the mental health problems of Saul. Whilst the cinematic corpus on the kingdom of Israel shows humans remaining flawed the pendulum has swung from kings to prophets, and Samuel's initial warnings about the corruption of royal power have been amply demonstrated.

How Can I Improve my Writing? Part 1

(This is the first part of a two part article looking at how I can improve my writing. In this post I shall ask the question, explain how I came to be asking it, and throw it open for answers. I'll also take a brief peak at some of the recent work on the post. Then in a later post I'll combine some of those answers with what I've picked up from elsewhere). For quite a while now, I've been meaning to post something somewhere about ways to improve my writing. Since there has been a recent flurry of posts on this subject at some of the blogs I frequent, I thought now was as good as time as any to ask. I've been thinking recently that I need to continually find ways to improve my writing. One of the numerous reasons I started this blog was to improve my writing. It's all very well turning out 10 or so reviews a year when you have plenty of time to hone them, but I also felt that writing more often, would challenge me and help me move up a level. The risk is, of course, that the day to day writing is never quite as good as that which has taken longer to craft, but I think that's more true in the shorter term than in the long term. The process of writing very regularly means that the necessary skills get practised regularly as well. As a former sportsman, it was regular practise that made me a better player, rather than not doing anything between big games. But since starting that experiment 16 plus months ago, I hadn't done a great deal else to intentionally get better. Then I was challenged by the attitude of my my boss. Ness Wilson. I've known Ness for about 13 years now, and was aware from the first few times I heard her speak that she was a good preacher. However, over the last few years, she's been very intentional about doing everything she can to improving her speaking, listening to some of the real experts reading books on it, listening to herself and analysing her talks , and so on. It's paid dividends. When she started this process, she was already an excellent speaker, but now she is one of the best I have ever heard. She isn't an hilarious speaker, nor the type that blows you away with the way they unpick a particular text. Those aren't really her strengths. But in all other respects, she is fantastic. (The problem comes when I go to see some renown speaker somewhere else. Very often they fail to reach the standards to which I've become accustomed). Anyway, knowing the way that Ness's deliberate effort in honing her preaching has paid off, I realised that it had been a while since I had done much to improve what I consider one of my key skills - my writing. I actually started being deliberate on this a while back, but I'd like to throw the question out to anyone who reads this blog.... ...What can I do to improve my writing? Please feel free to comment below, or contact me directly. I'm looking for both general tips such as "read more", as well as things specific to my own writing, such as "you don't really know how to use semi-colons" (this is something I'm working on!). In particular, I'm thinking of practices writers can take on so that they continually improve their writing, rather than one off pieces of advice, but I'll take what's offered. Please be gentle with me though! As I said at the start of the article, there are a number of pieces on this at the moment in the blog-o-sphere. The recent spate of articles on this started with Angela Roskop Erisman at Imaginary Grace. Her post Writing in Biblical Studies looks at some of the resources that are available in four different areas: Academic Research and Writing, Non-Academic Resources, Teaching and Publishing. Erisman's post was picked up by Loren Rosson of The Busybody. The Seven Deadly Sins in Writing focusses on just one of the books Erisman recommends Constance Hale's Sin and Syntax. The seven are sloth, gluttony, fog, pretense, gobbledygook, jargon, and euphemism. (I can't help wondering what a Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman film would look like if it was about a man who handed out twisted, ironic punishments to sinfully bad writers). I can't quite tell whether the "Seven Deadly Sins" format Rosson uses is from Hale's summary, or her own invention, but either way I like it. I'm not alone, both Mark Goodacre and Tyler Williams cite it in recent posts. Mark questions one (euphemism), adds one (polemic) and approves six, and I have to say I broadly agree with him. Tyler has less to say, but then he'd already commented on Erisman's original post(which is where I heard about it). I'll return to the subject at some point in the next fortnight, to post a mixture of my own ideas and (hopefully) some comments.

Some Obscure Paul Films

Recently I've come across a number of lesser-known films about St. Paul so I thought I'd post a few bits and pieces about them here.

The first is Damascus (pictured above). It's a docudrama made in 2008 as part of a collaboration between Agape 4 Media (the team who distribute the Jesus film), Youth Arise and one or two others as part of the Pope's Year of St. Paul. It's shot in and around Damacus itself and uses actors from the region and at some point I should hopefully get around to reviewing it.

The next is Life of St. Paul (1949). According to the IMDb it starred DeForest Kelley, best known for his role as Dr "Bones" McCoy in Star Trek. Paul was played by Nelson Leigh who would reprise the role 8 years later in The Living Bible Series: Acts of the Apostles. Life of St. Paul was made the same year as The Pilgrimmage Play which also starred Leigh (as Jesus). Both films were made by the same director, John T. Coyle.

Then there is I Paul from 1980. IMDb contains a good synopsis of this one. It was essentially a soliloquy given by Fred J. Scollay as Paul delivers his final message from prison to Timothy using the words of the King James Bible. It's available on DVD in the States, but seemingly not in the UK, which is a shame given that this is the 400th anniversary of the KJV.

Dayamayudu appears to be a sequel to the Jesus film Dayasagar. It's about Peter and Paul and can be seen on YouTube in its entirety. (I assume given the advert that plays at the start and that its there in full that it's legitimate to watch it on YouTube). Sadly there are no subtitles.

Also online is Paul the Emissary which I've discussed in passing before and a long time ago at Arts and Faith. It's available through the producer's website TBN (you have to scroll down a bit as there are a number of other films you can view online including The Revolutionary.

Lastly, I posted a link on the Bible Films Facebook page to a piece on 1960's Paul of Tarsus. There's an article all about the 10 part series at Roobarb's Forum. According to Ian K McLachlan it still exists in its entirety in the BBC archives (as does 1956's Jesus of Nazareth. Another poster adds that there is a clip from the series in the Roger Delgado documentary on the Doctor Who Dalek War set. I'm not a great fan of Dr. Who these days, but I know a couple of readers of this site who are. Has anyone seen this documentary?

Whilst I'm mentioning the Facebook page, just a quick plug to encourage you to "like" it (which means all the news bits will appear in your News Feed) and to post your own links / opinions there. I really want the page to become much more communal and as so many of you know things that I don't it would be great to have your contributions direct.