There’ve been a lot of Jesus sightings both in cinema and theatre recently. Most prominently, of course, is Mel Gibson’s box-office hit The Passion of The Christ, which has already made local pirates very happy (at last count, at least seven of my friends have obtained copies of the movie). But until it opens on April 1st, which is highly ironic, at least there are others like World-in-Theatre’s The Gospel According To Mark and Philip Saville’s The Gospel of John.
I went to catch the latter with twenty-one other youth from church and together, we spent three long hours in Cathay Cineleisure. The movie is everything it claims to be, a “word for word” adaptation of the Good News Bible’s version. It truly feels like you’re watching the Word of God being slowly revealed through the narration of Christopher Plummer.
Which is exactly where the problem lies.
Screenwriter John Goldsmith claims he’s “never seen a film like this before”. There’s a reason for that. John’s Gospel is not told in a narrative. There is a reason why it is not considered one of the Synoptic Gospels (unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke). John’s retelling of the life of Christ is done by reiterating many of Christ’s words throughout his three years of ministry. It is an inspiring, emotionally charged written work that translates terribly to screen.
The movie itself had its moments. Most notably, the Wedding at Cana (Jesus’ first miracle) and the Washing of Feet at the Last Supper. These were poignant moments that were beautifully brought across by the ability of several talented actors (especially Jesus, played by Henry Ian Cusick). I had a personal affinity for my namesake (played by Canadian Daniel Kash) and especially enjoyed his moments, like the (only) unintentionally funny moment at the Last Supper (”wash my hands and head too!”), to his Denial and finally the Commission (”Feed my sheep, feed my lambs”).
However, these several scenes out of the three hour movie were definitely not enough to carry it. Pity.
