c. 2003 Religion News Service
TORONTO _ Looks like someone has the jump on Mel Gibson’s much-anticipated, much-debated and much-unseen movie, “The Passion, due next year. And the original writer for this newest effort is a marquee name _ St. John.
Toronto-based Visual Bible International Inc., which has produced film adaptations of the books of Matthew and Acts, is putting the final touches to its grandest project to date: A feature-length, word-for-word movie rendition of the Gospel according to John.
It was scheduled to make its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival Sept. 11, and is slated for general North American release this fall. The three-hour epic was pre-screened recently for entertainment and religion reporters.
A sprawling, visually stunning work shot on location in Spain and Toronto, “The Gospel of John” faithfully adapts, word-for-word the fourth Gospel, based on the American Bible Society’s accessible Good News Bible.
The $20 million (Canadian) film, with a cast of 75 principal actors and 2,000 extras, follows John’s account of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus with precision, neither borrowing from other Gospels nor shying away from complex passages.
The movie’s authenticity is further reinforced by a haunting musical score created with instruments from Jesus’ time, and with hundreds of meticulously researched period costumes using only fabrics from the era.
Directed by acclaimed British director Philip Saville (“Metroland,” “Hamlet”), the joint Canada-UK production stars British stage actors Henry Ian Cusik as a pensive but confident Jesus, and Scott Handy as the wild-eyed John the Baptist. It’s narrated by Canadian Christopher Plummer, a two-time Emmy Award winner. The screenplay, by veteran John Goldsmith, presented its own challenges, namely, how to keep an audience’s attention during one of Jesus’ typically long soliloquies.
As books of the Bible go, those with strong narratives best lend themselves to the big screen, according to retired University of Toronto professor Peter Richardson, who chaired a nine-member panel of theological and academic advisers to the project.
“John is the best-loved, most familiar book of the Bible. And it’s never been turned into a movie,” he said. “It was virgin territory.”
John stands apart from Matthew, Mark and Luke _ called the synoptic (“same eye”) gospels because of their similarities _ because it’s said to be the most spiritual of the accounts of Jesus.
“John makes Jesus God from the very beginning, and he downplays the Passion,” said Alan Segal of Barnard College in New York, who also advised the project. “His Jesus is much more intimate and reflective.”
Indeed, Cusik’s Jesus delivers long discourses on his relationship with his “Father,” and the world “to come.” His mantra, as it were, is, “I am telling you the truth.”
The movie, like the book, is poetic, restless _ almost otherworldly.
And like the book, the film weaves Jesus’ ministry around seven “signs,” or miracles: The changing of water to wine, healing a nobleman’s son, healing a lame man, walking on water, feeding the multitudes, healing a blind man, and raising Lazarus from the dead.
Unlike the other Gospels, John records no exorcisms, and his Jesus visits Jerusalem several times over three years. The crucifixion is graphic but not distasteful.
Inevitably, like Gibson’s film, “The Gospel of John” will rekindle public debate over Jewish culpability in Jesus’ death.
“It’s the most Jewish, and the most anti-Jewish Gospel,” conceded Segal. “We did a great deal of thinking and soul-searching. But ultimately, we had to do it as it was written.”
The ABS’ Good New Bible was used because of its adaptability and because it was felt the version provided the best vehicle for trying to bridge any ill will.
“Of all the versions, it best distinguishes between the Jewish establishment _ the Pharisees _ and the general populace. It best reduces the potential for misunderstanding,” said the film’s co-producer, Garth Drabinsky, once known for his lavish Broadway productions.
“You can draw from the movie whatever you want: spirituality, education or pure entertainment. It’s not religious outreach.”
(OPTIONAL TRIM BEGINS)
Segal said two main provisos guided the project.
“One, (it had to be conveyed that) John was written in a polemical time. By the time it was written (between 40 and 60 years after the Crucifixion), the sect has become less Jewish and more gentile.”
The opening slate acknowledges this, noting the period reflects “a polemical and antagonistic” relationship between the nascent church and the Jewish establishment.
“Two,” continued Segal, “it was crucial for all casting to be eastern Mediterranean. If we had a blond, blue-eyed Jesus, it would no longer be a family squabble. Then it becomes `we’ and `they.’ This (film) makes the conflict seem credible.”
(OPTIONAL TRIM ENDS)
Ultimately, the experts say, the film simply lets the Gospel speak for itself.
Visual Bible International, a global Christian faith-based media company, intends to produce a new film version of one of the 66 books of the Bible every nine months. The next in the series, The Gospel of Mark, is in development, to be followed by Samuel I and II.
DEA END CSILLAG
