
Photo used
by permission. The Jesus Film Project
This
article is part one of a series.
Accepting
Jesus into our hearts is the call of Christianity. In his
letter to the Ephesians the Apostle Paul prayed “that Christ
may dwell in your hearts by faith” (Eph.3:7). The Doctrine
and Covenants echoes the words of John. “This is eternal lives
to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ whom
he has sent.” (D&C 132: 24).
Scriptures
and experience make it clear that we can “know” Jesus in our
hearts, but how do we “see” him in our minds? We can feel
him in our life and sense him in our soul, but how does he
appear on the right side of our brain?
What
does it mean to “know” Jesus? “Knowing” a mere mortal includes
a meeting face to face. We have seen them in person and we
see them in our minds. An image of their face is etched into
our memory. We may understand a great deal about them and
like them for a lot of reasons, but we “know them” largely
because we have seen them and hold in memory a visage of their
countenance.
Is
“seeing” Jesus part of “knowing” Him? Is having a mind’s-eye
image of what he looks like an important part of our kinship
and acquaintance? The Holy Ghost is the source of knowing
the Savior through faith and feelings. But where does our
mind’s-eye image of Jesus come from? If Jesus visited our
sacrament meeting - without the pillar of light - would we
know him by the way he looks? Does he really look at all as
we imagine him to be?
Images
of Christ have fascinated me since my mission. It was there,
in the small dark room above the chapel in Frederiksberg Castle and later standing in the vaulted lofts of St Paul’s Cathedral that I discovered the incredible works of Karl Block and Bertel
Thorvoldsen. [You know now that I served my mission in
Denmark.]
Sometime
later I discovered the extraordinary etchings of Jesus by
famed French illustrator, Gustave Dore’. Over time I collected
and photographed hundreds of images of Christ. When President
Hinckley asked me to create a film for the Legacy Theater
about Jesus Christ, he emphasized the importance of depicting
“a Jesus that would be familiar to the Christian world.” This
library of my mind’s -eye stuffed as it were with the visual
memories of images of Christ became a source of inspiration
in the making of the film.
The Veil
Over Our Minds
We
talk about our pre-existent life and “the veil” as easily
as we discuss last summer’s vacation. The big difference of
course is we have no photos. Are all of the images of our
memory deleted at birth – or at least locked away behind the
curtain? If so, upon arrival here our mind is a vast blank
canvas on which the images of the physical world begin to
slosh paint. Among them images of Jesus.
Early
on, we are taught that a man in our big picture book is named
“Jesus.” Our mothers repeat his name over and over. We see
the same man in other pictures and, pretty soon we get it.
The man with the long hair, the pointed beard, the kindly
eyes and white or pastel flowing robes - who looks nothing
like the real people we see around us of course - is “Jesus”.
Our mothers tell us that “we love Jesus” and add, “He loves
you too.”
We
soon realize that there are many images of Jesus. All of them
different, yet all of them the same. On the wall of the primary,
he wears a bright red robe. In the animated video he is a
cartoon character. In the visitor center he is a heroic statue
in white marble with his arms outstretched. At Christmas time
we know him as a baby – a little hand carved wooden figure
in the middle of the manger scene displayed on the top of
the piano. By some benevolent miracle of heaven, we are able
to sort out the difference between Santa, whom we can’t see
but loves us and brings us gifts, and Jesus whom we can’t
see but loves us and blesses us. One is make believe the other
one is real.
The
spirit saves us from popular culture. Somewhere along the
way we experience warm feelings when we look at the images
of Christ. As we learn more about him and begin to understand
who he really is and what he did for us, the warm feeling
swells within us, and we begin to believe.
Our
belief in Jesus is rooted in the feelings of our hearts, the
whisperings of the Spirit. How much does our belief rely on
the images of Jesus burned into visual memory from almost
the day we were born?
The
images in our minds originate with what our eyes perceive.
They are pictures “taken” and stored. I have been told that
not everyone is able to “see pictures in their minds”. Something
about “right brain - left brain”. I cannot imagine thinking
without seeing. For me it is hard to imagine what else could
possibly be going on “in there” if one is not able to SEE
the wide screen super spectacular movies of the mind that
illustrate and animate our every thought.
Where
Does What We “See” of Christ Really Come From?
Following
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the new faith,
soon known as Christianity, spread across the Roman Empire and into the countries of the East. Converts were eager to hear the
stories of Jesus from the apostles and others who had personally
witnessed the miracles and listened to the Christ.
These
faithful followers could “feel” the Savior by the gentle touch
of the Holy Ghost but the confirmed and curious alike could
only “see” him in the word-pictures created by the verbal
descriptions of others. It was not enough. By the end of the
first century AD, the eye witnesses who walked and talked
with Jesus were gone. It was inevitable that the covert passions
of the heart would manifest themselves in overt graphic symbols
made with hands.
In
the beginning these icons created great controversy
because the Law of Moses was so strong in their traditions.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is
in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…”
By
most historic accounts the strict interpretation of the second
commandment and lingering influence of Judaic thought precluded
the creation of acceptable images or statues of Christ for
over a hundred years. There were exceptions. An early Christian
Bishop, Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea (sometimes called “the Father of Church History”) reported a statue
of Christ erected in Caesarea-Phillip. Tradition holds that
it was put there by the woman cured of the issue of blood
(Matthew 9:20-23).
Churches
in Spain forbade images in churches as late as 305 AD, but
inevitably not even that pious edict could stop the irrepressible
desire to create depictions of Jesus painted on canvas, carved
from wood or chiseled out of stone. By 200 AD, images of Christianity
began to flourish. Images of religious motifs painted on small
wooden panels and used in devotional service among Eastern
Christians become the classic icon of Christianity.
Were
the Images Accurate?
How
accurate were these archaic images of Christ? It is interesting
to note that the earliest depictions of Christ and the apostles
were painted by people who might have heard verbal descriptions
from converts who knew disciples who actually knew the Apostles
and even the Lord himself. It is admittedly an odd example,
but we might consider them at least as accurate as the depiction
of a wanted felon sketched by a police artist on the basis
of the “word-picture” described by a victim. The depictions
and representations of the earliest drawings, paintings and
illustrations became a kind of codified collection of images
– an “image cannon” -- to which other artists would turn again
and again until visually homogenous images of Christ began
to emerge.
Within
a relatively short span of time depictions of Jesus had been
“standardized” into one of two character types. The first
was a young, clean-shaven hero-type most often idealized by
the artist. Curiously it is the second ”canonized image” that
dominated art and as a consequence survived to define “the
look of the classic Jesus” for a thousand years. A tall man
in his early 30’s with long hair, pointed or parted beard,
long nose, high forehead and dressed in sandals with a long
loose-fitting robe is an instantly recognizable image. It
is a depiction familiar to Christians everywhere.
The
accuracy of the ever-evolving image of Jesus was impacted
by the apostasy and ever-evolving theology of Christianity.
Jews missed the Messiah because Jesus did not fulfill the
expectations of their venerated traditions. They were looking
for an earthly king and liberator. Early Christians on the
other hand were looking to heaven for their king. It was inevitable
that artistic renderings began to reflect that faith and feeling.
The humble Rabbi of Nazareth was transformed into the “King
of Heaven”. A whole genre of “The Royal Christ” emerged as
the images were endowed with the symbols of his Kingship.
Royal robes of blue and purple replaced the peasant clothes
of white and woven cloth. Jesus was placed on a splendid throne
with a jeweled crown upon his head.
The
halo with its emanating rays that dominated early Christian
iconology was actually a Persian symbol of divinity or holiness.
No matter. Once it was accepted into the image cannon it was
repeated over and over again. More often than not, the images
became symbols of what he stood for more than a picture of
what he really looked like.
For
1700 years the collective “mind’s eye” image of Jesus came
from the collective works of Christian art and icons that
swiftly filled the churches. Inspired artists, with almost
incomprehensible talent, sought to capture and convey the
body and spirit of Jesus. Their commission, their faith, their
hope, their tradition, devotion and even sometimes troubled
spirits and disbelieving hearts are reflected in their depictions
of God as man. These incredible treasures of art in colored
pigment wood and stone sought to capture the complexities
of Christ, but only rarely did an artist break free from the
“image cannon” of the second century.
A
new dimension to the perception of Jesus was added with the
advent of live re-enactments of what had become known as “the
passion of Christ”. These live-performance “plays” or “pageants”
were in fact called Passion Plays. The most famous of these
at Oberammergau, Bavaria began in 1634. It is likely, however,
that actors depicted the life and death of Jesus long before
the 17th century. Passion plays per se’ predate
Christianity and were popular among the ancient Egyptians
who re-enacted the death of their “god of the dead”, Osiris.
Since
the crucifixion of Christ in Roman occupied Palestine 2000
years ago, he has been the dominant figure of western culture.
The impact of Jesus Christ on civilization has been measured
and mapped over 2 millennia by the artifacts of high culture;
art, sculpture, music, live action dramas, passion plays,
holy scriptures and endless writings.
Seeing
Christ in Ways That Never Were Imagined
With
the arrival of motion pictures at the end of the 19th century,
our ability to “see” Jesus, his life and times, entered a
whole new dimension. It is little wonder that among the very
first of the great characters to be re-created in this new
miraculous medium of motion was none other than Jesus Christ.
However
brilliant the art and icons of the past, “movies” held a promise
to bring Christ to life in ways never imagined; a visual resurrection
in flickering lights and shadows.
Curiously,
what some considered the epitome of “vulgar popular culture,”
motion pictures over the next 100 years would have more impact
on “canonized images” and “seeing” Jesus than seventeen centuries
of Christians art. Whatever impact passion plays may have
had on a few thousand people, motion pictures magnified by
millions.
Commercial
cinema was born in Paris on December 28, 1895. Within a few
months after Auguste and Louis Lumiere projected ten one-minute
films on the wall of the grand café another Frenchman made
a film called La Passion.
It
is interesting that the history of Jesus in the films (as
of this date) is “book-ended” first to last by two
films each of which is entitled, “The Passion”. That first
film has been lost. It contained 12 scenes from the life
of Christ and lasted five minutes. Even though that early
film did not survive, the very fact that Jesus was among the
first of characters to be depicted is a fascinating reaffirmation
of our passion to “see” Jesus, the irrepressible need that
gave birth to Christian iconology as far back as the 2nd
century.
That
same year two Americans financed the filming of a live-action
passion play in the village of Horitz in Czech Republic. The
movie of The Horitz Passion Play opened in Philadelphia.
Before it could play New York anther film The Passion Play
of Oberammergau had already opened there. The film contained
23 scenes and ran 20 minutes.
Controversy
– something that would characterize the Jesus story on film
from that day to this -- erupted when someone found out that
the film had not been shot on location in Bavaria at the famed
Passion Play of Oberammergau at all. It was filmed against
a painted backdrop on the roof of the grand hotel in New York
City. The “smoke and mirrors of Hollywood” was off to a good
start.
By
the 1920s silent movies gave way to “talkies”. A year later
Technicolor turned black and white to color. Television arrived
in the 1950’s creating an almost ubiquitous venue for showing
motion pictures.
An
academic quest for “historical Jesus” began in the early 1800’s.
With the publication of The Quest of The Historical Jesus,
the master work by Albert Schweitzer, the secular fascination
and search for “Christ after the flesh” as Schweitzer called
it, entered a second stage and ran parallel to the development
of motion pictures.
A
Myriad of Films
Myriad
films have been made to tell the story of Jesus. Some of them
are great. Some are awful. Among the most notable are these.
From The Manager To The Cross by Sidney Olcott,
(1912). Intolerance by D.W. Griffith, (1916) and King
Of Kings by Cecil B. DeMille, (1927).
When
President Hinckley asked me to create a film about the Savior
for the Legacy Theater he instructed me saying, “the depiction
of the Savior is the most important consideration.” He paused
then added, “And by the way I’ve never seen a depiction of
the Savior that I like.” Before I was completely paralyzed
by the responsibility, he offered hope, “Except perhaps King
of Kings by Cecil B DeMille in 1927.” You may be sure
I become most familiar with this classic film.
Then
came the 1950s and the era of the biblical epics highlighted
by The Ten Commandments by Cecil B. DeMille (not a
tale of the Christ of course) and Ben Hur by William
Wyler, (1959). The scene of Jesus giving water to Ben Hur,
played by Charlton Heston, may be the one of the most powerful
and memorable scenes in all cinema. You never see the face
of Christ, only the reflection of his divinity on the face
of Ben Hur. Magnificent. The decade also included two films
in which the story of Jesus played a role, Quo Vadis by Mervin LeRoy
(1951) and The Robe by Henry Coster (1953).

Photo by Floyd McCarty - All Rights Reserved,
MPTV. Used by Permission.
Christ
was featured as the principal character in the decades of
the 60s and 70s. Sometimes brilliantly. Sometimes not. These
films included: King Of Kings by Samuel Bronston, (1961).
The Greatest Story Ever Told by George Stevens. (1965).
The Gospel According To St Mathew by Pier Paolo Pasolini,
(1966). Pasolini was a Marxist and atheist to give you some
sense of the diversity in telling the tale of Jesus. Then
came the inevitable reflection of the hippy movement and “the
love generation”. Jesus Christ Super Star by Norman
Jewison, (1973). Godspell by David Greene, (1973).
Jesus Of Nazareth, the magnificent
6-hour mini-series by Franco Zeffirelli, (1977) is so outstanding
it requires a paragraph of its own. So very much could be
said about this marvelous motion picture.
The Jesus Project by John
Heyman (1979) is of all the films produced about Jesus the
most unique. There is an incredible story behind this film
that is largely unknown to most people. At the same time,
it has been seen by more people around the world than perhaps
all of the other Jesus films put together. [For those few
of you offended because of my enthusiasm for The Passion of
the Christ by Mel Gibson I will write an article about John
Heyman’s Jesus and in recommending it offend no one.
Is that possible?]

The Last Temptation Of Christ by Martin Scorsese (1988) and Jesus Of Montreal by Denys Arcand
(1990) will offend you. Curiously in spite of no less a luminary
than Albert Schweitzer focusing secular interest on the quest
for an historical Jesus in the early days of cinema, it was
the later films that would remove the miracle of divinity
and infuse the Jesus story with the secular dimensions, distortions
and right-out fiction. Films like the playful musicals of
the seventies or Scorsese’s irreverent – even blasphemous
– treatment of Jesus in 1988 required a significant shift
in the morals and mores of American society before departures
from the synoptic gospels – some of them troubling - would
be allowed, let alone tolerated.

Copyright 2000 Intellectual Reserve Inc. All
Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.
Of
course I will include The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd
by Kieth Merrill (2000) even though it is a limited venue
theatrical film and The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson,
(2004) for all the reasons I’ve already expressed in previous
articles as significant films in our quest to “see” Jesus.
I
believe that the art of the ages and the cinema of our time
can add significantly to “knowing” Jesus. Cinema allows us
to enter his world and become familiar with him in ways not
otherwise possible. Ultimately I understand that it is only
by the power of the Holy Ghost that we can “know” him fully
as the Son of God and Redeemer of the world, but “seeing”
him in our mind’s eye until the day we meet him face to face
is for me at least a marvelous blossom in the flowering of
faith.
NOTE: If there is sufficient interest among readers I will continue this
series by introducing you to, exploring and reviewing a select
number of these films You need to know which ones you should
avoid and may want to know which ones to include on your list
of 100 FILMS TO SEE BEFORE YOU DIE.