"The Bible" and Jesus
So, I've watched all ten hours of "The Bible" miniseries that the History Channel broadcast. And, by the way, it was nice to see some actual history on the History Channel rather than much of the stuff they usually broadcast. I did chuckle how they ran a slide at the beginning of each episode that said "Original Story," as if they'd come up with it by themselves. But anyway, I digress...
What did I think of the series? I've been asked that several times. Let me first say that it's an occupational hazard for me to "collect" Biblical movies. I have quite an extensive collection, especially of those that focus on Jesus. Usually, during Holy Week, I watch one of the Jesus movies. This year it was the 1977 "Jesus of Nazareth" miniseries. So I couldn't help by compare the two. One made during my childhood. The other, made during my kids' childhood.
Some of the complaints I've heard about "The Bible" included the way they left out certain stories that someone deems important (like I've complained about them leaving out the Old Testament Joseph altogether) and the ways in which stories were mashed together or sometimes changed completely in order to make the movie/drama flow. Some have complained about the graphic violence, which was indeed surprising for television, though it was certainly less graphic than "The Passion of the Christ." But are these complains enough to reject "The Bible" altogether?
It's not that the complaints aren't legitimate; they are. But given that the producers had ten hours to tell the whole story, and given that four of those hours were given over to the story of Jesus, that didn't leave much time to tell the rest of the story. Yes, the stories were mashed up, but consider what the producers were trying to do: tell a grand sweep of a story for a new generation that won't sit still for long exposition. I do wish there had been more time given to Paul and the book of Acts. But the story of Jesus was captivating, even to my daughter, who wasn't interested in watching the Old Testament parts, but sat and watched all of the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. And I loved the way the movie ended, with John on Patmos, seeing his friend Jesus once again.
As I watched "Jesus of Nazareth," a Jesus movie which many people set as a sort of standard for telling Jesus' story, I noticed the same things were done in that film that were done in "The Bible." Stories were mashed together. Sayings were placed in the wrong "chronological" order (as if the Gospels are telling Jesus' story by a strict chronology, which they aren't). And if "Jesus of Nazareth" suffers from anything regarding violence, it's too little. Jesus is barely scratched when he hangs on the cross. He's a sanitized Sunday School Jesus, having to overact to convey any sense of suffering. "The Bible" conveys Jesus' suffering in many ways, and reminds us more what he went through than that earlier effort. My daughter and I talked about that, and she said, "It was probably worse than that, wasn't it?" Yes, it was.
"The Bible" is not perfect anymore than any attempt to put the Scriptures on film is, but my hope and prayer is it sends some people back to the text, to see what the Scriptures say, to read the whole story. I hope it does that for you, and that you'll not just rely on what you see or saw on the screen as "the gospel truth." "The Bible" won't replace the Bible. It's an interpretation, just as any other movie before has been. But it was well done. And I'm thankful any time the story of the Scriptures gets out there, because God promises that his word will never return void.
What did I think of the series? I've been asked that several times. Let me first say that it's an occupational hazard for me to "collect" Biblical movies. I have quite an extensive collection, especially of those that focus on Jesus. Usually, during Holy Week, I watch one of the Jesus movies. This year it was the 1977 "Jesus of Nazareth" miniseries. So I couldn't help by compare the two. One made during my childhood. The other, made during my kids' childhood.
Some of the complaints I've heard about "The Bible" included the way they left out certain stories that someone deems important (like I've complained about them leaving out the Old Testament Joseph altogether) and the ways in which stories were mashed together or sometimes changed completely in order to make the movie/drama flow. Some have complained about the graphic violence, which was indeed surprising for television, though it was certainly less graphic than "The Passion of the Christ." But are these complains enough to reject "The Bible" altogether?
It's not that the complaints aren't legitimate; they are. But given that the producers had ten hours to tell the whole story, and given that four of those hours were given over to the story of Jesus, that didn't leave much time to tell the rest of the story. Yes, the stories were mashed up, but consider what the producers were trying to do: tell a grand sweep of a story for a new generation that won't sit still for long exposition. I do wish there had been more time given to Paul and the book of Acts. But the story of Jesus was captivating, even to my daughter, who wasn't interested in watching the Old Testament parts, but sat and watched all of the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. And I loved the way the movie ended, with John on Patmos, seeing his friend Jesus once again.
As I watched "Jesus of Nazareth," a Jesus movie which many people set as a sort of standard for telling Jesus' story, I noticed the same things were done in that film that were done in "The Bible." Stories were mashed together. Sayings were placed in the wrong "chronological" order (as if the Gospels are telling Jesus' story by a strict chronology, which they aren't). And if "Jesus of Nazareth" suffers from anything regarding violence, it's too little. Jesus is barely scratched when he hangs on the cross. He's a sanitized Sunday School Jesus, having to overact to convey any sense of suffering. "The Bible" conveys Jesus' suffering in many ways, and reminds us more what he went through than that earlier effort. My daughter and I talked about that, and she said, "It was probably worse than that, wasn't it?" Yes, it was.
"The Bible" is not perfect anymore than any attempt to put the Scriptures on film is, but my hope and prayer is it sends some people back to the text, to see what the Scriptures say, to read the whole story. I hope it does that for you, and that you'll not just rely on what you see or saw on the screen as "the gospel truth." "The Bible" won't replace the Bible. It's an interpretation, just as any other movie before has been. But it was well done. And I'm thankful any time the story of the Scriptures gets out there, because God promises that his word will never return void.
Comments
Post a Comment