MetaCatholic

Comments can be found here on Episodes One, Two and Three.

Following Mark Goodacre’s comment, please note that this post contains cinematographic spoilers. (I hesitated to add a spoiler alert originally — it seemed a bit strange to say spoiler alert - Jesus is risen)

Perhaps the bravest decision taken in the BBC Passion was to give over one sixth of its broadcast time to the events following the crucifixion. At one level, this is setting oneself up for failure, so it was surprising that the production team and cast did as well as they managed to do.

The first notable feature was to give some considerable time to the events of the Sabbath, with tensions running high around and among the disciples. Interestingly Thomas disappeared somewhat. At least I think he did – most of the apostles were rather hard to distinguish one from another. In his place as the leading dissenter came James – though I confess I’d need to watch it again to work out which James, or indeed, whether more than one James was conflated. This drama of the disciples’ reactions was interspersed with the different ways in which Pilate and Caiaphas likewise dealt with the aftermath, including a standoff between those child-hood friends Joseph of Arimathea and Caiaphas. This was one of the many ways in which the day of rest became a day of brooding tension: not at all implausible, and often quite fresh.

The second notable feature was not just that the team decided to handle the resurrection, but the low-key way in which they set out to film the un-filmable. Supernatural accompaniment was stripped away. The guards at the tomb had popped off for a bite to eat. There were no angels, and at the end no parting clouds of glory. Instead a stranger with hair and beard far tidier than Jesus starts a conversation with Mary Magdalene in the harshly lit desert surrounds of the tomb. (There’s no misty dawn in a garden either.) It is a different actor. Mary begins to see that he looks a bit like Jesus. She feels it is him, despite as much as because of what her eyes see. This also effectively creates an interesting tension for the viewer: will the resurrection be portrayed as wishful thinking or something more?

In the (upper?) room, Mary’s news is received to mixed reviews. James storms off, presumably with Cleopas, getting out of Jerusalem for Emmaus. Another different actor, different hairstyle and beard, draws near to them on the road and starts a conversation pointing to Isaiah’s prophecies. As he breaks bread and shares wine with them he almost repeats the words of the Last Supper. (This is clearly eucharistic as Luke intended, but more explicit). They look up, and the strange actor has been replaced with Joseph Mawle. Then the production cuts to their returning excitement back in Jerusalem and Jesus among them again. Many of the shots are reaction shots of the disciples, building up to a smiling Jesus leaning against a pillar. So not just the event but something of its impact and significance are conveyed.

This is perhaps the most interesting dramatic portrayal of the resurrection for a secular age that could have been managed. In some respects it has more power for being so naturalistic. It certainly beats the almost risible ending of Mel Gibson’s Passion, shot from behind the rising Jesus, seeing the world through a hole in his hand. Its weakness perhaps is in its ending. Jesus is talking to Peter, alone, beside the pool of Bethesda (I presume). Peter is now doing what Jesus had done earlier in the week, bathing the sick and treating them with compassion. Jesus both charges Peter to look after the others, and spread the news of forgiveness, and also promises to be with him to the end of time. Then he just wanders off into the crowds of a narrow Jerusalem street, until he’s lost from sight. It very nearly works, but feels a little too much like a petering out instead of a conclusion.

Otherwise this episode showed the same strengths and weaknesses as the previous parts. Overall, I think a balanced judgement must be more favourable than unfavourable. In many respects it makes brave and dramatically effective decisions about how to show something that is over-familiar to many viewers, and almost completely unknown to another potential audience. The modernising of the language is a key component of this, even it sometimes leads to overly creedal statements about Jesus being God’s only Son, and at least once to nonsense: “the gospel of good news” is a quite bizarre formulation. Visually it is always competent, and excelled itself both with the crucifixion and some of the panoramas. I disagree with their decision to effectively stage the crucifixion and burial in a desert panorama. It may have had metaphorical and iconic power, but it sat oddly with the otherwise detailed attention to history.

I also had some reservations about Joseph Mawle as Jesus. Whether it was his interpretation, the script, the direction or a mixture of all three, I remain unconvinced that he was a charismatic enough figure. He’s a good actor, though, and it was a competent and sometimes moving portrayal. Generally, I think I would say something similar about the whole cast, competent and sometimes moving. There was no obviously weak character, and no obvious standout portrayal either. The more sympathetic portrayals of Caiaphas and Pilate fitted well into this.

In the end, this was a very human story, and even the resurrection was a very human event. That may give it some real power to make people consider the story again with fresh eyes. It will undoubtedly please some and annoy others. It is probably better television than any attempt to flag up the supernatural would have been, but it equally meant that the secular reasons for the crucifixion had to be heavily laboured, and the significance of the resurrection underplayed. It remains, for me, a bit of a mixed bag, but one in which the good and original certainly outweigh my criticisms, and a project well worth having undertaken. Those involved are to be congratulated.

written by doug