Entertaiment

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 17^th 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 caf 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 2^nd 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.