The Gospel of John (2003)

For my own peculiar reasons, I am always looking for faithful adaptations of the gospels, so I am impressed with the relative faithfulness of "The Gospel of John." It's success, however, does NOT mean that it is perfect and rather says more about the failure of other adaptations of gospels, like the "Gospel According to St. Luke" (1979), that fall shorter of their hype than this movie does. (The "Gospel According to St. Luke" inexplicably puts some scenes in order according to Mark instead of Luke.) Over all, I think this movie is very well made. Despite a few quibbles that I will mention, it is as faithful to the text as I expect a middle-of-the-road interpretation to get. Henry Ian Cusick is not as bad in the role of Jesus as some have said, although I would have to agree with anyone who complains that his smile too often resembles a smirk. Otherwise, I found his portrayal sharp and professional. He risked giving Jesus just a bit of personality, but only a bit, which was a good choice; and, except for the smile that verged on a smirk, he wisely dialed it back and seemed to let the lines themselves guide him.There are arguable minor flaws with this adaptation of "John." There are some insupportably imaginative cinematic interpolations such as the scene where Jesus tells Nathanael that he saw him sitting under a fig tree just before Philip called him. The movie then stages a flashback of Nathanael under the fig tree and having an almost mystical experience. Not only is this flashback not supported in the gospel, but the movie has just staged the calling of Nathanael at his home: Philip knocks on his door and summons him. Evidently, we are to think that Nathanael was sitting under the fig tree quite some time before his summoning, but a perfectly reasonable interpretation based on the text is that Nathanael was outdoors, sitting or having just sat under the tree when Philip called him. Flashbacks are also used throughout to remind us of earlier events in the film. This keeps the pictures moving but does not add to the film's faithfulness to the text of the gospel; it rather gives us an extra-textual interpretation. There is plenty of interpretation of the text because it cannot be helped: the gospel authors did not write their books with the idea in mind of making their stories easier for a screenwriter to break down. Settings and time lines, for example, are not always clear from the text, and, so, dramatists must use their imaginations to connect the dots; this is not always going to be done successfully.Others have noted how this movie gives narrator Christopher Plummer too much heavy lifting to do. He keeps describing things that the camera has already shown to us. This is redundant and not, in my opinion, necessary to qualify as a faithful adaptation. Pictures can stand in for words. That is what movies are about. Sometimes the script even relies on the narrator to tell us what Jesus and others say instead of letting the actors portraying those characters have all of their lines. In the scene where Jesus and Nathanael meet, Jesus's first line is spoken by the narrator and his second by the actor playing Jesus.Since the earliest manuscripts of the gospels do not use punctuation of any kind, it is not only difficult to decide things like whether or not some words are supposed to form dependent or independent clauses but also which verses are intended to be quotations and which are part of the narration. (The style of Jesus's words and John's narration is often indistinguishable.) For example, the movie interprets John 3:10-15 as a quotation from Jesus, but other editors of this gospel have taken only verses 3:10-13 as Jesus's words and verses 3:14-21 to be entirely the evangelist's narrative. Still others think that the entire passage from 3:10-21 should be considered the words of Jesus.The filmmakers imaginatively show the last supper as being a movable feast with the dinner party moving from place to place while Jesus talks. This is not in the Gospel. It is rather the filmmaker's way of "making sense" of the fact that verse 14:31 quotes Jesus as saying "Rise, let us be on our way," (NRSV) but his discourse continues uninterrupted from the next verse, 15:1, until the end of chapter 17, following which Jesus and his disciples are described in verse 18:1 as going out (of what? where?) and thence to a garden.Finally, the role of John (Stuart Bunce) is handled in a traditional way that nicely shows up the insupportability of that traditional interpretation. John is one of Jesus's first two disciples, according to this production, but is not identified until the very end when he is identified without ever being actually named in the text! Verses 21:20-23 in which Jesus and Peter discuss the beloved disciple's fate refer to absolutely no explanation for why they are even discussing this. The author of the text is then referenced in the third person and identified with the beloved disciple (John 21:24-25) as if a later editor slapped these last two verses onto the text without knowing what he was talking about, and therein, alone, lies the identification of the beloved disciple with the evangelist John himself. The movie then ends with a full screen picture of Bunce as John. Well, it was really all about him, I guess.If you have never read the Gospel of John, but were just waiting for them to make it into a movie, you have little excuse now not to see this film. Despite its flaws, this is a good enough adaptation of John's gospel. It is far more faithful than the screen adaptations of most books (albeit, perhaps, way too faithful, especially in its overuse of narration), and the production and entertainment values are well above average.

This presentation of the life of Jesus was very touching.It was refreshing to Jesus portrayed as one who had a sense of humor. As if He truly enjoyed interacting with people, especially his disciples. I have always suspected he saw some humor in their reactions. He knew everything that would transpire and to see their reactions had to be a bit amusing to him.Really people, think about it. Doesn't the platypus prove that God has a sense of humor? If He didn't He would have sent a second flood to wipe out ALL mankind.As one who attended many different churches while growing up I feel I have a broad spectrum of religion and a high level of acceptance for the wide variety of biblical teachings. I came to this movie with open mind and of course already knew the majority of what I would see. But the humanistic portrayal was to me, a blessing. That is the character of Jesus I have always imagined. I know he had said he was a man of constant sorrow, but even we mere mortals can be really, truly in a deep funk and see or hear something that lifts our spirits. (Been there done that). Surely Jesus was the same. Think of his joy at the wedding in Canaan.I simply cannot imagine that Jesus, the active agent of creation, could walk through this beautiful world he created and maintain a sour disposition the entire span of his life. He is a God who loves life, look at all He created.I very much liked the way the reactions of the Jewish authorities was portrayed. I have always suspected they had a selfish motive for wanting Jesus done away with. It wasn't all legalistic and ritual. The blasphemy claim was probably true to their thinking since they DIDN'T believe he was the son of God. But also, the leaders feared they would lose their influence over the people and be removed from their high places in society.As I watched the scene with the feeding of the multitude, I found myself wondering how many of those thousands went home and told friends and neighbors what they had seen. Surely they too were disciples of a sort and helped spread the gospel.From reading I have done the Gospel spread incredibly fast over the middle east and even Europe. Considering there was NO mass transportation that is truly an accomplishment.I have read reviews by others who like one Jesus movie but not another. I have learned something from every movie about him that I have seen. One needn't agree 100% with all in order to see some good in it. Each one has shown a slightly different aspect of Jesus, another window into what He must have really been like.What did Jesus look like? My oh my, I can't believe the discussion over that. With all the migration and intermarriage prior to Jesus' birth I rather doubt it is possible to be certain to any degree as to what skin tone he had. And to me it matters not one bit what color He was. What He did for mankind goes beyond skin tone. I suspect his face had a kindliness about it. Not homely, but not incredibly handsome either. After all it was His character that was supposed to appeal to mankind. It was not a beauty contest. Had He been too handsome people would have been attracted to Him for the wrong reason. We know that children loved to be near Him so it is not likely he was homely. No, I am sure He resembled a kindly big brother or a loving uncle.The Jesus I have come to know is a warm, loving God who truly grows anxious to end the strife on earth and draw His believers near once again.I feel this movie did an excellent job of depicting what life back then was like and what Jesus lived through. And all He was willing to suffer for the right to claim us and keep us from the clutches of Satan. It was educational to get a good glimpse of the clothing, footwear and the utensils they used.

This film by Philip Saville really touched me when I heard th way Christopher Plummer narrated the Good Book. It was more than just a mere reading of a novel. The way it was filmed blended perfectly with Plummer's reading. Most of the artists and actors made a special effort to make the life of Christ look real. Henry Ian Cusick's portrayal of Jesus is close to perfection and is almost as good as any other actor did. The good thing about this film is that it nearly came out at the same time The Passion Of th Christ came out. Any one who loved this film should also compare it's similarities with The Passion of the Christ and also Jesus Of Nazareth(1977).

There have been movies made about Jesus in the past, but this has to be the best out there! No fake stuff like the History Channel or The Divinci Code, it's all word for word from the most accurate book in the world, the Bible. God's word is 100% verifiable by historical documents and archeology. This movie has even gone to the trouble of having the costumes made to exact Jewish historical accuracy, using only one type of material (God told them not to mix materials when weaving cloth). There will be things missing from the movie that you may wonder why they are not there. This movie is from the book of John in the New Testament, to get a full picture of Jesus' life and ministry you must read/watch all four of the first New Testament books, as well as read the rest of the New and Old Testament. I know that it's a movie anyone will love to watch!