bishopofpontefract’s weblog

The resurrection of Jesus was portrayed in a surprisingly literal way. At first I was concerned that the risen Jesus seemed to be an Anglo-Saxon blond, whereas the earthly Jewish had looked more Jewish. However, once the disciples had recognised that Jesus was alive he reverted to his original appearance.

 I felt the way the resurrection was depicted could have been more daring. The risen Jesus might have been played by a different actor each time he appeared, or the appearances might have been more enigmatic.

In St Luke’s account of the Emmaus story he is careful not to close down the possibility that the disciples have encountered an ‘ordinary’ stranger who simply understands the truth about Jesus far better than they do, and so opens their eyes to the truth, but ‘The Passion’ left no room for different layers of meaning or possibility. In that sense, although it strove to be entirely orthodox, I felt the narrative was slightly dissatisfying.

Most surprisingly of all,  the risen Jesus made no attempt to show his friends the marks of his passion, and he did not appear to them only when they were alone together, away from the crowds. Both of these things are necessary features of the Easter story because resurrection always has to be about faith rather than certainty.

I think BBC 1’s ‘The Passion’ is brilliant, and very moving. I certainly could find myself believing in the BBC Jesus, though only by making allowances for the fast pace of the narrative. Obviously I would need to hear a lot more of what Jesus had to say in order to be as convinced by him as the other characters in the story. This could have been achieved if the narrative had spent less time dwelling on the political intrigues of Pilate and Caiaphas. (Herod has been cut out to keep the narrative flow simpler.) Am I the only one who doesn’t find politicians all that interesting? And the writers have missed some obvious opportunities to point up the character and wisdom of Jesus in action. ‘The Woman Taken in Adultery’ is a Temple Controversy story which belongs in Holy Week. It would have made a beautiful illustration of some of what Jesus had to say in the drama about the Jewish elders.

The production is sufficiently orthodox to appeal to a traditional Christian audience. Jesus clearly believes himself to be the Son of God and predicts his resurrection while remaining genuinely frightened about the ordeal he is going through, and believably shaken  at the end by its pain and ferocity. I think the crucifixion scene would grace an act of Christian worship very well. However, the miracles are down played. Jesus is shown tending the sick at the Pool of Siloam, but not healing anyone. 

To appeal to a mainstream audience the production has an edgy feel. As I said before, this prevents us from hearing any sustained teaching but it does give the drama a sense of urgency and intensity.

Unlike some of the Gospels, the production is also careful to avoid any overt anti-semitism. Am I the only person, however, who thinks that The Passion has a distinctly feminist flavour which detracts from the underlying Christian message? It’s easy to see the way the story unfolds as an indictment of the men involved, (Jesus excepted), and an affirmation of the women. We see various male characters doing their thing from a mixture of motives, but most of them indulge in unnecessary posturing and delude themselves about the true situation and their own reactions to it. It’s the women - on both sides of the conflict - who inject a down to earth and common sense challenge to what’s unfolding around them. This is great for a modern drama, and all too believable unfortunately, but it is dangerous for the Passion to be interpreted as misguided men triumphing over sensible women. The Chrisian faith teaches that Christ died for all, not just for the male of the species. We are all sinners and we all contribute, in different ways, to the human predicament which he came to save us from.