Search

Search this blog


917aW1YLF5L._SY445_The Visual Bible

In 2003, Scottish-Peruvian actor Henry Ian Cusick starred as Jesus in the three-hour film, The Gospel of JohnThe script was an unabridged word-for-word use of the Gospel of John, using the Good News Translation.

The Visual Bible produced similar projects for Matthew (1993) and Acts (1994), which included Italian-American actor Bruce Marchiano—who seeks to bring out the gentleness and approachability of Jesus (at one point he tousles a disciple’s hair!) but fails to convey the depth and gravitas of an actor like Cusick.

The Lumo Project

Now comes the Lumo Project, which seeks to do something similar with all four Gospels.

The Gospel of John is already available, with Luke planned for Easter 2016 and Matthew and Mark planned for Christmas 2016.

Here’s one aspect of Jesus films I’d never considered before—though in retrospect it’s obvious. Some people complain about Jesus being depicted as Anglo with an Anglo cast of characters. But if the film is in English, then it may be difficult to get a cast of actors who speak fluent, undistracting English and yet look like the part of a Mediterranean Jews.

In December 2002 Popular Mechanics reported on scientists and archaeologists using forensic anthropology to reconstruct what a first-century Galilean Semite might have looked like, with the following result:

Lumo+Project-+John-+Horizontal-+NIV
The way that the Lumo Project solved this issue was by having Selva Rasalingam play Jesus. Rasalingam, whose ethnicity is partly Tamil, looks more like the picture above than the typical Anglo-Jesus version. Furthermore, the actors in the film speak Aramaic (and I assume Latin for certain parts?). But you can’t really hear their dialogue clearly. Rather, you hear the voice of the narrator, British actor David Harewood (whereas the Visaul Bible contains a combination of narration plus the actors saying the relevant dialogue). Harewood is essentially reading the Gospel of John word-for-word (you can choose whether to hear it as NIV, KJV, or in the Spanish Reina-Valera translation) as the actors depict the scenes.

It may not work for some viewers, but I think the approach is intriguing and surprisingly effective.

One exciting aspect of this approach is that the film can be translated with relative ease into multiple languages, since it only requires one voice-over narrator to read the biblical text. The Lumo Project is currently translating the Gospel of John film into  Brazilian-Portuguese, French, Danish, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Finnish.

The film is shot on location in Morocco, and the cinematography is at times beautiful. There is also an appropriate use of CGI to reconstruct the city of Jerusalem from a difference. As a whole, the entire project is a step up from the Visual Bible version.

For readers who are interested, I’ve copied below two scenes from each movie, on the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the last supper of the Christ with his disciples. It’s interesting to take two identical scripts and to see the various acting and directing choices that can be made with the same source material.

And here is the Lord’s Supper in both versions:

By the way, if you have a Netflix subscription, the Lumo Project Gospel of John is currently streaming for free. I don’t know how long that will last.


View Comments

Comments:


6 thoughts on “Two Ways to Watch a Film Version of the Entire Gospel of John, Word-for-Word”

  1. Hugh McCann says:

    And then, there’s the biblical way, following the 2nd commandment, eh?

    We recommend this: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/new-blog/2015/6/20/idolatry-in-the-evangelical-camp-pictures-of-christ-or-the-glory-of-god

    These films put illicit and false images into our minds. God, deliver us from such idols (1 John 5:21), and unto the testimony of your word, alone.

    If God has seen fit to give us his complete, written testimony, why is that found insufficient for you, Mr Taylor?

    1. Justin Taylor says:

      I do not find biblically persuasive the arguments against all images of Jesus. http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2012/10/13/arguments-for-and-against-images-of-the-incarnate-christ/

      1. Hugh McCann says:

        Justin, I will read your other post. Have you read that of Richard Bennett that I posted, above?
        Thanks,
        Hugh

        1. Hugh McCann says:

          You disagree with Frame’s statement:

          “The danger of idolatry, at least, is always present when pictures of Jesus are used for any purpose.” ?

          1. Justin Taylor says:

            Nope.

  2. Michael Deal says:

    I take your point Justin about the two visual Bible presentations. Bruce comes across friendly and approachable, but sometimes seems like a perfect youth leader in a church. The way Cusack portrays the Lord is very supernatural and almost like Robert Powell’s Jesus in Zefferelli’s Jesus of Nazareth. Cusack and that film are much superior. Having said that I don’t think any of the films convey Jesus’ life very well. They Gospels are meant to be read and meditated on. The visual medium doesn’t convey that well with odd pauses and visual reconstructions to stay faithful to the text. I do think that someone could do a “Life of Jesus” that distilled a workable and filmable story from the gospels into one cogent unit. I suspect some license would have to be used which would upset some folk but would convey a powerful and majestic story that would not appear as wooden when it has to stick to written dialogue. I say that as someone who believes in verbal inspiration but think that such a film would be a great evangelistic tool.

Comments are closed.

Search this blog


About


Justin Taylor photo

Justin Taylor, PhD


Justin Taylor is executive vice president of book publishing and book publisher for Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books