Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir

41

Christ in the Limelight:

Contemporary Films and
Christological Discourse
By Arnfrur Gu mundsd o ttir
Abstract: The aim of this article is to show how theology can, through the medium of film, engage

contemporary interpretations of Jesus person and work. Starting out by tracing the development taking
place in films about Jesus throughout the twentieth century, the focus then moves to a theological
reading of Mel Gibsons interpretation of the passion story for the twenty-first century in his movie The
Passion of the Christ.
Key Terms: religion and film, Christology, Jesus and film, glorification of suffering, images of Christ

Theology and Film

What has film to do with theology? Not so long
ago, most theologians would have been quick to
say, Nothing at all! But that is no longer the
case. For sure, there are still those who see no
point of connection between the two, but for a
rapidly growing number of theologians, they see
ample reasons why they should pay attention to
films as serious dialouge partners. Thus, the study
of theology and film is growing rapidly, as is apparent from the increasing number of books published
yearly on this topic. In an introduction to their
groundbreaking book Explorations in Theology and
Film (1997), Clive Marsh and Gaye Williams Ortiz
maintain that movies do indeed offer resource material for theologians to expand their understanding and/or check out the contemporary adequacy
of an aspect of Christian theology.1 Following the
example of Marsh and Ortiz, many theologians

have started to explore the potential contribution

of contemporary films to the ongoing theological
discourse.
The reluctance to pay attention to what is happening on the white screen has been apparent in
the field of Christology as in other theological loci.
In his book Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First
Hundred Years (1997), W. Barnes Tatum points to
the example of Jaroslav Pelikans study of Jesus
place in culture over the centuries, which omits the
cultural evidence so characteristic of the twentieth
century, namely, that of films.2 But why should
theologians pay attention to the images of Jesus
presented in films? Adele Reinhartz, the author of
Jesus in Hollywood (2007), responds to that question
in the following way:
The fact that filmmakers reshape Jesus story
to reflect the concerns of their own times
should not be condemned as a distortion of
the past merely for the sake of entertainment and box office appeal, though these

The Rev. Dr. Arnfrur Gumundsdottir is Professor of Systematic Theology, with an emphasis on Feminist Theology, in the Faculty of
Theology and Religious Studies, University of Iceland. Her Ph.D. is from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago in 1996. She is the
author of Meeting God on the Cross. Christ, the Cross, and the Feminist Critique, published by Oxford University Press, 2010. She is also an ordained
pastor within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland.

C

2014 Wiley Periodicals and Dialog, Inc.

42

Dialog: A Journal of Theology Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2014 March

factors are not irrelevant. Rather, the varieties of Jesus on the silver screen testify
to the conviction that Jesus remains relevant
to our society; there is an ongoing need to
tell and retell this story, in Hollywood and
in other international cinematic centers in
which commercial films are made. Viewing
the Jesus movies as a vehicle through which
filmmakers reflect upon their own time and
place not only makes these movies more interesting and more fun but also allows us to
see them as a starting point for understanding ourselves.3

Reinhartz makes an important point, as she

argues for the significance of Jesus movies for
the continuous retelling of Jesus story for the
past 100 years. It is my contention that images of Jesus in films not only help us understand what people are thinking about Jesus
but also provide helpful insights and observations for our ongoing christological discourse.
In this article the focus is on biopic interpretations of Jesus Christ in order to evaluate their contributions to contemporary christological debate.
My aim is to show how theology can, through
the medium of film, engage contemporary interpretations of Jesus person and work. After tracing
the development taking place in films about Jesus
throughout the twentieth century, I provide a theological reading of the most recent one, namely
Mel Gibsons movie The Passion of the Christ, where
a well-established Hollywood actor and director
presents his interpretation of the passion story for
the twenty-first century.

Looking for Jesus

The Christian tradition provides many different
and often contradictoryinterpretations of Jesus
life and work. Jesus images in film are part of
that tradition. The search for a credible interpretation of Jesus Christ, which has been going on
in films in the twentieth century, has significant
similarities to the search for the historical Jesus
that took place in the previous century. Thus, to

some extent Schweitzers conclusion about the 19th

century quest for the historical Jesus also is valid
regarding the products of the film directors, i.e.
that the search for the historical Jesus not only
reflects the time in which the search took place,
but that each individual created Him in accordance with his own character.4 Classical christological questions certainly are relevant in this context, while at the same time it is true that the
new medium opens up new possibilities to approach those questions. While films about Jesus
attempt to present credible images of him, it is the
theologians role to evaluate their message and contribution to the ongoing task to tell and retell the
Jesus story.
A significant challenge for any interpretation of
the person of Jesus Christ is the idea of the incarnation: God becoming truly human. So far the
Christian tradition has not always been successful at portraying and protecting the humanity of
Christ. There often has been a serious uneasiness
about his humanity, as well as a tendency to let his
divinity take over, or at least overshadow his humanity, despite serious attempts to pay heed to the
Chalcedonian statement of fully human and fully
divine. The question has been, and remains the
same: How human can Christ really beor how
truly human was he? This question has been particularly apparent regarding the issue of suffering.
Could Jesus suffer, or was his suffering real? From
early on, theologians have debated if he suffered as
a Son of God, or only as a human being. In film,
the problem of Jesus suffering becomes particularly potent. On the one hand we have the early
movies, where there is an apparent discomfort with
his suffering, as he seems to be more or less unaffected by the physical harshness of the crucifixion.
On the other hand there is Mel Gibsons obsession with the violent treatment of the somewhat
super-human Christ.
The change in focus is evident in films produced
after 1970, when Jesus humanity became the real
focus-point. This very human Jesus is neither free
from suffering, nor certain about his mission in
life. At the same time, Jesus sexuality become an
issue; up to that point, the portrayal of Jesus as
an asexual being had dominated in films, as within

Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir

the entire Christian tradition. The strong reaction

to the very human portrayal of Jesus signifies the
threat it posed to the commonly accepted image of
Jesus Christ.

Exploring the Inculturation of the Gospel

Story

43

Gods incarnation among us. Furthermore, if Jesus

maleness per se does not bear any soteriological
meaning, then his sex should have no more significance than other historical details, such as his ethnicity, in terms of our contemporary portrayals of
Jesus Christ.

Jesus Images
An important aspect of Jesus films is the characterization of the historical context of the gospel story.
Despite the fact that all the major movies recognize
the Jewishness of Jesus, in none of them does he
look very Jewish; instead, he often is depicted with
blue eyes and blond hair.5 The obvious contradiction between his appearance and his ethnicity raises
important questions about the interpretation of his
historical context.6 Regarding the contextualization
of the Jesus story, it is important to ask if there is
anything about his historical context that is constitutive for his incarnation.7 Furthermore: how much
freedom do we have to reinterpret the historical
facts, without in any way downplaying or denying
the historicity of the Jesus event? I think film is a
very promising genre for exploring the possibilities
of interpreting the message of Jesus Christ in different cultural contexts. In particular, film is a fruitful
way of exploring issues around the inculturation8 of
the gospel story, especially with regard to questions
of race, gender and ethnicity.9
From early on in film-making, it has been widely
accepted that one must render Jesus ethnicity relevant to contemporary viewers. Although images
of Jesus have varied greatly, depending on their
cultural context, Jesus maleness has remained an
essential marker of his historical identity. The stability and insistence upon male visual imagery for
Jesus demonstrates how maleness has been privileged above other historical particulars in the story
of Jesus Christ. I will maintain that his sex is indeed comparable to his ethnicity as historical particulars. Therefore Jesus could be portrayed as a
woman, as well as a westerner, as has been the
case in most of the Jesus-films of the 20th century. My point here is simply to recognize that
while the historical Jesus was indeed a man, his
maleness itself does not play an essential role in

For more than a century, Jesus life and work, and

particularly his suffering and death, have been a
popular theme amongst movie makers. In Jesus of
Hollywood, Adele Reinhartz discusses the interplay
between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus as he is portrayed in films. She writes:
Just as the Bible is the best-selling book
of all time, so is Jesus the most popular
movie subject in the history of cinema. In
the hundred years or more since the inception of the film industry, well over a
hundred biopicsfeature film biographies
have been made about Jesus. Indeed, it may
well be the case that more people worldwide
know about Jesus and his life story from the
movies than from any other medium.10

The first Jesus films, made at the end of the

19th century, i.e. in the very beginning of movie
making, were based on the passion accounts. Therefore, they can be seen as a logical continuation of
the passion-play, a traditional way to commemorate the passion of Jesus Christ during Lent.11 The
movie From the Manger to the Cross (1913), broke
with that tradition by covering Jesus whole life
story, and not just the last days of his life. Among
the silent Jesus-films, The King of Kings by Cecil
B. DeMille (1927) was for decades considered the
magnum opus among Jesus films, long after the
introduction of sound films.12
The Jesus character from that film, played by
H.B. Warner, has been described as a Hallmarkcard Jesus, pious and untroubling.13 He became
the familiar face of Jesus for decades, due to
its wide-spread distribution and popularity, within
the United States as well as overseas. The serene,

44

Dialog: A Journal of Theology Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2014 March

perhaps what was meant to present an otherwordly look of DeMilles Jesus, is in tune with
his treatment of the lead actor during the making
of the movie. The actor was forbidden to appear in
public during the filming, and once in makeup and
costume, he was transported in a closed car and
wore a black veil when leaving for the set . . . He
even had to eat alone in a tent while on location,
and no one but the director spoke to him when he
was in costume.14 This token of ultimate respect
for the subject-matter took an interesting twist in
the great movies from the fifties, where the person
of Jesus plays a significant role without being very
visible on the screen. In those movies, Jesus is seen
from behind, or only his hands or feet, but never
his face, as for example in The Robe (1953) and
Ben Hur (1959).
The next major film version of the life of Jesus,
after DeMilles The King of Kings, did not appear
until the beginning of the 1960s, 34 years later,
with the not so original title King of Kings. Possibly
the relatively same title (with only the definite article missing) hinted at the aim of the producer
to replace DeMilles legendary movie. The Jesus
character in King of Kings is more human than his
predecessors, as he is allowed to express both his
feelings as well as the ignorance about the purpose
of his life. He is nevertheless as strikingly nonJewish in appearance, with his big blue eyes and
blond hair.
Two other films soon followed, namely the huge
Hollywood production The Greatest Story Ever Told
(1965), and the Italian film Il Vangelo Secondo
Matteo or The Gospel According to Saint Matthew,
which premired in 1964. The Jesus character presented in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and played
by the Swedish actor Max von Sydow, is blue-eyed
and middle-aged. He speaks straight out of the King
James version of the Bible (notably with a strong
Swedish accent), preaching about love, mercy and
salvation. This Jesus is definitely not very Jewish
(even if his Jewishness is recognized in the movie),
nor for that matter, very human. The cosmic
Christ the director wanted to portray is the divine Christ, totally at peace with his messianic
role, ready to fulfill the purpose of his life, i.e.
to die.

An Angry Jesus
The Italian director and renowned atheist Pier
Paolo Pasolini intended his movie, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, to be a clear antithesis to
the Hollywood adaptations of the life and work of
Jesus Christ. Filmed in Italy,15 the black and white
color makes a stark contrast to the picturesque
scenery from Utah and Colorado in The Greatest
Story Every Told, as well to as the close-ups of Jesus
strikingly blue eyes and well-tanned skin in King of
Kings. This Jesus is definitely very different. While
Jesus in King of Kings is the superlative good and
noble guy, and in The Greatest Story the stoic introvert, in Pasolinis movie we see the angry Jesus,
aggressive and very often quite ruthless, telling his
audience he is not there to bring peace but a
sword (Mt 10.3435).
Interestingly enough, Pasolinis film, despite the
harsh image of Jesus, was received with greater
enthusiasm and more general approval both by
critics and church officials than the contemporary
Hollywood versions. It is indeed possible that the
comparison played a significant role in Pasolinis
favorable acceptance. Many thought Pasolini did a
better job in portraying a plausible picture of Jesus
Christand his challenging, often quite provoking messagethan the Hollywood directors.
Pasolinis faithfulness to Scripture, following the
text from the Gospel of Matthew almost word for
word, also might have assured him the recognition
of the Catholic Church, who bestowed upon him
several awards and the honor of showing the film
to the eight hundred Catholic bishops assembled in
Rome for the second Vatican Council.16

Superstar and Iconoclast

Jesus Christ Superstar represents what could be called
a paradigm-shift within the genre of Jesus films,
presenting a more human Jesus than previously
had been depicted on the screen. This Jesus has
serious doubts about his role, and has affection
(if not more) for Mary Magdalene. Jesus is genuinely agonizing in the garden of Gethsemane as

Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir

well as on the cross, but there is no traditional

resurrection scene in the end. The movie opens
up pressing questions about Jesus humanity. While
the film depicts Jesus as a superstar (in many ways
not very different from any other superstars), its
main emphasis is on the human Jesus, who knows
happiness and desire, as well as fear, anxiety and
pain. The superstar movie has a lot in common
with two rather controversial films that came out
in the end of the 1980s, namely Martin Scorseses
film, The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), and
Denys Archands movie Jesus de Montreal, released a
year later.
Jesus the superstar certainly points towards the
Jesus-character we meet in Scorseses film. In his
movie Scorsese presents a Jesus-figure who is struggling with his calling, even actively resisting it
in the beginning of the film.17 He gradually gets
used to his role as Messiah, but only after having
changed his mind about the nature of his message a number of times (Judas, Jesus closest friend
and advisor, complains that he has a new idea every
day!). This is an iconoclastic Jesus, yet in some ways,
he remains quite traditional. The old dichotomy
between spirit and flesh (and between men and
women) plays a major role in the movie, as Jesus
biggest temptation is rooted in the fleshin other
words, in women: to sleep with them and/or to
live with them. This is why women represent the
biggest threat to Jesus calling.
If it is true that Jesus humanity causes offense,
it is most likely because of our preconceptions,
or if you will, because of our Christology. But
that is not necessarily true in this case. I think
the main problem with Scorseses movie has indeed to do with Jesus humanity. The problem is
not Jesus uncertainty and struggle, but the way
it plays out in the film. This Jesus is in many
ways far from what we usually think is normal,
as far as his hangups, doubts, and temptations
are concerned.18 If Scorsese wanted to present a
Jesus-figure that people could identify with more
easily (as he actually states in a commentry on
the film), I dont think he succeeded. I seriously
doubt that many identify with the nervous, selfdoubting, masochistic personality we see in this
film.

45

Jesus of Montreal
The Canadian director, Denys Archand, an atheist
like Pasolini, made the movie Jesus of Montreal. The
scandal around The Last Temptation of Christ is most
likely to blame for the limited attention this film
received. What is unique about this film is that it
can be categorized as a Jesus film and/or a film
about a Christ-figure.19 Arcands main focus is on
the contextualization of the Jesus event, and the
impression the story of Jesus makes on peoples
lives. Like Jesus Christ Superstar, this movie is about
a group of actors playing out the passion story.
An actor is asked to revitalize a passion play that
has been performed at a church in Montreal for
many years. He gathers a small group of actors and
starts to write, direct, and play Jesus in a radically
revised play about the passion of Jesus Christ. The
play is well received by the public, but not by the
priest, who originally asked for the revisions, nor
by church authorities, who eventually banned the
play.
There are actually two stories being told in the
movie at the same time. One is the passion story
of Jesus, and the other is the story of the actor
who plays Jesus, whose life becomes an allegory of
Christs as he gradually becomes more and more
like Jesus himself.20 Towards the end of the movie
the Christ-figure dies. His friends and co-actors donate his organs, signifying the life-giving aspect of
his death. They also agree (with the exception of
the Mary Magdalene character) on establishing a
theatre in memory of him, originally the idea of
a lawyer, the demonic representative in the movie.
The movie is packed with criticism, aimed at the
society as well as the church.

The Suffering Superman

The terror of Christs passion certainly is in focus
in Mel Gibsons movie The Passion of the Christ.21
Gibson seemingly uses the terror to underscore
not only the value of Christs sacrifice, but also
the depth of his love for us.22 For Gibson,

46

Dialog: A Journal of Theology Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2014 March

the amount of Christs suffering is a clear sign

of Christs love, namely: more pain, more gain.
Gibson himself claims that this is why he uses what
he calls the shock and scare method in his interpretation of Christs passion.23 The citation from
Isaiahs song about the suffering servant in the beginning of the movie is obviously meant to justify
the use of violence.
The violence in Gibsons passion movie not only
exceeds the violent treatment Christ suffers in the
Gospel stories, but is also over and above what
could be expected to be withstood by any human
being. For example, it has been pointed out that
the amount of blood Christ loses during the beatings is far beyond what any human being can tolerate. Compared to other Jesus movies of the twentieth century, the contrast is striking. In many of the
earlier movies, the suffering and pain seem unreal,
and Christ is withdrawn and unaffected by what
is happening. In his portrayal of Christ, Gibson,

on the other hand, chooses the Ubermensch

as
a model, much like the superheros in many of
Gibsons previous movies. It is safe to say that, to
some exent, Gibsons Christ seems to have more
in common with William Wallace, the hero of
Gibsons multi-awarded Braveheart (1995), than the
key figure of the New Testaments passion stories.
Thus, it is only fair to ask if Gibsons interpretation is in any way more authentic (for example,
in regard to Christs humanity) than the distant,
and in many ways not very human, Jesus figure
in movies like The King of Kings (1927) or The
Greatest Story Ever Told (1965). Could it be that the
pendulum has swung too far from the docetic interpretation of the older Jesus movies, over to the
superman, who has very little in common with the
rest of us? I argue that Gibson has indeed gone
too far in his attempt to make Jesus suffering and
pain real. At least, it is clear that the excessiveness
of the violence does call for somebody more than
human, somebody who is able to survive what any
normal human being could not. Given Gibsons
historical record within the film idustry (most often
working with action movies of some sort), it is not
far fetched to think that he assumed the audience
needed all this violence in order to get the point.
Whether Gibson was using the violence to sell

the message because he did not think the Gospel

stories would be enough, is another question.24
Regardless of any possible marketing motives, it
is clear that Gibson wanted his movie to be perceived as a testimony of his faith. By choosing
the suffering servant as a hermeneutical key for
his interpretation of the cross, Gibson follows a
long and widely accepted tradition of interpreting
Christs passion in light of this powerful figure from
Deutero-Isaiah. The citation that appears on the
screen at the beginning of Gibsons movie is taken
from Isaiah 53:5, which reads as follows: But he
was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for
our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that
made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.25
This particular verse is a key verse in Isaiah 53,
which tells the story of one who suffers on behalf
of others. The suffering one is an outcast from society, who has been appointed by God to carry the
punishment (on our behalf ), in the form of suffering (53:6). This is a passively accepted suffering.
The one who suffers walks silently, like a lamb
that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that
before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his
mouth (53:7).

The Glorification of Suffering

The image of the suffering servant is a logical
prerequisite to another leading image in Gibsons
movie, namely that of the paschal lamb. The suffering servant is afflicted, yet does not open his
mouth. This is clearly true for Jesus, who in the
garden of Gethsemane is terrified by what is coming, yet whose obedience to his father is, in the
end, stronger than his fear. Christ decides to face
his destiny, the destiny of the pascal lamb, focused
and perfectly calm. Gibsons focusing on the blood
is then understandable, not only in light of the
image of the paschal lamb, but also in light of
the Roman Catholic understanding of communion
(Gibson himself is Catholic), where the bread and
wine are actually transformed into Christs body
and blood. Gibson reinforces his understanding
with a series of flashbacks from the Last Supper
during Christs crucifixion. A scene from the time

Christ in the Limelight: Contemporary Films and Christological Discourse Arnfrur Gumundsdottir

the bread is taken out of the cloth is, for example,

shown during the time Christ is stripped of his
garments. This also explains why the two Marys
are so preoccupied with cleaning up Christs blood,
which appears in abundance following the continuous floggings. Gibsons conception of the key
role of Christs blood is furthermore apparent from
Veronicas bloody face, after she kisses the cloth she
used to wipe Christs face, and Marys kissing of
the bloodstained feet of the crucified One.
I maintain that Gibsons depiction of Christs
suffering and pain can be seen as a classic example of what often is called a glorification of suffering. In his movie, violence is not only justified
as being the will of God, but it is also a necessary prerequisite for the good that is expected to
come out of it. In other words, violence is desirable, and suffering is valuable in itself, regardless of
its historical context. This certainly raises questions
in our contemporary situation, where violence is
evaluated according to its entertainment qualities,
as well as marketing value. When push comes to
shove, our understanding of Christ and his death
on the cross cannot simply be based on theoretical
concerns, but has to be evaluated in light of our
experience. We have to ask: What does this emphasis on violence, suffering, sacrifice, obedience, and
submission to authorities mean within a context of
violence, abuse and oppression?26 But we also have
to ask about the underlying understanding of God:
Who is God, in such a context? In other words,
what does the passion story teach us about God vis
a vis violence and unjustifiable suffering and pain?
Christs passion story, in the context of his own
life and work, is a strong witness to resistance
against injustice and evil. Not only did Christ side
with victims of injustice and evil, but furthermore
he encouraged them to stand up and resist. Those
who take on the great task of enacting Christs passion have to take Christs religious and historical
context, as well as their own context, into consideration. There is a great responsibility that follows such an execution. The image of the lamb
that is silently led to the slaughter too often has
served, even today, as a justification of the suffering of the innocent. Gibsons passion movie leaves
us with pressing questions, such as how to inter-

47

pret the harsh reality of evil, suffering and violence

without making it desirable or valuable in itself.
The vital theological task is to figure out how it
is possible to interpret the paradoxial message of
the crossthe good that may come out of evil
without making Christ a passive victim, and God
the primus motor of the whole thing.

Who do you say I am?

Jesus question, Who do you say that I am?
(Mark 8:29) continues to challenge both theologians and the laity in the Christian church as well
as the culture at large. Christians always have responded to questions about the significance of Jesus
of Nazareths life and ministry, his death and resurrection, in terms of their own cultural experiences,
traditions and art forms. In the twentieth century,
films have played an increasingly central role in
this handing on (traditio) of interpretations about
Christ. By providing vivid literal and figurative images of Jesus Christ, films provide a fresh cultural
medium for visualizing diverse cultural responses
to Jesus question. In this article I have lifted up
few examples in order to show how theology can,
through the medium of film, engage contemporary
interpretations of the Gospel narratives about the
person and work of Jesus Christ.

Endnotes
1. Clive Marsh and Gaye Ortiz, Explorations in Theology and Film
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 2.
2. W. Barnes Tatum, Jesus at the Movies. A Guide to the First Hundred
Years (California: Polebridge Press, 1997), 1. See also Margaret Miles,
Seeing and Believing. Religion and Values in the Movies (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1996), X; Bryan P. Stone, Faith and Film. Theological Themes at the
Cinema (St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 2000), 4-5.
3. Reinhartz, Jesus of Hollywood, 10. Miles writes in her book Seeing
and Believing: Films, like paintings and plays, are not timeless objects;
they arise in, and respond to, concrete historical circumstances. Thus, they
cannot be adequately analyzed without reference to the social anxieties
and aspirations that promted their production . . . (18).
4. Schweitzer Pasolinis movie is probably the most obvious example,
but Pasolini saw numerous similarities between himself and Jesus, as he
is portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.
5. Telford, Jesus Christ Movie Star, 133.

48

Dialog: A Journal of Theology Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2014 March

6. This is true for the portrayal of Jesus in art for the last 2000
years, as is for example well documented in the documentary: The Face.
Jesus in Art (2001).

Filmmakers met the challenge of portraying the son of God by stripping

him of all human affect and robbing him of the ability to engage in
normal human relationships and behavior. (Jesus of Hollywood, 14)

7. Teresa Berger makes an important comparison between peoples

reaction to Jesus ethnical background and his sex, in her article, ,,A
Female Christ Child in the Manger and a Woman on the Cross. Or:
The Historicity of the Jesus Event and the Inculturation of the Gospel.
See also Johnson, She Who Is, 151156.

15. Pasolini filmed most of his movie in Matera, a small village in

southern Italy, where Mel Gibson later staged his The Passion of the Christ.

8. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, gives the following definition of inculturation: [a]ssimilation of something within a specific culture through observation, experience, and instruction. Theologically it is
the process by which the gospel is adapted to a specific cultural setting.
(Richardson, and Bowden, 41)

16. Baugh, Imaging the Divine, 9697.

17. Martin Scorsese was highly criticized for his interpretation of
Jesus Christ, and had to defend himself and his work against his critics.
He writes: . . . Many people accused me of making a film that attacked
belief, that attacked faith just as Kazantzakis himself as accused. As
if belief and faith were that flimsy. As if the image of Christ could
not withstand interpretation. (From The Religion and Film Reader, ed. by
Mitchell and Plate, 270)

9. Miles rightfully argues that understanding of race, gender, class

and sexual orientation are not accidental or incidental to religious perspectives but, as a concrete way religious perspectives are articulated, are central
to religious values . . . (Seeing and Believing, 15)
10. Reinhartz, Jesus of Hollywood, 3.
11. The first known example of a Jesus movie is The Passion Play
at Oberammergau (1898). While it claimed to be an authentic film of
the Passion play performed periodically at Oberammergau, Germany, this
nineteen-minute movie was actually staged and filmed on the roof of the
Grand Central Palace in New York . . . (Reinhartz, Jesus of Hollywood, 13)
12. In the United States as well as Britain, there were strict guidelines on various issues, including representations of Jesus. The British
Board of Film Censors, founded in 1912, f.ex., banned the visual depiction of Jesus. The ban was not lifted until after World Was II. DeMilles
The King of Kings could be screened in London only after a special license
was obtained . . . (Reinhartz, Jesus of Hollywood, 15)
13. Baugh, Imaging the Divine, 13.
14. Baugh, Imaging the Divine, 12; Telford, Jesus Christ Movie
Star, 129. Reinhartz writes on the early image of Jesus in films:

18. Stone, Faith and Film, 75.

19. Ibid., 52.
20. Ibid., 53.
21. For more extensive reading of Gibsons movie see my article
,,More Pain, More Gain! On Mel Gibsons Film, The Passion of the
Christ.
22. Webb, The Passion and the Influence of Emmerichs The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 162.
23. Bucher, Barrett and Dawson, When the Passion has Cooled,
19.
24. A massive marketing of Gibsons movie took place, both before
and after the movies premiere. See: Caldwell, Selling Passion.
25. Gibson leaves out the follwoing part of the sentence: upon him
was the punishment that made us whole. His inscription writes: He
was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by His
wounds we are healed.
26. Ray, Deceiving the Devil, 21.