![\"youngmessiah-cyrusnowrasteh-onset2-a\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/227\/2016\/03\/youngmessiah-cyrusnowrasteh-onset2-a.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Young Messiah<\/a><\/i> is now in theatres. Two days ago I collected some of the interviews that producer Chris Columbus<\/a> has done to promote the film. Now it\u2019s time to round up some of the interviews that co-writer\/director Cyrus Nowrasteh has done.<\/p>\n Apart from the interviews gathered below, I interviewed Nowrasteh<\/a> myself, and he has appeared in the film\u2019s \u2018Extended Look<\/a>\u2019 and \u2018Parenting<\/a>\u2019 featurettes. He has also made statements about John Debney\u2019s score<\/a> and why the movie\u2019s title was changed<\/a>.<\/p>\n And now for the links I haven\u2019t<\/i> posted before.<\/p>\n First, Nowrasteh himself wrote an essay for Fox News<\/a> on how he came to make a Bible movie, and why he filled in some of the Bible\u2019s gaps:<\/p>\n While millions of Americans flocked to see Mel Gibson\u2019s amazing work \u201cThe Passion of The Christ,\u201d few remember that the movie wasn\u2019t actually based upon the Bible, but rather upon a book by a German nun named Anne Catherine Emmerich who saw vivid visions of the death of Jesus and transcribed them. <\/p>\n In \u201cThe Passion,\u201d Mel Gibson decided to give Satan a creepy baby, and was extensively questioned by some religious leaders about this extra-Biblical choice. I loved his response, when he said he did it because he knew that Satan likes to copy God so he figured he\u2019d give Satan a son since God had Jesus.<\/p>\n That\u2019s what artists often do\u2013we fill in the lines and add color and context-and film is a great canvas, trying to imagine moments that we can\u2019t know, yet doing our best to ensure they are consistent with the character and nature of our subjects.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n World<\/a><\/i> magazine visited the film\u2019s set, and talked to Nowrasteh about the hurdles he faced getting the movie made \u2014 and how it almost wasn\u2019t<\/i> made:<\/p>\n The movie almost didn\u2019t see the light of day. In late 2012, The Young Messiah<\/i> had a green light, with a nice, fat, $40 million budget. In January 2013, it \u201cfell apart,\u201d Cyrus said, while the Nowrastehs were in Rome prepping for filming. Betsy contracted acute pneumonia, so they couldn\u2019t fly back to the United States. The film was $3 million in the hole already from pre-production costs.<\/p>\n \u201cWe thought it was dead,\u201d Cyrus said. \u201cBut it just never died.\u201d<\/p>\n Producer Tracy Price, who Cyrus said rescued Soraya<\/i>, came and helped financially rescue The Young Messiah<\/i>. With additional producers, and eventually the backing of Focus, the film got back on track. Cyrus and Betsy cut the script significantly to slash the movie\u2019s budget, but Cyrus says he doesn\u2019t \u201cmiss any of it.\u201d He later learned that if they had shot the mostly outdoor movie when they originally intended, it would have rained most of the time.<\/p>\n In the interval between the movie dying and coming back, Cyrus says he became a Christian. It was a slow journey to faith; Betsy was already a Christian, and Cyrus watched his youngest son become a Christian: \u201cI saw how it transformed him.\u201d His conversion isn\u2019t something he likes to talk about much in connection with the film: \u201cUltimately I just want to make a great movie that honors its subject, and its subject is God.\u2009\u2026\u2009It\u2019s not the filmmaker, it\u2019s the film.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n World<\/i> also claims<\/a> that there will be a PG version of this PG-13 film on the DVD.<\/p>\n Nowrasteh spoke to my friend Steven D. Greydanus at the National Catholic Register<\/a><\/i> about how this film addresses the consciousness of the young Christ:<\/p>\n This whole issue of the human Jesus and the divine Jesus is a complicated one. I believe, and I\u2019ve been told from the advisers and consultants that we talked to, that Jesus was always God. It seems, though, even though he never ceased being God, in his human form or experience, he veiled his divinity in accordance with the Father\u2019s will, to experience what it was like.<\/p>\n To be [human], he voluntarily put himself in the position of needing to assimilate knowledge as a man, or a boy, would. That\u2019s what the theologians told me and why they felt this was orthodox and we were justified in going down this path.<\/p>\n I am not a biblical scholar or theologian and have never claimed to be, so I have to go on the basis of what they are telling me and what I can make work for this story \u2014 which I think is a beautiful one that honors God, that honors Jesus and, therefore, is worth telling, despite the risks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He also addressed this issue with The Gospel Herald<\/a><\/i>:<\/p>\n \u201cJesus is a child, a very curious and bright child who recognizes there is something different about him, and he wants to know what that is and why that is,\u201d Nowrasteh told The Gospel Herald<\/i> in an exclusive interview. \u201cHe sets about on a journey to find that out over the course of the movie. There\u2019s no more important aspect than that going on at that time. Even in an everyday child\u2019s life; that\u2019s the age of the dawn of reason, that\u2019s when the concept of mortality becomes engrained in a child, that he\u2019s separate from his mother, that he\u2019s going to die, that there are larger issues and questions out there. Who am I? Why am I? I think 7 was really a perfect age to explore.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He talked to Crosswalk.com<\/a> about finding a \u201cfresh\u201d take on the Jesus story:<\/p>\n After reading Anne Rice\u2019s take, Nowrasteh found the \u201cnew\u201d he was looking for. \u201cI thought to do young Jesus, age 7, fully divine and fully human \u2013 but his human side coming to the full comprehension of who he is \u2013 I thought this was an extraordinary idea, [that] it could be a powerful and transformative movie. For many<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n For Nowrasteh, that power comes in what he described as \u201cJesus moments.\u201d They are the \u201cspecial moments where Jesus reaches out and embraces others,\u201d Nowrasteh says, \u201cwhen he\u2019s extending a hand to others. Kindness. Forgiveness.\u201d He says these scenes are \u201cso critical\u201d because \u201cthat\u2019s what I think Christianity is all about. That, to me, was the key.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He talked to The Christian Post<\/a> about when Jesus started performing miracles:<\/p>\n CP:<\/b> The first miracle recorded in the Bible is when Jesus turns water into wine but in \u201cYoung Messiah,\u201d Jesus was performing miracles since a child. Is that what you believe happened in his young life?<\/p>\n Nowrasteh:<\/b> He performs three miracles in our movie and it\u2019s clear this is the first time he\u2019s aware of it. It troubles him and propels our story forward. The water-into-wine miracle was \u201csuggested\u201d by Mary to Jesus hence she must have known or seen it in the past. That was our premise. But, Jesus turning water-into-wine is the first recorded miracle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He talked to Brian Godawa<\/a> about dealing with the novel\u2019s apocryphal source material:<\/p>\n B:<\/b> What unique issues did you face in adapting this book to a film?<\/p>\n C:<\/b> She did a very challenging thing in the book. It was pretty gutsy. The entire book is written in the first person voice of Jesus. That was challenge number one. The other challenges were theological. Anne grew up Catholic. I didn\u2019t know it at the time, that she used a lot of other sources. Some of them are apocryphal, and some of them are legends that come down about the childhood of Jesus in the vicinity of Alexandria going back 2000 years. The Coptic Christians still tell these stories about Jesus. She used everything and anything that she could find. And we felt, Betsy (wife and co-writer) and myself, that if we were going to write it, that we were going to have to reexamine those issues. We are not theologians or scholars. It was through multiple drafts, having friends and associates, theologians, people who we trusted, who came back with feedback. It took time for us to figure out how we could navigate those issues and still tell the story in a dramatic and compelling fashion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He talked to the Christian Examiner<\/a><\/i> about how he wrote Mary and Joseph:<\/p>\n CE:<\/b> What kind of characteristics were you trying to write into the roles of Mary and Joseph, with as little as we know about Joseph in the Scriptures?<\/p>\n Nowrasteh:<\/b> I have never been satisfied with the portrayal of Joseph in any movie that I\u2019ve seen. He\u2019s basically wallpaper in movies. The inherent problem is that Mary has been deified; they\u2019ve been icons \u2013 a disappearing icon and a very prevalent icon. In this movie, we\u2019ve got to go inside the Holy Family and watch them as parents. I wanted people to connect with them as a human being.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He talked to the Catholic News Service<\/a> about how he cast the part of Mary:<\/p>\n However, there were providential moments in the process. During the auditions for Joseph, actor after actor appeared before a small group of people as well as the cameras, reciting lines read off-camera by a woman who read lines for Mary, Jesus\u2019 mother. At the end of the day, when asked about casting Joseph, Nowrasteh said he answered, \u201cI don\u2019t know about Joseph, but I\u2019d sure like to see Mary.\u201d The woman who had read the lines, Sara Lazzaro, was ultimately cast as Mary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n