![\"youngmessiah-cyrusnowrasteh-onset\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/227\/2016\/03\/youngmessiah-cyrusnowrasteh-onset.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt\u2019s been a long, rocky road to the big screen for The Young Messiah<\/a><\/i>, but at last, it\u2019s here.<\/p>\n The film is based on a 2005 novel called Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt<\/i>, which takes place when Jesus is seven years old and his family is returning to Nazareth from Egypt. It was written by Anne Rice \u2014 best known for her vampire novels \u2014 after she returned to the Catholic church. An early attempt to make a film based on the novel fell apart in 2007<\/a>, and Rice herself publicly quit Christianity in 2010<\/a>, though she said she still follows Christ.<\/p>\n The book\u2019s film prospects turned a corner when Rice wrote a glowing review<\/a> of The Stoning of Soraya M.<\/a><\/i>, a 2009 movie about the treatment of women in Iran that was directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh, an American of Persian descent. Nowrasteh acquired the rights to Rice\u2019s book, wrote a script with his wife Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, and got Harry Potter<\/a><\/i> director Chris Columbus to come on board as a producer. The film comes out March 11.<\/p>\n I spoke to Cyrus Nowrasteh about creating new characters for the film, the tricky nature of movie ratings, the role the film played in his own journey towards Christian faith, and the possibility of a sequel. The interview below has been edited slightly for length and clarity.<\/p>\n \u2013<\/p>\n How did you get involved with this film? Did you approach the producers, or did they approach you?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: I approached them. Anne Rice saw The Stoning of Soraya M.<\/i> and wrote a rave review of it, and through a series of happy coincidences and connections, we got her book and wanted to run with it, and she was fine with us running with it, and that was probably the whole reason for her representative sending us the book \u2014 and we were interested because my wife Betsy had read it when it was originally released, so it\u2019s a combination of all of those factors that brought the property into our hand. And then we took it to producers. We said, \u201cHey, we love this Anne Rice book, we think it could be a great movie, let\u2019s get into business together on it,\u201d and they jumped on it. So it was great.<\/p>\n How hard was it to find producers for this film?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: They were my second phone call, so it wasn\u2019t that hard. The hard part is getting a studio to finance it and distribute it. That\u2019s the hard part. These producers that I took it to were people that I had known and had worked with before and had a certain commonality with, but then the struggle becomes, \u201cOkay, how do we get it made, financed, etc.\u201d And luckily we had people like Tracy Price of Ocean Blue Entertainment, who had helped close the funding on my previous film, who really stepped up and was kind of a hero at the eleventh hour, to get this movie over the hump and get it made finally.<\/p>\n Was that the producer you had approached on your second call?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: No, the producer I approached was Chris Columbus and 1492 Pictures. Producers have different functions: some produce and actually physically produce the movie, some go out and find financing, some do both of the above, some basically acquire properties and let others do the financing and make the movie. These are all different categories of producers out there, all of them do different things just depending on their experience.<\/p>\n How involved was Anne Rice beyond letting you have the rights to the property? Did she have any input after that?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: Contractually, no. We acquired the book and ran with it, and we were going to do it the way we wanted. However, we felt that Anne had a lot to contribute, because she had done a lot of the research, and also we wanted to make changes, and I just felt that, as the original author, she was entitled to be at least consulted and talked to and informed. I would do that with any author, whether they have it in their contract or not. So she was well aware of the process of what we were doing, and she was very supportive.<\/p>\n It\u2019s been several years since I read the book, so my memory of it\u2019s a little rusty, but my recollection is that the subplot with the Sean Bean character is new to the film \u2014 it\u2019s not part of the book \u2014 and the Devil is<\/i> in the book but not as prominent as he is in the film, I think. Is that correct?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: Yeah, that\u2019s correct.<\/p>\n So how did you come to the decision to either add or expand those roles in the film?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: Every movie needs an antagonist. If you don\u2019t have it, you don\u2019t have a movie, you don\u2019t have a story. Is there a better antagonist than the Devil? I don\u2019t think so. It was just too juicy to pass up, and Anne did have the Devil in her book. We just decided to have him lurking about a little bit more, you know what I mean? And as far as the Roman centurion and Herod, in Anne\u2019s book there\u2019s a lot of talk and description of threats, chaos, discord in the Holy Land, and the fears that the family is encountering \u2014 so in a movie, you can\u2019t just say, \u201cHey, it\u2019s dangerous out there.\u201d You know what I mean? You\u2019ve got to show it! It\u2019s got to be alive on screen. You\u2019ve got to have characters who represent it. You have to experience it. That\u2019s why I\u2019m always saying that screenplays are much harder than novels. In a novel, you can just go through a stream of consciousness and somebody tells you how they feel or what they\u2019re concerned about, etc. In a movie, you have to depict it. You have to experience it as a dramatic event, through characters. So they were critical, the centurion and Herod, in conveying that idea that was represented in Anne\u2019s novel.<\/p>\n You mentioned that novels can have a stream of consciousness. One of the significant things about the novel is the fact that it\u2019s very subjective \u2014 it\u2019s written from Jesus\u2019 point of view \u2014 whereas when you\u2019re watching a movie, you\u2019re watching the actor, but you don\u2019t necessarily hear what Jesus is thinking. You have one or two voice-overs in the film, but not a lot of that. Does that change the depiction of Jesus, now that we\u2019re watching him instead of reading his thoughts all the time?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: Well, the thing is, though, you\u2019re seeing the world through his point of view. You\u2019re watching him watch the world. You\u2019re watching him experience events. You\u2019re watching him react and respond. So the point of view, visually and dramatically, is still his, primarily. In a novel, that first person voice, I thought that was very ingenious, what she did in the book. But I think, in a movie, you sort of need to experience it through<\/i> him. It\u2019s very subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, but basically, he turns and he looks, you get his point of view, you cut back to him, his reaction. That\u2019s point of view in a movie. He\u2019s sort of our compass point throughout just about every scene that he has.<\/p>\n When you were casting the movie\u2013 There\u2019s been a lot of controversy over the last few months or years with regard to the \u201cwhitewashing\u201d of films and so forth, and it\u2019s become a very sensitive subject for some people. When the first photos from The Young Messiah<\/i> appeared, I posted the image on my blog<\/a>, and some people began posting comments complaining right off the bat that the Jesus of the film seemed too white to them. How did you approach those issues?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: Here\u2019s the thing. I don\u2019t know if these people or I or anyone else can really say what Jesus looked like. So that\u2019s a tough one, for me.<\/p>\n I just don\u2019t know\u2013 I don\u2019t cast anyone purely on the basis of looks, unless it\u2019s absolutely based upon the description of the actual character. For example, if you\u2019re doing a biopic about Martin Luther King, well he\u2019s got to look like Martin Luther King, because we know what he looked like. A lot of those comments I find kind of amusing, because it\u2019s obvious to me that these people have never cast a seven-year-old in a lead role in a movie. If they think it\u2019s easy, I wish them luck, because there\u2019s very few seven-year-olds out there who have a lot of acting experience.<\/p>\n This movie \u2014 a multi-million-dollar movie \u2014 is hanging on a seven-year-old actor. I mean, just think about that for a second. That is a huge deal, and very, very risky. So what\u2019s the most important criteria? That child had better be able to act, right? You\u2019re not going to find a lot of seven-year-olds who\u2019ve ever acted in their life, much less acted in a movie or carried one. So I can\u2019t sit here and say, \u201cGee, he has to be a certain tint of brown, and his eyes have to have a certain tint and his hair has to be curly in such a fashion\u2026\u201d That\u2019s not how you cast.<\/p>\n Fundamentally, nobody knows what Jesus looked like. We\u2019re all guessing. People think, \u201cWell, he must have been Semitic, he was Jewish, he must have had black curly hair and he must have been really brown, and he must have had a beard, or X, Y or Z.\u201d And I guess you could call those informed or educated guesses, but fundamentally they\u2019re guesses. It is reported, historically, that people who came from Galilee were often light-haired and blue-eyed, because Galilee is in the north.<\/p>\n So I can\u2019t really go on the basis of that. I have to go on the basis of merit alone. I\u2019m looking for the best seven-year-old actor I can find, who can deliver for me. And the notion that the choices were infinite is laughable, not only to me but to every casting director who helped us. And I\u2019m gonna tell you: we saw over two thousand children. We had tapes coming in from all over the world. I had casting directors in Rome, Jordan, Israel, London, Los Angeles, New York. Global search. We also had a casting director in Australia \u2014 I forgot about Australia. So I\u2019m looking all over the place, you understand? And I can tell you with absolute confidence there was only one kid who could do it. Every other kid would not have been able to cut it. It\u2019s that simple.<\/p>\n The child that we finally selected \u2014 Adam Greaves-Neal \u2014 was far and away the best. It\u2019s like the choice between Michael Jordan and a junior-high-school basketball player across the country. That was the difference. So there was no question in my mind who was playing the character. The whole movie is hanging on this kid\u2019s shoulders! Now, I did consider, in looking at him, \u201cOkay, what\u2019s he look like, tell me his background, who are his parents.\u201d He\u2019s got dark brown hair, he\u2019s got brown eyes, he comes from a faith-driven Catholic family, and on his mother\u2019s side of the family, that family is part-Jewish. I think it works.<\/p>\n What\u2019s great about talking with you is I can give you the full answer. Most of the time, I have to give the three-second soundbite, but I think when you hear the full answer, it\u2019s obvious why I went with the kid that I went with. I mean, these people who write in comments, it amazes me. I think to myself, \u201cHave they ever been involved with casting on a movie? Do they even understand it? Do they even think about it?\u201d And on this movie, the director is very brown. I don\u2019t know if you\u2019ve seen any pictures of me\u2013<\/p>\n Oh, I have.<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: \u2013and hopefully that compensates.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t often get involved in the comments section, but in this case I did point out that, of all directors, you would have a sensitivity to these issues that other directors might not.<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: Actually for me, it\u2019s just the opposite. The only thing I care about is merit. That\u2019s all I care about. I\u2019m looking for the best script, the best book, the best story, the best actor, period. And nobody gave me this movie to direct, or any job in my entire career, because of the colour of my skin, and I certainly hope not.<\/p>\n I was actually wondering: In the scene where the Magi appear, James says in his narration these men were advisors to the kings of Persia\u2013<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n \u2013and I wondered if that was sort of a nod to your own heritage, because the only other film I can think of that\u2019s been that explicit about where the Magi came from is a film that was made in Iran called Saint Mary<\/a><\/i>. I don\u2019t know if you\u2019ve seen it?<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: No, no I haven\u2019t. When was that made?<\/p>\n About a dozen years ago. It\u2019s hard to get the dates sometimes for films from Iran because different people report different things, but it\u2019s a film that tells the story of Mary from a Muslim point of view, and when the Magi come up, the point is made that they are already monotheists, and that they come from Persia and that they are looking forward to the Messiah, basically. It\u2019s an interesting film.<\/b><\/p>\n Nowrasteh: I\u2019d like to see it. I think<\/i> that it\u2019s based on, or from, Anne\u2019s book. I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if I chose to mention it because of my Persian background. I have heard from other sources that one of those kings was Persian, if not all of them. I also heard from [another source that] that is accurate, and I\u2019m so glad that you pointed that out, so I guess it\u2019s working for a lot of folks. So I don\u2019t know. It could have been one of those things, absolutely was intentional, almost subconscious for me. It\u2019s hard to say.<\/p>\n Because it\u2019s a movie about children, do you see this as a family film, or as a film for families or kids? Because the film does have a fair bit of violence in it.<\/b><\/p>\n