![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/357\/2008\/11\/136971969_5bafde8922.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFew books on film and religion are as insightful as Adele Reinhartz\u2019s Jesus of Hollywood<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 Here, she blends film scholarship with scriptural analysis and cultural studies in seamless fashion.\u00a0 She not only gives close readings of the Jesus story as told in the Gospels, but she shows how close viewings of Jesus films can highlight the differences between the four scriptural accounts as well.\u00a0 In the process, she explodes many preconceived notions that we might have about the scriptural Jesus stories and Jesus films while posing serious questions regarding the theological and cultural implications of each.<\/p>\n Reinhartz begins by discussing Jesus movies as biopics (feature film biographies), drawing from scholar George F. Custen\u2019s book, Bio\/Pics:\u00a0 How Hollywood Constructed Public History<\/em><\/a>, in the process.\u00a0 The strong similarities are numerous.\u00a0 These types of film, even the Jesus ones, are \u201cfundamentally fictional narratives.\u201d\u00a0 Though they make claims to historical accuracy, they necessarily and inevitably undermine these claims through their very nature as films.\u00a0 They contain cast members that in no way represent (physically accurately) the characters that they seek to embody and the dialogue\/language is never genuine.\u00a0 In the cases of films like Jesus Christ Superstar <\/em><\/a>(1973), Godspell<\/em><\/a> (1973), or Life of Brian<\/em><\/a> (1979), the historical inaccuracies are even more prevalent.<\/p>\n For Reinhartz, the blessing and curse for makers of Jesus films are the overwhelming scriptural gaps regarding nearly every participant in the Jesus story, including the titular character himself.\u00a0 Thus, the ways in which filmmakers choose to fill in these gaps and to adapt the \u201cgivens\u201d reveals volumes about their socio-historical locations.\u00a0 For example, Reinhartz\u2019s analysis of the representations of the Jewish public and the Jewish character Caiaphas reveals a stark contrast between pre- and post-World War II Jesus films as public perceptions of or instances of anti-Semitism changed with increasing access to Holocaust news and images.\u00a0 Given the four versions of the scriptural Jesus story and the gaps therein, specifically the lack of visual or aural clues, filmmakers face paramount decisions.\u00a0 As such, Reinhartz concludes, \u201c[\u2026The] Jesus of the biopics reflects our own societies and cultures more than he illuminates the historical Jesus whose story these movies purport to tell\u201d (10).<\/p>\n While there is a great amount of truth to her assertion, I also believe that Reinhartz\u2019s scholarship betrays it as well.\u00a0 In her process of screening these Jesus films, she looks at scripture repeatedly and clearly arrives at insightful lessons with each reading.\u00a0 While cinematic Jesuses will never fully enhance our knowledge of the historical Jesus as a person, they can challenge our interaction with scripture and shape our developing theologies and Christologies.\u00a0 For example, filmmakers\u2019 decisions to show or omit Jesus\u2019 miracles and the ways in which they do so have direct implications for our perceptions of Jesus as a divine-human being.\u00a0 So too the films\u2019 representation of Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection.\u00a0 In writing about The Passion of the Christ<\/em>, Reinhartz argues:<\/p>\n Obviously Gibson himself believes in Jesus\u2019 divinity, and expects that the reader will do the same.\u00a0 But for some viewers, the film has the opposite effect.\u00a0 Far from perceiving Jesus\u2019 identity as the Son of God through his ability to endure the extreme suffering inflicted upon him, some viewers may fail even to perceive his humanity.\u00a0 The reason is simple:\u00a0 the relentless, numbing violence.\u00a0 For most of the film Jesus does not resemble a man so much as a hunk of raw meat.\u00a0 By reducing Jesus to an oozing pulp, Gibson has also demoted him from a human-divine being to a subhuman one.\u00a0 If Gibson intended to show Jesus\u2019 superhuman forbearance, he also made it almost impossible to feel compassion or concern as the relentless beating and bleeding prevent us from seeing Jesus as anything more than the broken body that becomes his own.\u00a0 It is no wonder that some scholars and reviewers have referred to this film as religious pornography.\u00a0 Not only is Jesus\u2019 divine identity erased but his human identity is too. (121)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reinhartz\u2019s chapters on Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate are also especially interesting and entertaining.\u00a0 Reinhartz reveals Judas to be the most compelling character in the Jesus story, and one certainly deserving of repeated study and discussion.\u00a0 Her analysis of the cinematic Judas and the close reading of his scriptural appearances paint a far more sympathetic character than many of us may remember.\u00a0 Again, her discussions of Caiaphas and Pilate concentrate on how the Gospel writers and \u201cJesus filmmakers\u201d use them to either enhance or downplay Jewish involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus.<\/p>\n Some readers will see similarities between Reinhartz\u2019s work and Margaret Miles\u2019 book, Seeing and Believing:\u00a0 Religion and Values in the Movies<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 However, in an important footnote, Reinhartz stresses their differences.\u00a0 Where Miles is less concerned with films as such, Reinhartz \u201cdoes not bracket out the films as such but also looks closely at the relationship between the film and the Gospels, characterizations, and other features of the film as a text\u201d (258, fn 12).\u00a0 In her analysis of the representation of Joseph in Jesus films, she notes the relatively consistent distance between Joseph and Jesus compared to the proximity between Jesus and Mary.\u00a0 This repeated mis-en-scene<\/em> (or framing) is an explicit attribute of the film and a point that a much more cultural studies centered approach like Miles\u2019 might miss.<\/p>\n While Reinhartz is clearly aware of the breadth of Jesus films throughout history, she consistently returns to the \u201cbiggies\u201d like The Passion of the Christ<\/em>, The Last Temptation of Christ<\/em><\/a> (1988), King of Kings<\/em><\/a> (1961), and The King of Kings<\/em><\/a> (1927).\u00a0 However, she does give attention to some lesser known silent versions like INRI<\/em><\/a> (1923) and Der Galilaer<\/em><\/a> (1921).\u00a0 Published before the release of 2006\u2019s The Nativity Story<\/em><\/a>, any subsequent edition of this book will no doubt benefit from this film\u2019s fresh focus on the character of Joseph.\u00a0 Film buffs or novices, religious studies students or lay persons will all find this book a beneficial and challenging read that will no doubt change they way they read about and watch Jesus.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Few books on film and religion are as insightful as Adele Reinhartz\u2019s Jesus of Hollywood.\u00a0 Here, she blends film scholarship with scriptural analysis and cultural studies in seamless fashion.\u00a0 She not only gives close readings of the Jesus story as told in the Gospels, but she shows how close viewings of Jesus films can highlight […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":288,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-print"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a>Reinhartz begins her conclusion by writing, \u201cIf the historical Jesus of Nazareth was the unique and only Son of God, as the Gospels proclaim, then Jesus of Hollywood is his opposite\u2013multiple, diverse, and born of many parents\u201d (252).\u00a0 All we need to do to verify her claim is watch From the Manger to the Cross<\/em><\/a> (1912) and The Passion of the Christ<\/em><\/a> (2004) to see these differences.\u00a0 Throughout her book, Reinhartz breaks down the Jesus story into its component characters and events.\u00a0 Analyzing nearly everything from Jesus himself to Satan, she discusses the cultural influences on these representations and how they reveal the films\u2019 social locations and their ability to continually speak to audiences today.\u00a0 For the most part, each chapter takes the form of a scriptural and cinematic back-and-forth.\u00a0 Beginning with a theme, say Mary Magdalene for example, Reinhartz chronicles scriptural accounts and then analyzes how filmmakers have adapted them in Jesus movies throughout film history.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n