A few thoughts:
– overall very pleased with it, very enjoyable, loved the grittiness and realistic portrayal of the lesser characters, especially Caiaphas and Pilate;
– I thought Joseph Mawle was effective as the lead;
– didn’t like the over-emphasis on the kingdom being within – definitely a secular influence there;
– similarly, was disappointed that there weren’t any healing miracles portrayed;
– I found the treatment of the ‘I am the son of God’ language historically clumsy and implausible; I’m happy for Jesus to have an overwhelming consciousness of God as his father, but this seemed to have been strained through 3rd century theology and didn’t work. That is, I don’t think the claim ‘I am the son of God’ would have been understood in a Trinitarian sense at the time – it would have been understood as meaning ‘I am the true king of Israel\/ I am the true high priest’, each of which would have been enough to generate antagonism;
– delighted with the last episode and the presentation of the resurrection, probably the best thing about the whole film and possibly the best presentation of the resurrection I’ve seen. I especially liked the way in which it is portrayed as initially confusing via the use of different actors, and then slowly the disciples ‘get it’ both in terms of recognising who Jesus is and taking forward the implications in their own lives (the washing of the feet).<\/p>\n
4.5 out of 5 A few thoughts:– overall very pleased with it, very enjoyable, loved the grittiness and realistic portrayal of the lesser characters, especially Caiaphas and Pilate;– I thought Joseph Mawle was effective as the lead;– didn’t like the over-emphasis on the kingdom … Continue reading
<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"