(Colleen Murray is a life-long Catholic. Together with her husband, she teaches religious education at her parish. She is currently in Lay Carmelite formation studies.)
The Gospel of John is a beautifully filmed movie that is being heralded for its word-to-word rendering of the Good News translation of the Bible. Highlights of the film include Henry Ian Cusick’s portrayal of Jesus and Christopher Plummer as the narrator. The Bread of Life discourses about the Eucharist were presented with earnestness and passion, and Cusick does a fine job in bringing to life these and other heavy teachings found in John’s gospel.
The film is preceded by a statement of the worsening relations between Christians and Jews at the time John’s gospel was written and that the makers of the film considered this in their treatment of the language used, a treatment they believe to be fair.
Still, the Good News translation used in the film has some shortcomings, such as “updating” the Feast of Tabernacles to the Feast of Shelters, though Tabernacles remains in common use. Other changes weaken the original intensity of the words. “Who can stomach this?” becomes, “Who can listen to this?” “Does this shock you?” becomes, “Does this make you want to give up?” The conviction of “Amen, amen I say to you…” becomes, “I am telling you the truth.” “Woman, behold your son.” becomes, “He is your son. She is your mother.” This latter example undermines John’s intentional use of the word “woman” that connects Mary with the woman in Genesis and the woman in Revelation. Though Mary has a small part in John, her parts are significant, but her presence in this movie is uninspiring and she appears rather grandmotherly.
The film also fails to include a narrative statement that identifies Peter as speaker of the words, “Lord…You are the Holy One of God.” (Jn 6:68-69) It is significant that he is identified as the speaker because God gifts Peter with this revelation, choosing him for a special place among the apostles. The film also makes Peter look foolish at the Last Supper when he asks John to find out who the betrayer is. Because of the way it is handled, the audience laughs at what should be a sorrowful moment.
A greater problem with the movie is that, because it claims to be a word-for-word translation of the gospel, it fails to be true to that translation by the biblically unsupported interpretation it takes with some of the scenes. One example is the overly present Mary Magdalene. John’s first mention of her is at the foot of the cross, yet she is placed in virtually every prior scene with the disciples, including the Last Supper. Since the Last Supper involves Jesus preparing his apostles for what would be their unique priesthood, the film could be making implications about the role of women in the priesthood. Regardless, she seems out of place as Jesus removes his outer garment for the foot washing and as she accompanies him and the apostles as they climb in the dark through rocks, across streams and on to the garden, where Jesus is arrested. Due to her style of clothing and makeup, I am assuming the film is claiming Mary was a prostitute. There is no evidence of this in John (Luke only states she had seven devils). Elsewhere, the director gives us a magical disappearance of the burial cloths from the empty tomb. Perhaps the angels took them for safe keeping until they returned them to the Church at a later time. And in the film’s version of Nathaniel’s call, Jesus hears him praying under the fig tree and looks down on him from heaven, explaining how Jesus knew Nathaniel was under the tree. It is a nice guess at the meaning of this cryptic story.
A review sent out with the press materials on the movie states, “There are other Jesus movies in preparation, but The Gospel of John is the one that most Christians have been waiting for. It is inspired truth, a biblical sermon.” (Ted Baehr, Movieguide)
It is not completely inspired truth because of the uninspired inferences made in some scenes. And I can only gather that “other Jesus movies” means The Passion and that “most Christians” are everyone except the Catholics looking forward to the Gibson movie.
