Last night, eight of us went to see Nicholas Ray's King of Kings. As I have written previously, I would not have seen this film save for the fact that it was by a great film maker; I'm a Christian who is prejudiced against Bible films. I write and speak out of ignorance, however, since I have actually seen very few films drawing from Biblical stories (and specifically the life of Jesus). But that hasn't stopped me from writing them off as schlock.

So it was with some surprise that I found myself drawn into the movie, mind stimulated and heart (somewhat) engaged. I fought back a few tears in the scene of the two Marys (Magdalene and the Mother of Jesus), with the latter taking in the former -- holiness embracing sinner in love. I should not have been surprised that the story ("the greatest story ever told") would still manage to shine through, especially the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospels.

What the film did force me to confront (which I didn't grasp before seeing the film) is the question -- "Well how would you fill in the gaps of the Biblical narrative to make a film?" There are lot of things that the authors refrain from commenting that Nicholas Ray had to deal with: What did Jesus look like? How did talk? (Was he merely a parable-talking machine?) What motivated Judas' betrayal? What about Pontius Pilate -- what was he like? (I'll have to write about Sub Pontio Pilato, a new chamber opera about Pontius Pilate that some of us saw recently.)

Last night, I felt quite unsatisfied by the portrait of Jesus in the film. The blond hair and blue eyes are certainly a bit hard to get over for many viewers, especially for early 21st century Berkeley types like me. But as I reflected a bit more, that's not really the big problem or challenge in my eyes -- since there have been so many images across time and circumstance -- and because the Bible is silent on Jesus' appearance. I now think that our portrayals of Jesus are always going to reflect a big part of who we are as individuals and as a culture -- and maybe that's exactly the way it was meant to be. Jesus for us all -- collectively and individually. (As I write this, I shudder at the thought of the orthodoxy police knocking at my door, asking me to explain what exactly I meant and to show my credentials as a bone fide right-thinking Christian. Now why should I be so worried -- when what I've just expressed really isn't that radical...hmmm.)

The heart of the matter for me is whether there are portrayals of Jesus in film that really get at how attractive of a presence he must have been and (how as Christians affirm) he still is. It's a tough job, I know -- one must capture how Jesus was simply not like the others (the traditional affirmation is that Jesus was God incarnate, that he was without sin) and yet how he was human, through and through -- indeed, more profoundly human than anyone you will see walking around on the planet now.

For example, I figure that Jesus must have had a amazing (dare I say "wicked") sense of humor. Yes, saving humanity was serious business and he had more than his share of suffering. But he must have been laughing a lot and causing others to share in the comedy (sometimes absurd comedy) or life. I found the Jesus of Ray's film rather humorless. Maybe I missed the humor, maybe Ray couldn't have made Jesus humorous/humorful, maybe Jesus was really just dour. That's just one example.

So -- what I want: compelling portraits of Jesus on film.

(I wondered why there are so many powerful evocations of Jesus in music -- and I guess part of the reason is that musicians don't have to tackle the same challenges as filmmakers. Bach's Jesus in The St. Matthew Passion sings -- how he looks doesn't enter the picture. (Now, what's the significance of Jesus being a baritone/bass and not a tenor? A topic for another day.))