Chapter seven
John the Baptist in Film.
1.1
Introduction.
 |
| Michael York as John the Baptist in Jesus of Nazareth, 1977 |
The
last chapter focussed upon literary works in which John the Baptist appeared as
a character. It was discovered that writers are relatively free to interpret
John and his role. In some instances, he serves to advance a story, or to
enhance the study of another character, who is the main focus of the work. Some
authors use John and his experience as a means to convey a point or teaching of
their own, or to explore certain facets of the human condition. Sometimes John
is in full view, called by his own name, placed within his own environment and
set against his natural background. Other times John has to be teased out of
the shadows, where he hides in the guise of another character, or inhabits uncharacteristic
surroundings.
In film, a major obstacle is the
fact that no film maker has ever filmed a life of John the Baptist. John is
always a minor character who owes his existence to his interrelation with the
main protagonist. That might be Salome or Jesus. John, therefore, is defined
only in terms of his relationship with that other character. However, such
circumstances need not obstruct any attempt to study John the Baptist in film.
1.2
Aims.
The
aim of this chapter is to apply the knowledge gained in previous chapters of
traditions and themes of John the Baptist to a study of films in which John is
featured. This will be done by, first, providing a survey of films that include
John as a character. Second, by selecting those films that that are to be used
in this study, giving the reasons for its selection. Next, by identifying the
themes of John the Baptist that are to be found in film. Finally, by embarking
upon a discussion of these films.
2.1
John the Baptist in Film.
John
the Baptist made his cinematic debut in 1908 in a film entitled Salome. This
film, directed by J. Stuart Blackton, is based upon the play by Oscar Wilde[1], Salome.
John re-appeared in 1918, in J. Gordon Edwards’ Salome. His fate is something of a side
story in this film, which nevertheless depicts him as the victim of the
eponymous heroine who lusts after him. When he rejects her, Salome asks for his
head on a platter. Still another version of Salome was made in 1923 by
director and producer, Malcolm Strauss. This time, John is presented as a
character called ‘the Wanderer’. His death is the result of a battle
of wills between Salome and Herodias, the latter of whom threatens to kill a
visiting Egyptian prince with whom both women are in love, if she does not ask
for John’s head. The
same year, 1923, saw perhaps the most faithful filmed version of Wilde’s play to date. Directed by Charles
Bryant, Salome shows John to be the victim of the vindictive girl whose
advances he has rejected. In a scene taken directly from Wilde, she kisses the
severed head as it lies in its platter. This act so disgusts Herod that he
orders her execution. The film’s exotic sets and costumes are based upon Aubrey Beardsley’s drawings that accompany Wilde’s text. William Dieterle’s Salome, which appeared in
1953, reflects the church’s
interpretation of John as one of the first Christians. He rejects Salome
because he prefers his religion, Christianity, to her. In a twist, Salome
converts to Christianity at the end of the film, a testament to the continuing success
of John’s preaching
and message as suggested in the Gospels (Mk 1.5).
In a departure from his involvement
with Salome, John next appears in The Big Fisherman, directed by Frank
Borzage in 1959. This film depicts the life of Simon Peter. Two years later, in
1961, Nicolas Ray’s King of
Kings was released. Ray’s life of Christ gave audiences a view of John as a somewhat weary
baptiser nearing the end of his ministry. The Gospel According to St Matthew
followed in 1964. A life of Christ based upon the Gospel of Matthew, it is
directed by the Marxist Pier Paolo Pasolini. One year later, in 1965, George
Stevens presented his own lavish version of the life of Jesus. This film,
although drawing from many sources, is primarily influenced by the Fourth Gospel.
1972 saw a brief break in Life of
Jesus films, returning John to the erotic world of Wilde’s Salome. Directed by Carmelo Bene, Salome
shows John the victim of the spurned lady of the title. In a strange twist,
John’s death
occurs after the crucifixion. Thus, it reverses the perception of this event as
a precursor to Jesus’ death. The
viewer is returned to familiar territory with Godspell, directed in 1973
by David Greene. That this film is set in modern-day New York, however, hints
at its somewhat unorthodox style. Greene’s approach, relying heavily upon the fashions and
images of the hippy era, is echoed in Gospel Road, directed by Robert
Elfstrom in 1973. This musical, set in Israel, in turn reflects Norman Jewison’s Jesus Christ Superstar, also
released in 1973. Superstar is a filmed version of a Broadway production
of an album of songs by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Michael Campus’ 1976 The Passover Plot is
influenced by the life of Jesus as reconstructed by the German theologian,
Reimerus. A year later, in 1977, Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth appeared
on television screens. Peter Sykes and John Kirsh directed the next film, Jesus,
in 1979. It is based upon the Gospel of Luke. After a rest of some nine years,
John returned to the silver screen in Martin Scorsese’s controversial The
Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Following
another long silence came, in 2000, The Miracle
Maker, directed by Derek Hayes. In this animated film, the
audience witnesses Jesus’
story through the eyes of Jairus’ daughter, here named Tamar, whom
Jesus raised from death (Mk 5.22-24, 35-43 and par.). Finally, in 2000, Gail
Edwards directed a filmed version of her West End production of Jesus Christ
Superstar. The sets and costumes used in this film brought the Jesus story firmly
into the modern era.
Films featuring John the Baptist
fall into two distinct categories, Salome films and Life of Jesus films. Salome
films, even if they have distorted the plot somewhat, all take Oscar Wilde’s play as their source. It is, however,
in the Life of Jesus films that the most diversity in approach, sets, costumes,
and John’s interaction
with the central character, Jesus, is encountered. For this reason, this study
of John the Baptist in film will be confined to his role in Life of Jesus
films. Of these films, nine shall be selected for study. In chronological order, these films and the
reasons for their selection are:
King
of Kings (1961) Nicolas Ray. This film is influenced by the Gospels. However,
its introduction draws heavily upon Josephus’ Antiquities. This gives it a historical
dimension. John the Baptist encounters a Jesus whose humanity, rather than his
divinity, is to the fore.
The
Gospel According to St Matthew (1964) Pier Paolo Pasolini, is a
visual representation of Matthew’s Gospel.
The
Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) George Stevens. Largely following the
Fourth Gospel, Stevens’ film offers
a rewarding comparison to that of Pasolini.
Godspell (1973) David
Greene. John has only a small part in this film, which treats his proclamation
of Jesus and his baptism. His death is not featured. However, Greene highlights
a fascinating link between John’s death and that of Jesus that demands attention.
Jesus
of Nazareth (1977) Franco Zeffirelli. This is perhaps the most
comprehensive telling of Jesus’ story. As such, it is able to provide a substantial study of John, both
as a character in his own right as well as his relationship with Jesus.
Jesus (1979) Peter
Sykes and John Kirsh. This film, based as it is upon the Gospel of Luke, allows
a comparison to be made between its presentation of John with that of its
source as well as representations of John drawn from parallel passages of
Matthew and the Fourth Evangelist as they appear in Pasolini and Stevens.
The
Last Temptation of Christ (1988) Martin Scorsese, is based not upon the
Gospels but upon the novel The Last Temptation by Nikos Kazantzakis. As
such, it takes a different approach from previous and subsequent films that are
based upon the Gospels.
Jesus
of Montreal (1989) Denys Arcand. This film follows the
experiences of a young actor as he prepares for his role of Jesus in a miracle
play. John the Baptist does not appear. However, he is alluded to in the form
of an older actor who points to the young man as a more worthy successor, as
well as a professor who helps the actor as he embarks upon the research for his
part.
The
Miracle Maker (2000) Derek Hayes returns to Gospel-based films. The
fact that it is animated demands its inclusion in this list.
Jesus
Christ Superstar (2000) Gail Edwards. This film was chosen over the
Norman Jewison version of the same story because it brings the Jesus story,
literally, to the present day. Its ultra-modern style provides an interesting
platform for Jesus’ message in
the twenty-first century.
2.2
Themes of John the Baptist in Film.
As
with art and literature, films in which John the Baptist features present
various themes of John that have been identified from previous chapters. The
themes of John in film are: Birth of John, John’s Environment, John the Prophet, John as Elijah,
John the Forerunner, John’s Disciples,
John the Baptiser, Baptism of Jesus, John and Jesus, John’s Arrest, John’s Imprisonment, the Death of John and
the Miracles of John.
3.1
Birth of John.
Luke
is unique among the evangelists in that he alone presents an account of John’s birth. As such, one would expect to
find a similar treatment in a film based upon Luke: Sykes and Kirsh’s Jesus. However, the only
reference to this event occurs when Mary visits her kinswoman, Elizabeth, the
mother of John. Of the miracles surrounding John’s origins, the only mention is that it was a
miraculous pregnancy. It is left to Zeffirelli, whose Jesus of Nazareth
includes an account of John’s nativity. Zeffirelli dates John’s conception to the 19th day of Tishri. This, the seventh month of the
Jewish year, falls within September to October of the civil year. A child
conceived at this time would be born about the time of Midsummer. Zeffirelli,
therefore, has timed John’s conception
so that it conforms with the date of his birth according to Christian tradition[2]. This
approach was also used by Wile[3], who
exploited it in order to emphasise the future role of John the Baptist. Moreover,
Zeffirelli emphasises John’s status as Jesus’ precursor
from the outset by opening his film with a synagogue scene in which the
expectation of a messiah is expounded. John’s nativity is shown to be part of this whole
atmosphere of expectation, which will be fulfilled in Jesus.
3.2
John’s Environment.
Artists
paint their vision of John’s wilderness in all its vivid glory. Writers describe, often in the most
graphic terms, the environment to which John the Baptist went in answer to the
call of God, where he communed with him and heard his voice. Film actually
takes the viewer into John’s world, recreating it in all the beauty of its colours, sounds and
textures. Perhaps the most striking image in Stevens’ Greatest Story Ever Told is
of John’s desert. The
camera pans across acres of the grand Mesa country of Utah, which here stands
in for John’s environment
(Telford 1997:127). Its expanse, its wildness, even its beauty, is truly
awesome. Unexpectedly, a lonely figure is spotted, two figures, a group. They
are almost engulfed by their surroundings as they slowly make their way towards
a destination as yet unseen by the viewer. A voice is heard, crying in the
wilderness, preaching, exhorting, a sense of urgency is discernable. Still the
figures increase, and it becomes apparent that they are answering the call of
this voice. Finally the viewer is shown a man standing waist deep in a river. He
pours water over the heads of those who come to him as he recites certain
words. The man is mature, bearded, dressed in animal skins. His appearance
shows him to be as wild as the desert, from which he must be inseparable.
John the Baptist is found exactly
where he would be expected to be, in the wilderness. The evangelists
unanimously agree that the desert wastes provide the setting for John’s ministry (Mk 1.4 and par; cf. Lk.
1.80; Jn. 1.23). Moreover, the significance of John’s chosen locale is reflected in his
message, which is to prepare for one who is to follow after him. He does this
by baptising people in the waters of the Jordan. By depicting John performing
this function in the desert, Stevens is following the descriptions of John’s ministry as laid down by the
evangelists. However, there is more to the desert than this. There is something
about it that is unnerving. There is a sense of danger and menace recalling the
imagery of Bosch or Conrad. The association with sin, as it is encountered in
Kazantzakis is not apparent. However, the desert is far from civilisation and
all that is safe. People avoid it because it is the haunt of bandits, zealots,
false prophets, Roman spies. John’s environment associates him with rebel elements, who
frequent the wilderness and make it a place of danger. Ray’s King of Kings brings out
this aspect of first-century Palestine by showing John’s ministry running parallel with the
activities of the desert prophet Barabbas and his band of zealots. Ray’s approach accords with that of Dixon[4],
whose John shares his world with Judas the Galilaean. Thus, the danger run by first-century prophets,
the fate of many of whom is recounted by Josephus (Ant. 18.85-7;
20.97-8; 20.167-8, cf. War 2.258-60; Ant. 20.167-72, cf. War
2.261-3; Ant. 20.188) and Luke (Acts 5.35-7), provides a historically
authentic sub-plot in a film that seeks to recreate the tone of the period.
3.3
John the Prophet.
In
The Greatest Story Ever Told, the audience encounters a John whose
preaching, according to Stevens, makes much use of passages from the Hebrew
Bible. As he heralds the one who is to come, John speaks of a ruler of Israel
(Micah 5.2). People are urged to open to the ‘king of glory’ (Ps. 24.7). They must declare to the mountains and
hills (Micah 6. 1), which is also cleverly indicative of John’s wilderness environment. John calls
people to witness (Isa. 48.9), while he himself is the supreme witness to the
Coming One (Isa. 40. 10). John quotes from Ps 24.8-9, which is later repeated
by members of a crowd as they are dispersed by guards following Jesus’ preaching in the Temple.
A similar approach is taken by
Zeffirelli, whose Jesus of Nazareth shows John rebuking Herod for his
illicit marriage. The passage he uses here is Jer. 13.27, which speaks of
adultery and licentiousness. Such behaviour renders Israel unclean, since Herod’s sinful lifestyle stains Jewish
society. Clearly, John’s concerns
are for his people, Israel. While in his cell, John continues to speak out
against Herod, this time using Isa. 32.1, 3. John now foretells the coming of a
king who will reign in righteousness, ‘and princes will rule in justice’. The foretelling of the coming of a
king could be seen as seditious, and might provide a link between John and
rebel elements at large in the desert. If so, Zeffirelli is probably
highlighting the hazards of being a desert preacher at such a precarious time
as the Roman occupation. However, the reference to righteousness and justice is
particularly poignant to John’s circumstances at the time and the fact that he will be condemned
without trial. John also preaches from Isa. 5.20-21, which contains a reproach
directed at those who go against the law of God. This could be a further
reference to Herod’s marriage,
or it could refer to John’s fate, which
will be decided without benefit of the law. In other references taken from Isa.
(29.20; 40.21-3), John hints at Herod’s future defeat at the hands of the Nabataean king,
Aretas IV, an interesting allusion to an historical event reported by Josephus
(Ant. 18.116-19). Another quote seems to be directed at Herodias and Salome: ‘Vanity of vanities, says the
preacher, vanity of vanities. All is vanity’ (Eccl. 1.2).
Stevens and Zeffirelli show John to
be still living in the world of the Hebrew Bible. It provides the material for
his preaching and the inspiration for his prophecies. Stevens illustrates this
by making such a striking portrayal of John’s environment, which best associates him with
significant events in Jewish history: the Exodus, the scapegoat ritual of Yom
Kippur, as well as the location of Elijah’s ministry and mysterious disappearance. Zeffirelli
achieves it by showing John to be fully conversant with the prophets who have
preceded him. He also shows John to be concerned for the welfare of his own
people. His reproach of Herod is born of this care as well as from his yearning
to make Herod change his ways for the good of all. Both Stevens and Zeffirellli
show John the Baptist to be operating from a specifically Jewish standpoint. As
such, they can, like Luke (16.16), show him to be the last of ‘the law and the prophets’. However, it is in John’s preaching that the directors fully
bring out John’s status. As
he preaches from the sacred scriptures of the Jews, they show John standing in
continuity with the prophets of old.
3.4
John as Elijah.
Further
to John’s status as a
Hebrew Bible prophet is his association with one such prophet in particular,
Elijah. From the very beginning, this connection was thrust upon John by the
synoptic evangelists who wished to harmonise this Jewish desert prophet and his
message with their interpretation of Christ. Elijah gave John an image by which
he can always be identified. Many artists use the Markan description of Elijah’s skins and leather in their
portrayals of the Baptist. The costume became almost a uniform for John. The
association also featured in literature, where the reader encountered
matter-of-fact allusions in such works as Gene Edwards’ The Prisoner in the Third Cell,
Camus’ La Chute
or Kazantzakis’ The Last
Temptation. Filmmakers are less enthusiastic about making the correlation
between John and the figure of Mal. 3.1, later identified as Elijah (Mal. 4.5).
Indeed, it is denied by Ray, who follows the stance taken by the Fourth
Evangelist (1.21). Here, John emphatically disclaims any idea that he might be
Elijah as he is confronted by the Jerusalem delegation. Nevertheless,
Zeffirelli presents a scene in which this association is implied. Even before
the audience meets the adult John, his identity and the purpose of his ministry
is established. Rabbi Yehuda sits alone in the silence of a darkened scroll
room. He is surrounded by scrolls, through which he has been searching for
indications of the coming Messiah. Eventually he arrives at Malachi, from which
he reads the passage concerning the messenger sent by God (3.1). The picture
then fades to reveal John the Baptist standing on a rock, preaching his message
of baptism and the coming of another. Zeffirelli’s approach is contrasted by Scorsese, who places
John’s association
with Elijah into a scene marking the beginning of Jesus’ own ministry. Jesus returns to his
disciples upon hearing of the death of John. As he approaches them, their
conversation can be heard. They discuss the Baptist’s last words, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, leave the desert;
I am finished, return to mankind.’ They then refer to John’s identification as Elijah redivivus by
noting their current location, by the Jordan, ‘Here is where Elijah was taken up to heaven’.
3.5
John the Forerunner.
The
significance of John’s
interpretation as Elijah is to emphasise his status as the forerunner of
Christ. However, this theme of John the Baptist can be treated without
reference to that Hebrew Bible prophet.
Arcand takes an interesting approach
to John as forerunner in Jesus of Montreal. Although the film does not
feature John, it does include two characters who play a similar role. As the
film opens, the audience witnesses a scene in which a hanging is depicted. As
he ‘dies’, the hanged man points to the young
man whose story will provide the plot of the film. As the young actor embarks
upon research for his part of Jesus in an up-coming mystery play, he consults a
professor, who gives him information about who Jesus is and how he has been
interpreted. The professor acts as a guide to ‘Jesus’, as does John in King of Kings and The Last
Temptation of Christ. However, he is also a forerunner, in that he brings
the real Jesus to the attention of the actor, thus introducing and proclaiming
him. Moreover, his studies of Jesus and his background, which he passes on to
the young man, make him something of a witness to Christ.
More distinct is the approach
taken by Greene, in whose Godspell, John is unmistakably Jesus’ forerunner as he dances down the
Brooklyn Bridge singing ‘prepare ye
the way of the Lord … ’ Here, John
declares himself to be the voice of the one crying in the wilderness. This
contrasts with the synoptics, wherein the identification is imposed upon John
by the evangelists eager to exploit any means to get their interpretation of
John across. In applying this Isaiah (40.3) passage to himself, however, Greene’s John follows his Fourth Gospel
counterpart (1.23). His approach reflects that taken by the novelist Gene
Edwards, whose The Prisoner in the Third Cell was studied in the
previous chapter[5]. This
novel portrays John announcing himself as the voice to the covenanters at
Qumran.
Greene’s depiction of John as Jesus’ forerunner has Gospel backing, but
it is unconventional to say the least. John, here dressed in the brightly
coloured rags of a vagrant, dances happily through the streets of New York
City, blowing his horn as he summons those who would follow him and hear his
message. Ray’s method
takes the opposite extreme. Using the occasion of John’s confrontation with the Jerusalem
delegation, Ray provides John with an opportunity to declare himself to be the
voice of one crying in the wilderness. He points out to them that the Messiah
is the one who is to come after him. That John’s mission is to proclaim the Messiah rather than
acting as the messenger of God is here made clear by the way the historical
John’s preaching
is adapted to suit Ray’s approach to
Jesus, in which his humanity rather than his divinity is emphasised. King of
Kings, therefore, does not allow the possibility that John’s message concerned God and not a
human messianic figure. This point had, in fact, been hinted at earlier in the
same film. Herod explains to Pilate that John’s message is one of preparation for the coming
Messiah rather than God.
In The Greatest Story Ever Told,
Stevens, who draws so closely from the Fourth Gospel, must take a different
approach. In this Gospel, Christ is pre-existent, and so John’s status of forerunner is diminished
in favour of his presentation as a witness. Stevens achieves this in a
remarkable way. The opening scene of the film shows Christ as depicted upon the
ceiling of a cathedral. In showing a, historically, later interpretation of
Jesus of Nazareth at the very beginning of the film, Stevens demonstrates that
Christ had existed before anything else, even his coming to earth as a man. All
that follows, John’s preaching
of the coming Messiah, his baptism in preparation for him, as well as Jesus’ earthly ministry, is really a
prologue to that point at which Jesus is Christ and God incarnate. That is to
say, it prefigures the Christ depicted in the opening shot. In view of this,
Stevens’ John is not
even allowed to proclaim Christ to his disciples. In contrast to the scene in
Jn 1.35-42, John is prevented from declaring Jesus by Jesus himself. Jesus
simply tells John that if the disciples follow him, they will know him.
3.6
John’s Disciples.
The
Gospels speak several times of John’s disciples. Matthew (14.12) mentions that they buried
John’s body
following his execution. Mark (2.18) notes that they, like their master,
observed the fast. Luke (11.1), tells us that he taught his disciples to pray. The
Fourth Evangelist (1.35) shows how John pointed out Jesus to his disciples, who
then left him to follow their new master. Each of the Jesus films in
discussion, except The Miracle Maker, acknowledges that John had
disciples. Ray shows two disciples assisting John as he baptises at the Jordan.
One of them, John, who will become ‘the Beloved’, accompanies his master as he visits Mary at her
home. Later, as John sits on the ground with his disciples, he notices Jesus. In
a scene inspired by the Fourth Gospel (1.35-8), he sends them away to follow
him, ‘There is your
new Rabbi’, he
announces. ‘He is the
Lamb of God’.
In Stevens’ The Greatest Story Ever Told,
John’s followers
do not play such an obvious part in his mission. Indeed, as with all those
films wherein John’s disciples
are shown, with the exception of King of Kings, they only appear so that
they can transfer their allegiance from John to Jesus. Zeffirelli’s John the Baptist points out Jesus
to his disciples, Andrew and Philip, with the words, ‘Behold the Lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world’ (Jn 1.29). Thus,
Jesus of Nazareth adheres to the spirit, if not the actual sequence of John’s preaching according to the Fourth
Evangelist. John then sends the disciples to Jesus, saying as he does so, ‘he must increase as I must decrease’ (Jn 3.30). Indeed he must, for at
this point, John has served has purpose, and his mission is at an end.
The subjective standpoint of
Scorsese’s The Last
Temptation of Christ makes any reference to disciples of John the Baptist irrelevant.
It might be ventured that Jesus, by adopting John’s point of view, at least for a time, can be
interpreted as becoming a disciple of John. However, this would be an
over-interpretation of the evidence. First, Jesus’ embracing of John’s stance is merely a stage of his quest, and is
shown to be so when he outgrows it. Second, John and Jesus are shown talking
together, and so John might be understood as a teacher. Still, this scene
cannot accurately be construed to suggest a master-disciple relationship in the
accepted sense. Jesus is never actually seen working with John as a disciple
might do.
3.7
John the Baptiser.
Like
artists and writers, filmmakers acknowledge that baptism was an integral
feature of John’s ministry. Also,
like them, they own that John baptised people prior to and following his
baptism of Jesus. Nevertheless, limited attention is given to John’s baptising ministry in film. In Ray’s King of Kings, it provides
an introduction to John the Baptist. It also establishes the director’s interpretation of John as well as
hinting at his fate. John’s activities
are watched by Herod on his way to his palace, or by rebels who think John
might be persuaded to their cause. In other films, however, some effort is made
to explore the significance of John’s baptism, and to draw out the explanation of the rite
as given in the Gospels.
The evangelists describe John’s baptism as being one of ‘repentance for the forgiveness of
sins’ (Mk 1.4 and
par.). Zeffirelli reflects this in the liturgy used by John: ‘the Lord rejoices in repentant
hearts; this water cleanses’. Thus, the director acknowledges current thinking that John’s baptism was meant to represent the
penitent’s change of
heart. To submit to John’s baptism was
to indicate that people had reversed the sinful ways of their previous
lifestyle. For Sokolov and Hayes, John’s message was that people must start with their heart
as they repent of their sins and seek God’s forgiveness. The baptism was of no use unless one
undertook it with sincerity and observed the new commitment to God that it
signified.
Nowhere is the true significance of
John’s baptism
better exemplified than in Stevens’ The Greatest Story Ever Told. Following his
baptism of Jesus, John pleads for ‘steadfast love’ and knowledge of God rather than sacrifice and burnt
offerings (cf. Hosea 6.6). This is particularly appropriate when it is
considered that John wanted the people to repent sincerely. The Temple
sacrifice had always been the method by which repentance was expressed, but John
believed that this particular rite had become empty and meaningless. His
baptism was meant to replace it. Stevens illustrates this by dissolving a scene
depicting the Temple sacrifice into one in which John, his stirring speeches
and his cleansing baptism is introduced. This technique allows Stevens to
provide both a verbal and a visual representation of John’s rite. The water baptism has truly
superseded the bloody Temple sacrifice.
3.8
Baptism of Jesus.
Just
as filmmakers seek the true significance of John’s baptism, so they, like the evangelists, must
accommodate the fact that Jesus had submitted to a baptism that was primarily
designed for repentant sinners. Ray’s King of Kings reflects unease surrounding
Jesus’ baptism by
John. He shows Jesus kneeling before John, but the Baptist does not pour water
over his head nor does he speak the words he had used for other penitents. John merely places his hand upon Jesus’ head. A long look is exchanged
between the two men, and their expressions suggest a silent questioning on the
part of John and confident reassurance on Jesus’ side. Two sources might have influenced Ray as
he approached this scene. The first is the account given by Matthew (3.14-15),
wherein John refuses to baptise Jesus until Jesus insists that he should. This
could be the interpretation of the silent exchange between John and Jesus, with
John questioning and Jesus urging. Alternatively, Luke (3.19-21) presents an
ambiguous account, in which there is some doubt as to whether or not John
actually baptised Jesus prior to his arrest. This uncertainty appears in King
of Kings also. Perhaps Ray drew from Matthew, since John’s hesitation arises from his
awareness of Jesus’ sinlessness.
This supposition is confirmed in a later scene, which has no basis in
tradition, wherein John visits Mary at her home. Jesus has already encountered
the Baptist and has gone into the desert. John tells Mary that Jesus is without
sin, and so he questioned the need to baptise him.
The Miracle Maker also
includes John’s protest of
Mt 3.14-15. However, Jesus takes John by the arm and leads him into the Jordan,
all the while reminding him of the happy days of their childhood together. This
reminds the audience that John and Jesus are related. However, this feature,
taken from Luke (1.36), and used in their plots by writers such as Wile and
Dixon, is only evident in The Miracle Maker and Jesus of Nazareth.
As Jesus submerges himself into the water, it is seen that Sokolov and Hayes’ John does not baptise Jesus at all. This
element of Jesus’ baptism has
been taken from Luke (3.21), wherein John appears to play no part in Jesus’ baptism. The divine voice and its
message, however, is addressed to Jesus in the second person. Therefore, it
comes from Mark (1.11), followed by Luke (3.22).
Directors, therefore, appear to take
their inspiration for John’s baptism of Jesus primarily from Mark and Matthew. The reason for this
could be that, in these Gospels, the occasion is related as a major event in
the story of Jesus. By contrast, Luke leaves the readers uncertain regarding
whether or not John actually baptised Jesus. All we are told is that ‘now when all the people had been
baptised, and when Jesus also had been baptised … ’ (3.21). However, by this time, Luke
has already stated that John had been arrested and shut up in prison (3.20). This
ambiguity could be prohibitive to any director using Luke as his or her source.
Nevertheless, the problem is successfully overcome by Sykes and
Kirsh. In Jesus, they show the penitents immersing themselves in the
water. John, although present, does not actually baptise them. When Jesus comes
to John, he too immerses himself. As such, Sykes and Kirsh can remain faithful
to Luke’s
insinuation that John did not baptise Jesus.
If John’s baptism underwent interpretation,
so too did his preaching. John had proclaimed the coming of a figure who would
bring judgment. He believed that the judgment was imminent. As such, his
baptism was meant to be a single, final commitment to righteousness and right
worship, thus allowing the penitent to be judged favourably by the Coming One. However,
Christianity interprets the figure referred to by John as Christ. Christians
understand redemption to come, not from a water baptism, but through Christ’s death on the cross. As such, the
crucifixion supplanted John’s baptism, just as John’s baptism supplanted the Temple sacrifice. This progression is seen in
Stevens’ The
Greatest Story Ever Told. Here, a Jewish Temple practice is replaced by
John’s preaching
and baptism, which in turn is superseded by Christ’s redemptive death according to
Christian understanding, illustrated in the sequence of scenes in which the
baptism is central. Stevens, as has been noted, recognises the purpose of John’s baptism as a replacement for the Temple
sacrifice. However, John’s baptism is
temporary. Soon, it will be replaced by something else: the redemptive death of
Christ. As Jesus approaches John, the Baptist refuses to baptise him. Nevertheless,
Jesus insists. This scene is obviously taken from Mt. 14-15, which addresses
questions concerning Jesus’ sinlessness. However, Jesus’ sinlessness has a greater significance for Stevens,
whose Jesus is the Lamb of God as understood by the Fourth Evangelist. To
portray Jesus’ baptism in a
sequence that opens with a lamb being led to sacrifice summarises Jesus’ ministry according to this
interpretation: Jesus is the Lamb of God whose death is the sacrifice that will
take away the sins of the world. The reference to Jesus’ sinlessness lies in the fact that animals
selected for sacrifice must be without blemish (Lev. 1.3; 3.1; 4.3, 32). Thus,
Stevens makes a subtle correlation between the immaculate sacrificial lamb and
the pure Lamb of God, whose ultimate sacrifice shall take away the sins of the
world. He shows John’s baptism of
Jesus to be the intermediary between these two doctrines.
3.9
John and Jesus.
The
relationship between John and Jesus in film is one of mentor and pupil. This is
particularly prominent in Ray’s King of Kings and Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ. Each director,
however, takes a different approach. Ray’s John serves as an example of a man who has made the
choice to leave the security and comforts of home and family in order to take
the lonely path to which his calling has brought him. Jesus, at the point in
the film, is still attached to his mother and home. Scorsese, on the other
hand, shows John acting as Jesus’ guide and advisor. He helps Jesus to discover the
correct interpretation of his own calling, the stirring of which he has felt,
but is unable to fully comprehend.
This phase of John’s duty towards Jesus, however, is
short-lived. It ends following Jesus’ baptism, when he goes into the desert to face Satanic
temptation. Ray shows John taking advantage of Jesus’ absence to visit Mary. He admits to
her that he cannot bring the word to Jerusalem. This, he feels, is a task that
only Jesus can perform. John, therefore, consciously hands over his ministry,
here concerned with bringing the ‘word’ to the people, to Jesus.
Scorsese’s Jesus, as he faces temptation in
the desert, has a vision of John. The Baptist hands Jesus his axe. It is
tempting to think that this is the axe referred to by John as being laid to the
roots of the trees (Q 3.9) Alternatively, it might not be an axe, but a
hatchet. If so, then it forms part of the equipment used by the covenanters of
Qumran. This implement is mentioned by Wile and
Edwards[6], both of whom show John becoming a member of this
community for a short time. Likewise, Scorcese shows Jesus to have
visited a similar place prior to his encounter with John. In any case, the
gesture symbolises John’s handing
over his ministry to Jesus.
The synoptics (Mk 1.14 and par.), in
contrast with the Fourth Evangelist (3.22-3; 4.1-2), state that, after hearing of
John’s arrest,
Jesus returns to the world to begin his ministry. The implication is that Jesus
began his ministry as a result of John’s arrest. However, Ray and Scorsese embroider this
stage of Jesus’ story with
scenes that have no Gospel support.
3.10
John’s Arrest.
Mark
states: ‘for Herod had
sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his
brother Philip’s wife;
because he had married her’ (6.17; cf. Mt 14.3; Lk 3.19.). The evangelists, then, are in no doubt
about two facts concerning the arrest of John the Baptist: who was responsible
and why. However, filmmakers are fond of depicting Herod to be forbearing in
his attitude towards John. Ray’s King of Kings shows John antagonising Herod by preaching
directly outside his palace. The building is adorned with plaques of the pagan
Roman emperor. Appropriately, the subject of his preaching upon this occasion
is the tyranny inflicted upon the people by their pagan oppressors. By
preaching against the Romans, John is once again associated with the rebel
element, at least in the eyes of the authorities. However, there is no biblical
support for the content of John preaching at this point, unless it involves ‘all the evil things Herod had done’, mentioned by Luke (3.19). As John
is arrested, Ray takes the opportunity to separate John from the rebels with
whom he has so far been implicitly associated. John stops those who would
protect him with violence and, like the Jesus of Matthew (26.52) and the Fourth
Gospel (18.11), goes towards his destiny placidly.
Stevens’ The Greatest Story Ever Told hints that
John is in conflict with the religious authorities of Jerusalem by showing him
being confronted by members of the Sanhedrin. As they order him to stop
baptising, John retaliates, saying that they ‘insult the decent sinners who have come here to
repent’. John might
be condemning the Sanhedrin for their compliance with the Romans. On the other
hand, the remark is an indictment of the Temple system. Either way, it is clear
that the religious authorities pose a threat to John. Later, however, Stevens
suggests that John is under threat by the Roman authorities. In a sequence of
scenes that cleverly illustrates John’s declaration, ‘he must increase, but I must decrease’ (Jn 3.30), the audience watches as
the events of Jesus’ Galilaean
ministry and the teaching of his disciples are interlaced with others in which
the Romans discuss John the Baptist. In their opinion, he is a trouble maker
who could be dangerous. It is decided that he must be arrested, but the
authority of Herod is required. Herod, who is more interested in Salome than
attending to business, expresses his tolerance of John, adding that he finds
him an eccentric. However, when the messenger tells him that John speaks of the
Messiah who is to come, Herod remembers his father’s warning of the dangers inherent in
encouraging Messianic belief amongst the people. This leads him to authorise
John’s arrest. For
Stevens, then, John has caused resentment among the religious authorities, who
might be blamed for his arrest. However, later events confirm that John’s detention is ultimately due to the
Roman authorities and their fear of prophets such as John. His speaking of the
Messiah causes the hitherto indulgent Herod to acquiesce to demands that John
be removed. John the Baptist has clashed with the political mechanism of his
country and paid the price for it.
In Jesus of Montreal, Arcand
shows an air of menace surrounding his John figure that equates with that faced
by the Baptist in other films. John might be threatened by the Romans as a
result of his association with the rebels in the desert, King of Kings,
or the religious authorities, The Greatest Story Ever Told. However,
Arcand’s ‘John’ is intimidated by the Bishop, who finances the
Theology Faculty in which he works, as well as his colleagues in the faculty
itself. As with Stevens, then, Arcand’s ‘John’ faces danger
from the religious authorities.
3.11
John’s
Imprisonment.
No
mention is made of John’s
imprisonment in the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Evangelist is primarily concerned
with John’s role of
witness, and as such, John’s time in prison serves him no purpose. To the synoptic evangelists,
John’s
imprisonment is more important. They not only state the fact that he was
arrested, they also give the reasons why. The main reason is that John preached
against Herod’s marriage
(Mk 6.17 and par.). Luke (3.19) suggests that John had rebuked Herod for other
things as well, although he offers no hint of what these might be. However,
Matthew and Luke also use John’s imprisonment as an additional opportunity for John to teach his
disciples about Jesus. This is achieved by means of the question addressed to
Jesus by John through his disciples as given in Q 7.19. This question, ‘Are you he who is to come, or shall
we look for another?’, as
important as it might be in terms of John’s assessment and acceptance of Jesus as Christ, is
addressed in only one film: King of Kings.
Ray treats Q 7.19 through a Roman
called Lucius. A major character whose presence is evident throughout the film,
Lucius progresses from one who is indifferent towards Jesus to one who comes to
believe in him. The audience does not see Lucius pose John’s question. However, John’s answer comes in a scene wherein
Jesus preaches outside John’s cell. As in Q 21-23, which comes from Isaiah 29.18-19; 35.5-6, 61.1,
Jesus makes no mention of proclaiming ‘liberty to the captives’ (cf. Isa. 61.1). Nevertheless, this command of
Isaiah is addressed by Ray in a scene in which the imprisoned John receives an
unexpected visitor: Jesus himself. Jesus explains to Lucius, who is now John’s gaoler, that he has come to free
John. At this stage in his journey, Lucius naturally thinks that Jesus means to
break John out of prison. However, Jesus refers to the spiritual freedom of the
Kingdom, which comes through righteous conduct, as outlined in Mt 25.34-46. Here,
Matthew’s Jesus makes
mention of the duties of the righteous, one of which is to visit those in
prison (25.36, 39, 43, 44).
3.12
Death.
Mark (6.17-29) and Matthew (14.3-12) include an account of the death of
John the Baptist. They use this event, recounted as a reminiscence of Herod, in
order to further John’s
status as Christ’s
forerunner. In short, John’s death is the precursor of that of Jesus.
Those filmmakers who
include the scene of John’s
execution do so for one of two reasons. First, they include it simply because
it is found in the source material. This is the approach taken by Pasolini,
whose film retells the Gospel of Matthew. Sykes and Kirsh, who present an
abridged version of Luke, offer no depiction of John’s death
because the event is recorded by that evangelist without elaboration (9.9). Zeffirelli’s Jesus of
Nazareth includes the execution of John, here emphasising a political motive.
John’s
prediction of a new king to come, who would be a just prince, undermines Herod’s authority.
Second, the event of
John’s
death can be used as an opportunity to enhance portrayals of Jesus. This
approach, which closely mirrors that of the evangelists, treats John’s death as
forerunner to Christ’s.
This can be so even if the film itself features John very little, or even not
at all. Hayes’ The Miracle Maker does not portray John’s execution. However,
he does include a scene in which the Jewish authorities speak of having ‘dealt with
John the Baptist’
because they thought he was dangerous. In a film that takes a minimalist
approach to John, he appears in it for barely one minute, his death as the
precursor to that of Jesus is exploited to the full. A similar approach is
taken by Edwards, even though Jesus Christ Superstar does not feature
John the Baptist at all. Edwards, nevertheless, manages to provide a link
between his death and Jesus’ crucifixion in a scene, reflecting its parallel in The
Miracle Maker, in which the Jewish authorities imply that they were
responsible for John’s
removal. As they watch Jesus, who is being celebrated by adoring crowds, on
CCTV screens mounted in a room they note that Jesus is bigger than John was ‘when John did
his baptism thing’. As
a consequence, ‘so
like John before him, this Jesus must die.’ In another film in which John does
not feature, Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal, John’s death
nevertheless still serves as a forerunner to Jesus’ own. This is
achieved in the opening scene in which a hanging is staged. The ‘dead’ man points
out the young actor who will go on to play Jesus as being more worthy of the
part than he. This reflects John’s passing of his ministry to Jesus, as expressed
in the words attributed to John, ‘he must increase, but I must decrease’ (Jn 3.30).
In Ray’s King of Kings, there is a sense that Ray’s almost dismissive treatment of John’s execution can probably be
attributed to the fact that he is more concerned to represent the relationship
between John and Jesus at this point. This relationship is, of course, that of
proclaimer and proclaimed. Jesus is the teacher to whom John has handed the
reins of his own ministry. Ray’s priority is to express Jesus’ assertion that he is indeed the one whom John was
looking for (cf. Q 7.19). The key to Ray’s approach is Lucius. The Roman soldier’s acceptance of Jesus as the Son of
God might be inspired by Mark’s centurion (15.39), but the character of Lucius also represents the
viewer, who is confronted with the question of faith. Nevertheless, Ray
acknowledges the evangelistic view of John’s death as the precursor to that of Jesus by using
several connecting links. Perhaps the most significant is Lucius’ presence during John’s imprisonment as his gaoler, as well
as his participation at Jesus’ trial. A perhaps more subtle association occurs as Jesus preaches
outside John’s cell, in
the bars of which an image of the crucifixion is clearly visible. Still more
subtly, Salome holds a caged bird when Herod questions John as well as at Jesus’ trial. In a clever play upon colour
symbolism, Jesus wears red for the first time following John’s execution. Red, as has been noted[7],
symbolises martyrdom. As such, it is appropriate for John. However, here, Jesus
is wearing it. Babington and Evans (1993:137) note that red is also the colour
of blood and the Passion. As such, John’s bloody end foreshadows the crucifixion. Jesus’ red robes are, therefore, a
connecting link between John’s death and Jesus’ own.
Ray’s symbolism, as he connects the deaths of both
John and Jesus, is subtle indeed. The approach taken by Greene is even more so.
In Godspell, John the Baptist and Judas
are played by the same actor, David Haskell. This has one fascinating effect
when it is considered the circumstances of John’s execution and Judas’ betrayal of
Jesus. As Bach (1996:111) points out, John’s death occurred at a festival being given for
Herod’s
birthday. This occasion was seen by Herod as an opportunity to rid himself of
the Baptist (Mk 6.21). Similarly, it was at the time of another festival, this
time the seder or Last Supper, that Judas decided to look for an
opportunity to betray Jesus (Mk 14.11). The word used by Mark on both occasions
is eukairia, ‘opportunity’ or ‘favourable occasion’. This provides a very
subtle connection between the deaths of John and Jesus, which is exploited by
Greene in his use of one actor for the parts of John and Judas. Admittedly,
anyone not familiar with the Gospels in their original Greek would miss this
point. It is, nevertheless, an extremely clever device.
In the study of the
treatment of John’s
death in literature[8],
there was some discrepancy over who should be held responsible, Herodias and
Salome, or Herod. The solution, whatever side an author took, was not always
clear cut. This reflects the treatment of the same dilemma by the evangelists. Although
they show Herodias scheming, and her (unnamed) daughter dancing, they
ultimately imply (Mark) or state (Matthew) that Herod is the one who is
ultimately accountable for the death of John. A similar phenomenon occurs in
the film world. Therefore, in Kings of Kings, Jesus of Nazareth and
The Gospel according to St Matthew, although Herodias and Salome are the
driving force behind the execution of John, the ultimate responsibility rests
with Herod. Stevens shows Herod to be equally weak-willed. However, here he is
primarily the victim, not of his scheming wife and step-daughter, but rather of
the Romans who surround him and act as his advisors.
3.13 Miracles of John.
As discovered in chapter two, there exists a miracle tradition
surrounding John the Baptist[9]. This
tradition encompasses the miracles mentioned in connection with him in Luke. For
instance, his birth to elderly parents and a barren mother (1.7), and the miracle
of his father’s
voice (1.20, 22, 64). However, later tradition, especially that connected with
the monastic world, holds that John is able to perform miracles, especially
healing, through his relics. This belief, as noted in chapter two[10],
contrasts with Jn 10.41, where it is stated: ‘John did no sign, but everything that
John said about this man [Jesus] was true’. The Fourth Evangelist, therefore, rejects John’s abilities
as a miracle-worker as he further emphasises his role as witness. The basis for
miracles associated with John is the suggestion that Herod, upon hearing of
Jesus’
healing and miracle-making activities, declares that John, whom he beheaded,
was returned from the dead (Mk 6.14-16 and par.).
In film, John the
Baptist is also associated with miracles. As in the Gospels, the context is the
association made between John and Jesus by Herod. This is particularly brought
out by Ray, whose King of Kings, depicts Herod questioning Jesus.
During the course of the interrogation, Herod asks Jesus if he is John come
back to life. As though to explain his thinking, he tells Jesus that he had
heard that he is a very great miracle worker. The Greatest Story Ever Told
takes things a step further by showing Herod actually telling Jesus that he
thought that he was John the Baptist come back from the dead. He qualifies this
statement by speaking of Jesus’ miracles.
In the main, however,
it is ‘the
people’
who make the connection. Stevens shows Jesus performing miracles and healing
the sick. He walks upon water. To ‘the people’, this signifies, amongst other things, that John
the Baptist has returned. How John can become associated with walking upon
water is puzzling. However, a tradition does exist in which John’s head is
said to choose which monastery it would like to reside in by floating down the
Nile to its chosen destination[11]. Later,
Lazarus is raised from the dead, the cripple walks, the blind man sees; all
this is announced to the Roman authorities. News of these incidents soon
spreads, and Jesus is proclaimed a miracle worker. This leads him to be once
more mistaken for John the Baptist. Again, Stevens has touched upon parallels in tradition,
in which John the Baptist is a healer.
Zeffirelli also briefly
touches upon John’s
career as a miracle worker. In a scene that appears to combine Mk 6.30 and Mk
8.27-8, Jesus of Nazareth portrays the disciples telling Jesus how they
had managed to preach successfully and with inspiration. Jesus asks them who ‘people’ say he is. The
answer is John, returned from the dead. Here again, John’s association
with Jesus is connection with miraculous events.
4 Conclusion.
The aim of this chapter was to apply the knowledge gained in previous
chapters of traditions and themes of John the Baptist to a study of films in
which John is featured. The first task was to provide a survey of films in
which John the Baptist appears as a character. Next, a selection of films was
made to be used in the study, and reasons for each selection offered. Then, in
a move similar to that taken for previous chapters, which discussed John in art
and in literature, the themes of John the Baptist that are to be found in film
were identified. Having arranged these themes into chronological order, a
discussion of the films in which they were featured was embarked upon.
Films featuring John
the Baptist can be divided into two classes: those in which Salome is the main
character of the film, and those that interpret the life of Jesus. This chapter
focussed upon the Jesus films because they offer the most diversity in terms of
John’s
interaction with the main character, Jesus. Moreover, in a study of traditions
of John, his relationship with Salome plays only a small part. His relationship
with Jesus, however, is far more significant. This is because much of how John
is interpreted in other traditions, whether it be Christianity, Islam,
Gnosticism, or even paganism, is due to his perceived relationship with Jesus.
Filmmakers seeking to
represent the life of Jesus are, by definition, interpreting one story. It is
the story of Jesus as familiar to anyone acquainted with the Gospels. Their
approaches, however, vary considerably. Whatever course a director takes has a
direct bearing upon his or her approach to John the Baptist. Pasolini, who
filmed Matthew’s
Gospel, and Sykes and Kirsh, whose film is an abridgement of the Gospel of
Luke, took their interpretation of John from the source in which they found
him. In each case, there was no attempt to analyse John, nor to include nuances
that would lead the viewer to make connections between John’s death and
that of Jesus. Stevens closely followed the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth
Evangelist emphasises John’s role of witness to Christ. Stevens added a further
dimension. Although his John does not act as the forerunner in the accepted
sense, he does show John’s
inspiration to come from the Hebrew Bible. Thus, as he preaches, John proclaims
Christ, not as his forerunner, but merely as the prophet who has deduced his
coming from his familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures and is bearing witness
to the event as it unfolds. Here, Stevens comes very close to Luke’s view of
John, that he is the last of the prophets (16.16). The law and the prophets end
with him.
Ray, Zeffirelli and
Hayes each present an orthodox interpretation of Christ’s story,
drawing from all four Gospels as well as the Hebrew Bible. Ray in particular
adds a historical dimension to his film by means of references to Josephus. This
provided an interesting view into the world in which John lived, and which he
shared with zealots and rebels. Zeffirelli concentrated more upon John’s role of
forerunner. He achieved this by introducing John with passages from Malachi, in
which a messenger, later identified as Elijah, would come prior to the one whom
Christianity has interpreted as Christ. This Elijah-like figure, dressed in the
raiment of the desert prophet, then appears on screen. Zeffirelli, therefore,
does not neglect John’s
association with this figure. Hayes’ film is the only animated life of Jesus to be
made so far. However, the choice of genre does not diminish its authenticity. John
appears very briefly, yet Hayes manages to convey his mission of forerunner,
proclaimer and baptiser of Christ.
The films of Greene,
Scorsese and Edwards can be singled out for their highly unorthodox approach. Greens
sets his in the vibrant New York hippy scene. Although he does not include John’s execution,
he does make a clever connection between that event and the death of Jesus. He
does so by using the same actor for John the Baptist and Judas. Scorsese does
not use the Gospels as his source, but rather Kazantzakis’ novel. Since
his source depicts a quest on the part of Jesus to discover the truth of his
calling, so too does the film. Scorsese’s John, therefore, appears more as a teacher to
Jesus. He speaks to Jesus, helping him to understand his thoughts and feelings,
and to guide him as to the best course of action as he sees it. For a time,
Jesus appears to become John. However, this is merely part of his quest, a
phase he must experience before he can go on. The Baptist has no more
significant role in Jesus’
life than this. Edwards brings Jesus firmly into the modern era, including CCTV
surveillance, and where an oppressed people write such poignant slogans as liberté,
fraternité, égalité and Freiheit on the walls and carry placards declaring, ‘Jesus Rules’. Although
John the Baptist makes no appearance here, he is alluded to in a scene that
alerts the audience to Jesus’ eventual fate. As such, John’s forerunner
status is not ignored, even if the man himself is.
John the Baptist in film mirrors the
John the Baptist in Christianity. Filmmakers, some of whose attempts to return
John to his original Jewish world notwithstanding, in the main tend to adhere
to the orthodox Christian interpretation of John the Baptist. Thus, he is Jesus’ forerunner or witness. Even in films
where these qualities are less apparent or even neglected, he still acts as a
mentor or teacher to Jesus. However, his influence is often only temporary. Once
Jesus embarks upon his own ministry, John is forgotten only to emerge as Christ’s forerunner in death. In a way, such
an approach to John in film is inevitable. If filmmakers concentrate upon
Jesus, then John must interact with him. If the sources are the Gospels, or
works influenced by the Gospels, John will always be an inferior character. However,
this could change. Tatum (1994:66) notes that filmmaker Paul Verhoeven has
expressed an interest in making a film that looks at the relationship between
John and Jesus. More specifically, Verhoeven is interested in the impact John
the Baptist must have made upon Jesus. This film, were it to be produced, might
see a righting of the balance in John’s favour. John the Baptist would, for once, be the
star of the show, rather than merely a supporting player.
[1] This play featured in the previous chapter, page 242 - 243.
[2] This was discussed in chapter two, pages 47 - 48.
[3] See previous chapter, pages 219 – 220.
[4] In The Messiah, see previous chapter, pages 239 - 240.
[6] See previous chapter, pages 220, 221.
[7] This was noted on page 174.
[11] See chapter two, page 69.
