Posted on 03/07/2004 4:12:31 PM PST by Pikamax
By Ray Richmond LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Long languishing on the shelf, the ABC biopic "Judas" is taken out and dusted off, finally ready for its close-up now that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" has done the religious heavy lifting.
It was apparently long deemed too controversial to be trotted out in primetime, painting as it does a reasonably sympathetic portrait of the man who ultimately betrayed Christ. But fundamentalists need not worry too much. If "Passion" is Jesus-heavy, then "Judas" is surely Jesus-lite, rife as it is with subtle caricature and fabricated dialogue that leave both Jesus and Judas sounding more like debate team members than biblical figures.
Indeed, "Judas" was reportedly shot in 2001, and there has been no rush to get it on the air. Whether the delay had anything to do with fear of backlash from the religious right is open to conjecture. What's clear is that this film, co-exec produced and penned by Tom Fontana, is burdened with one-dimensional undertones that pander to the masses. If "Judas" represents an admirable attempt to explain Judas' actions from his own point of view, it also gets lost in a sea of overly simplistic mumbo jumbo.
The film stars Johnathon Schaech as a particularly intense Judas and Jonathan Scarfe as something of a mealy-mouthed Jesus. "Judas" covers the two years the men spent together marked by political unrest and spiritual awakening. Initially, apostle Judas is taken with Jesus' messiah energy and powers, even if at times Jesus is doing healing on such a rapid and mass scale that he appears to be running an HMO of miracles. But the more that Jesus says he can't directly oppose the Romans and must follow the wishes of his father, the greater grows Judas' frustration. Judas fears annihilation at the hands of their enemies, but Jesus has his eyes on a greater prize.
One of them speaks in parables, one in rantings. It's clear these two are headed for a huge falling out. But the message here is that Judas didn't merely sell out Jesus for 50 pieces of silver; his actions were dictated by his own apprehension and anxiety, too often manifested in speechifying that seems entirely out of sync with the period ("Say what the hell you mean!").
Seeing the film, my guess is that "Judas" languished in limbo because ABC knew it was of dubious quality and perhaps theology. Once "Passion" hit theaters, the network had to figure, hey, let's ride the religious wave. But that doesn't make the movie any more relevant in its own right.
The acting is mostly unimpressive -- particularly that of Scarfe as Jesus, who isn't so much magnetic here as pedantic. It's difficult to fathom following this guy into the next scene, much less to the ends of the Earth. Schaech's Judas is passionate but undefined, a blend of ambivalence and menace. And Tim Matheson proves unconvincing as Pontius Pilate, his toga reminding us anew that he was once Otter in "Animal House."
Cast: Judas: Johnathon Schaech; Jesus: Jonathan Scarfe; Pilate: Tim Matheson; Caiaphas: Bob Gunton; Flavius: Owen Teale; Jeshura: Danny Scheinmann; Eliakim: Elliot Levey; Rohab: Suzanne Bertish; Peter: Mark Womack; Andrew: Rory Kinnear; James: Enzo Squillino Jr.; John: Harry Peacock; Matthew: Paul Haigh; Mary Magdalene: Georgia MacKenzie; Claudia: Fiona Glascott.
Executive producers: Tom Fontana, Father Frank Desiderio; Producer: Ann Wingate; Director: Charles Robert Carner; Writer: Tom Fontana; Director of photography: Michael Goi; Production designer: Paolo Biagetti; Costume designer: Sergio Ballo; Editor: Raoul Davalos; Music: Bill Conti; Sound mixer: Ian Voigt; Casting: Jason Lapadura, Natalie Hart, Suzanne Smith, Mohamed Bensouda.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Well put!
"Indeed, 'Judas' was reportedly shot in 2001, and there has been no rush to get it on the air."
Reportedly?? They have an opinion, but can't even research when it was shot. Reportedly?
It was thirty pieces of silver. It realy gets old reading stories about the gospels, or anything related to the bible, that are written by someone who has no idea what the facts are.
It was thirty pieces of silver. It realy gets old reading stories about the gospels, or anything related to the bible, that are written by someone who has no idea what the facts are.
It was certainly thirty pieces of silver, but the article's point is not entirely without merit; I don't know that Jesus realized the people who whom he was handing over Jesus would put him to death.
Now I'm confused.
I do beleive you ment JUDAS
You are correct, Judas did not think Jesus would be put to death, because Judas did not understand Jesus's tachings. Judas eventually took his own life and will forever be condemed for it.
That being said, it still does not forgive the writer for not knowing the facts about what he writes. Like most liberals he is ignorant of the truth, even when he attacks one of his own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.