Amidst the torrent of advance publicity surrounding the release of Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ, people may well overlook another Biblical movie already in theaters, The Gospel of John. Unlike the Gibson movie, The Gospel of John has generated rather modest publicity and limited release. It is showing in only two theaters in the Cleveland area, one each on the East and West side. Perhaps its greatest handicap is its length: three hours. On the other hand, that is no longer than The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and people seem to have no trouble sitting through that film. Granted, The Gospel of John is a long movie, but necessarily so, as the movie depicts the entire Gospel, from “In the beginning was the Word” (1:1) to “If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written.” (21:25)

Christopher Plummer is the narrator, using a text based on the Good News Bible translation. The Good News version is a translation of the Gospel from the original Greek, but uses ordinary, idiomatic English. This gives the feeling that Jesus is talking with ordinary people, here and now, today. My only criticism of this choice is that a translation using ordinary, conversational language sometimes fails to express the richness of language and image that a more precise translation can convey.

The creators of The Gospel of John were sensitive to the potential for controversy inherent in any Gospel depiction, especially the risk of anti-Semitism. They made two strategic decisions which address the issue directly. At the beginning of the film, there is an explanatory note which explains that John’s Gospel was written at the end of the First Century A.D. (C.E.) when Christianity was emerging as a distinct religious community separate from Judaism and that there was “antagonism between the emerging church and the religious establishment.” Second, the term “Jewish authorities” (rather than “the Jews,” the usual translated) is used consistently throughout the film to refer to the group opposed to Jesus and his message. Showing both Nicodemus (a Pharisee) and Joseph of Arimathea — both open to Jesus — as two of the Jewish leaders throughout the film also presents a more balanced picture of the varied responses to Jesus.

John’s Gospel is built around discourses: the dialogue with Nicodemus, with the Samaritan woman at the well, the “Bread of Life” discourse, the story of the man born blind, the Good Shepherd discourse, the Last (Supper) Discourse. In the Gospel, the discourses are continuous text, at times broken by a question or comment by a listener. In the movie, several discourses occur over several consecutive scenes. The effect is to suggest that Jesus used the same themes and images again and again to bring the Good News to the different groups he encountered. As a movie, it is an effective technique to keep what would otherwise be long stretches of talking visually engaging and interesting. As a presentation of the Gospel, this interpretation helps communicate the preaching and teaching mission of Jesus dynamically.

Another interesting choice of the film is to show Mary Magdelene accompanying Jesus and the disciples through much of Jesus’ ministry. The film makes no special mention of it (being faithful to the actual text of the Gospel) but simply shows her as present with the other disciples listening to and accompanying Jesus. This makes her presence at the Cross and at the tomb readily understandable. It also illustrates why she was “the apostle to the apostles” (although the Gospel of John never uses the term.)

Given the controversy about the graphic violence in Gibson’s movie, The Gospel of John makes a different choice in depicting Jesus’ suffering and death. Without sanitizing the violence and brutality toward Jesus, the movie minimizes the depiction of violence, suggesting rather than showing. For example, one sees the soldier with the whip, but all one sees of Jesus is his shadow on the wall. One sees a soldier bearing the crown of thorns and the robe, but not Jesus being “crowned” and mocked. The executioner’s hands are shown with the hammer in one hand reaching down to pick up the nails. The sound of the hammer striking is heard, but not shown. This makes the violence that is shown – the bloody, scourged Jesus being brought forth by Pilate’s “See the man!” or Jesus hanging on the cross – that much more shocking, and moving.

John’s Gospel is the most “theological” of the Gospels and certainly contains the strongest explicit statements about the divinity of Jesus: “The Word was God;” “The Father and I are one;” “Before Abraham was, I AM;” “My Lord and my God.” Actually listening to these statements being spoken by or about someone who looks like an ordinary person powerfully conveys why so many people struggled to accept and believe in Jesus historically – and why it continues to challenge people today.

Yet this reveals an inherent problem with making the Gospel into a movie. Because film is a visual medium, it naturally suggests a “you are there, this is how it happened” experience. But a Gospel is not history; it is not biography. It is a Gospel, a proclamation of the Good News of Jesus written by people of faith “so that you may believe” (19:35). We have four Gospels, four tellings of the Good News, each a proclamation of Jesus’ words and deeds to help us on our journey of faith. What is true is not this or that fact, this or that word and whether Jesus actually did or said it (ala the Jesus Seminar); what is true is the Good News itself.

For most people, the Gospel is presented in small sections, story by story, as at Mass. We know the individual stories; rarely do we connect the individual stories into a whole. The Gospel of John makes effective use of flashbacks to link one part of the Gospel with another. Even more, it presents the whole. In just one sitting, one can encounter the entire Gospel message according to John. What a wonderful way to experience anew the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. By all means, “come and see” (1:39). Highly recommended.