Support the Café

Search our Site

Jesus in the movies

Jesus in the movies

The current film “Son of God” tells us as much about the movements and tensions of our world today as it does tell the story of Jesus. The film reminds us that one surefire way to understand what is going in the culture is to look at how Jesus shows up in the movies.

Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey do just that in the Atlantic, as they wonder “whatever happened to hippie Jesus?”

Jesus films have not always been so serious, and they have not always been directed toward particular segments of the Christian community. In the 1970s, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar used whimsy, even silliness, to tell the old, old story, and both sought mass appeal. Neither film grabbed the market share Passion of the Christ did, but they were popular for their day. Why did so many Americans of the 1970s gravitate to inventive, artistic, and playful accounts of Jesus, while today Christ films are brutal and interested giving in a literal-seeming interpretation of the Bible?

Jesus Christ has played a prominent role in the American cinema since its modern genesis. In the beginning of the 20th century, directors D. W. Griffith and Cecil DeMille not only made the son of God a star on the silver screen, but also consciously set him in conversation with the nation’s most visible problems. After Griffith’s Ku Klux Klan-glorifying film Birth of a Nation (1915) had Jesus appear to bless white supremacy, Griffith tried to prove his love for liberty with Intolerance (1916). In it, nasty Jews crucify the peaceful Jesus. Understandably, this had American Jews crying racism, much as blacks had done with the first film.

Ten years later, DeMille produced the first major “talkie” that starred Jesus, The King of Kings (1927). A relatively benign bio-pic, The King of Kings offered Americans a way to contain diversity within unanimity. From the 1880s to the 1920s, the nation changed dramatically in its demographics. Massive immigration had brought to the shores millions of non-Protestants and peoples deemed non-white. They had their “kings,” spiritual and political, but DeMille’s film was there to remind everyone that Jesus was the “king of kings.”

So what does the new film tell us? Blum and Harvey don’t think that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ nor the current Son of God could have happened in the 1970’s. For one thing, convervative Catholics and conservative evangelicals were still at odds with each other. Their current alliance in politics and the culture wars had not happened yet. Also, since the 1970’s a whole industry has built itself around devotion. They write:

By the time of Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, an entire industry of the devout had been created. It boasted singers like Amy Grant, athletes like NBA star David Robinson, restaurants like Chic-fil-A, and painters like Thomas Kinkade. Those markets, along with conservative media outlets, made the Son of God and The Passion not only possible, but lucrative. In fact, a main sponsor of The Bible miniseries was the dating site Christian Mingle….

…Neither the Son of God nor Passion of the Christ provides a playful side to the story of Jesus, in part, because viewers can find that elsewhere. But even more, the films tell us something about the market. The devout niche is defined by exactly that: devotion. This audience is looking for portrayals of their faith that take it as important and true, and not as the stuff of jokes



Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ann Fontaine

We had a Lent series where we watched “Jesus movies” from different eras. Interesting to watch the different Christologies depending on where the dominant culture was at the time. Still a fave “Jesus of Montreal”

tobias haller

JCF, Jaroslav Pelikan’s Jesus Through the Centuries comes to mind. Each era portrays him for what they need — for motivation or justification.


Don’t we always create Jesus in our own image (and/or, the image we want to SELL)?

Hippie Jesus was made for hippies. Fundy (“Passion of the Christ”) Jesus is made for Fundies. I really think it’s as simple as that (and that TRUE Jesus, ergo, *always* eludes the marketers).

JC Fisher

tobias haller

DeMille’s 1927 King of Kings was a silent film, not a talkie. Makes me wonder how long it’s been since the authors saw it, if ever.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café