Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology

ISSN: 0039-338X (Print) 1502-7791 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sthe20

Jesus in Hollywood – The Cinematic Jesus in a

Christological and Contemporary Perspective

Paul Otto Brunstad

To cite this article: Paul Otto Brunstad (2001) Jesus in Hollywood – The Cinematic Jesus in a
Christological and Contemporary Perspective, Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology,
55:2, 145-156, DOI: 10.1080/003933801753330633

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/003933801753330633

Published online: 06 Nov 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 142

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sthe20

Download by: [University of Sydney Library] Date: 15 August 2016, At: 19:25
Studia Theologica 55 (2001), pp. 145± 156

Jesus in Hollywood ± The Cinematic

Jesus in a Christological and
Contemporary Perspective

Paul Otto Brunstad

In a ª post-print cultureº image seems to have replaced print, the written

text, as the primary medium of communication and as a source of
knowledge. This is also true in the case of religion. This change is also an
important issue in Theology.1 Film is one of these relatively new striking
visual media that present themes of religious importance. More than one
hundred years of cinema also represents one hundred years of Jesus in
® lm.2 Different presentations and interpretations of the story of Jesus
have to a large extent in¯ uenced the western people’s image of this man.
Perhaps ® lm can be regarded as The Paupers’ Bible (Biblia Pauperum) as
the art of illustrated scriptures and visual art was called in medieval
times.
A study of the cinematic Jesus of the twentieth century needs a larger
historical perspective. There are tensions and problems inherent in
bringing the story of Jesus to the screen. This complexity is recognized
from the establishment of Christian tradition, and consequently affords
us important assistance in the study of ® lm’s capacity in retelling this old
story on the screen. The classical debate on Christology represent an
essential framework for the understanding of the cinematic Jesus. The
old theological tension ± ª who is this man?º ± is still present in the ® lm
genre. The issue raised in this article is, how does ® lm interpret and
present Jesus, his person and work. What kind of image does ® lm
provide us with? This is the main issue. In addition to an analysis of a
few selected ® lms within the Jesus-® lm / Christ ® lm genre, 3 I also aim to
re¯ ect upon the function and role of these ® lms in a cultural perspective.
What possibilities and also dif® culties are inherent in bringing the story
of Jesus to the screen?4
146 Paul Otto Brunstad

Hollywood between Antioch and Alexandria ± The Jesus Film in

a Christological Perspective

Kelly’ s classic book ª Early Christian Doctrinesº emphasized that the

Christological controversies were among the main problems of the
Church during the early centuries of Christianity. The main task of the
Church was to come to terms with the person and work of Christ and his
two natures: the fully human and the fully divine. Kelly connects this
controversy to two main traditions within the Church: the Alexandrian
and the Antiochene Christology.5 The Antiochene tradition was closely
related to Ebionism. This Christology from the second century solved
the problem by denying the divinity of Christ altogether.6 This
theological approach underlines the humanity of Christ rather than
his divinity. Christ had a human nature which was complete and
independent, and which also had to struggle with temptation.7 This was
a radical Christology with roots in Judaism. On the other hand, we ® nd
the Alexandrian tradition, which was a Christology from ª aboveº . The
endeavour of this ª highº Christology was to save Christ’s spiritual
dignity and his divine nature. It was inconceivable for Christ, as a divine
being, to possess a human nature. This understanding eliminated all
human aspects of Christ at the expense of his divinity. This is a
standpoint related to the Docetism in which Christ’s manhood, and
hence His sufferings, were unreal. The roots of this position were found,
as Kelly points out, ª in the Graeco-Oriental assumptions about divine
impassibility and the inherent impurity of matterº .8 Christ was
apparently just a human and his bodily manifestation was simply
illusory.

Films in the Alexandrian Tradition

Until the 1960s, the cinematic portraits of Jesus were strongly in¯ uenced
by the Alexandrian ª highº Christology tradition. Emphasis was on the
divine aspect of Jesus’ work and person. Human features were under-
played and hardly visible. Christ appeared as a pale, blond, blue-eyed
person in a long white robe. Compared to the Jewish background and
social context Jesus was clearly portrayed as a western person. None of
the major ® lms in this genre portrayed Jesus as a Jew with darker Semitic
features, despite the rest of the cast having typically Jewish features. 9
The cinematic Jesus of this Alexandrian period is further presented as an
elevated, remote and passive person. Human reactions such as fear,
insecurity, anguish and anger are hardly represented. Flanking this
 Jesus in Hollywood 147

highly idealized and divine person, we ® nd other Gospel-characters

with far more human traits. Peter, Judas and Barabbas compensate in
some way for the human reactions and feelings denied to Jesus. This
wish to ensure the divinity of Jesus also had a curious effect on the
understanding of the role itself. H. B. Warner, who played Jesus in The
King of Kings 1927, was transported in a closed car when he went
between the set and dressing room. When he was on location he ate all
his meals alone. No one but the director spoke to him when he was in
costume.10
Let us take a closer look at one of the most explicit ® lms within the
Alexandrian tradition, namely The Greatest Story Ever Told 1965, directed
by George Stevens. The intention of this ® lm was to portray a Jesus
appropriate to people of all faiths and religious communities. To
accomplish this goal it was necessary to remove Jesus from his earthly,
socio-political, and human context.11 By eradicating all disturbing
elements, Stevens created a pure, divine and universal Christ. The
result was a calamity. The ® lm did not become a blockbuster as
expected. To remove Jesus from his human and Jewish context did not
make him more relevant, just more irrelevant, incredible and boring.
This is also one of the ® lms that clearly shows how dependent and
closely related the Jesus-® lm is upon a cultural context. Stevens’ s The
greatest Story Ever Told gives one particular view of modern American
society sanctioned by biblical reference.12
It was not just piety for the Saviour that caused this reluctance to
depict a more human Jesus. Another aspect was the more fundamental
tensions and con¯ icts inherent in making a cinematic portrayal of Jesus
in a culture where the Church still had a fairly strong position.
Filmmakers were afraid of offending the audience and public opinion.
Consequently Hollywood and the ® lm industry adopted a conservative
approach, due more to economics than theological argument. An
accusation of blasphemy could cause a demand for censorship. Fear of
censorship and a strong reverence resulted in the human and incarna-
tional dimension being underplayed. An idealized Jesus was considered
more in harmony with the Gospel than a Jesus troubled by more human
traits.
An important question to pose is this: can the sacred or divine
possibly be portrayed on ® lm? This is a profound question for the whole
genre and certainly not easy to come to terms with, but the way Stevens
solved this problem, by using the Hallelujah Chorus and making the
® lm into a magni® cent Hallmark Card,13 does not seem to be a good
solution. The ® lm was more a demonstration of pomposity than a cause
for re¯ ection on a divine nature.
148 Paul Otto Brunstad

Christ-Figures in Other Film-Genres

Jesus represents one of the most ubiquitous ® gures in western culture. It
is not surprising to ® nd that the impact of this ® gure reaches far beyond
the genre of the more classic Jesus ® lm. Allusion to a heavenly and
divine Savior, a Christ-® gure, is not only found in more ª high-browº
® lms, but also in Western, Action and Science ® ction ® lms. This is a
common theme in many books dealing with theology and ® lm.14 Shane
1953, The Terminator 1/2, 1984/1991, Pale Rider 1985, Rambo 1985, 12
Monkeys 1996 and Matrix 1999 are typically ® lms where there is a clear
parallel between the male protagonist and Christ.15 David Jasper makes
an important comment on this phenomenon in an article.16 He warns of
a theological enterprise that on occasion can be too inventive. There
may be a hairline distinction between ® nding and inventing in this
intersection between ® lm and theology.

Jesus in the Antiochene Tradition

At the beginning of the 70s a shift in focus took place. Film started to
reinterpret the Jesus-® gure in a more radical way in line with the
Antiochene tradition, focusing heavily on his human aspects, limitations
and weaknesses. If the goal of earlier ® lms was to guard and secure His
divinity, the ambition of the new ® lms was now to describe the human
aspects of Jesus’ life and work as thoroughly as possible. A Christology
from ª belowº emerges. This shift in focus is due to various reasons. The
political and cultural revolution in the 60s had led to a more open and
liberal society. A new generation grew up, more radical, political and
critical than the previous. They abandoned old traditions and felt free to
compose their own life, also in regard to religious matters. In the wake of
this development, reverence towards the Bible and Christian tradition
dissolved. This situation gave ® lmmakers a new artistic freedom. In
addition a more liberal censorship policy emerged. It was now possible
to adopt a more experimental approach to the story of Jesus Christ. This
new cultural context was re¯ ected in ® lms that followed. Films such as
Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell both from 1973, and Life of Brian from
1979, echoed this cultural change. Even though these ® lms were not
regarded as serious attempts to interpret the story of Jesus, they still
marked a new epoch: a change. For some critics this change represented
dissolution of the genre. In the 80s two major contributions, The Last
Temptation of Christ 1988 and Jesus of Montreal 1989 were nevertheless
signs of a living genre.
 Jesus in Hollywood 149

Before I turn to an analysis of The Last Temptation of Christ, I wish to

make some comments on Jesus Christ Superstar, one of the more
neglected ® lms in the genre, but a production that clearly show how
cultural context in¯ uences the presentation of Jesus. Jesus is to be found
in the expanding popular culture of the early 1970s. He is surrounded by
a group of hippies dressed their legendary costume ± fancy sunglasses
and colourful shirts. The ® lm, originally a rock-opera, represents an
important step towards a profound humanizing of Jesus. The reverence
that played such a prominent role in the earlier ® lms is now gone.
During the last seven days of Jesus’ life, which is the focus of the ® lm, the
crowd deals with him in a way never before seen on the screen. Here we
® nd no distanced reverence for a divinity, but rather a distressed,
emotional entanglement with a fellow human being. 17 The ® lm also
marks a new turning point by its free reinterpretation of the Gospel
story. A storm of allegations of blasphemy followed in the wake of the
® lm. The confrontation was sharpened by the fact that the ® lm lacked
any suggestion of a resurrection. A totally humanized Jesus was the
outcome of the ® lm.
Jesus Christ Superstar was a forerunner for other ® lms classi® ed within
in the Antiochene, ª low Christologyº tradition. Both Arcand’s Jesus of
Montreal and Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ belong to this
tradition. Jesus of Montreal has been left to a later occasion even though it
deserves a more thorough presentation. Within the theoretical per-
spective applied in this article I chose to concentrate on Scorsese’s
controversial ® lm from 1988.
With his Catholic background and an unful® lled dream of becoming a
priest,18 Scorsese had for many years a passionate wish to make a ® lm
about Jesus. By reading Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel The Last Temptation of
Christ from 1955, he had found the text on which he would base his ® lm.
This is also clearly stated at the outset of the ® lm. Although Scorsese was
highly inspired by Pasolini’s The Gospel According to Matthew from 1964,
his own ® lm clearly differs from the other ® lms in the genre. Scorsese
applied a far more subjective and psychological perspective on the life of
Jesus than any other previous director. Instead of describing Jesus from
an outward perspective, he tries to depict his inner tensions, anxiety and
insecurity. Willem Dafoe, as Jesus, gives a totally new interpretation of
the Jesus ® gure. Dafoe does not give us a mild, elevated and secure
Jesus. On the contrary, the ® lm gives an ª iconoclasticº impression. It is a
revolt against other cinematic descriptions of Jesus, although Scorsese
still uses a pale, blond American actor. In the Alexandrian tradition
Jesus is presented as an elevated Saviour with a clari® ed vocation. This
Jesus stumbles and fumbles through life without knowing either the
150 Paul Otto Brunstad

purpose or meaning of life. He is irresolute and beset by voices he cannot

still. Is it God or a demon calling upon him? Sequences of the movie
resemble a psychological thriller more than a Jesus ® lm. The effect of the
® lm on the audience is more unpleasant than comforting. As Babington
and Evans put it, Scorsese’s Jesus offers the viewer little escape from his
tormented consciousness.19 Scorsese emphasises the inner torments of
the spiritual life of Jesus. But his torments and agony are more tied to
sexual temptations than to theologically de® ned problems.20 It’s the
relationship to Maria Magdalene that causes a last temptation to His
mission. The horizon of the problem is purely human not metaphysical.
It is a woman who intimidates and threatens the Saviour. Never before
has the sexual aspect been more explicit. But nevertheless, this shocking
representation of Jesus is done in a remarkably traditionalistic manner,
in line with the classic Western slogan that ª a woman is a fate worse
than deathº .
Jesus is represented as an anti-hero, a fragile and weak person with
similar traits found by other characters in Scorsese’s ® lms. In both Taxi-
Driver 1976 and Raging Bull 1980, the male protagonist is an anti-hero
who strives to ® nd a position in society and at the same time rescue
himself from destruction and obliteration. Travis, a Vietnam veteran in
Taxi-Driver and La Motta, a boxer in Raging Bull are both precursors for
this new Jesus ® gure. 21 During most of Scorsese’s ® lms, it is the human
yearning for clarity and meaning in life that is the main issue. The same
pattern is also to be found in Scorsese’s last ® lm from 1999, Bringing Out
the Dead, with Nicolas Cage as an ambulance driver in New York.
Scorsese makes a comment on Jesus in this ª anti-heroº fashion by
saying: ª He [Jesus] has to experience the guilt, experience the tempta-
tion, the feeling of anger, of lust ± all these things, even the shameº .22 To
make a credible Jesus who would be worthwhile to follow and possible
to identify with, this human aspect had to be integrated in the
representation of His life. Although Scorsese principally lays stress on
the human side of Jesus, he still insists on maintaining his divine nature:

He’s God. He’s not deluded. I think Kazantzakis thought that, I think
the movie says that, and I know I believe that. The beauty of
Kazantzakis’ concept is that Jesus has to put up with everything we
go through, all the doubts and fears and angers. He makes me feel like
he’s sinning ± but he’s not sinning, he’s just human. As well as divine.
And he has to deal with all this double, triple guilt on the cross. That’s
the way I directed it, and that’s what I wanted, because my own
religious feelings are the same.23
 Jesus in Hollywood 151

Whether Scorsese has accomplished his goal showing Jesus as both God
and man, is still to be discussed. Allegation of blasphemy from different
groups within the Church accompanied the release and gave Scorsese no
credit for this ® lm. The radicalism of the incarnation is profound, and it
seems that Scorsese’s ® lm has subsequently brought more of this
radicalism into the genre. Compared with The Greatest Story Ever Told
and other ® lms in the Alexandrian tradition, a ® lm like this is an
important and crucial reminder. Even though Scorcese’s ® lms do have
other major weaknesses, a ª lowº Christology does capture some
important Biblical elements that a ª highº Christology seems to have
forgotten. In this way it might be said that the Church itself need to
revise some components of its own Christology.24 Even though
Scorsese’s ® lm is very provocative, it has on certain points contributed
to revitalize the genre. The emphasis on the humanity of Jesus is, as
Friedman argued, necessary. ª If Christ is solely God, temptation is
meaningless, resistance is easy, struggle is absent, and the movie loses its
raison d’eÃtre.º 25 Friedman here gives an important theological argu-
ment. But the human nature of Christ is still just is one part of the whole.
Whether Scorsese has succeeded in his effort to unite the two natures of
Christ, both the human and divine, is not so clear. By leaving out the
resurrection at the end of the ® lm, he certainly enfeebles the divine on
behalf of the human.

Jesus Films in a Broader Theological and Cultural Perspective

We here touch upon a more fundamental problem that goes beyond
Scoreses’s ® lm. Is it possible, in basic terms to render visible that which
is inherently invisible by means of the celluloid medium? Is it possible
for any ® lm to represent the divine and human nature of Jesus in an
accurate way?26 Certainly not. No ® lm could ever do that. A Jesus-® lm
will always be a subjective interpretation of the Gospel-story. To
formulate criteria for evaluating the abundance of Christ-® gures that
have emerged through the ® rst century of ® lm history is a task for
further discussion. In addition to taking into account the director’s
ability to represent, or should we say re¯ ect, Jesus’ divine and human
nature on the screen, we still have to assess the ® lm within a broader
cultural context. This is necessary in order to answer the second question
that this article deals with: what role and function does the Jesus-® lm
have? To elaborate on this question a broader perspective is needed.
As a point of departure I wish to bring another important ® lm genre
into discussion, namely the horror-movie, a ® lm genre not often
commented on in a theological context. A comparison between these
152 Paul Otto Brunstad

two types of ® lms could throw an interesting light on the function and
fate of the Jesus-® lm in contemporary culture. Both ® lm genres are
closely tied to a metaphysical outlook on life. In a historical perspective
both the horror movie and the Jesus-® lm have experienced a somewhat
similar development. For both, the metaphysical and theological aspects
were suppressed by more psychological and human descriptions during
the 1960s. Even though the ® lms from the 1960s and onward deal with
the same texts, stories and symbols, there has still been an important
change, not only in the representation on the screen, but also among the
audience as well as in the cultural context. In a secular world, the role of
® lm and literature is no longer simply to explore aspects of various
transcendent and supernatural realities, but to hold up a mirror to our
own human desire and anxieties.27 This ª mirror-functionº is an
important assignment both for ® lm and literature.
In order to make a more credible Jesus ª worthwhile to follow and
possible to identify withº , Scorsese tries to use Jesus as such a mirror
re¯ ecting the human condition. By doing this, the ® lm genre that earlier
explored the more supernatural and religious aspect of life, now risks
becoming domesticated and tamed. The unsaid and unseen, the
mysterious and invisible in culture, the aspect that goes beyond the
human condition, suffers under this new concept. In this way the ® lm,
both Jesus-® lms and horror ® lms contribute to a trivialization of the
human world. They give a kind of disenchantment. The ® ght between
God and the devil, between the good and evil is just seen as a process
within each of us with no reference to a transcendent dimension. In this
way the development of these two genres also convey theological
implications. Where a kind of turgidity marked the earlier phase of the
® lm history, a trivialization characterizes the new ones.
In this perspective, Scorsese’s contribution may be rather more
problematic. In the history of the Jesus-® lm, his attempt to create a
more human Jesus is important and necessary, but taking the wider
cultural context into consideration, his ® lm needs to be revised once
more. The result of a more ª humanizedº Jesus could be an individual-
istic Jesus, able to re¯ ect some of our own condition, but unable to
extend to a world beyond our own anxiety and confusion. Jesus could
easily end up imprisoned within the framework of secular humanism.
This shows some of the more basic problems for ® lms dealing with
religious subjects today. This problem is not only tied to the ® lm
medium itself: it has also to do with the cultural context of the ® lm. The
same challenge is also to be seen within religious literature. A more
therapeutic perspective has in many ways replaced a more theological
approach to basic questions in life. 28
 Jesus in Hollywood 153

Possibilities and Dif® culties in Bringing the Story of Jesus to the

Screen

What is the role of the Jesus ® lm in our time? The assessment of the genre
has to take into account the development and change in the cultural
context. The Jesus ® lm is a part of consumer culture and the entertain-
ment industry. In this culture the audience never likes to be bound,
restricted or challenged by what they consume. The freedom of the
audience is decisive. Walter Benjamin describes people of modern time
as ¯ aÃneurs.29 One of the main characterisations of a ¯ aÃneurs was that
(s)he wants to observe, without being observed, to grasp without being
grasped. The ¯ aÃneur was in the crowd, but not of the crowd. It was
important to maintain this feeling of freedom. In this respect the ® lm
medium and the ¯ aÃneur are historically closely connected as fruit of the
culture and technology of the 20th Century. The undemanding ® lm
medium gives access to all sides of the human life, but at almost no cost.30
It is in this cultural climate of a ubiquitous ¯ aÃnerie that the Jesus ® lm has
its ª Sitz im Lebenº . This imposes limitations when we ask for the role
and function of the Jesus-® lm from a theological perspective. The ¯ aÃneur
of our time is a faithless spectator who goes wherever caprice or curiosity
might lead, loving novelties and distractions. The ® lmmakers within the
Hollywood ® lm industry have to adjust to this situation in order to cater
to the demands of the masses. The temptation to represent a Jesus that
satis® es the audience is easily done. The danger of Hollywood cinema, as
Jasper so clearly states, lies in its commercial habit of absorbing all
visions in to its own, ª offering the viewer a commodity which can be
consumed without fear of signi® cant change or disturbance.º 31 In this
respect Scorsese does transgress the demands of the audience by his
choking representation of Jesus in his anti-hero manner.
In addition to the faithless and demanding audience, cinema and the
Church represent two different rooms. To bring a sacred text from the
Bible to the screen does something with the content. The ® lm is an
interpretation of messages, stories and myths presented as a visual
imagination. While the cinema is purely based on the voyeuristic gaze,
the liturgical room is based on participation, commitment and commu-
nity as decisive goals. The community in the cinema dissolves as soon as
the ® lm is over and no one is called to account for the feelings and
thoughts created by the ® lm.
The cinematic Jesus could never replace the Jesus portrayed in the
Bible or preached in the Church. The concept of a sacred ® lm seems
impossible. One other problem we see by these re¯ ections on the Jesus-
154 Paul Otto Brunstad

® lm is that the durability of a ® lm paradoxically decreases by its ability to

re¯ ect contemporary culture. However, this is a problem with most ® lms
in this genre. The majority of them do not stand the ravages of time.
On the other hand, representation of Jesus in ® lm may well function as
a reminder by raising theological and human questions well beyond the
reach of the church. Films could also help to enrich lives on different
levels and areas, religious as well as psychological. By viewing these
® lms the audience becomes acquainted with the historical elements on
which our western culture is based. The representation might also
contribute to a cursory understanding and super® cial knowledge of
Jesus. Still, it is a long step from this more or less passive reception in
front of a screen to the point where the person becomes an active
participant in the community of faith. Nevertheless, in interaction with
such a community, the ® lm is able to start a process possibly ful® lled by
an enriching dialogue. In the intersection between the ® lm medium and
an attentive community of faith, a fruitful process might occur. The
community legitimises, stimulates and prepares for a full participation
in a living community. Where this element is present, the Jesus ® lm has
an opportunity to contribute more than a psychosocial or entertainment
component: the ® lm could even play a part in a conversion process.
As with any form of artistic expression, a cinematic portrayal of Jesus
could never capture the richness of His person and work. The ® rst
hundred years of Jesus in Hollywood makes this evident. A study of the
genre demonstrates a variety of attempts to tell the story of who this man
really was. Subsequently, the same study also acquaints us with
® lmmakers and directors, who are all in¯ uenced, not only by Jesus,
but also to an equal degree by their own time and cultural background.

Paul Otto Brunstad

NLA
PO Box 74 Sandviken
NO-5812 Bergen
Norway

Notes
1. David John Graham. The Uses of Film in Theology. In: Clive Marsh & Gaye Ortiz
Explorations in Theology and Film. Blackwell Publisher, 1997, pp. 35± 43, 39.
2. W. Barnes Tatum. Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First Hundred Years. Santa Rosa,
Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1997.
3. See Bruce Babington, & Peter William Evans. Biblical epics: sacred narrative in the
Hollywood cinema. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993, p. 4± 8 for a detailed
discussion on the classification of the Jesus Film / Christ Film within the term
 Jesus in Hollywood 155

ª Hollywood Biblical Epicº . Three sub-types of films are included by this term: the Old
Testament Epic; the Christ Film; and the Roman/Christian Epic (of the beginning of
Post-Christ Christianity).
4. I thank Assistant Professor Arnfridur Gudmundsdottir at the University of Iceland for
her constructive criticism of an earlier draft of this article.
5. At this point, by using Kelly’s classification of this material, I am indebted to
Christopher R. Deacy and his article: Screen Christologies: An Evaluation of the Role
of Christ-Figures in Film. In: Journal of Contemporary Religion. Volume 14 Number 3,
1999, pp. 325± 337.
6. J. N. D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper & Row, 1978, p. 139.
7. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 304.
8. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 141.
9. See William R Telford. The Depiction of Jesus in the Cinema. In: Clive Marsh & Gaye
Ortiz Explorations in Theology and Film. Blackwell Publisher, 1997, pp. 115± 140, p. 133.
10. Telford. The Depiction of Jesus in the Cinema, p. 129.
11. Bryan P. Stone. Faith and Film. Theological Themes at the Cinema. St. Louis: Chalice Press,
2000, p. 72.
12. David Jasper: On Systematizing the Unsystematic. In: Clive Marsh & Gaye Ortiz
Explorations in Theology and Film. Blackwell Publisher, 1997, pp. 235± 244, p. 237.
13. See Babington, & Evans. Biblical epics: sacred narrative in the Hollywood cinema, p. 1, and
Stone. Faith and Film. Theological Themes at the Cinema pp. 69± 72.
14. Clive Marsh & Gaye Ortiz Explorations in Theology and Film, is a typical book dealing
with this double perspective and finding Christ-figures in other film-genres. Other
books doing the same are: Inge Kirsner/Michael Wermke (Hg.). Religion im Kino:
ReligionspaÈdagogisches Arbeiten mit Filmen. GoÈttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000;
Joel W. Martin, Conrad E. Ostwalt Jr (ed.). Screening the sacred: religion, myth, and
ideology in popular American film. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1995; Robert Jewett.
Saint Paul at the movies: the apostle’s dialogue with American culture. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993; John R. May & Michael Bird Religion in Film,
Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1982.
15. An interesting article dealing with this topic is Rikke Schubart. Syndebock och
haÈmnare. Maskulinitet i actionfilm. In: FilmhaÈftet, No. 1± 2, 1997, p. 63± 72.
16. David Jasper. On Systematizing the Unsystematic: A Response. In: Clive Marsh &
Gaye Ortiz Explorations in Theology and Film, pp. 235± 244.
17. Mark Goodacre. Do You Think You’re What They Say You Are? Reflections on Jesus
Christ Superstar. Journal of Religion and Film Vol. 3, Number 2. p. 1.
18. Lawrence S. Friedman. The cinema of Martin Scorsese. Oxford: Roundhouse, 1997, p. 11.
19. Babington, & Evans. Biblical epics: sacred narrative in the Hollywood cinema, p. 151.
20. Friedman. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese, p. 153.
21. Friedman. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese, p. 152.
22. Friedman. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese, p. 156.
23. Friedman. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese, p. 154.
24. Stone. Faith and Film. Theological Themes at the Cinema, p. 74.
25. Friedman. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese, p. 162.
26. For an interesting and necessary discussion on this topic, see May and Bird. Religion in
Film, p. 2± 23.
27. Hollinger Veronica. Fantasies of Absence: The Postmodern Vampire. In: Joan Gordon
and Veronica Hollinger. Blood Read. The Vampire as Metaphor in Conteporary Culture.
Philadelphia: PENN University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997, p. 199.
28. David Wells discuses the ª therapeutic societyº in an interesting way in his book Losing
156 Paul Otto Brunstad

our Virtue. Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision. Leicester: Inter± Varsity Press,
1998.
29. See Susan Buck-Morss. The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989, pp. 304± 307.
30. David Jasper. On Systematizing the Unsystematic: A Response. In: Clive Marsh &
Gaye Ortiz Explorations in Theology and Film, p. 242.
31. David Jasper. On Systematizing the Unsystematic, p. 244.