Testament (2025): Something New [s1e08]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

The final episode of Testament, “Something Old”, reflects back to the title of episode one, “Something New”. Hopefully, this is just the final episode in this season rather than Testament as a whole. It’s six months since the show launched and there's been no announcement as to whether it’s been renewed or cancelled. Angel Studios are, at least, proving less trigger happy in their approach to renewing shows than Netflix, and with good reason in this case. The show has proved popular with its fans and they must be hoping that once introduced to it, new potential fans will become equally as enthusiastic. Moreover, I suppose that even if Angel  cancelled it, I suspect Paul Syrstad and the rest of this team of filmmakers would be keen to see if they can produce the remaining seasons elsewhere.

Episode 8 begins unsurprisingly in the aftermath of Stephen's death, although the first big scene revolves around Caiaphas and Gamaliel. These two have previously been somewhat at odds, but nevertheless serving on the same side, even if it’s been somewhat uneasy at times. Now, however, they have a kind of full-blown verbal conflict whose implications reverberate throughout the episode. Caiaphas tries to put Gamliel under pressure, but Gamaliel counters that it’s Caiaphas who is the one under pressure, not himself.

Caiaphas seems somewhat unnerved by this and when Pilate arrives shortly afterwards, a now cowering Caiaphas gets entirely disassembled by Pilate. I’ve never seen the power dynamic here captured in such a way, and its most welcome, even if it comes a little out of nowhere. This was a situation in which Pilate held all the power. He may have his own concerns, and back-up might be a little further afield that he would like, but ultimately he had the might of the Roman war machine backing him up: Caiaphas held little sway even among many of his own people.

Elsewhere, there are indications that other people's pasts are catching up on them. A man called Shem appears and starts to pull Mary Magdalene and Dana back to their pasts. At first he seems like some kind of low-level pimp, but there seems to be an implication later in the episode that the people this Shem works for are so powerful that even Rosh (the captain of the temple guard, and Dana's godfather) can't protect her from them.

Meanwhile, the followers of Jesus try and perform what is perhaps the first Christian burial. There’s an interesting scene where they produce a memorial with a ring of stones (which I'm not sure would be entirely appropriate in this situation, given how Stephen was killed), but what this does do is remind us how the normal temporary grave marker in cinema (a cross) would not be appropriate in this context, because it’s not yet become a symbol of Christianity in that sense. 

As Philip (the Philip who is one of Stephen’s best friends, rather than the Philip who is counted among the apostles) reflects on Stephen's death, he is starting to feel the call to go further afield. This is happening at more or less the same time as the disciples are weighing what to do next, but it’s interesting to see the way in which this idea unfolds, and particularly the order the inspiration comes in and how it comes. 

Philip is not part of the inner circle. He’s got a role, supporting the work of the apostles and he’s well known and well liked within the organisation, but he’s not one of the leaders, who’s planning strategy. I think the implication is that his vision is coming from reflecting on the words of Jesus and, crucially, the Holy Spirit. It’s coming from the roots of the organisation, rather than (just?) those ‘leading’ it.

Meanwhile the disciples are trying to figure out what to do next. While the order in which the scenes are shown suggests they are reaching similar conclusions to those such as Philip, it’s also born out of more practical concerns. Unsurprisingly, there's no small amount of fear among them, and this is only being intensified by the fact that Saul is hell-bent on persecuting the disciples after this initial ‘progress’*. The authorities still haven’t found the apostles’ lair, and Rosh tries to convince Caiaphas that it shouldn’t be Saul who is the one tasked with following up on the remaining apostles. Presumably in an attempt to protect his God-daughter, Rosh tries to get assigned to that task himself, but Saul makes a more convincing case. He's quickly brought into the Sanhedrin and it’s noticeable that now, Saul has been given the ‘title Minister’.

There's a nicely-crafted montage part way through this episode of Saul going on to arrest some of those within the church. It starts, in particular, with the former members of the Sanhedrin who have crossed over to join the followers of Jesus, and it's clear from what's done here that they are being both imprisoned and tortured.

So there are twin forces acting on the church, trying to work out what to do. On the one hand, the threat of being attacked or arrested is being escalated by Paul, and to a lesser extent Rosh, and this ends in spectacular fashion at the end of the episode. And on the other hand, the question of what the Spirit is doing, and what he is calling Jesus’ followers to do, with increasing numbers remembering Jesus’ instructions to take things further afield and feeling pulled away from Jerusalem in pursuit of that goal.

The moment when this all comes together is one of the less than brilliant moments in this episode. The disciples seek to find out who will be the first to leave and one or two fo the followers stand up and declare “I'll go”. it starts off well enough, but unfortunately after a few more times becomes too reminiscent of “I'm Spartacus”. Also, things got a little bit preachy at one stage and it started to feel like a message was being forced rather than a story being told.

That said, in terms of the number of Bible verses covered in an episode, this is perhaps the lowest number so far, covering just Acts 8:1-2. Yet, as I suggested towards the end of my review of the previous episode, those two verses represent a significant distance in terms of human drama. It also means this series ends in a good position. Obviously, I'm hoping it gets renewed for a second season and can continue to tell the story, but if that doesn’t happen, then the portion of the Acts covered is quite neat. It covers a certain moment of how the early church discovered that they were to go further afield and ends with them renewed with purpose (if still a little fearful for their own personal situations). And it ends on a montage that captures some of those hopes and fears moving forward, particularly focusing on Stephen's mother Esther.

All in all, Testament has held up the promise of its early episodes. I's remained true to the world building it did in the first episode, and has produced a context where Acts does seem to seem to make some kind of sense. It's not perfect, but it's certainly far better than we had any right to expect. The acting's been great.The dialogue has generally been very strong, and theologically, the show has been unafraid to let the Bible speak for itself, rather than rather than stacking the deck in its favour. Here's to an imminent announcement on season two!

*This isn’t a quote from the show, the quotation marks are just there to indicate that whether or not this represents progress very much depends on your point of view.

The Carpenter's Son (2025)

If you know me well you'll know I tend to value creativity more than fidelity and perhaps even more than narrative coherence. That's a good thing when it comes to Lotfy Nathan's The Carpenter's Son, a new horror-ish take on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas with a smattering of the Gospel of Matthew thrown in for good measure.

In a year when a slew of fairly stolid, conservative adaptations have hit screens big and small, it's great to finally have something that attempts to do something new and interesting. Indeed not only is this "Jesus-film" not based on the biblical gospels, it's not even particularly faithful to that, opting instead to use the strangeness of the stories in that Gospel as a mood board for it's exploration of the relationship between Jesus and his adopted human father Joseph, here played by Nicholas Cage.

I must admit I'm not generally a huge fan of Cage, but here he gives a great portrayal of a man frazzled by wrestling with his doubts and his demons, and quite a few other demons into the bargain. A few Jesus films in the past have looked more closely at the relationship between Mary and Jesus, including films where Mary is the central character, rather than her son, such as Mater Dei (1950) and Mary the Mother of Jesus (1999). One or two even take a closer look at Joseph, notably Jesus (1999) and Joseph of Nazareth (2000) and Jesus (1999). The latter of those even looks at Joseph and his son's relationship after Jesus has reached adulthood, though it's only a relatively brief part of the show's 3-hour runtime.

Here Nathan makes this the film's primary theme. The film starts with Cage leading Mary (played by FKA Twigs) out of Bethlehem as Herod's soldiers fulfil their orders to kill all the village's infants. This is frequently a horrific scene, but here there's a particularly shocking grimness to how this is filmed. Is it weird that I get a kick out of a subtitle saying "Anno Domini" at the start of the film? It took me a while to realise that this was the date. There's famously no year zero. Often nativity films use 4BC or 6BCE. Here it just goes with the year of our Lord, correct regardless of when, precisely, you date it.

Anyway we soon jump to fifteen years later with the Holy Family still skulking round, attempting to escape detection, and finding a new village where they will attempt, yet again, to re-settle. Joseph is also seeking to educate his son (played by Noah Jupe) about the ways of the world and of the spiritual battle he is involved in. Meanwhile, his son (because only one of the characters is actually named) is starting to become aware of malevolent spiritual forces, as well as his own powers, all while having to negotiate puberty. 

I think what Carpenter's Son really gets is the typically unremarked-on stress that Joseph must have undergone. Here it pushes things further. Not only does Joseph face the usual parental anxieties and the challenges of living in close proximity to those whose empathy has not yet fully developed, but he's also trying to protect him from Satan, his own powers, and the effect those powers might have on their new neighbours. Not to mention that fact that it appears he never 100% bought in to Mary's son not having a human father, such that it pops up when he's under-strain and wondering if he made the right choices. And all the while Satan is starting to step up their efforts to bring Jesus over to their side of things.

Actually very few of the incidents from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas appear in the film. The book mainly consists of Jesus experimenting with his powers, potentially getting in to trouble for using them, but then using them to get himself out of trouble as well, not entirely unlike a incarnated William Brown. A couple of the miracles bear a certain resemblance to those in IGoF.

While the film is not a conventional horror, most of the genre's characteristics feature here as well, albeit in a way that redefines them somewhat. Perhaps this is why it's currently only got a 3.9 on the IMDb at the moment. There were only a handful in at the screening I was at and this in the only cinema showing it in Leicestershire. Also, the special effects are pretty decent given the likely low budget (for such a film, with such a niche audience) and Lorenz Dangel's unnerving soundtrack is unconvnetional, a little off-kilter and generally first-class.

This won't be for everyone. In many ways it's a modern-day update of The Last Temptation of Christ (2004). This is a genuine attempt to wrestle with some of the big practical questions that surround Jesus's self-realisation of who he was, his susceptibility to female sexuality and the impact on him and those he loves. It's not without its flaws, and most will question the image of Jesus you come away with, but it's also novel, innovative and, for horror fans, quite a lot of fun.

Dallas Jenkins Quote BankThe creator of The Chosen in his own words

I know many people are writing about The Chosen at the moment and so naturally things its showrunner / writer / director Dallas Jenkins says are likely to be of interest. As far as I'm aware at the moment there is nowhere else where a bunch of his most significant quotations have been gathered together. So this is an effort to do just that in the hope it will be a growing resource for future writers.

Part of the problem, though, is that he says so much. Compared to the words we have from people like Nicholas Ray or George Stevens there is an incredible amount to wade through. Even compared to Cecil B. DeMille's autobiography and Pier Paolo Pasolini's interviews with Oswald Stack there is a mountain of material, and while at time there are clearly agreed promotional , repeated lines, often the things he said are much more spontaneous and frank.

If you have a quotation I've not included, please let me know so I can add it to the list. You can comment below or email me and I'll include it. Let me know if you want a "Submitted by..." credit (I'll use provided names if you comment). If at all possible please provide some kind of source. I will include others, but it helps those who might wish to cite Dallas in more formal publications.

The Quotes

"This show is so that you see Jesus through the eyes of those who actually met him,sop you can be changed and impacted in the way that they were".
- "I'm firing back about one criticism" Official 'The Chosen' YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpA5V32PpJs {5m55s}

"On day one of writing, six years ago, when I was in my basement, we put up a word on the wall on a big white piece of paper and it just said "Authentic". Everything that we did we wanted to be as authentic as possible and that starts with the fact that this is a Jewish show about a Jewish Jesus. One of the reasons why we wrote "authentic" was because we felt that was one of the things that was lacking in a lot of other Jesus movies and mini series that we'd seen. Not all of them, but occasionally the portrayal of Jesus reflected the background of whoever was making it, and so if it was Europeans making it it was a European Jesus. If it was British people or if it was American people it was a British or American Jesus. Obviously Mel Gibson, as a Catholic, it felt like a Catholic portrayal of the story, which is perfectly fine. Our portrayal, we just wanted to get rid of all of those things that sometimes get in between an authentic look at who Jesus was and that means first and foremost we're going to really lean into the Jewishness of the story: the prayers, the synagogues, the temple. All those things were really important to us."
- "I wrote one word on the wall when we first started writing The Chosen…". Video posted to Dallas Jenkins' Facebook feed. 6 Sept. 2025.
http://facebook.com/watch/?v=1573369834041360

"I don't do the show just to be a reenactment of Bible verses. Anyone can do that, and many have. We glean very little extra from doing that, other than simply experiencing Bible verses in a different way than reading them, like we do when we sing a Bible verse as a song or hear it read to us. And there's nothing wrong with that. The Bible was perfect and beautiful and complete before The Chosen came along, and it still is.

But when we write songs, books, or TV shows inspired by the Bible, hopefully we can wrestle with and explore the mysteries and questions and beautiful complications the Bible introduces. Hopefully we, along with the viewer, can go beyond just a reading or re-enactment and discover a profound beauty and depth that Art can contribute to. Never as a replacement for the text, but as a supplement to or outpouring from it.

My love of and understanding of Scripture inspires The Chosen, and The Chosen then (hopefully) inspires further love of and understanding of Scripture."
- Dallas Jenkins' Official Facebook page. 7 May 2025. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1300132398345636&id=100050466640733

"I believe that everything we need to know about Jesus is contained in one book and that is the Bible".
- Reel on Dallas Jenkins' Official Facebook page. 8 July 2025. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1262966132148918?fs=e&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V

"We implied nothing other than that in our show, Mary Magdalene wrote a psalm"
- Facebook comment from Official Dallas Jenkins channel on post in 'The Chosen' Fan Club Facebook post. 11 May 2025.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/thechosenfans/posts/1600783493951806/ 

Submitted by Others

"No, Mary Magdalene did not write scripture, but just like the vast majority of our show there is lots of content that isn't directly from scripture, but we thought it was a very interesting idea that Mary would have written down a lot of things...I'm sure multiple disciples and followers wrote down notes. We thought it was really cool if she wrote her own psalm, her own act of worship, her own act of wrestling with what she had experienced and seen. We thought it was a really interesting idea"  
- Season 4, Episode 7 Livestream, Renee's Question. 'The Chosen' App. (01:55:42) [Submitted by Olivia Adel Attya]

(Responding to interviewer's comment...) "Which then puts me in a dangerous spot when I'm making a show about Jesus where 95% of the content isn't from the Bible....I use the Bible as the first and foremost source of truth for the show, but if I even have someone say hello to each other in the show that's not from scripture."
- "A Candid Conversation with Dallas Jenkins, Director of 'The Chosen'" Interview with Melissa Dougherty on her YouTube channel. https://youtu.be/__-Yyq1FPQI?si=x70wf9xe2Pphe1ux&t=1470. {24:30} [Submitted by Matt Sears]

"The Bible hasn't changed since The Chosen." (Context was around criticism of his artistic license).
- Thought to be from an interview with Brandon Snipe, The Chosen Sleuth.[Submitted by Lynette Nelson Hupfer]

"Here we play” (his on-set version of "action") 
- "Directing 'The Chosen': A day on set with Dallas Jenkins". Official YouTube channel for 'The Chosen'. 30 May 2020. https://youtu.be/39oTzaxnlIo {6m40s} . [Submitted by Allison Lewis].

"I believe it is important to watch The Chosen as though the Bible didn't exist."
- Comment on 'The Chosen' Season 4: Episodes 1-3 DISCUSSION. Now Let's Be Honest YouTube channel. 3 Feb 2024
https://www.youtube.com/live/Lr9q4PqBBU0?lc=UgwiVwuAzOBvGI4AN2x4AaABAg.A-LraPnNGfeA-N54OT4FWp. [Submitted by Shane Cox].

"In several years, this show, The Chosen is going to be what many people consider the definitive portrayal of my people and I’m not going to let you screw it up.”
- "‘The Chosen’ creator in Utah: What Latter-day Saints asked Dallas Jenkins about his popular show. Trent Toone in Deseret News. 3 March 2022.
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/3/3/22957372/the-chosen-creator-dallas-jenkins-utah-state-university-dialogue-jesus-christ-faith-religion/. [Submitted by Shane Cox].

"That said, I do think it'd be a great troll for me to have Jesus on the cross and look down and wink at Joseph Smith walking by."
- Comment from Dallas Jenkins' Facebook account on his own post "Most common question after Episode 3...". 26th Dec 2022.
https://www.facebook.com/DallasJenkinsOfficial/posts/pfbid09mmuVfbGm4mSa5Jo1KsQjLvWaBKjmYtySGEPxyyEZH71c9y3w5HRfSVhS5SiefhRl
Later cited by Aleah Ingram in "'The Chosen' Creator References Book of Mormon in Online Joke". LDS Daily. 29 Dec 2022.
https://www.ldsdaily.com/entertainment/the-chosen-creator-references-book-of-mormon-in-online-joke/
[Submitted by Shane Cox].

Flicker Alley / Lobster's Bluray release: The King of Kings (1927/28)

This content was originally posted at the South West Silents website.
I was provided with a copy of this set for the purposes of reviewing it.

More than 20 years after its Criterion DVD release, Cecil B. DeMille's monumental biblical epic The King of Kings (1927) has finally received an English language Blu-ray release courtesy of Flicker Alley and Blackhawk films. It's a lush two-disc set which comes with two different cuts of the freshly-restored film, a 28-page booklet and a host of extras.

The film

While DeMille is mainly remembered these days for his historical epics, only one of the fifty films he had made before taking on The King of Kings had been biblical (The Ten Commandments, 1923): he was known mainly for westerns and melodramas. Nevertheless The King of Kings is one of the silent era's crowning achievements, as the Jesus story is told in the midst of huge back drops, impressive costumes and, of the obligatory cast of thousands. If the portrayal of Jesus is a little paternalistic and some of the soft-focus lighting seems a little twee by today's standards, H.B. Warner's portrayal of Jesus was fairly ground-breaking in its day for its tougher, more human portrayal of the man from Nazareth.

Starting in the middle of Jesus' ministry, the film sets out its stall from the off. A glamorous courtesan, Mary Magdalene reclines in her opulent villa surrounded by a glut of rich and powerful admirers. When she enquires about her lover, one Judas Iscariot, she is infuriated to hear that he has transferred his attentions to a simple carpenter. Thus DeMille sets out his stall from the very beginning, laying out what would become his trademark style: a mix of sex and piety that gave audiences what they wanted and then lectured them lest they enjoyed it too much. Mary's more flamboyant side is soon subsumed under a black cloak, her coiled, gold bra never to return again.

Meanwhile Jesus shores up support from those both outside Jerusalem and within with miracles, wise words and occasionally saving a slut-shamed women, all of which infuriate the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas. When persuades Judas to betray him, Jesus' fate appears sealed.

At the time it was made, the film was the most expensive film Hollywood had made, and despite never receiving a version with spoken dialogue, it remained popular with audiences long into the sound era.

The discs

There are two Blu-ray discs both of which feature newly restored versions of the film and are multi-region encoded (i.e. region free). The contents are as follows:

Disc 1

1927 Roadshow version of the film (161 mins*; 1.33:1 ratio) with an audio commentary by film historian Marc Wanamaker. New orchestral score updating and extending Hugo Riesenfeld's 1928 score, composed and updated by Robert Israel and available in both stereo and 5.1 Surround Sound.

Disc 2

1928 general release reconstruction (115 mins*, 1.33:1 ratio)
Two Scores for the 1928 General Release - Hugo Riesenfeld's original orchestral score and an organ score by Christian Elliott.
Substantial range of extra features.

I'll discuss the extra features in a little more detail below, but first some comparison of these two versions of The King of Kings is in order.

The cuts

There now a few versions of this film available on DVD (not to mention various editions on YouTube and other streaming sites) largely due to the fact that at the time several different versions of the film were released. The longest cut was the "Roadshow version" which is the one shown at the film's premier in New York in 1927. But the film received complaints from various Jewish groups who were concerned it blamed the Jews for the crucifixion and were unhappy with the portrayal of the high priest Caiaphas. So, early in 1928, DeMille recut the film to take their views into consideration.

But things were moving quickly on another front, with the advent of the sound era. An even shorter third cut of the film was made for general release, and while the dialogue remained silent, a variety of sound effects were added, such as the howling winds that accompanied the moments following Jesus' death.

It was this shorter 'General Release' version (around 115 minutes) that was released on VHS in 1997 and has been released several times since, including a UK version in 2006 by Home Entertainment.

However, in 2004, Criterion released a 2-disc set including both this shorter 1928 cut of the film and the original Roadshow version (they gave the running lengths as 112 minutes and 155 minutes respectively). The Criterion discs also featured coloured footage for the resurrection scene (both discs) and the opening scene for the Roadshow version.

Flicker Alley's new release offers two versions of the film both on Blu-ray. While these broadly correspond to the two versions in the Criterion edition, there are substantial differences. So I thought it would be useful to highlight the differences between Flicker Alley's edition of the longer Roadshow version with the Criterion edition and also to discuss the differences between the two Flicker Alley discs themselves.

1927 Roadshow: Flicker-Alley Blu-ray vs 1927 Criterion DVD

Clearly the biggest difference between the two editions here is that Flicker Alley's restoration is on Blu-ray and, as you'd expect, the HD delivers a substantial improvement.

However, there are also key differences with the colouring of the film. While the Criterion disc was the first to offer both the resurrection scene and the opening scenes in its original Technicolor, the rest of the presentation is in black and white. However, we know from fragments of the original reels that the other scenes were colour-toned. It was only when the synchronised sound track was introduced that the toned footage was changed to black and white.

The Technicolor scenes are a remarkable improvement on those in the Criterion edition. Criterion's images looked too green, whereas Flicker Alley have used the original technique of adding a yellow tint into the mix. This combined with another alterations results colours that are both more natural and more vibrant. The red dress worn by Jesus' mother during the resurrection is particularly striking.

The comparison between the toned sections and Criterion's plain black and white will be more down to personal preference.. At first sepia is used, with the occasional hint of orange and this runs until the Garden of Gethsemane/night before Jesus' death, which uses blue as was customary for night-time scenes. There's a return to sepia for the trial scenes before switching to yellow for the crucifixion scenes. The final scene – after the Technicolor resurrection – reverts back to sepia.

Personally I adore the blue, but I'm unconvinced by the yellow crucifixion, which might be my least favourite aspect of the set as a whole. It is authentic, though, so that's between Mr DeMille and me. As to the sepia sections, my preference for them over the black and white is on a more shot by shot basis so it's nice for completists to have both available.

Strikingly, the new edition also contains a third type of colour, hand-painted colour. This was something DeMille originally commissioned Gustav Brock to do in the scenes featuring soldiers in the blue-toned sequence. The flames of their torches were hand-coloured. It was something that had to be done on each individual print and so we have no idea how many prints were altered like this, aside from that which was shown at the premieré. Almost as painstaking was the modern process which has re-added this colour into these scenes. The results are pretty spectacular. This is partly because of the contrast between the calming blue that otherwise fills the screen and the small intense bursts of flame dotted across the canvas. But it's also partly because the unnaturalness of these colours gives them an expressionistic edge.

Those who love scanning the details of different releases may have noticed that whereas the Criterion edition claims to be 155 minutes, the length of the new edition is given as 161 minutes. Alas, this does not really signify the addition of new material in the Flicker Alley release. For one thing, Criterion understated the length of their edition which actually comes in at 157m26s. In contrast, Flicker Alley rounded up their 160m56s run-time (quite understandably).

The remaining 3m30s is largely due to a bit more information in the opening titles before the film starts and the addition of modern-style credits sequence at the end. Some sequences run a tiny bit slower in the Flicker Alley cut (see below). The only new material, therefore, is the inclusion of an "Intermission" intertitle, followed by one announcing "The King of Kings II".

Flicker Alley's Blu-rays: 1927 Roadshow version vs 1928 General Release version

There are substantial differences between the two version of the film in this collection. The most obvious one is the 46 minute difference in running time. The first reason for this is that the 1927 Roadshow version includes a number of additional scenes which were completely cut in the version released the following year. The most notable scenes omitted are Judas failing to heal a boy with a demon, the call of Matthew, and the miracle of Peter finding a fish with a coin in its mouth.

However, the abridged version from 1928 also shortens may of those scenes it does retain. There are extra shots of leopards here, Caiaphas fondling Roman coins there, with the later being one of the more obvious cuts made to exorcise the film of antisemitic content. The longer scenes give a broader sense of Jesus' life outside of Jerusalem and of characters such as Mary the mother of Jesus, who co-witnesses the resurrection in the longer version, but is pretty much reduced to an early walk-on role in the later version. But it's also noticeable that the order of these scenes, or shots within the scenes, is different too. The woman accused of adultery is introduced much earlier into the story, for example.

Other differences are more visual. Perhaps the most significant difference is that – apart from the resurrection scene – the General Release version is all in black and white. It uses different intertitles in places and occasionally puts them in a different part of a sequence. The cropping and screen ratio is the same, however (even though the silent Roadshow version would have had a taller frame than the General Release version, due the space required on the frame for the synchronised soundtrack).

The commentary

Having recorded a solo commentary track for a Jesus film, I'm all too aware of the challenge of coming up with sufficient material to maintain interest for two-plus hours. Wanamaker is certainly up to the task, providing commentary from a variety of perspectives. He produces all kinds of fascinating details about the making of this epic production such as DeMille choosing to shoot a scene on the Mount of Olives in an olive grove in his neighbourhood; him keeping the great gates from Pilate's villas for his own house, or the use of a hidden bicycle seat for H.B. Warner to perch on while shooting the crucifixion.

While it's at it's best when Wanamaker is giving the details around the production, at other times the commentary falls back onto simply describing the basics of the plot, or the primary action on screen. Occasionally it offers some more theologically inclined reflection, but it's at a fairly elementary level. Moreover, there is perhaps a little too much willingness to accept at face value DeMille's claims about the depths of his team's research. These parts can be very interesting, but they are not necessarily an accurate reflection of what scholars know about the history of the actual events and their context, partly because so much more has been uncovered since the film was made. Nevertheless Wanamaker's insights as Film Historian prove useful throughout.

The extra features

The extra features are great in this set, not least because Lobster Films' Serge Bromberg voices several of the more technical ones.

Top billing goes to "The Making of The King of Kings" which provides 21 minutes of footage behind the scenes of the film. There's an optional commentary on these candid shots, provided again by Marc Wanamaker.

"The King of Kings Set Visit" is fairly similar to the above, but features various members of the film industry touring the set during production. These are primarily producers rather than stars, so this material is a little more stiff. Similarly "Footage from the film's premiere in Germany" is interesting if you like people watching – and there are some real moments where you feel like you connect with ordinary faces from the past –but this won't be to everyone's taste.

In quite a different vein is "Pathé Week on Broadway". This is a promotional animated short from 1927 that officially announces the release of the film, as well as several others being distributed by the recently formed Pathé-DeMille company. Shot in the style of Paul Terry, whose studio had recently joined Pathé-DeMille, the intention seems to have been to promote not just The King of Kings but also their other films, that were all showing on Broadway in a single week. It has moments of both intentional and unintentional humour: the latter exemplified by a group of cartoon chickens starring at a poster for what feels like minutes, a poster which just happens to be announcing all the locations where these films would be appearing. It's fascinating as an insight into the period and the unconventional ways that filmmakers sought to get attention, not least because it's difficult to imagine Mel Gibson using a brood of hand-drawn poultry to promote his sequel to The Passion of the Christ.

"Negative A / Negative B" is the first of the three Bromberg featurettes which tackle more technical matters surrounding the original film, practices at the time, and the restoration process that he has overseen. This first mini-documentary explores the filming process that led to multiple negatives, namely the use of multiple similarly located cameras, simultaneously filming the same action from three different locations. It includes a little of the behind-the-scenes footage from "The Making of The King of Kings" featurette which shows three cameraman in tandem, hand-cranking their cameras. This also seems to explain why different versions of the film seem to go faster and slower relatively to each other when watched side by side.

Naturally, given the film's pioneering use of Technicolor, the extras includes an exploration of the process that produced the movie's colour scenes. "Technicolor" is short but incredibly insightful, though I feel I may need to rewatch it to grasp it all fully. Bromberg again provides the voiceover.

Finally "Hand Coloring onto the Film" which looks at those scenes of the soldiers arresting Jesus and the process of colourising their flames individually. It's quite an insight into both the historical process of hand-colouring as well as the methodology and philosophy around restoring these scenes to how they would once have looked.

The set also features three photo galleries. The largest of these holds almost a hundred production stills, everything from the building of the set to photographs of mass being celebrated on location. Then there is what is called a "portrait gallery" featuring 26 images, although these are better described as promotional stills. Many of these are of single characters (including most of the disciples) posing in costume against plain backgrounds, though curiously Peter and Jesus are not included. Thirdly, there are 49 images of the film playing in various theatres.

The final extra feature is the full text of a Variety article announcing the changes DeMille was making due to the concerns of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. It's interesting just how willing DeMille appears to have been to accommodate the ADL's feedback, to the extent that they were fully satisfied he had met their demands. The ADL's concerns were particularly driven by how the film might be received in other territories and it's striking to see these sentiments expressed so close to footage of the film opening apparently unhindered in inter-war Germany just as Hitler was coming to prominence.

The booklet

A 28-page booklet comes with the set and features: an introduction by Bromberg; a little more detail about the three different cuts of the film; an article DeMille wrote for the June 1927 issue of Theatre titled "The Screen as a Religious Teacher"; some details about the restoration of the film; and "Some Notes on Robert Israel's Score". These nicely complement the extra features on disc two, and include a few further images.

The set also comes with a reversible Blu-ray case sleeve giving two artwork options. The first features a newly designed cover based on a sketch of H.B. Warner's Jesus by fellow actor H. Montagu Love. Love played a centurion in the movie and starred in numerous epics during his 173-movie career. The other option is with the same monochrome silhouette as the Criterion DVD release. In my opinion, it would've been nice to have at least one option that used an image from the film itself, but perhaps I'm in the minority on that.

The verdict

Flicker Alley's Blu-ray release of DeMille's The King of Kings (1927 & 1928) is most welcome. It's great to have this important film not only transferred to HD format but also to have received the attention and care it deserves. The effort taken with the longer original Roadshow version (1927) to not only restore existing prints, but also to ensure the film was returned to how it was originally intended to be seen, is considerable and much appreciated, as is the new 5.1 Surround Sound score. Likewise it's good to have the shorter General Release version from 1928 available on Blu-ray as well especially with a choice of scores.

On top of these two restorations, Flicker Alley have also assembled a great and varied selection of extra features, a good commentary and an interesting booklet, meaning that the vast majority will not only learn about this film, but also about the silent era in general.

Testament (2025): I See [s1e07]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

It's always weird giving spoilers when talking about biblical films. After all, these stories are thousands of years old. How they go, how they end, is well known.

It's difficult to imagine many people sitting down to watch episode 7 of Testament without knowing that Stephen is going to die. Nevertheless, how a film chooses to do that, and the way it tends to portray those things, can still vary immensely. At the end of the last episode Stephen is being dragged off to be brought before the Sanhedrin and, cinematically speaking, the journey there will be relatively quick.

For the audience, the episode starts by going back 10 months, to the day of Shavuot (Pentecost). In episode 1 the moment where the Holy Spirit comes is not shown. We don't see it, we just see the disciples' reaction to it. Leaving out such a pivotal scene seemed quite a bold decision at the time, helping us identify more with Stephen as an outsider to the disciples. 

But now, he is very much an insider, so the series goes back there now and we see the events of Shavuot from the inside. The disciples and some of the other followers (including the women followers) are in the upper room. There is some mild use of special effects to convey the presence of the Holy Spirit coming, as well as a  wind coming in through the window and  blowing curtains. There have been a only a few different portrayals of Pentecost on screen in previous adaptations of Acts. Unsurprisingly, Roberto Rossellini also left it off screen in Atti Deli Apostoli (1969), but didn’t return to it later.

Here it is shown in quite an interesting fashion. Whereas other series over do the special effects, for example A.D. Kingdom and Empire (AD: The Bible Continues, 2015), here the touch is light. The primary focus seems to be on the way different languages are spoken. There's a cacophony of noise but the roving camera settles temporarily on individuals speaking specific languages as indicated by subtitles in those languages. The sound balance adjusts to bring each one’s words out from the rest. That seemed to be much more the focus than the primary visual element of the tongues of fire, which is shown purely through some faint, wispy, orange, smoke.

Given the budgetary limitations of the series, the filmmakers strike a good balance between doing something visual, but not overdoing it, or doing something very full-on badly on their limited budget. And then the credits roll, and as they do, Peter's words from his sermon in Acts 2 is spoken very quietly in the background by the actor who plays Peter, Tom Simper.

The trial itself is interesting. The  original mob, headed up by Abdiel comes in to the Sanhedrin’s chamber, but rapidly become fairly incidental to proceedings. The members of the Sanhedrin clearly object to them being there. It's only really when Saul reminds them that because he, a minister, has witnessed what has happened, they have to pay attention to these events and give them a proper hearing.

Acts 6:13 refers to this generic character, a “false witness” who testifies against Stephen, echoing Jesus’ trial in the Gospels where people also speak falsely about what Jesus had said. Here, Saul essentially gives the speech from 6:13, so, in essence, he becomes the false witness. This is interesting because in the text, Saul only really appears at the end of these events as a  way of introducing him as a character. It’s almost as if the text points him out as the guy that's going to become the main character in the rest of the story that’s being told, following this lengthy preamble. 

Most of the rest of the episode, then consists of Stephen’s trial unfolding. Ananias again  pipes up, clearly trying to edge Saul out completely. But instead, we see Saul very cunningly turn Gamaliel's attempts to build bridges with the apostles against him. Saul essentially portrays Gamaliel (Stewart Scudamore, pictured above) as one of them and says he has a witness that can witness the fact that Gamaliel has been meeting with their leaders. Gamaliel is forced to leave proceedings unable to influence proceedings any further. 

In any event, the case against Stephen seems well established, so then he is given his chance to speak. The writers use a lot of the words from Stephen's speech in Acts 7. In the text this speech is more or less one long monologue until the last seven verses when it switched back to commentating on events again. 

Working with long bits of text in biblical films is always quite a challenge. There are questions about whether you abridge them and the extent to which that is done; whether you present it all in one long shot or cut to reactions or different camera angles; and if, and then how, you paraphrase the text. 

I really like how the series navigates this potentially tricky territory. On the one hand the speeches are rewritten so that the parts we hear are slightly different to standard translations. Even compared to modern translations of text, the words have been tweaked to give a bit more vitality in how the speech comes across. There’s a looser sentence structure and a bit more freshness. It sounds more like a modern 21st century text than just a first century text being translated into 21st century language. 

However, the biggest difference is the way that the camera cuts away to scenes of the disciples back at base (as well as a few other scenes that inject a bit more action) in between the sections of Stephen’s speech. Rather than pausing the action on one of the timelines to show what is happening in the parallel timeline, as is often the case, here time continues to pass on the two timelines, even when the camera isn’t watching. This means that not all of Stephen’s speech is shown and the inserted, more action-heavy scenes provide some relief such that when we return to Stephen our attention is refreshed.

This is a really interesting way of presenting the speech while keeping the action and the audience’s attention moving. There’s some really good editing in this episode that is essential for making the whole sequence work. I’m interested to see how this abridged version of Stephen’s speech plays out in terms of how the speech hangs together in the context of the episode and how coherent it is based solely on the words we hear him speak in the show. Does those bits on their own work as a standalone speech? 

Personally, I think the first of those cutaways is the most striking.The camera cuts from Stephen to his mum Esther arriving at the disciples’ house and getting them to come and try and help him. Esther has realised her need to connect with her son too late and is desperately trying to get the followers to come and help him. They're keen to reassure her. Most strikingly, we get this moment from Susanna (Bobbie Little, pictured below) who having seen some of the others released before attempts to reassure Esther, saying “I know in my bones God will show up for Stephen”. This is such a jarringly strong line, because, of course, we know that God is not going to show up for Stephen, at least not in the sense Susanna means. We know that Stephen is going to die. 

This is yet another example of the show’s honesty and its sense of reality particularly in the writing. It openly confesses to the fact that sometimes people do believe they ‘know’ things, that God has assured them of things, that sometimes turn out not to be true after the event. If challenged, some might still say their words were true in a metaphorical / spiritual / emotional sense, but that would not be the sense in which they would have been understood at the time. 

Here, for example, it might be tempting to argue “well God did show up for Stephen but just not in the sense we thought”, but Susanna seems to intend her words to be taken at face value, and Esther would not have taken comfort from that at the time otherwise. The way Susanna says it at the time seems intended to be understood in a very specific way and that's not the way that it comes to pass.

It's really interesting that the series has depicted this over-enthusiasm, for want of a better phrase) a couple of times now. It hasn't shied away from the fact that incidents like this happen quite often in certain Christian circles. I seems to me that the life of faith does come with major disappointments and significant times when people put trust in God which doesn't seem to pan out as expected. And yet, I suppose, the Christian response is to continue to trust God anyway.

Another of the narrative interruptions to Stephen's speech happens when the group arrives at the temple complex. The Roman soldiers won't let such a large group  through the gates . They're only prepared to let one or two of them enter. As it happens we get to see Caleb again. Initially he’s detached from them. He’s just there as a bystander and when he asks one of his fellow bystanders what is happening he’s told “it's the Jesus people”. I think that is the first time that particular phrase has been used in this series, and of course even if this were a world that movement had already happened, it is the kind of informal, neutral term that you can see being used in this kind of scenario.  

Surprisingly, though, given his discomfort with joining the disciples after he was healed, Caleb (Steve Furst, pictured below) comes to help them. He starts attacking the electric device that keeps the door locked and it is notable that Caleb does this by kicking the device in order to break it. Obviously, prior to being healed he couldn't have used his legs in such a fashion, but now he is employing them to help his friend Stephen.

Eventually Stephen reaches the end of his speech. Despite having been fairly calm through the series so far, now Caiaphas yells. Suddenly a wind blows in and a bright light streams through the windows, and this isn’t just Stephen’s perspective, all the characters react to this bright light. From the audience’s perspective, we sense that his is an endorsement, just as Stephen and the text of Acts sees that as an endorsement of his position. Butt the scene also makes me wonder how the Sanhedrin interpret this light. Do they also see it as an endorsement of what they're doing? 

That’s certainly possible because the majority of the Sanhedrin then march Stephen off to a spot outside the city walls. However, not all of the Sanhedrin go something that is shown quite pointedly. This brings me to an issue I've been weighing up during the whole series that I've not necessarily reflected on in my reviews of it so far, namely how the series handles potential antisemitism. I’m going to start a new post on that because it’s a big issue and I want to do it justice without detracting from the review of a single episode.

The short version is that the Sanhedrin dragging a man off to be lunched isn’t a great look, but the fact that some demur and don’t take part is significant. I’ve mentioned before the parallels between Testament and the BBC adaptation of His Dark Materials (2019-2022) and here it allows us to approach about the question from a different angle. When that series aired the link between the Magisterium and the established church was widely acknowledged and there were various objections that it was an “undisguised” attack on Christianity. Testament treats Judaism in a not dissimilar fashion so I suggest it’s worth reflecting on that and recalling that Christian antisemitism has a terrible history.

Before we get to the stoning, there’s a brief scene as they attempt to leave the city walls. There’s a clear suggestion of Caiaphas’ corruption and his willingness to abuse his power. Indeed, he even asks the solitary soldier guarding the border “Do you know who who I am?” There’s also something in the way the soldier shrugs this interaction off, resigned to the compromises of real life and his lack of power to do anything meaningful about the system he find himself a part of.

And then we get to the moment we’ve been anticipating from the opening moments of the entire series. Stephen is dragged to a grubby, rundown bit of dilapidated brownfield wasteland and thrown to the floor. Even the ‘stones’ his persecutors pick up are just lumps of broken brick and masonry. Sometimes there’s almost a certain romance to the way this story is told. Testament, however, utterly strips this away and exposes it plainly as an awful act: a grotty moment of low-down violence, fuelled as much by group-mentality as hatred. The creative choices around location, props and camera filters here, really hammer this home. Despite it all Stephen sees the light and recognises he's about to go to Heaven. 

Significantly, the stoning itself is left off camera. Indeed, the scene cuts away before the moment plays out. There are a number of reasons for this. Doubtless part of it is to do with budget and access to the available skills to make that seem realistic rather than distracting (seeing foam rocks could be really distracting). However, this is also clearly an artistic choice. It avoids the mistake of glamorizing the violence. Some film theorists argue that the very act of putting violence on screen lends violence a sense of glamour, even when it is done in such a way as to clearly condemn the violence depicted. Cutting away as Syrstad does at this point refuses to focus on the violence. Instead, it focuses more on the impact of Stephen’s death on the people who loved him, on his mother Esther and on his friends among Jesus’ followers, than on the physicality of Stephen’s body and his suffering and pain.

Perhaps inevitably, the episode ends with a flashback, which nicely pairs with the flashback we had at the start of the episode. It's a flashback to Stephen and the boy Malachi (who has perhaps already lost one father figure and has now just lost another). It’s just a little scene. The two of them sit at a table and chat about the Jesus that neither of them ever met. Malachi just casually says “I can't wait to meet him” and Stephen replies “Neither can I”. It’s the last line of the episode which is somehow both moving and poignant and a little bit cheesy, but nevertheless, it nicely completes the episode.

It'll be interesting to see where this season goes from here in the final episode. It seems unlikely that we will get to Saul’s conversion in a single episode: So far progress has been at the rate of less than one chapter per episode and while chapter 8 is only one chapter in terms of word count the amount of personal and structural upheaval we see means it would feel like a real change of gear. Perhaps we’ll get Simon the Magician, perhaps we’ll have to dig out The Silver Chalice over the summer to keep us going. 

Either way, we'll soon find out. Episode 8 is out now for paying members, but won’t be shown on the livestream until Tuesday.

Testament (2025): And Tomorrow [s1e06]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

The sixth episode of Testament opens with a medium close-up of Stephen with his eyes closed. The camera smoothly pans back to reveal he is standing in a circle of Christians praying outside. "Keep me safe my God" we hear him pray in his head "for in you I take refuge".

Given the fact that Stephen's fate is well known, this opening strikes an ominous tone. Stephen has been easily the most likeable character in the entire series. Moreover, as the audience's way in the the mechanics of the early church, we've looked at all these events unfolding through his eyes. We've been encouraged to identify with him; and now we hear his inner monologue. A cry for safety taken from Psalm 16:1, which we already know will not work out for Stephen in the way in which anyone who prays such a prayer hopes it will.

The focus in this episode shifts quite markedly to Stephen, to the extent that "the twelve" barely feature, aside from an episode (pictured below) where they decide it's time to start to take Jesus' message further afield. This in itself is quite an interesting change. In the Bible, this decision is recalled in the immediate aftermath of Stephen's (Acts 8:1) death, which is either read as a reaction based, at least in part, around safety concerns, or as God encouraging them to increase in boldness, or follow Stephen's bravery. This relocation makes their decision a bit more strategic, but it also highlights the point that the disciples did seem to take a while before they cracked on with fulfilling the Great Commission.

Incidentally, the composition of this scene is fantastic. The below still doesn't really do justice to its balance, but at least gives a sense of the composition and tenebrist lighting. I love the way the eye is drawn to Barnabas on the far right of the screen (goodness knows the church will need his encouragement after this episode) and then to John's white shirt in the centre of the screen.

As ever we're introduced to new characters. Ade emerges from the fringes of the story in this episode, not only as someone who encourages Stephen, but also as someone who is trying and failing to tell the difference between the crazy stuff that God does and the crazy things that God doesn't do. "I tried to jump over the members" Ade confesses sheepishly. "Jump?" Simon queries: "...Fly..." Ade explains "...like 'Fly on wings like eagles'". There's a knowing smirk from Simon Peter, a man who walked on water and who ultra-conveniently caught a fish with a coin in its mouth and who can apparently see some kind of fundamental difference.

The two most significant 'new' characters in this episode are Abdiel – the leader of the Libertine Synagogue in Jerusalem (wordplay on Acts 6:9's "Synagogue of the Freedmen", or rather its title in the Greek Libertinon) – and his daughter Talia. Talia is a former school friend of Stephen. We're first introduced to her through a conversation she's having with a friend in a café. As it happens it's the café where Stephen's mum works, so Esther listens in, both out of curiosity and fear for her son's safety.

Talia is one of those in Salem who is becoming increasingly interested in what the followers of Jesus have to say. In her conversation in the café she talks about them going to synagogue and answering everyone's questions about Jesus. Later is reunited with Stephen and encourages him to keep going to the meeting and keep doing what he's doing.

Her father, on the other hand, could not be more opposed to what is happening. Abdiel is becoming increasingly unhappy about the way the apostles are muscling in on the meetings he is running and promoting these beliefs that he finds utterly at loggerheads with his community's beliefs. Moreover, his preacher, Minister Noam, has become a follower of Jesus leaving the synagogue without a lead teacher.

Perhaps surprisingly, it's Saul who steps up to fill this vacancy. Having been marginalised by the temple Saul is at something of a loose end. Abdiel and others from around the city who feel the same are starting to agitate and protest near the temple. "Let them join their messiah" one of them cries. Saul and Mara observe one such protest. "They're reporting that their places of worship have been invaded by heretics" Mara explains, "more and more people are complaining each day".

Saul knows he wants to do something about the followers, so his frenemy Minister Ananias suggests he take on the vacancy. He attends another meeting at Libertine and comes away seething. Between him, Abdiel and those who share their views, they hatch a plan to deal with Stephen at the next meeting which Talia unwittingly encourages Stephen to attend, despite the twelve having instructed their followers not to put themselves in danger by speaking at synagogue meetings.

As Stephen makes his way there, we once again hear his inner monologue. "Keep me safe my God, for in you I take refuge. Do not leave me. Without you God nothing makes sense. Give me the courage to speak. Give me the right words. Remind me to love like you and when I lose my words, do not leave me God. Don't leave me" "

It's fascinating watching how quickly things escalate once he arrives at the meeting. Stephen is unaware of what awaits him. He goes along determined not say anything during the meeting and just to speak to anyone who wants to chat afterwards. But the plan against him has already been agreed and set in motion. "This is a synagogue", Abdiel declares, "there will be no more questions for him". The accusations and lies gush out and suddenly Stephen is overwhelmed and out of his depth.

Saul and his mob drag Stephen off to the Sanhedrin. It's a bit unclear why they think that is the best course of action. Abdiel and his associates have been annoyed by the temple authorities' perceived failure to take firm enough action with Jesus' followers. They are already making false accusations and seem ready to physically attack Stephen. Are they hoping to persuade them to change course or giving them one last chance to endorse their preferred course of action before they take things into their own hands?

On an emotional level this is a fantastic episode. I've only gradually clocked-on to the fact that the writers credited for each episode vary between the director/show-runner Paul Syrstad, his wife Faith Syrstad and Kenneth Omole (who plays John in the series). Here, only Faith Syrstad is credited with writing the episode. It's excellent, something which is confirmed by the fact that, at the time of writing, the episode has a perfect 10 rating at IMDb, which I've never encountered before. Admittedly that's unlikely to last (scores there usually dip a little after some initial enthusiasm) but it's a good indicator of how strong this episode is.

I think what I admire most about this episode is its honesty. Stephen prays for protection, as David did before him and millions of Jews and Christians have done ever since, and he seems to trust in that. And yet the difference between Stephen and David is that David lived a long enough to die in his bed of old-age. In contrast, Stephen is about to be cut down in his prime. While some will make the claim that his prayers are answered in an eternal sense, that's doesn't seem to be the way his prayers were intended. Stephen appears to have a naïve expectancy that just as the apostles were freed by an angel in episode 5, so too will he also be safe. And, of course, even today there are Christians in various parts of the world who are killed for their faith. They too trust in God and pray for safety (and are too often forgotten by Anglo-American Christians complaining about 'persecution' because of things like workplaces asking them to use people's preferred pronouns).

Yet many Christians live with that dichotomy of trusting their God, but knowing that, aside from an eternal sense God may not protect them in the way that they desire, be that at moments of life-threatening persecution or during minor elements of their normal, everyday lives. Yet so often in Christian storytelling, this dichotomy is absent. Too many reach for dishonest platitudes rather than truth. By having us watch Stephen's decisions and hear his prayers when we already know his tragic fate the Syrstads transform the story of Christianity's first martyr into a searing honest examination of the life of faith. 

Testament (2025): Rising Tides [s1e05]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

Episode 5 of Testament, "Rising Tides" picks up again a few weeks after the events of episode 4, because Saul has been planning how to 'get' the disciples. He's clearly been spending his time laying an elaborate trap for them by having a network of conversations with both Sadducees and Pharisees in an attempt to get them arrested.

There's an interesting reference, during an early gathering of the temple hierarchy, to the Essenes, a word which Saul uses as a bit of a slur. When Minister Alexander asks him if he's "come to grovel for the Sadducee vote", he responds "I think I'd rather join the Essenes" to which another colleague jokes is "a low blow". This is perhaps accurate, but it does make me wonder what the Essenes would look like in the world of Testament and where they would fit in, in this modernised world in which the show has constructed.

There's another interesting quote that caught my ear early on, when Saul describes the Jesus movement as "a far worse threat to our faith, a disease, and it's spreading, coming to take everything we have. It must be stopped". Given Saul has moved into full-on zealot here it would also be interesting to see what the Zealot movement looked like in this world. Some scholars consider them closely linked to a certain brand of Pharisaism, not least because of Paul's use of the term "zealous" to describe his former status (Gal 1:14).

Essentially, anyway, what happens is that the Sanhedrin give the order to arrest the disciples, and we see the Twelve being brought in. As the series, has tended to do each episode introduces new characters and develops those that were previously just in the background. Here we get to meet some of the other members of the Twelve that we haven't really touched on more before. We meet another James and we get to know Matthias a bit more. And there are additional lines for some of the other minor disciples. Presumably, the new James, is James the son of Alphaeus. He doesn't appear to be James, the brother of Jesus, and his small stature perhaps reflects the way that church tradition has come to refer to him as James the less, or "little James" as both The Chosen and this series credits call him.

Interestingly, James practically says the famous words from Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5:33-39 only in reverse, a kind of paraphrase "if he wants it to remain standing, then regardless of whether we are in the picture or not, it will remain standing". 

And then I think we get the most interesting moment of the episode, which is the angel coming and releasing them all through prison. She's portrayed very simply (see below), and as a Black woman who just appears in the midst of the disciples, without any fanfare or special effects. While they are just talking, suddenly a voice casually says "You could just leave". They turn around, and she's there. When Peter asks "Leave how?" She just gets up, opens the cell door and walks out of it before opening the doors of the other cells. After hesitating for a moment the disciples walk through the unlocked doors too. The guard doesn't even seem to see them go. It's really nicely done. 

This episode also does a good job of capture the concern around the ideas that other people are feeling. There's quite a lot here about the tensions that are being felt within the community at this point. There's a mix of fear and duty, whisked up with some joy and some concern. This episode firms up my sense of the different approach between it and The Chosen. The Chosen seems like it is simultaneously trying to help those people inside the church to get to know Jesus better, and show people who wouldn't consider themselves Christians, what (the filmmakers think) he was like.

Testament feels much subtler to me. It's a fascinating exercise in putting the text in a modern context. If it has a target audience and a point it's looking to express, I wonder if it's trying to challenge those inside the church to live like the early church did, only in today's world, rather than how the church often is now. As I have said before, the series makes parallels with certain types of churches that come through again and again. Some of the leadership ideas that come through are interesting, and if feels like it is putting out a challenge for a more radical form of Christianity. 

Yet having escaped, the disciples then head straight back to the temple courts to preach again. This is written into the text (5:17-21 -- the writers make a lot of material out of just a few verses here) but it's done in quite a straight fashion forward. The disciples end up getting imprisoned again and given the lash. It's not clear how many times they get hit with the lash, but it is shown as being very brutal, with some quite nasty seeming injuries afterwards. If nothing else it's a chance for the special effects and makeup department to do something more challenging. 

Underpinning all of this we have Saul who, from Gamaliel's perspective, is going off the rails. He's frozen out of the discussions about the Twelve with the Sanhedrin when he thinks he should be right there at the heart of it. Time and again he's reminded that he's not a member of the council, This would be bad enough, but then Gamaliel makes a the speech for which he's famous (Acts 5:33-39), urging a more laissez-faire approach to this emerging movement.

This puts him very much at loggerheads with Saul, who confronts him afterwards angrily. Saul foams at the mouth, with huge globules of spit literally flying out of his mouth. He completely goes off the deep end about Gamaliel's seeming compromise. I wonder if there sufficient motive for this. Is it going to get unpacked in future episodes, or is it just something that's assumed and read into the text, but not really explained. Either way, Gamaliel's response it to withdraw his support for Saul's candidacy for the Sanhedrin.

Meanwhile a couple of interesting subplots are developing and, as ever, the editors do a good job of layering the various overlapping story-lines to keep each one of these parallel stories ticking over. Susanna and Mary Magdalene continue to be quite prominent. We also get to find out Dana's backstory (pictured). In the previous episode it was suggested that she was a former sex worker who was try to escape drug addiction, ably assisted by Mary Magdalene.

Here she is revealed to be the estranged niece of Captain Rosh, chief of the temple guards, which eventually leads to a touching reconciliation scene between them. I'm curious to see how that dynamic is going to work out. She's tempted to walk away from the followers of Jesus, not because she wants to, but because she feels unsafe. However, it's the temple authorities she fears, but the kind of people that she had in her previous life. It's interesting so see this other potential threat here (and, of course, there are the Romans too). Conversely, Rosh is overjoyed that Dana is now "clean", but he also knows that it is a risk for him to be seen fraternising with Jesus' followers which creates quite an interesting dynamic.

The other major element that comes in this episode is that we get to find out a little bit more about the Hellenist widows. In Acts the demands of serving them is so high that seven leaders are appointed to focus just on that, including Stephen. This is where Stephen is first named in the text so obviously as we already know Stephen he acts as our way into the story of these women.

This is an aspect of the text that's rarely been portrayed well in Acts adaptation -- it's perhaps not as exciting to most filmmakers as all the preaching, persecution and miracles -- but here it's made into quite a moving scene. We're introduced to a new female character among the core followers. Initially, she seems a little bit mean, but this is more or less due to her being a little bit too bound to the rules, failing to understand and empathise and therefore missing the spirit of what the movement following Jesus is supposed to be about. There's quite a nice scene where she suddenly realises the full extent of the situation which is able to be resolved allowing the character to redeem herself. It was a satisfying little sequence, a complete little story on the periphereries of the main text, shedding light on elements of the story that are often missed.  

As per Luke's text, the followers ultimately have a vote to determine who the seven assigned to this task are going to be. It's the first thing in this series that feels a little overly macho, despite the presence of these twelve male apostles. I think this because Peter is quite quietly spoken, and has quite a gentle manner, Indeed, even the physically bigger characters like James have a gentle nature. Yet suddenly this process feels quite male -- there's quite a lot of loud cheering and yelping, and it's suddenly very apparent how absent the women are in this process. Mary Magdalene isn't even there. Susanna, who has been such a key part of the early movement in many ways, is not even in the running for one of these roles. What is her role exactly, and where does that fit in? So the series picks seven men (again), in addition to twelve disciples.

Given the modern context, this is a choice. It's a choice to stick very literally to the idea of seven men, where that could easily have included women without rocking the boat, particularly given many of those who are chosen in the text have names are not at all familiar to us. They could have been female. Indeed, some of the disciples could have been female. This is a modernisation after all. Perhaps some may say that that very idea of equality and the importance of women relative to men is only with us because of Christianity, but if so, I'm not so convinced by that. In the case of sexual equality, things have progressed and Christianity has sometimes been involved in the mix, but sometimes the church has pulled against it as well. If the filmmakers are advocating for a certain way of doing church, do they picture leadership as still just the preserve of men? 

There are a couple of interesting visuals in this episode. As mentioned above, just the anti-spectacle appearance of the angel is strong visual choice. There's also a scene (pictured at the top of this post) where the Sanhedrin are watching the disciples preaching to a crowd in the court. It's raining, and so we see them all with umbrellas, which makes for a really interesting shot, partly because of the composition (and the lowish camera angle) but mainly because we've not really seen umbrellas in biblical films much before. It makes for a very British scene in some ways, but it's quite good, because it breaks some of the standard ways of looking at these things, and really brings home that sense of the modern world that's at the heart of this adaptation. I like the series' commitment to this sort-of British context. It'll be interesting to see how this develops as the movement starts to spread more widely geographically.

Biblical Films in 1907

I've talked quite a few times in the past about the period from 1908-13 when an incredible 90 or so different biblical films were made. This was particularly due to the work of Louis Feuillade at Gaumont, J. Stuart Blackton at Vitagraph and Henri Andréani at Pathé. However, I've not talked much about the year before, 1907, aside from to discuss the third iteration of Pathé's The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (Ferdinand, Zecca).

It was a relatively quiet year. Perhaps it was the success of The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ or perhaps Alice Guy's La naissance, la vie et la mort du Christ (1906) the year before that ignited the 1908-13 rush. Nevertheless there were a handful of biblical films or Bible adjacent films that year, so perhaps I should write a little about each.

La Vie et Passion de N.S. Jésus Christ (Ferdinand Zecca, Pathé)

See my previous posts on this film (and similar ones) including my initial write up which laboured under the misapprehension that this was the 1902-05 version.

Ben-Hur (Sidney Olcott, Kalem)

I wrote a bit about this back in the very early days. Lew Wallace's nineteenth century novel was a smash hit upon its release in 1880, as was the stage show adaptation that first opened in 1899. Kalem sought to cash-in and do an unofficial cinematic version, but were then sued by the Wallace estate in a case that established that copyright law applied to movies (despite the fact that everyone was at it). The two producers who did seek copyright before adapting the film went on to make major, significant films, despite, in both cases, significant financial outlay.  In reality Kalem's version is little more than some chariot race footage with an effective, if legally actionable, marketing hook. It starred future Westerns superstar William S. Hart as Messala.

L'Enfant prodigue (The Prodigal Son; Michel Carré, Gaumont)

This too was an adaptation not directly from the Bible, but of a stage-play/pantomime which modernises the story and set it in the (then) modern era. Carré would release another film with the same title nine years later. Some claim this as the first European feature length movie (a claim also made for Life and Passion) as it ran to ninety minutes, being essentially a filmed version of the play. There's a good write up of the play and the film here.

Samson moderne (A Modern Samson;  Pathé)

(Pictured above)

This too was a modernised take on a biblical story, this time the story of Samson. Although the film is now presumed lost, the IMDb preserves a sizeable plot synopsis from Moving Picture World. It sounds like the finale from the biblical story is missing as are other elements and details, but it seems like it's just about a modernised take on the story rather than just a riff on the name.

Eine moderne Ehe (A Modern Eve; Johann Schwarzer, Saturn)

If Samson moderne retains just enough of the original story to be classed as a modernisation, then this Austrian movie, which is available on YouTube, crosses that line: essentially it's little more than the story of a woman who leads a man into temptation. There's a bit more detail at A Cinema History including the fact that whereas Schwarzer typically made erotic films, this one did not include any nudity it was nevertheless censored by the authorities who ordered the scenes showing Eve's infidelity, but allowing those of her husband to pass through unscathed. I suppose this is perhaps the closest the film gets to the Bible: both parties guilty, but its the woman who suffers the greatest retribution...