'Judas' is the anti-'Passion'

Even before it airs, the ABC movie "Judas" invites an irresistible question: If God were one of us, would he choose such a time slot?

On tonight at 9 (KOMO-TV), this fine little film is carefully sequestered from all audience-sensitive dates: Passover, Easter, February sweeps and April 15, which celebrates tax collection and is not exactly irrelevant to the events of 2,000 years ago.

It's difficult to imagine a King of Heaven — or Hollywood — choosing to fly so far below the radar with a program actually worth promoting.

But these are the times that try entertainment executives' souls, and I don't just mean the Lasting Temptation of Reality TV.

As demonstrated by CBS' "The Reagans," Mel Gibson's "Passion" and President Bush's 9-11 campaign ads, audience polarization has become a pandemic threatening reasonable response. Extremism is banishing the friable middle ground from civic life.

Meanwhile, people in positions of political and cultural influence are too stoppered up by greed and fright to change the discourse. Christ would have blamed the money lenders and in an election year, he would be right.

So hear this, ABC: You should have done better by "Judas." It is the antithesis of intemperate rabble-rousing and worthier than competing swill like NBC's "Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of Charlie's Angels."

SHANE HARVEY / NBC "Angels," from left, Trisha Helfer, Lauren Stamile and Christina Chambers star in "Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of Charlie's Angels."

Written by the meticulous Tom Fontana ("Oz," "Homicide," "St. Elsewhere"), "Judas" binds the wounds that secular and religious — not to mention Christian and Jewish — groups have inflicted on each other of late. It is the anti-"Passion" in that regard.

Even better, "Judas" is vastly accessible. This is not code for dumbed-down; you still must come to the TV set with rudimentary knowledge of the New and Old Testaments, which is to say much of what's influenced modern Western civilization.

The trick Fontana has up his sleeve is a classic in show business. Pick an interesting villain and sift a well-known story through his or her perspective. It worked just last month for Charlize Theron, who got an Oscar for her serial-killer role in "Monster."

"Judas" goes one up. The film makes Judas Iscariot more relatable, and his friendship with Jesus helps normalize that man's mythic proportions. This is a good approach whether you think Christ was just a troublemaking peasant or God's chosen.

The two co-stars help a great deal. Johnathon Schaech, who dazzled in the TV biopic "Houdini" a few seasons ago, has found another deep performance as a troubled, mercurial Jewish son trying to satisfy parental ambition.

Judas, we learn, was just a child when he saw his father crucified for political activism. His mother expects great things of him; although just a wine seller, the grown Judas dreams of overthrowing the Romans rather than waiting for a Messiah to free his people.

"Since the day they've arrived, they've done nothing but exploit us," he fumes, placing blame on Caesar's minions in a foreshadowing of events to come.

This is neatly understandable. Judas would have felt right at home in the company of those trying to craft a post-World War II Israel in opposition to orthodox theologians.

Enter Jesus Christ. Actor Jonathan Scarfe has a Matt Damon-esque appeal whose surface innocence belies hard experience, and he gives Jesus a personality that is simultaneously laid-back and unrelenting: the steel soul in a velvet robe.

His spiritualism and Judas' worldliness are bound to clash. After seeing Christ cure a cripple, Judas' first reaction is that this is a great way to raise funds for trips.

"How much do you think we should charge for miracles?" he asks a stunned group of fellow Apostles.

It's doubtful 18- to 34-year-old males will watch this movie. If they do, though, they'll discover echoes of a "Fight Club" relationship at the heart of a historical epic.

While the script obviously takes liberties with intimate dialogue among its characters, the famous scenes — Christ's Sermon on the Mount, Judas' betrayal at Gethsemane — adhere to traditional interpretation.

This becomes especially important regarding the continuing issue of culpability for Jesus' crucifixion.

In "Judas," nearly everyone is to blame. This is no tactical retreat. Rather, it is a plausible and well-researched version of how a corrupt Jewish priest influencing the mob colluded with Roman representatives intent on preserving their careers.

Those who find that chain of events improbable may want to consider how so much of the present-day world has ineptly landed in chaos and butchery, from Haiti to Uganda to Iraq.

"Judas" has an admirable supporting cast that does its bit for making The Word flesh. Bob Gunton's scheming Caiaphas and Tim Matheson's alternately witty and frantic Pontius Pilate are particular delights.

Occasionally, the movie can be a little too down-to-earth. For reasons best-known to the producers, some of the Apostles talk, and occasionally behave, like characters in a Monty Python skit.

The film is well-directed and well-paced. The presentation of miracles is straightforward and unapologetic yet not embellished with hokey lighting, angelic hosts, etc. The physical crucifixion makes us flinch without stooping to prolonged gruesome effect.

In the end, "Judas" illustrates the importance of faith — whether placed in individuals, institutions or ideologies. Absent it, people meet a fate like that of the title character.

But Christ's fate shows why we should respect the beliefs of others. That is the vanishing attribute in a contentious society whose members no longer seem able to witness another point of view without banning or destroying it.

I saw an interesting show recently that raised the question "is Judas' role during the final hours of Christ misunderstood?"

The arguments go along these lines:
1 - Jesus' name, message, location, favorite speaking place were all well known. What did Judas sell for 30 silver peices? Nobody really needed Judas' help to find and arrest Jesus.

2 - Judas became upset after he found that Jesus would be put to death. He returned the money. He clearly did not feel that this "deal" had gone as planned.

3 - Judas was so upset that he killed himself, even though he knew he was likely damned. Did he do this out of a sense of guilt?

4 - Judas was the treasurer of the apostles, even over Matthew. It would not be unusual for him to recieve money. What was the real intent of the 30 silver pieces?

It does seam obvious that whatever Judas' deal was it did hasten Christ's execution. He also did march with the Romans to Gethsemane, so it would imply that he lead the arrsting solders to Jesus. Why? The Romans could have found Jesus any time of day. Jesus was to be found speaking on the Temple Mound. Why pay Judas anything? They could just go arrest him there. Certainly the Romans didn't care if a few jews were upset by the arrest.

Those who find that chain of events improbable may want to consider how so much of the present-day world has ineptly landed in chaos and butchery, from Haiti to Uganda to Iraq.

To Iraq! I guess the author hasn't noticed we're bringing order to what was their chaos. Ack.

And why do I have a feeling that any "ineptness" regarding Haiti, the author does not assign to Clinton, but instead to the Bush administration. We'll see if that doesn't end up better now than he seems to think, now that Aristede is gone.

The movie is airing here right now. Honestly, parts of it make me cringe, but I like some aspects a great deal. I was pleased you included the Centurian of great faith, as we Catholics incorporate that Scripture in the Mass with "Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed". That was a very good passage to present.

Stop the music! Stop the music!

In "The Passion", a negative portrayal of Caiphas and "the mob" represented a negative portrayal of the entire Jewish people and was therefore "anti-Semitic" and "hateful".

Now, in the network sponsored "Judas", a negative portrayal of Caiphas and "the mob" represents nothing more than the portrayal of a corrupt individual human being (who happens to be Jewish) who manipulates a generic mob which seems to have no religious label attached to it.

Is there a double standard here or I just imagining it?

I watched it last night after reading your post of the thoughtfulness that you put into making it. I missed the beginning, and therefore some of the lines earlier remarked upon, but found that Jesus was depicted well. That to me, was the most important part of having Christ in a film, that He not be belittled or clear meanings rewritten, and I didn't see that they were.

I was particularly impressed with how when He sent them out two-by-two, He got fired up and they did too, and the room got brighter and they all appeared to have the Holy Spirit descend on them. I hadn't seen that in any other film, but know that from experience it was probably something like that that happened.

I will never forget your depiction of when Judas and his partner (forgot which disciple) got to a village... any way, it was very very funny to watch, and very human, and all in all, I'd say this film of yours brought Glory to God, and not emnity. You again and again depicted Judas as "just not getting it" about Christ's spirituality and His mission.

I'm glad I saw it and thank you for making it!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.