Franco is still alive at about 90, still smokes and is still sharp. He is ethnically Jewish, born of a Jewish mother. Whether he was ever a believer in Judaism, I don’t know. But his Jewish background was an original factor in making the Catholic Church wary of his project so much so as to denounce his plans for ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ as a project of slander and scandal against Christianity.
However, Franco comes from an era when Jews were more tolerant of people in general, or he just happens to be a righteous person. In any event, he described his project to the Vatican and invited them to be on set to see for themselves and to contribute or inquire when there were questions or concerns. The result was an incredible work that has never been equaled. The film has turned countless people to Christ.
When asked why he chose Jesus to be his project when he himself was a Jew or from a Jewish family, he remarked “there’s just something about the story”.
I actually think it is divine that a non-Christian, a Jew, directed the film because the whole event in history becomes so much more believable, why? Because if we were alive and witnessing, I think most of us would be scratching our heads in disbelief and trying to rationalize the whole thing as a magic show of some sort. Whereas, if a devout Christian had filmed it, it may have come across as preachy and canned.
I love the film because the characters treat Jesus like a lunatic, like he’s a weakling, a ‘twirp’ or something beneath them, and then it becomes clear via simple glances, penetrating stares, simple speech and questions, and a hypnotic countenance that this is not an ordinary man.
And so the rough burly Peter (Simon) who on first meeting Jesus is so pissed off at life and the world that he wants to take this ‘holy man’ and wring him by the neck, looks at Jesus in contempt but holds back his fists.
Later, after Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son with Simon Peter staying outside the group in bitter temper but wanting to hear Jesus, one moment angry, the next moment confused, he finally submits like a crying child to Jesus, weeping “forgive me Master, I’m just a stupid man”.
The whole film is this way, magnificently develops the very real human character behaviors found in all of us so that we identify with the people in it and feel we are part of it.
This was Zeffirelli’s doing, to bring in attitudes that are real like “who is this fake bastard sonofabitch?”, this “friend of whores” etc. so that we all see someone we know in the film and how they are transformed. We see the whole society split right down the middle, exclaiming WTF? Flog the SOB! But in the end it is evident that Jesus is King, that no one could ever be like him and not be a King.
That was all Zeffirelli’s doing, and I think it was because he was not a Christian that he was able to bring these human elements into it that made the film so much more full and real.
The acting is incredible and the cast is star-studded. To this day, I believe the big names in the cast did it for charity because there is no way a film budget could have afforded so many big name stars.
I agree that Jesus of Nazareth is a great film/miniseries. It is probably the best over-all film on the life of Christ. Before it, films about Christ did not show him as human. Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings was rather robotic as though he was afraid to offend anyone by showing any emotion. Also, previous films did not show the purpose of Christ. He is usually depicted as a great and wise man who performs miracles, and then is unfortunately executed. J.O.N. makes it clear from the beginning the purpose of Christ's death, and having Olivier as Nicodemus reciting Isaiah 53 during the Crucifixion certainly drives the point home.
However, I think a lot of credit for the film belongs to author Anthony Burgess. You may not believe this, but I read an interview with Burgess in which he said that Zeffirelli wanted to imply that Jesus and the apostle John were lovers (that was when I learned that Zeffirelli was gay). Burgess absolutely refused to add any such moment to the script, and told Zeffirelli that he could cut in some shots of Jesus and John looking longingly at other if he insisted on doing it. Fortunately, the idea was dropped.
Zeffirelli was also a bit coy about including the resurrection. They shot a scene of Christ appearing to the Disciples, because I have seen a photo of Robert Powell displaying his wounded hand, but Zeffirelli didn't think it worked. In the end, he left all of that out. The final scene of Christ with the Disciples can actually be interpreted as a flashback if one wishes. I wish Zeffirelli had been more up front with his depiction of the resurrection.
Another interesting thing to check out is Burgess's novel based on his screenplay called Man of Nazareth. It's a lot like the screenplay, with some of the dialog exactly like the film. But the characters are actually richer in the novel, and it had a better ending than the movie.