Essay: Gospel of Mark and the film, Jesus of Montreal

The authors’ structure and communication of the gospel of Mark and the film, Jesus of Montreal, represent the story to their audience quite similarly. Both authors emphasize their attention to the “historical present” by beginning the story in the past tense then continues the story in the present tense. They both wanted to make the past of the story to come alive by drawing the reader and the audience into the action, reporting the history as if it were happening now rather than then.
Their endings both had a sense of mystery and ambiguity. The ending of the film ended with an open ended scene of people receiving Coulombe’s donated body organs, this probably conveys that Jesus is in all of us. The ending of Mark’s abrupt ending left the reader wondering if the women really said nothing to anyone and if the disciples ever found out about the resurrection. Both authors seem to convey that the crucifixion is the most important part of the story and also includes some miracle stories, and Peter’s confession. Both the film and the gospel seem to focus on the oral tradition instead of the literary tradition. The oral period happens before and after the writing. Within the film they had “tellers” of their stories, or people who pass on the tradition or the story to others. With the use of the doctrinal paradigm, the film and Mark use the history and physics criterion, with the historicity that determined the meaning of the story.
Mark and the writer of the film both offered the most human portrait of Jesus from the New Testament. Coulombe wanted the audience to have a better understanding of what life would have been like if they were there with factual evidence from the bible and from research. This relates to the doctrinal model of Mark.
The main character, David Coulombe, was the modern day Jesus within the film and also played Jesus within the play. He went through many troubles with the play being refused to be performed at the church, by being arrested, by suffering, by dying, and basically a resurrection in the end. Martin is one of Coulombe’s friends who happened to play Peter within the play. Rene was also one of the actors that Coulombe found and they also became friends. Constance Lazure was his best friend within the movie, she gave him a place to stay and supported him throughout the whole film. She could be seen as Mary the mother of Jesus because she cares about him. Mirelle becomes Coulombe’s lover close to the end. She tells them that this play has changed her life and that it has made her a better person. She could be seen as Mary Magdalene. The other characters within the movie, such as Fr. Leclerc, the producers, the directors, etc. could be seen as those who commit sin.
The film employs a “play within a play” technique. Coulombe, the main character, begins to take on “Jesus characteristics” while recreating the Jesus story within the film. The film closely relates the modernism of Coulombe’s life and the past of the Jesus story he created. His enlisting other actors for the play is like Jesus gathering his disciples. While looking for actors, the author probably conveys something about Jesus’ practice of being around sinners and calling people away to sin. Examples of this was when he went to a studio where one of the actors happened to be dubbing a voiceover for an adult movie, with a priest committing sin by breaking his celibacy and confessing to Coulombe about it, and the scene where Coulombe chases out the directors and producers because they were being foolish and disrepectful.
Coulombe wants the audience to know the exact historical background of each station and miracle story. Examples of this would be when Constance and Mireille explained to the audience that people believed Jesus was a false prophet, born from fornication, and they called him Yeshu Ben Penthera, or “the son of Panthera.” Another example was that they said Jesus was like a magician who grew up in Egypt, the cradle of magic, with the miracles being more important than his sermons.
Coulombe definitely put in a lot of work in his recreation that it stirred up some trouble with the priest and the church they performed on. Father Leclerc, or the priest, was furious at Coulombe for explaining that Jesus was born the natural son of a Roman soldier instead of Joseph the carpenter, and the unwed mother, who we know as the Virgin Mary. Another similarity seen in the film are the miracle stories, with Jesus healing of the blind, raising the dead, and walking on water. They also recreated Peter’s confession but used Matthew’s description of what happened rather than Mark’s. Jesus asks his disciples who people think he is and the disciples respond with John the Baptist resurrected, Elias, and one of the prophets. He then asks what the disciples think of him and Peter responds with Jesus being Christ, the Messiah and Jesus responds differently in the film than the gospel. Within the film, Jesus says to never speak of him to others for he is the Son of Man, and he ends the station by saying he would not say by whose authority why he is there. Coulombe jumps around throughout the stations or it could be the director of the movie wanted to juxtapose the modern day scene and the play together. This was probably to show the person watching the movie to realize this is a modern Jesus story within a recreated Jesus story. The two women within the movie explained in great detail that after Jesus was crucified that it had been five or ten years later and the disciples had scattered, disappointed, bitter, desperate to die, sleep, no more to end the heartache of the longing for his resurrection. Mireille, probably Mary Magdalene, was the first woman to see Jesus resurrected and promptly told Constance, who is probably Mary, and Martin, who was Peter within the play. They seemed to not believe her until they themselves saw a white robed man who broke bread with them and that was when they realized that their Lord had risen.
Back to the historical background, the women explained that Peter, John, and others were beheaded, crucified, and stoned and were awaited by Jesus in the kingdom of heaven. After the play is over, became famous over night, with more and more people showing up to watch it. Just how Jesus was accused of doing wrong, Coulombe was accused and arrested for making threats, aggravated assault, and vandalism from when he destroyed the set at Mirelle’s audition. He was brought to court, pleaded guilty, and rejected help from a lawyer. Close to the end, in the film, Coulombe was warned to not show the play again due to the “false facts” Fr. Leclerc seemed to be furious about. The police interfered close to the end of the play and created a fight or brawl with the audience because they wanted to finish the play. This probably signifies Jesus’ followers. Coulombe is in the middle dangling on the cross and is pushed over and knocked out. The women were the ones who went with Coulombe to the hospital, Peter and Rene stayed behind. This signifies the women being the first to be able to see Jesus rise from the dead. Although he does wake up from being knocked out, he preaches about believing in one God and not to believe in the false gods, it was like he became the character Jesus while he asserted his beliefs. He then passes out again and sadly dies because they were too late to bring him to the hospital. The doctors asked the women if they could donate his body to other patients due to his rare type of blood and perfect body condition. In the end, the director made it clear that Jesus lives in all of us and resurrected in a way where Coulombe’s eyes were given to a woman who could not see, and a heart to a man who was probably dying and so on with his other body parts.
The gospel of Mark is writing for an audience of Roman Christians for who the story of Jesus and his disciples are presented as sacred history. The history is the foundation of their religious faith, but history is that story that happened a long time ago among people that lived differently.
The gospel of Mark also comforts and brings courage to the Christians who were suffering violent persecutions. It might have been addressed to the believers who suffered the terrors happening to them. Mark wanted to make sure that the church kept their faith by passing the oral tradition generation to generation. The only way other people could know about Mark’s gospel is word of mouth because the people of that time could have been illiterate. They could have told the stories Jesus told them then people would tell the stories to others.  The gift stories within Mark had the elements of imperative commands. The film also had the elements of commands when Jesus was asked to probably calm the storm as he walked on water, and by a blind man or woman, it was unclear, to heal them of their blindness.
Mark’s storytelling uses a rhetorical technique called intercalation. This is a literary device in which one story or narrative is inserted into the middle of another. Basically he wraps one story around another just how the film showed both the modern day main character is juxtaposed within the Jesus from the play. It invites the reader and the audience to look more closely at the two stories, to compare and contrast them and realize that the film is actually a Jesus story within a Jesus story.
Mark is not very unique in portraying Jesus as a human being like the film does a great job at. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus is that he is a divine being who knows the future, does not commit sin or mistakes, he is in constant communication with God, he exhibits power over evil, but he is subject to weakness and frailty, i.e. being hungry or tired and has emotions. Mark’s Jesus does not know everything and is unable to work miracles for the unbelievers. Mark wants to tell people some aspects of Jesus’ life and wants to keep the focus from the beginning to the end with Jesus dying on the cross. As said above, the crucifixion is very important to Mark. Mark and the writer of the film wanted to make it clear that Jesus gave his life up. He focused on how it is God’s will that he die on the cross as one who was betrayed, deserted, denied, and forsaken. In fact, as Jesus was dying on the cross, his last words were “forsaken.” This probably means that he died for the forsaken, or the Jews at that time to be saved and not to be abandoned. Mark implies that the death of Jesus was a payment for the people’s freedom and also shows the establishment of a relationship between humanity and God. Another important fact is that Mark made clear that Jesus repeatedly told people to not make known he performs miracles or healings. Within the film, Jesus just tells Peter to not make it known he is the Son of God or that he is Christ, the Messiah. The fact that Mark wanted to keep the identity of Jesus basically a secret shows why Jesus was not seen as the Messiah within the story. This also probably explains why the Pharisees and the other leaders could not believe in Jesus either because they did not know if it was true or not until after he was crucified. Mark’s gospel is more of a theological perspective rather than the historical one the film portrayed.
The gospel of Mark and the film when compared are fairly similar to each other. They are both fairly short and pay attention to the details of how crucial the death and resurrection of Jesus was and is. They both want the readers and audience to realize that Jesus in fact sacrificed himself for our freedom by the will of God. While watching the film, I felt that the director or writer was very clever in emanating a modern day Jesus type who is directing a Jesus play. However, the film does not really make any difference to me on how I view the gospel stories. I do like the way the director modernized the story in a more realistic way. I would explain this film as juxtaposing the modern day man and the life of Jesus. They both were portrayed as having emotions just as in Mark. They were both seen as a real human being other than a super being. In the end, both the director and the gospel of Mark want their audience to realize that the story is not over, that they want people to ask the question of what happens next.