I've just seen a preview copy of the upcoming video release of The Apocalypse, known in Italian as San Giovanni - L'apocalisse. This is the latest from the Italian company Lux Vide, whose ambitious series based on the Bible includes Roger Young's JESUS, as well as Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Esther, et al. This time, Raffaele Mertes is the writer/director (he was cinematographer on much of the earlier titles in the series, including Jesus).

Richard Harris is brilliant -- brilliant -- as St John. He's really in a class by himself, although some of the special effects are right up there. Most of the rest of the cast, especially Vittoria Belvedere as Irene, are outshone. And on the whole it's quite a strong project, but it falls down in a couple of ways.

First, there are some early problems with English dubbing. Many of the actors say their lines in English, but a few say them in another language, presumably Italian, and the dubbing is obvious in a couple of places. In other places (after noticing that), I could see where cover shots and reaction shots were used during dialogue, and the speaker's face appeared before, after or between phrases. In some cases, I felt like even Irene was mouthing English words: the voice must have been dubbed in later -- maybe because of audio trouble, or maybe because they wanted a different accent?

The Roman authorities suspect John may be alive, and want to kill the last of the apostles, unaware that he is already in their custody (he is known to the guards as Theophilos, oddly). Among the problems with the plot is the fact that, although John is in a hellish prison on Patmos, outsiders seem to have no trouble sneaking in or out. And the story deals resolves a love story a bit clumsily -- the relationship restored a little too easily (with John's help). John even mis-quotes Jesus as he urges a reconciliation between Irene and Valerius:

"Jesus told me once... God forgives the most those who love the most."

And the final scenes of the new heaven and the new earth are among the weakest shots in the film -- odd, since the CGI has been surprisingly good.

John's unique role in Jesus' life is recognized in several ways, notably through a great use of flashbacks, not unlike the flashbacks we saw in The Passion of the Christ. For example, when John sees a prisoner (Valerius) being flogged, he recalls back to Jesus' scourging. And during prayer, John's vision continues after he prays, "Make me worthy of you!" In the vision, he sees a lamb with a line of blood around its neck, and suddenly he is re-living the crucifixion. We see little of the earlier events, just enough to help us appreciate John's role as a first-hand witness of them.

Is it theologically sound? Don't ask me about detailed interpretations of prophecy, but it doesn't seem to make any rudimentary mistakes. I am certain that it will start many heated debates (this subject does that), but I'll be happy to ignore most of those discussions since speculation about the end of time really doesn't change how I should live today.

I can say that we see prophecy being fulfilled throughout the film as each of the seven seals is opened, but that fulfillment is taking place in the lives of these first century believers AND in the future. So, the Emperor's order to massacre Christians comes in concert with parts of the vision, yet John also sees modern images, such as telephone poles, a medical worker with a stethescope. Most strikingly, the fiery red horse that rides out after the second seal is opened is followed by fighter jets, and among the war images that swirl across the screen are a couple of shots of the World Trade Center.

And the shots of heaven are interesting -- lots of white-robed figures in a sort of temple court, often waiting for something to happen, sometimes engaged in worship; Jesus is present, but his face is not revealed. Mostly, we sense John's disorientation as he tries to understand this strange experience.

Original and somewhat daring, this is an intriguing film about the most confounding book of the Bible. Available in North America through Goodtimes, April 27.

Tim Willson wrote:
: I've just seen a preview copy of the upcoming video release of The
: Apocalypse, known in Italian as San Giovanni - L'apocalisse. This is the
: latest from the Italian company Lux Vide . . .

Oh wow, so they actually made this, then? To quote an earlier post of mine:

Joseph was produced as part of a series of TV movies that began as an Italian thing and very quickly went international. Some, but not all, of these films were shown on the Turner network -- and it's possible the series isn't finished yet. The films (with links to my comments):

1. Genesis: Creation & The Flood (1994, dir. Ermanno Olmi)
2. Abraham (1994, dir. Joseph Sargent)
3. Jacob (1994, dir. Peter Hall)
4. Joseph (1995, dir. Roger Young)
5. Moses (1996, dir. Roger Young)
6. Samson and Delilah (1996, dir. Nicolas Roeg)
7. David (1997, dir. Robert Markowitz)
8. Solomon (1997, dir. Roger Young)
9. Jeremiah (1998, dir. Harry Winer)
10. Esther (1999, dir. Raffaele Mertes)
11. Jesus (1999, dir. Roger Young)

Films #2-7 were shown on the Turner network and were thus released on Warner Home Video, possibly under their Christian "Warner Alliance" label, but only on VHS. (Oddly enough, the existing set available at Amazon.com only has films #2,4,5,7.) I do not know if Films #1,8-10 were ever shown on North American TV, though I do know Genesis played at the local Cinematheque when they had an Olmanni retrospective a while back, and all four of them are available in a DVD boxed set. Film #11 was, of course, shown on CBS and is also available on video.

All of these films except for Genesis were produced by Lorenzo Minoli, and when I interviewed him in 1999, he said they were looking at doing films on Saint Paul and the Book of Revelation, too. But that was five years ago and nothing like that shows up on his IMDB page -- however, Roger Young, who directed so many of these films (and most of their better ones), apparently did direct a film for Italian TV called Saint Paul in 2000, and like a couple of his other "Bible Collection" movies, it co-stars former Police Academy vet G.W. Bailey, this time as Barnabas.

So does the existence of this Apocalypse movie mean that that Saint Paul movie was part of this series too? And is that film available on video too?

: This time, Raffaele Mertes is the writer/director (he was cinematographer
: on much of the earlier titles in the series, including Jesus).

He also apparently directed Esther, too.

: Richard Harris is brilliant -- brilliant -- as St John.

They brought him back, eh? (He played Abraham in the earlier film of that name.)

: In some cases, I felt like even Irene was mouthing English words: the
: voice must have been dubbed in later -- maybe because of audio
: trouble, or maybe because they wanted a different accent?

This is just a common feature of Italian films, I believe.

: The Roman authorities suspect John may be alive, and want to kill the
: last of the apostles, unaware that he is already in their custody (he is
: known to the guards as Theophilos, oddly).

That IS a little strange. Was Luke, who did not witness the events of Jesus' life for himself, therefore writing his gospel for the benefit of someone who had!?

: I can say that we see prophecy being fulfilled throughout the film as each
: of the seven seals is opened, but that fulfillment is taking place in the
: lives of these first century believers AND in the future. So, the Emperor's
: order to massacre Christians comes in concert with parts of the vision,
: yet John also sees modern images, such as telephone poles, a medical
: worker with a stethescope. Most strikingly, the fiery red horse that rides
: out after the second seal is opened is followed by fighter jets, and among
: the war images that swirl across the screen are a couple of shots of the
: World Trade Center.

Yikes. I wonder how this will compare to the film version of The Late Great Planet Earth. Come to think of it, I believe Olmi's Genesis also had modern-day footage of Gulf War I and environmental devastation, etc. And of course there were staged scenes of modern-day warfare in Jesus, too.

: And the shots of heaven are interesting -- lots of white-robed figures in a
: sort of temple court, often waiting for something to happen, sometimes
: engaged in worship; Jesus is present, but his face is not revealed.

They didn't bring back Jeremy Sisto, then?

: Available in North America through Goodtimes, April 27.

Hmmm. Who would I contact in Canada for a review copy?

[quote]To quote an earlier post of mine...[/quote]
Oops -- forgot to check for existing threads.
[quote]All of these films except for Genesis were produced by Lorenzo Minoli, and when I interviewed him in 1999, he said they were looking at doing films on Saint Paul and the Book of Revelation, too. But that was five years ago and nothing like that shows up on his IMDB page -- however, Roger Young, who directed so many of these films (and most of their better ones), apparently did direct a film for Italian TV called Saint Paul in 2000, and like a couple of his other "Bible Collection" movies, it co-stars former Police Academy vet G.W. Bailey, this time as Barnabas.

So does the existence of this Apocalypse movie mean that that Saint Paul movie was part of this series too? And is that film available on video too?[/quote]
It will release (also through Goodtimes) in July.
[quote]: Richard Harris is brilliant -- brilliant -- as St John.

They brought him back, eh? (He played Abraham in the earlier film of that name.)[/quote]
Yes, it must have been one of his last roles. And it's virtually a death scene at the end -- well, a deathbed scene at least.
[quote]: The Roman authorities suspect John may be alive, and want to kill the
: last of the apostles, unaware that he is already in their custody (he is
: known to the guards as Theophilos, oddly).

That IS a little strange. Was Luke, who did not witness the events of Jesus' life for himself, therefore writing his gospel for the benefit of someone who had!?[/quote]
It's not clear that they mean THAT Theophilos, but they aren't saying John WAS Theophilos, just that he was 'hiding' under that assumed name.
[quote]: I can say that we see prophecy being fulfilled throughout the film as each
: of the seven seals is opened, but that fulfillment is taking place in the
: lives of these first century believers AND in the future. So, the Emperor's
: order to massacre Christians comes in concert with parts of the vision,
: yet John also sees modern images, such as telephone poles, a medical
: worker with a stethescope. Most strikingly, the fiery red horse that rides
: out after the second seal is opened is followed by fighter jets, and among
: the war images that swirl across the screen are a couple of shots of the
: World Trade Center.

Yikes. I wonder how this will compare to the film version of The Late Great Planet Earth. Come to think of it, I believe Olmi's Genesis also had modern-day footage of Gulf War I and environmental devastation, etc. And of course there were staged scenes of modern-day warfare in Jesus, too.[/quote]
Well, it is a bit startling, but the shot selection is such that the effect isn't offensive (to me, at least).
[quote]: And the shots of heaven are interesting -- lots of white-robed figures in a
: sort of temple court, often waiting for something to happen, sometimes
: engaged in worship; Jesus is present, but his face is not revealed.

They didn't bring back Jeremy Sisto, then? [/quote]
Y'know... the shots are so brief I didn't think to check. In fact, apart from the crucifixion scene, there is only one shot of Jesus' face (dancing with a bride at THE wedding feast); the other shots are body only, and could be any actor. The flashback scenes are likely all from the earlier film -- why would they re-do those? But the role of Jesus doesn't appear to be credited.
[quote]: Available in North America through Goodtimes, April 27.

Hmmm. Who would I contact in Canada for a review copy?[/quote]I'll send you a PM.

Tim Willson wrote:
: Oops -- forgot to check for existing threads.

No worries -- it's not like we have a proper "Bible Collection" thread anyway.

: : So does the existence of this Apocalypse movie mean that that Saint
: : Paul movie was part of this series too? And is that film available on
: : video too?
:
: It will release (also through Goodtimes) in July.

Really? Wow, cool! Considering there have been very few movies about the Book of Acts, compared to the wealth of films about Jesus, I'd be very, very interested in seeing this.

: Richard Harris is brilliant -- brilliant -- as St John. . . . it must have been
: one of his last roles.

Yeah, he died somewhere between the release of the last Harry Potter film and the beginning of production on the new one. Which makes me wonder, BTW, when was The Apocalypse first shown anywhere? I find it rather odd that the producers could churn out Bible movies at a brisk pace of one or two per year between 1994 and 2000, and then all of a sudden put their series on hold for a few years just to produce this one movie.

Oh, wait, I just checked Harris's page at the IMDB -- this film first came out in 2002. Hmmm. According to the IMDB, the film was 180 minutes in Italy but 100 minutes in Brazil. How long is the version you saw?

: : They didn't bring back Jeremy Sisto, then?
:
: Y'know... the shots are so brief I didn't think to check. In fact, apart from
: the crucifixion scene, there is only one shot of Jesus' face (dancing with a
: bride at THE wedding feast) . . .

Oh man, this sounds more and more interesting.

: The flashback scenes are likely all from the earlier film -- why would
: they re-do those?

Well, they'd have to get the actor's permission -- that is why e.g. you don't see John Hurt's face on the screen along with the faces of the other victims in Aliens, and you don't see Michael Biehn's corpse in Alien3; the actors wouldn't give permission for that.

Apart from that, the Bible Collection has re-cast roles before -- Matthew Modine played Jacob in Jacob, and then Martin Landau played him in Joseph; some guy played David in David, then Max von Sydow played him in Solomon; stuff like that.

Tim,

Thanks for the post. If these ever become available in the UK I'll be sure to get hold of them. (To put that in context, Sisto's Jesus has only just made it to general release - prior to the Passion you could only get it through "Time Life" some rip off company and then you had to buy 4 or 5).

Anyway weird sounding project. I'd actually be keener to see Saint Paul than the revelation one. This is partly cos as PTC there have been very few Paul / Acts films. There's Peter & Paul, the Visual Bible's Acts - neither of which I've seen. Then there's AD which I saw when I was about 10, and Paul: The Emissary which is the only one I've seen recently and is very poor. I've generally liked the Turner films, so I'd be keen to see their Paul.

But its also because I don't really see how you can do Revelation, unless you go the Visual Bible route, because as soon as you do anything other than a literal rendering you have to make a major interpretative decision. I actually can't think of any other biblical books to which this applies. Basically though there's a body of opinion which sees all but the 7 letters to churches as being future, and there's another body which sees nearly all of it as relating to the time John wrote it and hardly any to future, and there's a number of other opinions as well. So as soon as you start tinkering with if you've pushed it down one path or another.

Now I realise that even the Visual Bible approach involved interpretation, but there its more quibbling over the details. So the Sermon on the Mount could have been done all in one go (a la the VB) or be a conglomeration of a number of vignettes Jesus delivered over time, but still you've got Jesus saying it, or something like it, to a group of 1st century Jews in Palestine. With Revelation its all a bit different. So whilst part of me is interested to see how they handle it, part of me fears filming just won't work, or perhaps fears that it'll go the Hal Lindsay route.

So Tim, how's it go. Does it stick closely to the structure of the book, or jst deal with a couple of incidents? Does it see Revelation as primarily refering to our future, or our past? Does it offer any clear interpretation or are the images etc shown more literally. What's include / exclude?

Sorry to bombard you with questions but I'm interested to see how they've handled a difficult project.

Matt

[quote]Peter Chattaway wrote:
I find it rather odd that the producers could churn out Bible movies at a brisk pace of one or two per year between 1994 and 2000, and then all of a sudden put their series on hold for a few years just to produce this one movie.
Oh, wait, I just checked Harris's page at the IMDB -- this film first came out in 2002. Hmmm. [/quote]
Lux Vide indicates that they spent 125-million Euros making 21 films in this series, ("Besides the 21 episodes of "The Bible" project..."). I only count 13 released so far, including the two under discussion, but my email to ask about the others was unanswered. It's possible they are counting other first century projects, including one about the Friends of Jesus. So it seems as though they worked on this series throughout the 90's and beyond, but they have been slow to get released on home video. I remain a little puzzled about these 21 films (their website is in Italian and a little unorganized:

[quote]Abramo
Davide
Ester
Genesi
Geremia
Giacobbe
Giuseppe
Jesus
Mosè
Salomone
San Giovanni (tw- St John - the Apocalypse)
San Paolo
Sansone e Dalila

Elsewhere on the site it lists:
"Giuseppe" ("Joseph")(tw-not to be confused with the OT Joseph--see below), "Giuda" ("Judas"), and "Tommaso" ("Thomas"), within the "Gli amici di Gesù" ("Jesus' Friends") project, co-produced with Mediaset;

And listed separately, although it seems to be part of the Friends... series:
"Maria Maddalena" ("Mary Magdalene"),

Also listed is a miniseries called "Augusto" ("Augustus"), co-produced with Raifiction, Raitrade, EOS Entertainment and Quinta Communication. Under the heading 'Coming Soon' is listed:
"IMPERIUM", 6 films:
"Augustus", "Nero", "Titus", "Costantine", "Marcus Aurelius", "The Fall of the Roman Empire" [/quote]

I'd really like to see the 'Friends of Jesus' series, especially Joseph of Nazareth.

[quote]PTC wrote:
According to the IMDB, the film was 180 minutes in Italy but 100 minutes in Brazil. How long is the version you saw? [/quote]

96 min. including credits. They seem to be edited to various lengths, for example, Jesus is listed at IMDB as:
Canada:174 min / Germany:180 min (2 parts) / USA:60 min (2 parts) / Argentina:110 min

[quote]PTC wrote:
: : They didn't bring back Jeremy Sisto, then?
:
: Y'know... the shots are so brief I didn't think to check. In fact, apart from
: the crucifixion scene, there is only one shot of Jesus' face (dancing with a
: bride at THE wedding feast) . . .

Oh man, this sounds more and more interesting. [/quote]

Okay--I spoke WAY too fast. "Christ" is credited as Jan Michelini, who is also the 2nd Unit Assistant Director. Still, I don't know if the crucifixion scenes from this film are taken from the earlier one.

[quote]Matt Page wrote:
So Tim, how's it go. Does it stick closely to the structure of the book, or jst deal with a couple of incidents? Does it see Revelation as primarily refering to our future, or our past? Does it offer any clear interpretation or are the images etc shown more literally. What's include / exclude?[/quote]
The film-makers focussed on the seven seals in Revelation 6 and on scenes in heaven. As I mentioned earlier, it seems to imply that Scripture was being fulfilled in that era, the first century, BUT, just as the we see persecution enacted in the lives of these characters there are modern images cut in. So I guess it implies that these visions have been and continue to be fulfilled.

It does move chronologically, so the woman with child in Rev. 12 appears in roughly the correct place. It doesn't make any interpretation of that scene, though. In fact, it kind of plays like something out of Donnie Darko -- a pregnant woman floating in the sky during a storm, suddenly holding a baby, then scrambling up the beach and across a desert to escape a supernatural, Mummy-esque dust storm.

If I knew enough about all of the interpretations of Revelation (or cared more about that) I could dig into this a bit more. All I can say, really, is that they took the most obvious and striking images, and played them as written. Any interpretation seems to be limited to showing "Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other." (Rev 6:4) as referring to war, including modern weapons and events.

But, sure, there is PLENTY of interpretation, even in how John seems to have a vision, write it down and send it to the church in Ephesus, then have another one, write and send that, and so on. And the wedding ceremony seems to be a first-century, Jewish wedding... but I'm no expert, there. But in terms of specifying how these prophecies have been/will be fulfilled, no, they haven't taken a lot of licence.

[quote]Matt Page wrote:
If these ever become available in the UK I'll be sure to get hold of them.[/quote]
You could try going direct: http://www.luxvide.it/compra.php

Tim Willson wrote:
: "Maria Maddalena" ("Mary Magdalene"),
: I'd really like to see the 'Friends of Jesus' series, especially Joseph of Nazareth.

Y'know something, I believe I have these two films. I think they were shown on the PAX network or something a few years ago, and a friend of mine in the States taped them and sent them to me -- but so far, I've only watched the first half of Mary Magdalene. Hmmm.

: They seem to be edited to various lengths . . .

Arrrrgh. That sooooo irritates me.

First, thanks to Tim for sending me the tape. My review is in the works, but for now I just want to get a few Bible-geeky or history-geeky or film-geeky things off my chest.

At the beginning of the film, when Domitian proclaims himself divine, a Roman is heard muttering, "Claiming to be a god when he's still alive -- it's unheard of!" Um, hello? Caligula? Nero? It was not THAT unknown for Roman emperors to proclaim their divinity, was it? My big question after seeing this film is to wonder just how seriously even Domitian himself took the proclamation of his divinity. I do know that modern historians, such as my former UBC classics prof Anthony Barrett, think the Caligula affair has been overblown -- so I wonder if this film's depiction of Domitian is a similar instance of overblowing.

Come to that, why does Domitian say he wants to be the "only god" worshipped by the Christians? I thought Romans were quite happy to let people worship as many gods as they liked, so long as they made the right sacrifices indicating their loyalty to the state? At the very least, was not Roman religion itself polytheistic?

I like the way John says "God is love, and whoever loves, lives in God, and God in him" -- I haven't checked my Bible yet, but I believe this is a quote from one of the Johannine epistles. So, between the visions of Revelation and the flashbacks to the events in the Gospels, this film includes bits of all three Johannine elements in the New Testament -- the Gospel, the Epistles, the Apocalypse.

Did you notice that Ian Duncan, the actor who plays John's assistant Demetrius, is the same actor who played the apostle John himself in the earlier Bible Collection film Jesus?

I found the romance between Valerius and Irene pretty stale -- that whole skeptical-Roman-soldier-falls-for-pretty-Christian-girl thing has been done better in films like The Sign of the Cross and the umpteen versions of Quo Vadis?. One thing that occurred to me, as I pondered this cliché, is that one of my favorite early-church movies, the 1985 mini-series A.D. Anno Domini, did something rather different, and interestingly so -- in THAT film, the Roman soldier (whose name is also Valerius) falls in love with a JEWISH slave girl, and he ends up buying her, setting her free, then marrying her ... and then it is HE who becomes a Christian, while SHE remains skeptical!

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts that I figured I wouldn't have space for in my review.

Good comments, Peter. I think these weakness don't overshadow the film, but they certainly undermine it.

Tim Willson wrote:
: There is a lot of recycling of talent in this series, isn't there?

There is indeed -- but that John-plays-John's-assistant bit was particularly cute. I mean, it's kind of an "in-joke" in a way that the fact that Richard Harris earlier played Abraham is NOT an "in-joke". (And hey, just how many of these actors have appeared in Bible films before, anyway? Harris played Cain in John Huston's 1966 epic The Bible... In the Beginning, and Barbara Hershey -- who played Abraham's wife Sarah opposite Harris's Abraham -- was of course in The Last Temptation of Christ, and I think I just read somewhere that Monica Bellucci, i.e. the Mary Magdalene of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, also played Pharaoh's wife in the 1995 mini-series Joseph.)

SPOILERS

: As I mentioned earlier, the reconciliation at the end is SOAP OPERA, LITE.

Oh yes. And that subplot with the displaced governor was awfully trite, too. The way he spouts such stupid, boilerplate lines as "How stupid of them to think they'd catch me unprepared!" The way he runs with a sword before someone throws a spear and kills him (are we audience members supposed to LIKE the fact that this happens?). My sister happened to walk through the room when that scene took place, and she asked if I was watching a Monty Python film.

Good point about the conclusion to the Domitian subplot, too, which was just all too convenient (and a bit reminiscent of how the death of Caligula saved the Jews from having to go to war over his efforts to erect a statue of himself in the Jerusalem Temple; for more on that, see A.D. Anno Domini).

: Can't wait to hear your take on the revelation itself.

I don't think my "take" on it is all that spectacular, but I did find it interesting.

FWIW, my review -- they wanted it to include some commentary on the 'Bible Collection' series as a whole, so I don't say quite as much about this particular film as I could have.

: for now I just want to get a few Bible-geeky or history-geeky
: or film-geeky things off my chest.

Well if we’re doing THAT I’d better wade in…

MattPage wrote:
: Except that its reasonably well established that they were written by different
: authors. The huge difference in the quality of Greek grammar between the gospel
: and Revelation is a strong indicator of that . . .

Oh, that wouldn't surprise me at all. The gospel has certainly gone through a redaction process of some sort, hence the "we" references and some of the abrupt or awkward editing. But I think there's a very good case to be made that the gospel and the epistles come from the same writer, though. And as for Revelation ... well, maybe the visions did something to John's brain.

: Dunno - sounds a bit like The Robe to me

Ah, good point.

Yes, we do, though rates vary.

My review

Matt