Conclusion

    The movies viewed were all very different looks into the life of one man. All of them had their prejudices and biases that really became clear upon examination of the way in which Jesus was presented. This paper was as much a study in film as it was in images of Jesus. The way in which the filmmakers presented Jesus was creative and varied. Many used characters as windows into Jesus life. These windows are representative of the person or persons who are creating this picture for us, but they are more than that. It is from the window's point of view-be it Lucius, Judas, Mary, or another, that the audience sees into Jesus' life. By being given this view, we actually become the person who acts as our window. By doing this, the filmmaker pulls us, as the viewers, into the story and intimately involves us in the events that are taking place in the film. This is by no means unique to the Jesus tradition. For example in the Gospel of John, John himself acts as our window into the Jesus story. It is through John's eyes that we are able to see, and are actually made part of, his Gospel.
     Another popular motif that is used in the films is the idea of a frame. A lot can be told from a frame. The frame can be a church, downtown Manhattan, two women, or any other thing that the filmmaker chooses to use. The movie opens and closes with the frame, and it acts as a way to interpret and also an aid to understand what comes between it.   This is also not new to the tradition; for example Luke frames his gospel by beginning and ending it in the Jewish temple. Luke uses this frame to emphasize, "that Jesus embodied true Israel and that his followers are the authentic people of God" (Spivey and Smith* 158).
     One thing is very clear: that is, when someone chooses to use the image of Jesus there is a reason behind it. Jesus is such a central image to western culture that it is impossible to give an objective view of him. When anyone evokes an image of Jesus, some people will embrace the image and some will condemn it. This is quite clear with every movie that I have studied, and I am sure this will hold true for any Jesus movie to follow.
     In 1910, Albert Schweitzer wrote a book entitled The Quest of the Historical Jesus. In it, he discussed many of the problems that are encountered when scholars try to reconstruct the life of Jesus. Many of his criticisms hold true even in modern scholarly attempts to reconstruct the life of Jesus of Nazareth, thus it is not surprising that his criticisms can also be applied to cinematic attempts to reconstruct the life of Jesus. Schweitzer's argument is basically that when someone attempts to present a life of Jesus they ultimately end up doing autobiographical work. At the end of the 20th century, "What would Jesus do?" has become a popular catch phrase for many Christians. I think these two ideas are intimately connected. When Christians try to reconstruct the life of Jesus it is obviously going to be infused with the values that they hold dear. Many non-Christians see Jesus as a great moral teacher, so when they present a life of Jesus they too are going to infuse Jesus with their values. Schweitzer says in his book, "There is no historical task which reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus" (Schweitzer 4). This idea is slightly complicated because of the number of people it takes to create a movie; although, there still is much truth to the statement.

* I can use frames, too.