The Passover Plot

I find the less mainstream interpretations of the life of Christ intriguing, they make you think.

"The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988), "The Body" (2001), "Risen" (2016), "Mary Magdalene" (2018), even "Jesus Christ Superstar" all challenged the traditional view. However none challenged it quite like "The Passover Plot". Inspired by Hugh Schonfield's book, it posits that Jesus planned to survive the cross without divine intervention - just a bit of trickery.

There were violent protests over "Last Temptation" with its relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but I don't recall too much fuss over "The Passover Plot"; sex outweighs blasphemy any day.

It was filmed in Israel but there really aren't any big scenes with thousand of extras. That sort of thing was left to "King of Kings". Here, it's the story, the unexpected focus and the words that make it compelling.

Where it does go big is in the music by Alex North, a contender for the best film composer of all time. His score is sharp and percussive; it helps give the drama grit.

"The Passover Plot" paints a fascinating picture of Jesus as far more welded to the politics and lifestyle of the Jews of ancient Israel. In this telling, a paranoid Pontius Pilate is the main persecutor of Jesus; no washing of hands this time. Where I think "Plot" starts to go off course is in the connection Jesus has to the zealots and the violence. By the end, I don't feel the film is on very solid ground with the over-elaborate crucifixion scam, arresting and all as it is.

What happened to, "Love your enemies", "Turn the other cheek" and "Forgive those who trespass against you"?

The problem with many revisionists, if they even allow that Jesus existed, is the assertion that such sayings were patched onto the story. They date the gospels to so much later than the time of Christ that you'd almost be forgiven for thinking they were written by Jules Verne. And any ancient non-canonical mention of Jesus is simply put down as interpolations by decades of fraudulent friars.

Maybe "Occam's Razor" cuts to the truth - the simplest answer is likely to be the correct one - the Gospels by-and-large recount real events.

But Thomas Aquinas could have the last word on that, "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible".

Despite some noteworthy names in the cast, I can't say I had high expectations. A movie, or book, disputing the biblical account of Jesus' supposed life will inspire either laughter or apoplexy in believers; in non-believers, either some level of interest or perhaps indifference. However well made such a title might be, it's reasonable to wonder how such fare could be whipped into an engaging full-length picture. As a more famous example to illustrate the point, for as beautifully made as 'The last temptation of Christ' was, the storytelling was nothing special; for as controversial as it was, the narrative thrust ultimately reaffirmed established mythology. While 1976 film 'The Passover plot' earned an Oscar nomination, I think it's safe to say that it has broadly gone unnoticed and unheard of by most people in the subsequent forty-plus years. So what of it? How is this feature that, following Hugh Schonfield's book, suggests the man known as Jesus Christ was nothing but an ordinary man who took advantage of circumstances to posit himself as a long-awaited messiah?

This has great difficulty finding, maintaining, and balancing appropriate tones, and that flows mostly but not exclusively from Michael Campus' direction. The juxtaposition of quiet moments and loud ones is needlessly jarring; some of the sequencing is suspect. Too many quiet scenes are downright sleepy, not truly thoughtful or meaningful as they should be; some loud scenes are overly clamorous and disordered, and it's a crapshoot of whether or not charged emotions bear earnest fruit or just come off as overacting without mindful tact; scenes that split the difference, well, what we get will be anything on a wide spectrum. Composer Alex North gives us a score that raises a bit of a skeptical eyebrow at points with some of his ideas that feel ill-fitting for the tale at hand. Some of the editing, including visual effects or otherwise manipulation of the filmed footage, is downright dubious. One result of all this is that there are times when it would have taken very little if any significant adjustment for this sincere drama to have been altered into a melodramatic or parodic farce akin to Monty Python's 1979 classic 'Life of Brian,' and that sense extends even to some choices of shots and camerawork.

There are some smart lines of dialogue at points; some of the scene writing bore genuine potential, and likewise the broad strokes of the plot. With that in mind, consider for a moment that penning the screenplay, a work of narrative fiction to form the basis of a movie, was a matter of adapting what was a comparatively dry scholarly exploration of a concept, and provision of support for the root thesis. As such, I have to hand it to writers Millard Cohan and Patricia Louisianna Knop, because in the very least they performed one minor miracle and churned out a serviceable framework of a script, and there really was some worth here. On the other hand, the screenplay often lacks clarity as to characters' identities, or even the events or import of a scene. There is quite little of the screenplay that spends any time reinforcing the underlying premise - that the man Jesus was scarcely more than an opportunist devising his own elevation and perhaps the unification of his people. The bulk of the film is really just a retelling of biblical canon, and a flat one at that; save for that we already know what this is about, it may not stand out at all. While Campus and his direction bear the brunt of the responsibility for how weak and uninteresting 'The Passover plot' is, I think the writing also lacks the power for much if any of the material to land with any force.

It's not all bad news. Again, the screenplay had some potential. The production benefited from the use of terrific, gorgeous filming locations, and it's not for nothing that Mary Wills was recognized for her lovely costume design. Those practical effects that are employed look swell. I think the cast struggles under Campus' direction, but despite discrete instances of troubled portrayals, no actor here is specifically at fault. I may be biased since I adore Donald Pleasence anyway, but I'm inclined to think he gives the most outwardly admirable performance (even if he, too, suffers from some of the decisions that generally plague the picture); Hugh Griffith is also noteworthy in an even smaller part. And critical as I am of Campus, and his orchestration of scenes, he does also at times show a welcome keen eye for shot composition. Even through to the very last stretch of the runtime, however, right when it should matter most, the execution is mostly so unsteady or possibly outright feeble that in total 'The Passover plot' just trundles past unremarkably. As if to emphasize the point, the most actively interesting this actually gets is in the few lines of text we get in the last minute, an epilogue of sorts, that denotes the lack of contemporary historical accounts of the events or figures that are central to the entire tableau and the relevant mythology. I repeat: in a full-length feature of a little less than two hours, text at the very, very end is the highlight.

I don't believe this to be altogether awful. For what it does well, I want to like it more than I do. It's deeply flawed, however, in multiple ways, and in a fashion that greatly diminishes its inherent quality, the contributions of those involved, and the weight it might have carried. Whether one is a diehard Christian or a diehard atheist, or even if one is a major fan of someone involved, I really don't think there's enough value here to particularly warrant spending time with it. Whatever it is you want out of this movie, sadly you're better off looking for it elsewhere. I'm not saying one should wholly avoid 'The Passover plot,' but the simple fact of the matter is that there's just no substantial reason to ever look for it in the first place. Oh well.

This flashy adaptation of a controversial book on the true nature of Jesus Christ should have been "The Da Vinci Code" of its day; unfortunately, its sheer rarity (the copy I acquired suffered from 'combing' issues for the film's entire duration) has, instead, all but ensured that it forgotten over the years! That said, the popular and ultra-reverent TV mini-series Jesus OF NAZARETH (1977) could well have been commissioned as an 'antidote' to this one (actually the two display a comparably realistic view of Biblical times)! Still, its theme is certainly fascinating – theorizing that Christ was not really the Son of God but merely a man who was deluded into thinking himself the savior of his people. It is interesting that the Old Testament is full of quotes by established prophets telling what was to be expected of the eventual Messiah…so, it follows, that it was easy enough for some ambitious man to perform just those tasks and be taken for Him (consequently, Jesus' powers as a miracle-maker get just one brief, almost casual manifestation early on)! Incidentally, this is partly a Jewish production, therefore the characters adopt their Hebrew pronunciation – so that Jesus becomes Yeshua, John (The Baptist) Yohanan, Judas (Iscariot) is now Judah and Bartholomew gets saddled with the amusing name of Bar Talmi! Zalman King (of all people – in view of his later association with softcore efforts in both Film and TV!) approaches the role of Jesus with his customary intensity, which is quite incongruous with the figure of Christ as laid down in the Scriptures!; however, this is complemented by Michael Campus' unwarranted tricksy direction (full of slow-motion passages and even baffling instances of negative printing)! The rest of the cast is peppered with familiar faces and some fine actors: Harry Andrews (John The Baptist), Hugh Griffith (Caiaphas), Dan Hedaya (as Jacob, brother to Jesus!), Donald Pleasence (who, having already portrayed The Devil in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD [1965], now assumes the mantle of Pontius Pilate – though played in strictly stock-villain terms and shown to be in cahoots with the Jewish High Priests!), Robert Walker Jr. (Bartholomew) and Scott Wilson (Judas). The latter, however, gets as much of a radical make-over as Christ himself: part of a warring rabble (led presumably by Barabbas, though he is never actually named), Judas is asked to join Jesus' peace-mongering throng in order to bring the two parties together! The famous commotion at the temple, then, is depicted here as a deliberate act (abetted by a similar disruption elsewhere by Barabbas & Co. to distract the Romans) so that Christ can then proclaim himself King Of The Jews and rally support on-the-spot for their cause of overthrowing the Roman regime! However, Jesus also has a back-up plan: ordering Judas to betray him(!) so that he can be condemned and crucified…but, believing himself capable of withstanding the multiple beatings and body-piercings and, having feigned death through a special drug concocted by physician Jacob(!), he can be 'resurrected' after a couple of days and thus accomplish the greatest faith-boosting miracle of all!! Obviously, the first option fails and Jesus has to resort to the second (which sees him on trial before Caiaphas and Pilate but not Herod Antipas, scenes which typically command particular attention)…but, then, he fails to make it and dies just the same in the arms of Jacob (Simon Peter, by the way, gets a downgrading here as well) and Judas (who, needless to say, is not required to hang himself since Jesus' death was not his doing)! The script's tendency to cut corners through the events in Christ's 'recorded' life emerges as the most unsatisfying aspect of the film…though it does try to cauterize the wounds as it were (no pun intended) by stating that since the Four Gospels were written several years after the 'fact', they were mostly hearsay (i.e. unable to be proved) anyway! Thankfully, Alex North (a veteran of Hollywood epics such as SPARTACUS [1960] and CLEOPATRA [1963]) supplies a nice score for this – even if it too comes across, at times, as inappropriately rousing (given the radical stance adopted throughout).

A provocative idea, more seductive for its time , not bad acting and try to impress. I admitt, the only impressive aspect for me was the cast. Hugh Griffit gives the fair Caiaphas portrait, Donald Pleasence reminds the galleries of portraits of Pilatus of Pont, proposing the fair traits to the character, Zalman King is decent Jesus and, maybe, near impressive names of cast, the second virtue of film is the effort to propose a Jewish perspective about The Savior, not the most convincing but far to be awful. Short, adaptation of a controversial book and one of experiments of 1970 s.

What is the good and the bad about the Passover Plot? Starting with the positive, since history describes Pilate as a brutal ruler, this is the most accurate portrayal of Pilate on film. Next the movie accurately shows the oppression of the Jewish people in Judea by the Romans and the longing of most of the people to be free of Roman domination. The film explains that the Romans could not understand the Jewish religion and for that many of the Jewish people could not tolerate the Romans. The movie also explains that under Roman law no one could rule a province unless they were appointed by the Emperor. Also, the music is appropriate, as were the sets and costumes. There are some pretty scenes and sometimes a decent use of the camera. Donald Pleasence as Pilate was very effective in his portrayal.

The film has many problems because of the script. Keeping track of the supporting characters is made difficult first because the Hebrew names are used instead of English versions. Second, the script often has supporting characters almost always appearing with no explanation. The central part of the movie will often cut to new characters with no setup about who they are. So, the middle part of the film has a series of disjointed speeches.

The story from the book involves a secret plan to try and fool the Romans. This should lead to suspense in an adaptation about whether this scheme will work but there is no tension in the screen version which points to poor directing. The director doesn't know how to keep the audience involved with the secret maneuvering by Jesus. Overall while the book is about a careful plan, the film doesn't show that there is much of a plan at all.

Some of the acting and directing was mediocre at the level of a TV movie. One jarring moment was when the color was reversed in a few shots trying to look more avant garde when this is supposed to be an historical epic.

However, in spite of all the problems, the film has moments, more than any other, in accurately showing life in Roman occupied first century Judea. And for that, I rate it 7/10.