Before “Jesus Christ Superstar” was a film, it was a Broadway show. The theater production started in 1973 and continues to be one of the most oft-staged productions to this day (via Providence Journal). Yet, even as a broadway production, it received criticism from various religious groups. When the original concept album came out in 1970 — before it was even a play — it “fizzled in England and was even banned briefly by the BBC for being sacrilegious” (via Providence Journal). Some religious observers found the play to be quite good, according to the article, while others took issue with the plot being seen through the eyes of Judas and Jesus being depicted as mortal and having intimate feelings for Mary Magdalene.

Yet the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical remained popular enough for a film version to be made, and it was also subject to criticism. The New York Times reports that Benjamin R. Epstein of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith noted that an “emphasis on a Jewish mob’s demand to kill Jesus can feed into the kind of disparagement of Jews and Judaism which has always nurtured anti-Jewish prejudice and bigotry” — much like the claims made agains “The King of Kings.” Epstein also offered this interesting bit of cinematic interpretation: “Anyone who has ever seen cowboy films knows that the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black. Here the actor portraying Jesus is blond; Judas is black; the priests and rabbis are dark-haired, foreboding, and garbed in black.” According to the same article, Universal Pictures responded to these critiques by saying the film was “a rock opera, a musical entertainment, not a religious tract.”

British comedy group Monty Python are known for the sketch show “The Flying Circus” and various films, including their most controversial, “The Life of Brian.” Although it’s considered a classic today, when it was released in 1979, “The Life of Brian” was criticized by a number religious organizations. According to the Guardian, the Catholic archdiocese of New York and three Jewish organizations — the Rabbinical Alliance of America, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, and the Council of Syria and Near Eastern Sephardic Communities — condemned the film. The archdiocese described it as a “crime against religion which holds the person of Christ up to comic ridicule,” and Jewish leaders claimed it was “a vicious attack on Judaism and the Bible.”

According to the BBC, the biblical comedy had been due to open on 200 screens across the U.S., but after the response from religious groups and subsequent publicity, “the number of screens was tripled.” Michael Palin, one of the members of Monty Python, stated that the group originally planned to make the film about Jesus, but they did research on him and found him to be “a very straight, direct man making good sense, so we decided it would be a very shallow film if it was just about [him]” (via the BBC). Instead, they made a film about a 13th disciple who was always late and would miss all of the spectacles of Jesus.

The 1998 animated film “The Prince of Egypt” is considered one of DreamWorks’ success stories. It has an 80% score on Rotten Tomatoes (and a 90% audience score). A Cinemablend critic reports “after watching it, I feel more connected to my faith than I have in a long time.” However, the love is not universal, with some seeing the film as revisionist history.

According to the Guardian, some Egyptian critics and columnists called the feature film an attack on Arabs and Muslims by a “Jewish-dominated Hollywood.” Despite the filmmakers checking with Egyptologists and religious scholars, some see the movie as inaccurate, which the newspaper connects to “a hatred of Israel that lingers despite the peace treaty signed by Cairo with the neighbouring Jewish state in 1979.” 

One commenter took issue with the title of the film giving the impression that Moses ruled Egypt. Mr Hammouda (via the Guardian) said, “In the film we see that Moses was the architect of Egyptian civilisation, which the film says the Jews founded and that when they left Egypt, the heavens punished the Egyptians and destroyed their civilisation.”

After the success of his prior film, “Black Swan,” director Darren Aronofsky decided to take on a biblical epic about the story of Noah and the flood. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Aronofsky stated his intent in making the film was twofold: for secular audiences, “this fantastical world a la Middle-earth that they wouldn’t expect from their grandmother’s Bible school” while still making the film for those “who take this very, very seriously as gospel.” 

Aronofsky reported that unlike some of his other filming experiences, production company Paramount Pictures subjected the film to various trial screenings with Christian audiences to get an idea of how it would test with the faith-based crowd. He stated that many of the audiences had severe criticisms of the film: “Not necessarily 50 percent of the people, but maybe 10 or 20 percent. And those people can be very noisy” (via The Hollywood Reporter). The Washington Times explained another critique, “Mr. Aronofsky’s description of Noah as the ‘first environmentalist’ also didn’t sit well with Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, who called the film’s ‘insertion of the extremist environmental agenda a major concern’.”

Perhaps the only film on the list that is a loose adaptation of the whole Biblical narrative with Pagan beliefs and other religious myths and doctrines strewn throughout, “mother!” made quite a stir on its arrival (via Reel World Theology). This is probably not surprising for anyone who has kept up with the career of director Darren Aronofsky. It remains “only the 12th title in history to earn an “F” CinemaScore from audiences” which did not give Paramount Pictures high hopes for its bottom line (via Indie Wire). Yet, unlike with “Noah,” it appears that Paramount backed Aronofsky completely, stating: “This movie is very audacious and brave. … We don’t want all movies to be safe. And it’s okay if some people don’t like it” (via Indie Wire).

A scene involving an infant caused a significant outcry, including National Review, which described it as “Deliberately grotesque and nauseating, and seemingly engineered to outrage Christians, especially Catholics.” One wonders if this type of response only invigorates the creative output of a director like Aronofsky. Only time can tell.