The Gospel of John is produced, like The Gospel of Matthew (1997), by Visual Bible International, Inc., and presented as "word for word" from the text. A dramatic reading by narrator Christopher Plummer is broken up by onscreen dialogue, which is in turn interrupted by Plummer's occasional (and occasionally annoying) "he said." The translation is a second choice, after legal wrangles over rights to the New International Version sent the filmmakers to the Good News Bible. Both translations are contemporary, but neither so literary that a scrupulous adherence to the text seems merited from an artistic standpoint. In fact, going "word for word" seems more of a theological commitment, emerging from a tradition founded on abiding respect for the Word of God: "In the beginning was the Word," goes this Gospel's famous prologue. Yet the Apostle John's words are spoken in this cinematic translation over images of waves crashing against a rocky shoreline at sunset. It seems contradictory that a tradition which gives priority to Word over image would make a path to a "visual" Bible. Yet this very contradictoriness, which in some ways may be the weakness of this film as a film, makes it a genuinely intriguing entry in the canon of Jesus movies.

Given the voluntary formal limitations, certain visual enhancements of the Word here — such as the presence of Mary Magdelene with male disciples at the Last Supper, in spite of her absence from the text — come as a surprise. A bit of conspicuous onscreen commentary text throws the Sola Scriptura rationale further into question. This commentary consists of statements explaining that John's Gospel was written during a time of intense conflict between Jews and Christians, hence the strident tone. Obviously these statements are in response to the furor whipped up by Mel Gibson's Passion, in hopes of avoiding similar charges of anti-Semitism — and the strategy has worked, to the astonishment of some observers. (Left uncontextualized by the onscreen comments is the implication, possibly upsetting to some, that John the Apostle was not the sole author of a text bearing his name, one apparently rife with a political agenda!)

But formal questions aside, it is refreshing, after all the adaptations, indirect tellings and deliberate revisions of this story to return to one of the original sources. There is an undeniable power in the simple recitation of these words, which builds and renders versions dependent upon visual smoke and mirrors seem paltry by comparison. There's also tremendous power in hearing a Gospel from beginning to end, with any problematic elements left unexplained and rough edges unsmoothed. John includes episodes not found in the Synoptics and/or missing from most Jesus movies: the Samaritan woman at the well, the Pool of Bethsaida, the footwashing at the Last Supper and the Resurrected Jesus frying fish for his disciples at a campfire on the beach.

Yet the much-advertised adherence to the text, as noted, complicates the visual component: while there's no speculations as to what Christ wrote on the ground, but we do see some attempts at sorting out visually some bits that have always been tough to picture — such as how the newly-resurrected Jesus could be mistaken for the Gardener by someone who knew him (he was half-hidden behind a plant, the director suggests). Other visualizations don't work as well. I'd rather have left that part about Jesus breathing the Spirit into his disciples to my imagination. And Jesus' walk on the water might have played better by keeping the focus on the disciples' reactions instead of swinging the camera around to give us an unflinching look at a low-budget special effect. Miracles, especially, are always in danger of being diminished by dull literalization — and not just because they are supernatural. One of the things I love about silent films is how they can make a point visually that might have been dramatically undercut by too-detailed a spelling out with dialogue. The scene of Christ in the temple wowing the religious leaders always plays better when exactly what he is saying to them is left to our imagination. Some things are too important to be left to words, or too mysterious to be confined to the equivalent, a prosaic visual treatment.

Perhaps its a mistake to let any wrestling with some of the built-in puzzles cause one to judge this film too harshly. Production values values overall are on par with a made-for-TV movie, as is the cast. British actor Henry Ian Cusak plays a conventional, if likeable Jesus. This is an entirely competant presentation of the Gospel within the parameters the filmmakers laid out for themselves — and that in itself is no small accomplishment. But despite the often intimate tone of John's Gospel, the ever-present narration erects a wall between viewer and subject, and the length of the narrative (which includes lengthy sermons) makes this a film long haul — especially for the audience for whom it seems to be largely intended, non-Christians who presumably seeing the film in an evangelistic setting. Many may decide that this visual version of The Gospel of John honors the Word, but at the expense of what is arguably the most critical assertion of John's famous prologue: that the Word became flesh.