[Image]I've been slow to react to The Chosen. Last year it was difficult to access and this year, while it's been free to view for sometime, I've struggled to find the time amongst all that I'm doing for my book. It's not among the 100 films in my book and given a few conversations I've had recently, part of me does wonder if I should have included it. But only part. There are already a lot of American Jesus 'films' covered.It's become increasingly common, perhaps since Last Temptation of Christ (1988) to start Jesus films with a bit of context setting. The Gospel of John (2003), for example, used it to contextualise the anti-Jewish feeling in the narrative. The Bible (2013) was briefer but seemed to want to deflect criticism on opposing fronts. Here it's less remarkable, but I'm struck by the line that the series is "based on the true stories of the gospels of Jesus Christ". Partly this is because of the word 'true' plenty could be written about that alone, but also because, having recently written my book I've had to think carefully about when to say "gospels" and when to say "The Gospels". I have a sneaking suspicion that at some stage they will all be ironed out to be the same, but the nuance I've gone for is "gospels" for any writing about Jesus (e.g. including The Gospel of Thomas), whereas I've used "The Gospels" for solely Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Given this production's solidly evangelical credentials, I would be surprised if they meant to indicate that some non-canonical material is in there, but, if only for me, it rather leapt out.My next observation is similarly pedantic and text-based , but a subtitle indicates that the opening scene is in "Magdala 2 BC", featuring a young girl (presumably Mary Magdalene) and her seemingly loving father. They talk briefly about the new star and I'm intrigued about the specificity here. The death of Herod the Great in 4 BC is usually used as a frame of reference for Jesus' birth. Some ignore that (and, largely by implication, just go for 1 AD), others use a period of 4-6 BC depending on how long you think the magi took to arrive in Bethlehem after Jesus was born. 2 BC is kind of at the mid-point of those two dates. Perhaps I'm ignorant as to some tradition surrounding this, but it seems strange to be both so specific and also loosely in the middle. Of course, it's possible that Herod's presence in the narrative owes more to symbolism than historical fact, but again I don't get the impression this is the route the film is going down. Next we know it's "28 years later" and we're in Capernaum where Mary is now a problem neighbour.Also in Capernaum, although just for a visit is Nicodemus, here portrayed as a very eminent travelling pharisee and who is arguably the main character in this episode, though we know relatively little about him. There's his conversation with Jesus where we get significant insight into his thinking and his curiosity about Jesus' message. The rest of his story arc is drawn out sparsely but elegantly: four chapters later (7:50) he's publicly arguing Jesus should be given fair hearing, then after Jesus' death (19:39) he's amongst those who bury him. He was a pharisee - which doesn't necessarily indicate wealth or being part of the establishment, in some cases the reverse - and a member of the Jewish courts/council the Sanhedrin, which does and suggests he was an elder. For our purposes The Chosen shows him as very wealthy - we first meet him in a sedan (the carried chair, not the automobile) travelling to his next appointment. He's briefly interrupted by a Roman official and speaks to him more or less as an equal. He's dressed in wealthy garments, high head gear, and with a lot of costuming additions to the Greco-Roman norm which would have been standard in Galilee and Judah at the time (even amongst the Jews). Later we meet other Pharisees who are clothed in similar fashion, so I guess this is going to be one form of othering that we are going to encounter here. Needless to say when the disciples, and then finally Jesus, appear their clothing is much more standard. (If you'd like to know more about this I suggest you keep an eye out for Katie Turner's forthcoming book, or read a summary of it in "Brian and Jesus".)We also meet a number of the other leading characters. Peter and Andrew are brawling fishermen skirting the laws about Sabbath observance. In an unusual, but welcome, move we meet Peter's wife who is presented as a real character. Matthew skulks around very much relying on his Roman guard, not so much for protection from actual threats as emotional support. But the two characters who in some ways are at the centre of episode 1 are nevertheless absent for most of it. Mary's presence is felt throughout, but she is largely discussed when she is off screen . There is the occasional glimpse of her - and it's clear that the film is going down the demon-possessed route as part of her story - but, aside from that opening scene, she's not developed as a character. The demons that possess her are so powerful that when Nicodemus tries to exorcise them he flees in terror with a look on his face like The Exorcist's Father Karras. "Souls such as hers beyond human aid" someone or other says ominously shortly afterwards.The other character, of course, is Jesus, and he is entirely absent - neither seen nor mentioned until the final few minutes and an encounter with Mary. We know the instant he arrives though because some sort of spooky music starts up. The way the production's first major Jesus scene involves a spiritually tormented Mary is not unique to The Chosen, both The Miracle Maker (2000) and DeMille's The King of Kings (1927) do something similar. Here however Jesus is a little bit creepy. It's not until he switches to King James language ("Thus says the Lord") that he drops the sleazy-guy-on-the-pull act and starts to behave a bit more normally.Still episode 1 does plenty to suggest that it will be worth continuing with. The photography is pretty impressive, with the many outdoor scenes allowing plenty of natural light and attractive scenery. There's some interesting camera work too, though it will be interesting to see if this continues to impress throughout the series or whether it starts to wear a bit thin after a few episodes. And the characterisation and acting is pretty good too.