I agree whole-heartedly with both of you. Both the wedding in Cana and the walking on water miracles would've made the film feel more complete (along with the temptation in the wilderness and the trial before Herod).
I know the temptation was filmed but cut since Zeffirelli wasn't pleased with how it turned out, and I'm pretty sure the walking on water scene was cut for budgetary reasons. The wedding omission makes sense if this film, indeed, uses Matthew as its primary source, but there are too many non-Matthew events (the shepherds at the nativity, Jesus preaching in the Nazareth synagogue, the raising of Lazarus) for me to really believe this.
As for the trial before Herod, that one's a real head-scratcher. Zeffirelli spends so much time in making Herod's storyline fleshed out that it seems odd that the one scene that direcly connects him to Jesus' life is gone. I would've loved to have seen how Christopher Plummer could've handled that part.
I won't even go into the resurrection because that's a whole topic in and of itself. The film covers so much in detail, yet once Christ resurrects, it acts like the budget ran out and wraps things up half-heartedly.
reply
share