Testament (2025) s1e01

Image source: KOVA Releasing

Over the years there have been several attempts to adapt the Book of Acts; a number of modernised biblical narratives; and a handful of British biblical films, but never (as far as I'm aware) an attempt to combine all three.

Into that void steps Testament, a new streaming series from Angel Studios, directed by Paul Syrstad, who directed 2022’s The Parables Retold. The series relocates the story of the birth of the early church in what is almost, but not quite, the modern day. The events of this first episode take place in a city called Salem, which on the one hand evokes Jerusalem, but also draws on the atmosphere of the London locations where it was shot, and the accents of its predominantly British cast.

Yet it’s also not quite the modern world as we know it. For one thing, the Roman Empire never fell and has come to be known as the Imperium. For another, Jesus is not a figure from the ancient past, but from just weeks before the story is set. There are other details that are different in this new world as well: the temple never fell, and remains an important seat of power within Salem, ever under the watchful eye of the Imperium; and the digital revolution is yet to take place — there are no smart phones, messaging and internet surveillance.

The resulting atmosphere feels a little like what might have emerged if Mike Leigh had directed His Dark Materials. Its sense of otherness and that gateway alternative possibilities opening up in the midst of inner-city council flats. Syrstad has spoken of how the show’s Brutalist architecture “doubles down on the Imperium regime and the oppression that was being felt”.¹ It’s a world not of tunics and sandals, but of grimy blocks of flats and people living on the edge.

Among those living on the edge is Stephen who becomes homeless after a disagreement with his mother early on in this opening episode. By introducing Stephen earlier in the story than he appears in The Acts of the Apostles, the show uses him as one of the audience’s ‘ways-in’ to the story. We very much see the unfolding events from his perspective, as an outsider being drawn into a nascent movement. He senses something has changed, he experiences it even, and yet he’s still trying to explain it and grasp some sense of what’s happening.

This is quite a bold creative decision, because it leaves the audience (initially at least) on the outside too. We’ve not experienced what Stephen has, so it leaves us in a more curious, more dispassionate place. And it follows on the heels of a number of other significant choices, most notably to leave Jesus himself not only off camera, but entirely absent (physically, at least). Moreover the focus is not so much on his disciples, at least in this initial episode. They are strangers to Stephen, his curiosity combines with a certain wariness on his part, and ours too. For the audience, our distance from the crucial events that underpin the story’s is only increased by the camera cutting away just as Peter’s Pentecost sermon begins. Stephen hears it and is drawn in, but we are going to be made to wait to find out what has happened.

Stephen is not the only character who’s introduced earlier in Testament than in Acts as a way of bringing the audience into the midst of some of the story’s key players. We’re also introduced to Saul and his mentor Gamaliel amid the inner workings of the temple elite. Saul has a passionate heart and a steely look in his eye that seems so innate that it will be fascinating to see how this develops as the series goes on. Gamaliel’s affable, laid-back persona seems critical here too. Each member of the temple authorities has a different approach and Gamaliel’s more conciliatory nature adds some crucial depth to what might otherwise revert to a rather one dimensional portrayal of the apostles’ opponents.

So the scene is set for what looks like it will be an interesting series. Syrstad and his co-writers Faith Syrstad and Kenneth Omole have managed to fashion a world that feels real and create a scenario that has avoided some of the potential pitfalls of their chosen source material. Moreover the show feels like it’s more interested in exploring the text than serving up pat answers. This is not a sequel to The Chosen, but translated into the modern era. It has its own artistic vision and deserves to be treated on its own terms.

Testament will be available on the Angel website and app from 8th June.

==========

1. Interview with me, a copy of which will be released to my YouTube channel shortly.

I dieci gladiatori (Ten Gladiators, dir: Gianfranco Parolini, 1963)

I actually sat down to watch I dieci gladiatori thinking it was a non-biblical Italian peplum as part of my research into Italian cinema. Having seen a lot of the biblical pepla, I've been feeling the need to ensure I understand the broader context. Imagine my surprise then when it began to emerge, even as early as the credits, that this was, if not a full blown New Testament film, it was at least a partially blown Roman-Christian epic.

The first clues are laid down during the credits sequence which indicates its determination to grab onto the coat tails of Quo Vadis (1951 but possibly 1913 also). Not only does it star Dan Vadis as the leading gladiator Roccio, but the filmmakers even seem to choose Vadis-esque English names for some of the other cast members, such as Susan Paget, Margaret Taylor (eerily similar to the stars of Quo Vadis, Deborah Paget and Robert Taylor). Neither name appears in the IMDb credits, which supports my suspicion that they were just featured so prominently to catch a glimmer of Quo Vadis's glamour.

The similarities with Mervyn LeRoy's 1951 epic only deepen the film continues. After some opening fight scenes between the titular ten and various Roman soldiers we're introduced to Nero and realise that while Gianno Rizzo's performance is a little more restrained it's only a matter of time before Rome begins to burn and the finger of suspicion falls on the Christians.

While none of the main characters are Christians we do get another staple of the Roman-Christian genre, a scene of a church meeting in the catacombs (pictured above). This is all part of plot by one of Nero's advisors Tigellinus to frame, and thus eliminate another, Lucio Vero. Vero, played by director Gianfranco Parolini himself, is a pagan (half way between Vadis's Marcus Vinicius and Spartacus's Crassus). Tigelinus and his men drag him to the catacombs and then accuse him of being a Christian so he ends up in the arena.

But there is the tantalising shot above of this church meeting. We're not told who this man is, but the implication (based on how the equivalent scene is put together in Vadis) that this is if not actually St. Peter, someone that will make you think of Peter. Perhaps a leader in Peter's mould.

The other thing that is interesting about this scene is the dialogue. The snippet of the church service we hear says (according to the subtitles) "Our consciences are full of our sins. And even if one day we still fall prey to human violence, we have to accept this violence." It doubtless sounds better in Italian, but it's not something that seems particularly reminiscent of anything. More interesting is Tigellinus's withering comment afterwards, "Filthy bums who worship a thief who died on a cross". Even on the lips if an enemy of Rome that's quite a shocking for an Italian film to say about Jesus. Remember Pasolini had been prosecuted for La Ricotta's lack of reverence to Jesus just a few months before

But there's another strange thing about the films portrayal of Christians. Later as a group of Christians are about to be sent into the arena we see another church-type meeting, again being led by an older man with white hair (above). Here the arrangement of the characters is less formal (more of a circle than in rows facing him as before) and he's speaking as the camera pans by, but it's a different man, (although, even more than before, he resembles Vadis's Finlay Currie). Is either man meant to be St. Peter? Are they meant to be te same man or not?

But perhaps the most explicitly Christian image of the film comes after this arena scene (which leads to the burning of Rome) Seeking to blame the Christians, Nero starts rounding them up and persecuting them. Caught up in proceedings is Roccio's friend Livia (it's a bit ambiguous whether the two are, or have been, lovers, or if they're just good friends). And so Nero and starts tying them and her to crosses and torturing them and so we get the rather striking image below.

Dieci gladiatori was released as Ten Desperate Men at one stage in the United States. It's super camp and there's a too much gymnastics, body oil and beef cake on display to give much weight to the proceedings even with some fairly graphic (for the time) on display. This gives the film a rather uneven feel, it almost feels like two different films. The ten gladiators seem far closer in spirit to the merry men in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) than the comrades in arms in Spartacus (1960). Those parts are fun, but seem so alien to today's portrayal of men in historical epics. On the other hand, the body count is quite high and the implied violence combines with the onscreen violence to bring a dark edge to proceedings. Nevertheless, the scenery looks good and the costumes, (aside from being a little skimpy) look splendid.

This mix of men pals and and even mix of violence, fun and gymnastics is not unusual for Parolini. Six years later he directed a war movie called 5 per l’inferno (Five for Hell) which featured soldiers with a number of gimmicks. He's best remembered though for directing two of the Sabata trilogy starring Lee van Cleef. The same year as 10 Gladiators, he also directed Maccabean epic Il vecchio testamento (The Old Testament), his second film with a somewhat misleading, biblical-sounding title following Sansone (1961).

=========

If you want to see this film, it's currently available to view with subtitles on Peplum Paradise's channel on YouTube. They've upscaled it which is gives a cleaner version of the film than has previously been available, (It does mean that some of the screen grabs I've used from the film look a little bit odd if you look too closely).