| |
|
de Jade - to try to calm this down a little may I point out the following? a) I was responding to another posters report of hir father's reaction to the film and not to your posts directly. b) I attempted to make explicit from the outset that I was partisan and incapable of watching the film with a perfectly neutral mindset. This story matters a hell of a lot to me as it clearly does to you. I would normally shy away from describing my personal beliefs as part of a film critique, but felt that they were such a part of my response that it would be dishonest not to reveal them. My issue is with the film as I saw it and not with any individual on this board. Feel free to discuss the varied responses to a piece of art or not - I have no wish to attack your religious or critical impulses, merely possibly to diasgree.
To the specific issues raised against my post, I was insufficiantly clear in what I meant by 'teaching'. According to tradition and scripture, Jesus received a vocation to a rabbinical or teaching ministry. The gospels contain numerous examples of His parables, sermons and answers to direct questions on the interpretation of the Mosaic tradition and law. What the script chose to utilise were examples of Him teaching by example. The instances you highlight, whilst indicative of the new way of life He advocated and adopted, taken as a whole depict Jesus as a perfect being to emulate rather than a teacher to listen to and follow. It may seem like a hair-splitting differentiation but again, it goes to the heart of the Protestant/Catholic divide. On the one hand there is the more medieval model of exempla - a perfect example to follow - as shadowed by the divinely ordained status of the Catholic priest. On the other, a system of teachings and recorded wisdom and instruction, as indicated by the Protestant individual route to salvation. Here, the film-makers choice is neither 'better' or 'worse' in cinematic terms, but clearly indicative of a doctrinal slant.
In terms of the perceived lack of redemption, again I was unclear through brevity. What I felt was missing was a sense of the possible redemption of Mankind through the resurrection. Certainly, Christ is depicted as having risen from the dead, but I missed any linking of this action to the eternal fate of the rest of us. From outside sources, we 'know' that He is suffering through our sins and that His defeat of death opens the possibility that we too might live after the body is gone. However, I failed to discern any reference to the wider impact of Jesus' actions, sacrifice and miraculous return. Again, I come to my main point which is that if it requires the imposition of additional knowledge or belief to work as a piece of ecumenically Christian iconography or worship, then it can only be judged on its individual elements, cinematically.
I will admit that much of the humanity, compassion and empathy that I missed from the depicition of Jesus as a character stems from my dissatisfaction with the actor's portrayal of Him. Concealed for too much of the film behind contact lenses, prosthetic wounds and rivers of gore, I could not see a person, divine or no, beyond the icon. Whatever choices, emotions and decisions JC the actor made during the protracted scenes of suffering (and from his other work I cannot believe that he made none) I could not preceive them under the mask of suffering and effect. Again, a personal response, but when added to the task of portraying a being both human and not, I felt a lack of connection, a sense of disassociation which was only exacerbated by the level of violence chosen.
Which again brings me to the choices made in production. This, after all, being an interpretation of a well-known story.
Why increase the violence done to the body of Christ? This is a defining motif or conceit of this version of the Passion, explicitly and deliberately (according to comments made publically by the director). Why not just concentrate on this aspect, but deviate from tradition, scripture and historical consensus in a supposedly 'accurate' telling of the Gospel story?
Why the down-playing of the political dimension to events of that Passover? Christ adopts the mantle of the Messiah and yet instructs the people to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". He is, after all, executed under Roman authority as a threat to the peace and stability of Judea. Where are the Zealots, the popular acclaim as He entered the city, the outburst over the Temple money-lenderss? Why the soft-focus Pilate? Rather, why the three-dimensional, empathic Pilate to contrast with the other authority figures, in place of the historical tyrant and violent suppressor of potential revolt?
Why the invented flash-backs when there is a wealth of scriptural material available? Instead of the clunking anacronism of the dining-table scene, could they not have used the story of Mary and Joseph losing the young Jesus and finding him discussing the law with the elders of the Temple?
Why is the Devil there, and depicted in such a fashion? Again, a departure from the Gospel evidence and again, replete with deeply subjective and incendiary overtones which are either clumsy and unfortunate or clumsy and intentional. The presence of an incarnation of evil detracts from the conventional religious interpretation of the crucifixion. Without his/her presence, there are two levels of meaning; historically, Jesus the public figure is executed by the occupying forces for political reasons and allegorically, He suffers the burden of our sins and death in order to redeem us all. With the devil added, his machinations (whilst never made explicit in the film) muddy the collective guilt or involvement of humanity. If we are not implicated, if our sins are not the cross Jesus must bear and the stripes on His back, then there was no point to it all. His death and resurrection becomes an experiment in divine potential, adabbling in the fleah of human form, rather than the reality-shaking redemption of the world that is required in the Christian reading of the story.
I raise these questions, not as a debating tactic or even a bating move, but because these were the issues that troubled me. If reading the film from a Christian perspective is too narrow a focus for this forum then I apologise, but given the nature, subject and declared intent of the film I felt there was a place for it. It is no more valid than any other analytical construct, but I hoped it might be of interest to try to explain my troubled response to the film from this angle to counterpoint the very public bloc-support of the religious right (outside this board) and because pinkos-for-Christ have an ego too. |
|
|
