Jesus of Montreal was filmed in 1989 and won multiple Genie awards- the Canadian version of the Oscar. It is French-Canadian, spoken in French with English subtitles. The movie was controversial at the time, and many would still consider it to be so. It is Rated “R”. I didn’t think the acting in the movie was all that great and the effects were very dated, but the plot was fascinating for me. As such this will be a rather lengthy review, probably longer than I’ll ever spend reviewing a movie again.
The story goes like this:
A Catholic Priest approaches an actor about bringing something “new” to his parish’s annual Passion play. The script has been the same for the past 30 years and it has lost its luster somewhat. The priest desires to have it changed so that it is not so dated. The young actor takes on the assignment and begins to study who Jesus was. We are not told of the status of the actors faith prior to the movie. He begins to look at some of the recent archeological discoveries and the evidence for the life of Jesus. Using the new information, he re-writes the Passion play in what he believes to be a more historically accurate light, not just relying on the Bible or church tradition. The public loves the new play, the church however, is not pleased. Thus ensues the conflict in the movie.
As I mentioned before, this movie is rated “R”. It should be, even by today’s standards for the following scenes. In one of the early scenes the main character goes to a studio where some people are serving as voices for a pornographic movie. There is a brief shot where we see the movie and it is obvious from the sound what kind of movie it is, but I don’t recall that we are able to see any, well, sex. The camera pans to three actors who are reading the script for the movie and we watch them all read their parts. I think this was supposed to be humorous, and I guess it kind of was, but it was totally unnecessary except for the symbolism which I will explain later. There is also partial male nudity because the main character, who plays Jesus in the Passion play, is nude when he is crucified. There is no frontal nudity, but there is a rather revealing shot of him being swung over the shoulder of the roman guard. Also, there is a quick topless shot of one of the actresses. It is not a sexual situation. In fact, it is anything but.
Lothaire Bluteau plays Daniel, the young actor responsible for re-creating the Passion play for the church. He has a shocking resemblance to the modern, stereotypical, non-historically accurate (as far as we know) appearance of Jesus with flowing shoulder length hair and a five o’clock shadow. It's got everything but the well-pressed robe and purple sash. As soon as he agrees to take on the project, things in his life begin to parallel the life of the Jesus in the gospels. For instance, he begins to look for people to help him with his project and finds three of his actors at a porn stage. Consider the reputation of those involved in the porn industry. They are not highly regarded either in the world of acting, or in the world in general. Compare this with where Jesus found his disciples. Fisherman and tax collectors…
What I didn’t really “like,” so to speak:
The “historical accuracy” of the new Passion play that is created in this film doesn’t seem all that accurate in some ways. I don’t just say that to defend the accuracy of the gospels in the Bible. I love looking at the historical Jesus and don’t mind when people challenge our traditional stories about what happened during Jesus’ life. However, I think some of the historical stuff presented in this movie was a bit off. For instance, they seem to want to make Pilate seem more compassionate than he actually was. Pilate didn’t care about Jesus at all. His only care was for Rome and his place in the gov’t. He used Jesus to further gain a foothold over the Jews. This movie missed that point. Some people will find the other historical commentary on Jesus in this movie to be offensive. I didn’t really find it offensive, I just didn’t find it convincing. But all of this was kind of secondary to what I believe was the point of the movie.
What I liked:
The symbolism throughout the movie was brilliant and hard to miss. There were many different things that happened in the life of the main character Daniel that paralleled the life of Jesus. The church establishment becomes upset with what he says about Jesus, just as the Jews of Jesus’ were upset with him for what he was preaching. Daniel calls out the Catholic Church in much the same way Jesus called out the Pharisees and Sadducees. Daniel comes to the aid of a young actress who is being used for her body, much like Jesus comes to the rescue of, well, all women. Daniel is temped to use his new found fame for wealth much like Jesus was tempted in the desert. Daniel gets upset and throws some tables around, much like, well, you know…Daniel’s message ends up in the subway, Christians are forced underground.
There is even a great parallel of how the gospel stories evolve. As the new play gains popularity, people begin to become enthralled with this young, formerly unknown actor and begin to tell Daniel’s story on the radio and on TV. As I recall, there are three different people explaining “who” Daniel is, where he came from, and his academic background, etc…Each one of them is telling a similar story with similar facts, although some of the facts totally contradict each other.
In the midst of all that is going on in the characters’ lives, Daniel really begins to take on the persona of Jesus. That is, he begins to live his life in what you might refer to as “the way, the Truth, and the life” that Jesus talks about. He becomes a very gentle spirit, truly caring for his friends and others around him. He also develops a strong conflict with the established church. He becomes very concerned for the future of the world, even to the point of depression.
This movie is too old to rate on a scale in reference to quality of film, acting, etc…It did win a lot of awards during its day. But all of that is secondary to the message that I took from it. Even with all the controversy surrounding who Jesus was historically speaking, the message that Jesus brought is still relevant and still largely ignored.
No comments:
Post a Comment