The new movie "Son of God" (or "Smiley Jesus") has gotten all sorts of scathing reviews. Some critics point out the bad acting and the poor CGI. Others emphasize how it isn't a "full presentation of the gospel" (why would we bring Pauline theology into this?), and still others like to point out all the factual errors in the movie (such as Peter being the first disciple called, or Jesus' ascension being more of a "poof" than anything else). Yet at the same time, others love it, becoming a part of the story, a part of the narrative, as they're immersed in the characters and plot. Really, we'd do well to remember that this is a movie. The main beef I have with Jesus movies is that you always know what's coming next, you know who's going to betray whom, you know the Big Twist at the end. The real challenge comes with presenting the material people know in a way that makes them see things anew, and on at least one level, this movie did that for me.
Yes, the acting was pretty shoddy.
Yes, the CGI left much to be desired.
Yes, Jesus smiled way too much.
On the third point, I found it laughable how Jesus so cheerily told a little girl that the Jerusalem temple would be destroyed. It's quite evident in the gospels that this prophecy of judgment came not with laughter and singing but with Jesus' own emotional pain at what would unfold, for he loved Jerusalem and her people, and knowing her future tore at the fabric of his heart. But seeing as one of the main motifs of this movie is indeed a smiling, cheery Jesus, it would be too much of a chink in the armor to have him shown up as emotionally needy.
All this aside, I really liked how the story made Nicodemus a main character. The whole Nicodemus story comes rather early on in the Gospel of John, but the writers drew out his character so that he opposed Jesus up until the night before Jesus' passion. I would love to see more movies (or books) about Jesus not use Jesus as a main character but, rather, focus on the traditional side characters. Imagine Jesus' early ministry told from Peter's perspective: conflict with his wife over his abandonment of his fishing enterprise to follow this "wandering drama," a marital conflict brought to a head when his wife's mother is healed by Jesus in Capernaum. Even better, let's make the Pharisees the main characters, sympathizing with their perspective and seeking to make sense of the deep loathing they had of "this carpenter's son from Nazareth" in the context of 2nd temple Palestinian Judaism religion and politics. The problem, of course, is that when you "stray from the script" so-to-speak, or empathize with the Bad Guys who were very bad in killing God's Son, you come under the harsh criticisms of those who can't bear to see anyone other than Jesus made a main character in the retellings. Never mind that seeing Jesus' woes on Jerusalem and ransacking the temple from the perspective of a Pharisee would be quite interesting and provocative, and by looking at the miracles and events (and death and resurrection) of Jesus from a biased perspective (rather than from the eagle's-eye sorta view so common) would enable us to look at these things from different angles and see things we hadn't seen before.
To close this off, I'll be honest: I liked The Passion of the Christ more.
Jesus isn't always smiling, and he's actually sad from time-to-time.
He's even afraid in the Garden of Gethsemane. He's more... human.
And I'm a huge fan of subtitles.
No comments:
Post a Comment