Lent Movie Reviews Week 6 (belated): The Passion of the Christ

  So I watched The Passion for the first time this past Good Friday and because it was so close to Easter I didn't have time to write a review. So I apologize that it's a little late in coming.

  The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004. It was directed by Mel Gibson and stars Jim Caviezel as Jesus. I'll skip the summary again as it would just be redundant.

  The Passion is a great film. Aided in part by the use of Aramaic and Latin dialogue it looks and feels very historically accurate and it stays true to the biblical narrative. But more than that it's a very deep and contemplative film. Christ's passion is inter-cut with the Last Supper, showing the connection between His death and Catholic Eucharistic sacrifice. Added scenes like Mary and Mary Magdalene wiping up the sacred blood after the scourging and flashbacks to Christ's childhood give viewers an appreciation of the blessed Virgin's sorrowful participation in the passion. The presence of Satan and other demons throughout the film symbolizes the struggle between good and evil, heaven and hell, a struggle which Jesus brought to a definitive close through his Paschal sacrifice.

  As was Gibson's intent, it's not a dialogue driven film but a visually driven one. In the agony in the Garden Jesus stamps on a snake, symbolizing His triumph over the devil in accepting His Father's will. It also shows the fulfillment of the Protevangelium "he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:15 b). Later, as Jesus drags his cross through Jerusalem his mother is shown following him on one side of the street with Satan on the other, further emphasizing the conflict laid down in the Proto-gospel, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Genesis 3:15 a) The film is filled with all kinds of similar symbolism. Originally, Gibson wanted to release the film without subtitles, saying that the story was so well known that audiences could follow it without understanding the dialogue. In the end he decided it was necessary to use them in certain parts though much of the talking is still subtitle free. The film works amazingly well despite this sparse use of subs and in the future I would like to try watching it with them turned off.

  The performances are strong throughout the picture. Maia Morgenstern as Mary and Francesco De Vito as Peter are especially strong and Rosalinda Celentano brings a creepy, sinister presence to Satan. Of course the real stand out performance comes from Jim Caviezal. His Jesus is both stern and gentle, God-like and human. His serenity during his trial and condemnation display his divinity, and his sufferings help to show his humanity. A flashback, where he and his mother playfully tease each other, further emphasizes his human side. This is the man who was kind to children and showed love to tax collectors and sinners.

  The movie does have a few flaws. Personally, I found the score a little too percussion driven, though I'll admit that this gives it a savage, primal feel appropriate for the more violent scenes and there are some nicer, more subtle moments. The one really big issue is the films portrayal of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. In the bible, during a meeting of the Jewish Sanhedrin, he reveals his motivation for having Jesus killed: he fears that He will incite a rebellion and Rome will retaliate "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." (John 11:50) This motive is never shown in the film nor is the Pharisees fear of losing their prestige because of Jesus. In contrast to this Pilate is given scenes that help to further establish his own motives for delivering Jesus to the Jews. Like Caiaphas he too fears a rebellion, as this would reflect badly for him in Rome. Some have argued that because of this the film is anti-Semitic. They say that it is placing the blame for Christ's death solely on the Jews and going out of its way to make excuses for the Romans. However the film is not afraid to show the Romans in just as bad a light, as evidenced by the barbaric portrayal of the Roman guards. In addition to this, Caiaphas is shown being disturbed at the soldiers' treatment of Jesus and other Jewish figures like Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus are portrayed in a much more positive light. Finally the film doesn't blame for Jesus' death fully on the Jews or the Romans but show's that we're all culpable. "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down on my own accord." These accusations of anti-Semitism are baseless. Nevertheless the lack of historical background for the Pharisees plot against Jesus is an issue, especially for non-believers who may not be as familiar with the story.

   The Passion of the Christ is a stirring artistic achievement. It's a film that I'd recommend to everyone, particularity Catholics (as long as you can stomach a little graphic violence). It's the kind of film that I question giving a rating too. To apply a numeric rating to such a meditative work of art seems somehow shallow and meaningless. However I have done so throughout this Lenten project so...

Rating: 9.5/10

Lent Reviews Week 5: The Prince of Egypt

  The Prince of Egypt is a 1998 animated musical released by Dream Works studios and directed by Brenda Chapman (Brave), Steve Hickner and Simon Wells. It tells the story of Moses and the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. I won't bother to summarize the plot because everyone knows it and, frankly, I need to work on my summary skills. Suffice to say, it follows the Biblical story fairly closely.

  "He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand." (Exodus 2: 11-12) And he leaves for fear of pharaoh "When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh". (Exodus 2: 15) Considering that this film was made with children in mind, I can't fault them too much for changing the way the Egyptian dies. I don't really mind the added motive either because the bible doesn't really offer any deep insight in that regard. The film's portrayal of Aaron on the other hand, is somewhat problematic. Moses real brother was his strongest supporter, "The Lord said to Aaron, 'Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.' So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him." (Exodus 4: 27-28) The film portrays Aaron as being doubtful of Moses' mission and reluctant to anger the Egyptians. This was done, I think, to give Miriam a bigger role as she takes Aaron's place as Moses supporter here. Neither of these changes is that significant.

  The biggest deviations are the film's depiction of Moses' murder of an Egyptian which causes him to flee from Egypt and its portrayal of Aaron. The murder is portrayed as a fatal accident that is witnessed by many and Moses leaves, mostly, because of his crisis of conscience concerning the Pharaoh's treatment of his people. In the bible this murder happens in secret

  The two biggest flaws in the film are its rushed pacing and one rather out of place musical number. At 99 minutes the movie feels a bit rushed at times. As a result certain characters, like Aaron and Queen Tuya, are a little underdeveloped. And Moses relationship with his wife Tzipporah is not as well fleshed out as it could be. The musical number I mentioned entitled "Playing with the Big Boys" features the Egyptian high priests singing a song to intimidate Moses with their powers after his staff turns into a snake. Not only is this song much more comedic than the films other songs, it also interrupts the flow of the scene and ultimately feels rather pointless. The swallowing up of the Egyptian snakes by Moses seems to go unnoticed by everyone present and neither Moses nor the priests seem to make any impression on each other. The films other flaws include a few over-the-top comedic moments (including Moses and Rameses racing through Egypt and knocking the nose off a Pyramid) and, as I already mentioned, the films portrayal of Aaron. The films many strengths far outweigh these weaknesses.

  The focus of the story in the film is Moses relationship with his adopted brother Rameses, the future Pharaoh. Watching their initial friendship and then subsequent fall-out and opposition is very tragic and it was a good way for the filmmakers to add more humanity to the story. Moses own journey, from a naive though kindhearted Prince of Egypt to a humble servant of God, is also very well done, and the film adequately conveys both his initial mixed feelings toward his supposed fathers act of infanticide and later his regret concerning his lost relationship with Rameses with is mixed with his new found sense of purpose. Both Kilmer and Fiennes are excellent as the voices of Moses and Rameses (respectfully). The supporting cast also does a fine job. The songs (aside from the aforementioned "Playing with the Big Boys") are all memorable and complement the story well. My personal favorite is probably "The Plagues" which features Moses and Rameses singing back and forth about their feelings toward each other while the nine plagues take place in the background. Visually the film is magnificent. It's filled with sweeping images of the Pyramids and the Egyptian desert and the parting of the Red Sea is probably one of the greatest animated sequences ever. Moses dream, where he sees the murder of the Hebrew Children and his own escape through moving wall paintings, is also spectacular. Really it has to be seen to be believed.

  Overall, The Prince of Egypt is an emotionally resonant and beautifully animated biblical adaption.

Score: 9/10

  

Lent Movie Reviews Week 4: Waterloo

  So this is the first week I haven't reviewed a religious movie. I guess the reason for this is that I didn't watch any religious movies last week. I did however watch Waterloo, because my brother was supposed to for school. So anyways...

  Waterloo was released in 1970. It was directed by Sergei Bondarchuk. It stars Rod Stieger and Christopher Plummer as Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington respectively.  Though it flopped at the box office it received positive reviews from critics.

The film opens by showing Napoleon's initial abdication and exile to Elba. On his return King Louis XVIII sends Marshall Ney to capture him. In a suspenseful sequence Ney and the French army confront Napoleon and his 1000 loyal followers. Napoleon refuses to surrender and Ney's men will not open fire on him but instead join him, giving Napoleon control of France. Napoleon attempts to sue for peace but the other European nations declare war so he decides to invade Belgium. The British send Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to stop him. At a ball the night before the battle Wellington is informed that Napoleon has crossed the border, cutting him off from his Prussian allies. He decides to make a stand at Quatre-Bras but is defeated and withdraws to Waterloo. Prussian Field Marshal Blücher moves his men north in order to maintain contact with Wellington. Napoleon sends Grouchy with 30,000 men to keep Blücher from reinforcing Wellington. Grouchy fails to do this and Napoleon sees the Prussians approaching in the distance on the morning of the battle. He opts to ignore it and sends his forces attack the British outpost at Hougoumont hoping to draw out Wellington's reserves. Meanwhile the French artillery start a bombardment of the center of the British line supporting an attack by the French infantry on La Haye Sainte. When this attack is beaten back, the British cavalry under Uxbridge charge forward to support a counter attack by the infantry. Ignoring a recall order the cavalry attempt to attack the French grande batterie. Napoleon counter attacks with his own cavalry, resulting in heavy losses for the British. Later Wellington decides to reorganize some of his troops in the center of his line. French Marshal Ney, mistaking this for a retreat, orders his cavalry forward. The British form squares (hollow box-formations four ranks deep) to repel this attack and Ney is beaten back with heavy losses. Napoleon, returning to the Battlefield after recovering from a bout of stomach pain, berates his marshals for allowing Ney to attack without Infantry support. Around the same time French infantry resume their attack on La Haye Sainte and recapture it. Napoleon orders his Imperial guard forward to exploit this new weakness. This advance is met with a volley from Maitland's infantry, hiding in the grass until the French are in point blank range. The French assault begins to disintegrate and the arrival of the Prussian army dashes any hope of French victory. The film ends by showing Wellington riding through the body-strewn battlefield and Napoleon returning to Paris.

English infantry squares repel Ney's Cavalry

  Like Ben-Hur, which I reviewed last week, Waterloo is a massive film utilizing 15,000 Soviet foot soldiers and 2,000 cavalrymen as extras. The visuals are a sight to behold. The tactics, uniforms, and weapons used, to my knowledge, are quite authentic to the real battle. The way the battle plays ought is also fairly close to real life, the biggest departure being the portrayal of Blucher's Prussians. In the real battle the Prussians fought a hard battle with the French at Plancenoit, finally breaking through to relieve the British near the end of the battle. In the film the Prussians arrive unopposed. The acting, for the most part, is excellent. Steiger really conveys Napoleon's eccentricity and helps we as an audience to understand why he was a legend while at the same time giving us a glimpse of his humanity. Plummer, though perhaps more jovial than the stoic Wellington of reality, brings out his practicality, seemingly condescending attitude and his love for his men (despite referring to them as beggars and scoundrels). He also brings a wry sense of humor to what would otherwise be a rather joyless affair. The writing and the direction also help bring out the best in both of them. The supporting cast is fine for the most part, but a few of the British troops are occasionally overwrought, particularly one who, in the middle of the charge of Ney's cavalry shouts out: "We've never seen each other! How can we kill one another? How can we? How can we?"

  The biggest flaw in the film is the editing. There are alot of jarring cuts and, at just over 2 hours, the film feels really rushed for much of it's running time. The attacks on Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte are glazed over and you don't really have time to appreciate them. This is a really big problem when it comes to 'Sainte considering how important that it was to the actual battle. Apparently there is a longer (4 1/2 to 6 1/2) cut which was only released in Russia. According to IMDB this was a rough cut that was never actually released but some insist that they remember seeing it in theaters. In any case it seems doubtful that this extra material will ever see the light of day which is a shame. An extra hour or so could do this film wonders. 

  Overall, though it has many flaws, Waterloo is an exciting, and very historically accurate war film. It's really a must-see for all history buffs and more casual fans of the genre should still enjoy it, despite some of the issues I have with it.

Score: 8/10