Paul, Apostle of Christ was released on March 23rd, 2018. It is written and directed by Andrew Hyatt. It tells the story of St. Paul's (James Faulkner) last days in the Mamertine prison in Rome, where he awaits his execution. Meanwhile the Christian community in Rome faces violent persecution as a result of being blamed for starting the Great Fire of Rome by Emperor Nero.
At this point Christian movies (and by that I mean films made by Christian directors and heavily featuring Christian themes) have a pretty bad reputation in the world of film criticsim. Heavy handed films like
God's Not Dead and dull, uninspired biblical adaptations like
Son of God have convinced many that Christian filmmakers are only interested in making safe, manipulative films that, largely, preach to the choir. As an aspiring Catholic critic myself, I am dismayed that these filmmakers are not trying to take more risks and to challenge themselves and their audiences. So I went into
Paul, Apostle of Christ with a certain amount of trepidation.
Would this be yet another pandering, preachy film that caters solely to the tastes of Christian audiences? I'm pleased to report that that is not the case. On the contrary, this film surprised me with its subtlety, its challenging themes, and its fresh take on the apostle Paul.
Paul is portrayed as a man haunted by his past. His dreams are filled with images of the men and women he killed in his persecution of Christians. Racked with guilt, Paul places his trust in Christ. "Your grace is sufficient" he repeats to himself. While the bible gives us little insight into the inner workings of Paul's mind, his teachings contain a heavy focus on atonement, the idea that we are redeemed from our sins by the death and resurrection of Jesus. "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them." (2 Corinthians 5:19)
The film interweaves Paul's story with two subplots. In one Luke (Jim Caviezel) , who records Paul's last epistle for posterity, visits the persecuted Christian community in Rome, lead by Priscilla (Joanne Whalley) and Aquilla (John Lynch). Aquilla wants the community to leave Rome to escape the violence while Priscilla prefers to stay and serve the city's needy. Both look to Paul for guidance but the apostle can only urge them to follow their own consciences. Other members of the community want to take a more assertive approach and join with Romans who hope to overthrow Nero. In the face of violent persecution they can see no other effective response then more violence. Even Luke has doubts, telling Paul that he can see no reason behind the brutality. But Paul, along with Priscilla and Aquilla, refuse to give in to this kind of thinking. Christ's way calls for love and forgiveness, not vindictiveness or violence. Portraying this kind of conflict within the Christian community is a bold move on the part of the filmmakers, and this subplot contains some of the more stirring drama in the movie.
The other subplot involves the prefect of the Mamertine prison, Mauritius (Olivier Martinez). Mauritius daughter is dying from a deadly illness and none of the Roman doctors he consults offer any hope. His wife (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) blames him for the illness, believing that he has angered the gods through his lenient treatment of Paul. The prefect has a certain respect for the apostle, and recognizes that the emperor is using him as a scapegoat. Throughout the film Mauritius is seen offering sacrifice to his pagan gods, hoping for a cure. Goaded by his wife, he eventually decides to condemn Luke to the Colosseum but this does nothing to improve his daughter's condition, and she comes dangerously close to death. Desperate, Mauritius has Luke released, having heard that he is a skilled physician.
One might think their would be some sort of miraculous cure performed at this point, followed by a conversion to Christ on the part of Mauritius, but Luke's witness is much more subtle. Despite his aversion to the Romans the evangelist decides to help heal Mauritius' daughter and even risks revealing the location of Priscilla and Aquilla's community so he can fetch medicine for her. Mauritius is taken back by Luke's actions, yet he doesn't convert. The seed has been planted but, perhaps, it has yet to take root.
While I appreciate the relative complexity and subtlety of both of these subplots I do think the film has some difficulty juggling them. We're well into the first act of the film before Paul himself is introduced and too much time is devoted to scenes involving Mauritius, his family and his cohorts which become repetitive and feel somewhat redundant after a time. This also makes the timeline of events a bit obscure. I'm unclear whether the film takes place over a few weeks or a few months. I addition to this I think that the dialogue could have done with some revision. At times it feels out of place coming from people living in this time period. Not that I except the dialogue to be "period accurate", that would require it being in Greek, Aramaic and Latin, among other things, but it should at least "sound" that way.
Andrew Hyatt does a pretty good job in the director's chair. His use of long takes and handheld camera work give the film a gritty, lived in feel, as does his somewhat unconventional use of lense flare. Contrast this to the the sequences involving Paul's dreams and flashback's, where Hyatt uses slow motion and high contrast lighting to add an otherworldy effect. The cast all put in good work as well. James Faulkner's Paul is a haunted, weary man, yet one who, nonetheless, exudes strength. Jim Caviezel's Luke is a more conflicted figure, one who has a certain reverence for Paul yet also an easy comradeship. These are clearly two men who have been through a lot together. Joanne Whalley and John Lynch are also quite good as Priscilla and Aquilla. Whalley, especially, brings a sense of conviction and empathy to her role. Olivier Martinez is also well cast as the cynical, world weary Mauritius.
Paul, Apostle of Christ doesn't break any new ground. This is not a transcendent piece of Christian art. But it is a solid piece of entertainment, with a fairly nuanced script, capable direction, and quality performances.
Score: 8/10
Well, that wraps up my Lent Reviews for 2018. Thanks for reading guys!
No comments:
Post a Comment