A Tale of Two Films.

First, “The Passion of the Christ.”

I finally went to see this one, and it has taken me a few days to gather some coherent thoughts to write about it. I assume that if you’re reading this, you’ve probably already seen the film, or by this time you’ve decided that you’re NOT going to see it. So please forgive me, as I intend to give a few plot points away in this essay.

Of course, even if you are only remotely religious, you already KNOW the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, so it’s not like I’m blowing any “surprise” endings. But this film, like many other films based on true events, is built on the filmmaker’s interpretation of the events, and it’s the little details that make the story come to life, so to speak. Unfortunately, it is Mel Gibson’s interpretation that I have the most problems with.

Actually, truth be told, the biggest problem for me is the limited scope of the film. It is literally the last day of the life of Jesus the Christ, and by focusing on that one fateful day, Mel and his co-writer give very short shrift to the rest of Jesus’ rather significant life. If you are Christian, you know that Jesus did a lot of very amazing things in his short 33-year life, but Mel has seen fit to leave that part of the story to other filmmakers. So “The Passion” is basically two hours of watching a man get brutally beaten and murdered, and we’re barely shown WHY Jesus is hated so much by his captors. Because of that, this is a deeply flawed film.

In an attempt to bring the gospels to life, Mel and his co-writer felt the need to exercise a little artistic license and add even more drama to the proceedings. However, I was repulsed by their attempts to make “sense” of the story. For example, some of the gospels note that after betraying Jesus, the apostle Judas committed suicide. What the gospels DON’T do is describe the suicide, or Judas’ descent into suicidal depression. So Mel took a shot at it, and instead of showing a man racked with guilt and remorse for cowardly and greedily betraying his close friend, they showed Judas as a man tormented and tortured by demonic children (!), who chase him out of town and cause him to…what? Go crazy?

This was part of a disturbing trend that the filmmakers chose to follow. It was apparently not enough to depict the brutal last day of Jesus’ life, but they also wanted to show that Satan exists and was a part of the entire proceedings, always broodily watching from the sidelines. Satan (or the devil, if you prefer) was depicted as a hooded, eyebrow-less albino. For shock value, Mel showed a maggot slowly crawl in and out of Satan’s nose. Whoa, now THAT’S evil!

Strangely enough, when Jesus finally died, Satan was shown to be mourning…or at least he was very, very disappointed. But there were no overt explanations of what that was all about…only “true believers” need apply.

Another strange “artistic license” taking was one of the too-few flashbacks to Jesus’ life. In this particular flashback, Jesus was shown “inventing” the normal-height table…! Beg pardon? When he demonstrates this new-fangled thing to his mother, Mary even quips, “It’ll never catch on…” See, God has a sense of humor…or is that Mel? It was such a jolting bit that I never could really catch on to what the filmmaker was trying to say with it. One of the frustrating things about the Bible, at least to me, is that the gospels of Christ have nothing to say about Jesus’ life as a young adult. The Good Book tells the story of his birth, a few stories of him as a pre-teen, and then there’s NOTHING until he’s in his thirties. So I guess Mel thought there would be no harm in portraying the Christ as the inventor of the modern table. Who knew?

Then there’s the controversy: Does this movie portray Jews as the murderers of Jesus? Oh yeah it does. Sure, it was the sadistic Roman guards that beat the shit out of our man, and it was the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, and it was even the Roman ruler Pontious Pilate who, albeit reluctantly, condemned Jesus to death. But the film clearly placed the blame on the shoulders of the high Jewish priests and their Klingon-like henchmen. But isn’t that the way it’s written in the Bible? Mel’s defense has always been that his film is true to the word. Personally, I don’t see how this particular issue is controversial…but then, I was raised Catholic.

However, if truth was what the filmmakers were really after, how did they end up casting very-Anglo-looking Jim Caviezel as Jesus? Why didn’t they go with an actor that actually looked like he might have grown up in Galilee, as opposed to Western Europe? I wasn’t surprised that Mel made the decision to have a Western, instead of Middle Eastern, Jesus. But Mel, you can’t have it both ways, bro. You can’t claim historical accuracy on one hand, then willfully distort the facts on the other.

Ultimately, there have been better movies made about the life of the Christ. “The Passion” was just a voyeuristic exercise in cinematic evangelism. And a damn bloody one at that.

Then yesterday I returned to the cinema and took in a truly enjoyable little film, “Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind”, Jim Carrey’s latest movie. This movie is a huge departure from the normal Carrey goofiness, and it was co-written by the fantastically inventive screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (“Adaptation”, “Being John Malkovich”).

This film is a treat for both the eyes and the mind. It is actually a romantic comedy, and a pretty funny one too, but it’s not like “When Harry met Sally”. It’s more like “Punch Drunk Love”, another great film that takes a normally goofy guy (that time Adam Sandler), and makes him ACT. Carrey did a great job anchoring a very challenging script, and making us care about his relationship with Clementine, a firebrand of a free spirit, wonderfully played by Kate Winslet.

Basically what happens in this film is that Joel (Carrey) discovers that there’s an obscure Doctor in New York City (well, somewhere on Long Island, actually) that is able to erase specific people and events from one’s memories. How Carrey makes this discovery, and what it means to his relationship with Clementine (among other people) is what makes this movie so much fun. And for me to describe any part of it is to give too much away. This is definitely one of those “oh, you just GOTTA see it!” type of movies, similar to “Memento” and “American Beauty”. There are plenty of plot twists and turns, and since the movie is dealing with memory (actually, memory LOSS), there are a lot of flashbacks (or what look like flashbacks…I can’t tell you any more than that)!

Accordingly, the visuals in this movie are extremely surreal and nothing short of fantastic. The special effects never seem gratuitous, and rarely intrude. They just do their not-so-easy job of depicting a life that is slowly losing some of it’s most cherished memories.

One of the best lines in this movie is an exchange between the Doctor and Joel, just before they begin the procedure. Joel asks if it’s a dangerous procedure and if there’s any chance that it will cause brain damage. The Doctor calmly replies, “Well, it actually IS brain damage…”!

“Eternal Sunshine” is a great movie, one that demands repeated viewing and will definitely be one to occupy a place in my growing DVD collection. I think it demands too much thinking for it to ever become a popular blockbuster, but for those who like to think before they laugh (and cry), this is the movie for you. And it was really nice to see a good movie again, especially after sitting through the (literal) torture that was “The Passion of the Christ”.

More later…
Paul