One year ago, Hollywood film director Christopher Spencer and producers Mark Burnett and Roma Downey saddled us with Son of God, a disappointingly banal and inaccurate feature presentation on the life of Jesus Christ. Based quite loosely on the biblical accounts of Christ’s life, death, and Resurrection, this 138-minute film offers a barely tolerable portrayal of most of the significant events while making mincemeat of the details. Although many Jesus films of the past century--out of reverence for Christ’s divinity--made him seem too distant, introverted and otherworldly, with Son of God the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme of presenting Christ as too ordinary, casual, and extroverted. Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado’s fresh and engaging portrayal of Christ as a warmly human, joyful and self-confident figure admittedly has some appeal, but this performance sacrifices historical accuracy and reverence for Christ’s divine dignity to on-screen likeability. Fidelity to the Gospel texts was obviously not a major concern of the filmmakers here; apparently, they were more afraid of making Christ appear trite or cliché. The result is a pathetically mediocre film that doesn’t hold a candle to the likes of Jesus of Nazareth (1977) or The Passion of the Christ (2004).
Focusing mainly on His public ministry and Passion, Son of God attempts to portray the life
of Christ retrospectively through the eyes of an older Apostle John, living out
his final years in exile on Patmos as he writes his famous Gospel and the
Apocalypse (Revelation). As the film opens, we hear the stirring Prologue of
Saint John’s Gospel (John 1:1-18), and as it concludes, we listen to the final
words of the Apocalypse (22:6-21). The film’s title is a recurring theme
throughout John’s Gospel, appearing six times in all (John 1:34 , 3:18 ,
5:25 , 11:27 , 19:7, and 20:31 ); it’s also found in several places in
the Synoptic Gospels. In the film, when Jesus asks His disciples who they think
He is, Peter replies, “You are the Son of God” (cf. Matt. 16:16 ; Mark 8:29 ; Luke 9:20 ).
Taken together, these texts and the theme that resonates through them form a
solid theological foundation on which a truly great film could have been built.
As a major studio production distributed by 20th
Century FOX, Son of God didn’t live
up to the grand religious, historical, and artistic expectations its makers
deliberately generated within its mass-market audience. The film is plagued by
a variety of issues, chief of which is Morgado’s superficial performance that
doesn’t accurately reflect the Jesus of the Gospels. Throughout most of the movie,
Christ comes off as too breezy and carefree, too “hip” and trendy, his casual, laid-back
attitude failing to reflect the seriousness of his divine mission to save
fallen humanity. In the name of making the Person of Jesus more accessible to a
contemporary audience, Morgado’s portrayal generally lacks true depth and spirit.
Contrast this with Robert Powell’s magnificent performance in Jesus of Nazareth (1977), for example,
which--despite some minor flaws and notable artistic liberties--is on the whole
much more faithful to the biblical texts.
The tantalizing whirlwind of scenes at the beginning of the
film allows the viewer only brief glimpses of Jesus’ nativity and His Baptism
in the Jordan as Saint John flashes back to those two pivotal events; then we
see the adult Jesus already beginning His public ministry. There is nothing
whatsoever of the Annunciation to Mary, her visit to Elizabeth, Christ’s
Circumcision, His Presentation in the Temple, or His parents’ discovery of Him
in the Temple at the age of twelve. I would have liked to see a bit more of Jesus’
Birth and Baptism, as well as something of His conception and early life, if
only for the sake of character and story development.
Christ’s three-year public ministry in Son of God also flashes by the viewer more quickly than expected. About
a dozen fairly short scenes of the best-known events in Our Lord’s life—some
from John’s Gospel and some from the other Gospels—are stitched together to
achieve this undesirable effect; then all of a sudden, Jesus is triumphantly
entering Jerusalem as the Messiah. With so much having been skipped altogether,
the somewhat befuddled viewer is left with the impression that Our Lord’s
public life has been significantly over-edited. For instance, there is nothing
of the wedding at Cana, Christ’s discussion with the Samaritan woman, or His
healing of the man born blind, all of which are recorded in John’s Gospel and
certainly worthy of this type of film. (Scenes of Christ’s temptations were
reportedly cut from the film because the actor for Satan looked too much like
Barack Obama.)
The novel presentation of Jesus’ life and ministry in Son of God is accomplished through
excessive use of artistic license. In a few scenes, such as Jesus climbing into
Peter’s boat and the calling of Matthew, this device arguably enhances the film.
But as a rule, the wacky liberties taken clearly detract from the presentation:
the paralytic comes crashing through the roof almost by himself; Christ
ventures inside the tomb to bring Lazarus out; he foretells the destruction of
the Temple with casual glee; he abruptly exits the Upper Room after the Last
Supper, leaving His frightened disciples behind (we get barely a sentence or
two of the beautiful Farewell Discourse that takes up several chapters of
John’s Gospel). And in the name of freshness and relevance, the words coming
out of Jesus’ mouth are typically a loose postmodern rendering of what the
Gospels record. The obvious banality of this style is inconsistent with the
true figure of Christ as handed down to us by biblical tradition.
Another drawback to this film is a somewhat inadequate movie
set. The ubiquitous stark white background scenery leaves something to be
desired, both from an artistic and a historical point of view. Most of the
scenes, including the Sermon on the Mount and the feeding of the five thousand
men plus women and children—both of which actually took place on the grassy
shores of the Sea of Galilee—were filmed in a barren desert of rocky slopes and
cliffs where hardly a smidgeon of greenery is to be found to relieve the
sameness. A few palm trees are visible in one or two of the scenes, but the
film cries out for a bit more of that color. Also, the special effects employed
are not quite up to par, with the dark shots of Jerusalem
Where Son of God actually
comes close to excelling is in its portrayal of the Passion and death of Christ
from His arrest to His crucifixion. This owes not so much to the genius of the
filmmakers as to the overwhelming influence of Mel Gibson’s timeless masterpiece
The Passion of the Christ, which set
a new standard of historical accuracy for all subsequent film depictions of this
world-changing event. However, the producers, director and cast of Son of God do deserve some credit for
achieving a decent blend of realism, artistic license, and special effects in
this portion of the film. Whereas the brutally graphic depiction of Our Lord’s
sufferings in Gibson’s film demanded an R rating, Christ’s Passion in Son of God is a bit less intense to make
the PG-13 grade. Nonetheless, the latter presentation is quite gripping and moving,
closely following the biblical account in almost every detail, with the quality
of Morgado’s performance resulting in a fairly memorable viewing experience—a
notable exception to the rest of the film.
Obviously, the makers and marketers of Son of God already knew what Mel Gibson discovered ten years
earlier: a large twenty-first century movie audience exists that is hungry for
good religious fare. But whereas Gibson sacrificed and risked everything to
make an all-time great film regardless of criticism, controversy, and potential
failure—a film that actually became a record-breaking hit--Spencer and his crew
appear to have aimed straight for popularity and box-office returns, paying lip
service to religious and historical truth while eschewing the fine
craftsmanship necessary to produce a work of enduring value. Their film didn’t
qualify as good religious fare, so it didn’t satisfy the hunger of the movie audience.
Its glaring lack of historical and biblical accuracy offends the sensibilities
of Christian believers while offering a rather misleading depiction of Christ
to potential believers. If the aim was to make a great, powerfully moving, and
unforgettable Jesus film that tens of millions of people will enjoy for decades
to come, Son of God definitely missed
the mark. If you still haven’t seen this movie, don’t waste your time or money
on it. You’re better off reading your Bible and sticking to older classic films
on the life of Christ until the next truly great Jesus movie comes along.
No comments:
Post a Comment