Son of God

Last night, I saw the film "Son of God," a retelling of the life of Jesus that is mostly made out of parts of "The Bible" miniseries that ran on the History Channel last year. There is some new material, and unlike the History miniseries, this is not presented so much as a "documentary" as a story. It ran up to #2 at the box office this past weekend, bringing in $26.5 million (above expectations). The #1 film for the weekend, "Non-Stop," brought in $30 million, so you could say Jesus was just slightly less popular than Liam Neeson.

"Son of God" begins and ends on the island of Patmos, with apostle John in exile, recalling his time with Jesus. John becomes the narrator, though the movie incorporates elements from all four Gospels. Running at nearly two and a half hours, the film focuses most of its attention on the last week of Jesus' life (as do the Gospels, for that matter), and while it is not nearly as graphic as The Passion of the Christ, the beatings of Jesus and the crucifixion scenes are intense and not for young children. (It is rated PG-13 for those scenes.)

This is the first big-screen retelling of Jesus' life in 49 years, the last one being The Greatest Story Ever Told. There was, some may remember, a small screen retelling that garnered a lot of buzz in 2000 (called simply "Jesus"). So, is this one a good film? Does it tell the story dramatically? Does it tell the story faithfully?

Christians have often torpedoed filmmakers' attempts at telling Biblical stories because they argue with the faithfulness or lack thereof of the film to the text. (There have already been outcries against Noah for that very reason, and Noah hasn't even been released yet!) Personally, I'm not bothered by that. The Gospels have differences in the way they tell the story, largely because they are not so much biographies as they are proclamations of "good news" (that's what "gospel" means). In other words: they have a message to get across. (John's Gospel, in particular, is very up front about that.) So is "Son of God" faithful to the text? Yes and no. There are familiar stories, though some are told in a dramatic way and some are told in a strange way. I'm not sure why the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead is made more dramatic by Jesus blowing on his head. But that was the filmmaker's choice. The point is still there: Jesus has power over death. So the film interprets the text and seeks to share a message. In that way, it might be a twenty-first century Gospel.

Diogo Morgado, the actor who portrays Jesus, is likable and approachable. Watching, I believed this would be a Jesus people would relate to, rather than the Jesus of earlier films who seemed to always be staring off into the distance (and who, sometimes, could take a Roman beating and yet only have a couple of scrapes). But I, honestly was intrigued by the story as seen through two other characters. Roma Downey portrays the older Mary, Jesus' mother, and does a pretty good job of helping you feel what it must have been like for her to watch her only son murdered and being powerless to stop it. How would you react if that were your son?

I was even more drawn in by Pilate, however. The actor portraying him (Greg Hicks) helps you understand Pilate's place: he didn't want to be involved in this situation, he didn't really care that much at all for the Jews, and he felt trapped by his position and Rome's displeasure. Pilate was, perhaps, the most believable character in this telling of the old, old story. Odd, for a person we would likely not even remember had he not come in contact with Jesus of Nazareth.

There are some (many?) historical inaccuracies that bugged me, but not enough to walk away from this film. Most of the inaccuracies are there because that's what we expect to see there (i.e., the nails through Jesus' hands rather than his wrists; Jesus carrying the whole cross instead of just the crossbeam). It's what we've become accustomed to in artwork and previous films. Again, they don't detract from the overall film. (I was also bothered by the pond that was used to portray the Sea of Galilee. Morocco simply doesn't look like Israel.)

So, is it a good film? Yes. It's a film that tells the story of Jesus for a new generation. And do you know how I know that? It's because of a conversation I had with a young boy in our congregation who came with us last night to see it. Beforehand, he showed me the book and toys he had brought with him, concealed in his jacket, "in case the movie gets boring." After the film, I asked him what he thought. "I didn't get bored," he told me. "It was a really good movie. I just wish there hadn't been so much blood." He wished they hadn't beaten Jesus so much.

Me, too. Me, too.

Stick around for the first part of the credits, as there are "additional scenes" from Jesus' life shown as CeLoo Green sings "Mary, Did You Know?"

ADDITIONAL NOTES/PARTIAL RANT: Christians often complain about Hollywood not producing good films, or films they believe they can go see. Here is a major studio (Twentieth-Century Fox) releasing a film on the life of Jesus. They've taken a risk here. And the only message we can send is to go see it in the theaters. The only way studios will put more money behind such endeavors is if the initial ones succeed. Studios fund what "sells."

Locally, as well, Portage 16 rarely gets faith-based films. I'm told they don't sell well. If we want to continue to see films like this made and/or shown locally, we need to support the films that come out. Not "in a few weeks," but when they come out. Otherwise, they won't stick around and the management will assume, once again, Christians aren't interested. End of rant.