The problem with the new Gospel of John movie will always be its source material. I mean, really, the Bible? If we're going to make a Jesus movie call Martin Scorcese to make the Last Temptation of Christ so we can really have fun by blaspheming. Quite frankly, anytime you see religion portrayed seriously on the big screen the critics will immediately denounce it--you can write it down.
Ann Hornaday gives us a cinematic critique of the new movie, and, well, she doesn't like it. She makes what could be some valid observations, however:
As well-meaning as "The Gospel of John" is, and with all the care and historical research that have obviously gone into its production, it still comes off like a stiffly moving diorama, with Jesus sporting perfectly white teeth and a British accent and every thread of every robe in perfect place. Strictly adhering to the Good News version of events, "The Gospel of John" brings no metaphorical or otherwise interpretive texture to its adaptation; instead, it's simply a live-action illustration.
Of course we all know Jesus was a blue-eyed Anglo who spoke English with an Eaton accent and not a darker skinned Jew from Galilee. Yes, I agree these would be problems with the movie. I suspect, however, that any movie that attempts to portray the Gospels seriously will never satisfy a "mainstream" movie critic.
[For further reading try this Telegraph article where the author loves Henry Ian Cusick (who plays Jesus), but can't quite seem to grasp a harmony between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John.]
No comments:
Post a Comment