Quite unintentionally, we had three religious-themed movies come in from NetFlix this past weekend. They made for an... odd triple feature, even when spaced out over several nights.
First up was Legion a sort of apocalyptic end-of-the-world actioner with Dennis Quaid and Charles S. Dutton. You'd think that would mean a good film. You'd think wrong. Legion is idiotic from start to finish. Apparently, God is disgusted with humans, and sends the hosts of Heaven to destroy mankind. Only Archangel Michael thinks this is kinda harsh, and is cast out of Heaven for his opposition. He cuts off his wings and loads up with lots of firepower before driving out into the desert to protect a pregnant truck stop waitress who's baby will be "The One" to lead humanity out of the Matrix, or some bullshit. The angles possess "weak-willed" humans and get all demonic, biting people throats out and conducting all sorts of evil, hellish acts. Gabriel shows up, and is a total and complete asshole. There's lots of gunfire, the bodycount stacks up and then Gabriel kills Michael, who comes back from Heaven as the anointed of God. As near as I can figure, the whole thing was a test, and those angels who carried out God's will flunked and are now banished to Hell, whereas Michael, the only one to defy God since Lucifer (who, ironically, isn't even mentioned once during the film) gets a shiny gold star or something. It's a bad, bad movie with bad, bad acting. Even the hand-waving attempts at explanations contradict themselves. Avoid this turd, please.
The Book of Eli on the other hand was more thoughtful, even if it did have some significant gaps in logic. For a desolate, post-apocalyptic tale, it worked well with Denzel Washington as a wanderer who happens to possess the last existing copy of the Bible. He's pretty much a badass, literally sniffing out ambushes and wielding a wicked-sharp machete like it's nobody's business. Gary Oldman is an evil powerbroker who discovers what Eli owns, and wants it as his own because he views the Bible is the "ultimate weapon," that he could use its words to legitimize and justify his despotic rule. Mila Kunis is a persistent false note as a beautiful, pseudo-empowered modern woman who seems utterly unscarred by the harsh reality she's grown up in. What struck me the most about the film was that it could easily be considered a prequel to Walter M. Miller, Jr.'s brilliant novel A Canticle For Leibowitz. All the elements are there, so much so that I'd be shocked if scriptwriter Gary Whitta hadn't read Canticle at some point and deliberately cribbed elements alluded to in that novel. I kept waiting for Eli to be referred to as a "booklegger," but alas, that never happened. The ending, unfortunately, is turgid, and drags on easily twice as long as it needs simply for the film to show every last detail of what's going on, just in case the viewer is too stupid to figure out the obvious on their own.
The Last Temptation of Christ was the last one I watched, and one I'd wanted to see since it's controversial release back in 1988. It was a tremendous disappointment. Willem Dafoe is jarringly miscast as a blonde, blue-eyed Jesus. He's such a distinctive actor, with a unique delivery, that I couldn't get past the Green Goblin. Harvey Keitel as his buddy Judas was also a distraction. I mean, Harvey Keitel in anything is a distraction. The film is close to three hours long, which is at least an hour longer than it needs to be. The film opens with Jesus as a cowardly cross-maker for the Romans, a Jew collaborating with the occupying force. He lusts after prostitute Mary Magdalene, but is afraid to act on his desires. This Jesus is a wholly unsympathetic character, and the setup is jarring--the viewer is left wondering if this is his temptation? Is he already living a life shorn of divinity? It's easy to see how many people were offended by this introduction of the character. To my mind, this sequence adds almost nothing to the later events of the film. There's some vague idea of redemption, but it's fuzzy. The only real resonance is that of a one-time cross maker being crucified on a cross himself, but that's cheap symbolism. Just when you think you've got it figured out, and that this is an alternate reality life of Christ, he abruptly veers hard left and jumps feet-first into the Gospels, loosely following the history most are familiar with. This is where it starts to get interesting, with wild-eyed religious fervor bordering on madness with John the Baptist being a particular treat. Dafoe's Jesus throughout this sequence is alternately dreamy and arrogant, uncertain and cocky. David Bowie's Pontius Pilate is gleefully blunt and pragmatic. Peter is portrayed as something of a dolt, while Judas is Jesus' true confidant. This is an interesting take, and much of this relationship is influenced in a general way by the Gnostic Gospel of Judas (the text wasn't known when the script was written, of course, but Judas as the true servant of God idea was). I don't think this was developed as much as it needed in order to be effective, but it was a refreshing divergence from the traditional approach. The actual last temptation, however--which I'd erroneously assumed would constitute the bulk of the movie--was a tremendous letdown. A "guardian angel" appears to Jesus, claiming to be sent by God to spare him the crucifixion. Jesus weds Mary Magdalene, who dies while pregnant, so Jesus ends up shacking up with two other women and has a large brood of kids. All the while life is hard, with the Romans burning Jerusalem and killing Jews. He meets St. Paul, who berates him for not dying on the cross, and them the Apostles show up when Jesus is on his death bed, pretty much showering him with contempt--Judas in particular, who's miffed that his betrayal went for naught. The guardian angel, who is actually Satan--Big Surprise!--goes "Ha ha! Fooled you!" Jesus says, "Gee, Father, I really screwed this one up big time. Can I get a mulligan?" God says "Sure, son!" And Jesus ends up back in time and dies on the cross.
Several things ticked me off about the resolution. First of all, the alternate life Jesus got was really pretty shitty. I mean, if you're going to tempt Christ with a fully human life and family, you'd think it ought to be idyllic and happy, rather than filled with death and destruction. A bleak future ain't much enticement, you know? But secondly, and most important in the context of the film and the whole theme of redemption, Jesus doesn't reject the temptation of his own free will. He's badgered by those around him, taunted by Satan and ultimately shamed back onto the cross. I was utterly dumbfounded by the film at this point. For all director Martin Scorsese's stated intent to deconstruct Christianity to better understand his own faith, there is remarkable superficial thinking going on here that betrays the viewer and gives a cheap, path-of-least-resistance finale rather than anything even approaching profound, or even philosophical. I appreciate what was attempted here, I really do, but ultimately ambition is not enough to keep this from being a disappointing, muddled mess.
Now Playing: Buffalo Springfield Retrospective
Thanks for the insights. I've debated all three of these movies, and I'm now probably going to skip them.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I wanted to see TLToC back in 1988, but I was just out of high school, and I would have had to have driven an hour to the Big City, since our small town didn't have an art theater. I mentioned it to my boss at my summer job in construction, and he advised me not to tell Gary that I was even interested in the movie. I think that sort of clinched my decision to skip it at the time.
Of the three, ELI was the most entertaining. There's a twist at the end that stretches credulity a bit, but I can accept due to the "Mission from God" aspect. LEGION is simply awful, even for brain-dead movies of its type, and TLTOC is clearly a swing and a miss. Despite being in development for a decade, I don't think Scorsese really knew what he wanted to do with the film, and it shows.
ReplyDelete