You know, I don't know why but I seem to be a little put off by the prospect of watching the new movie "Son of God". And I'm not sure I know the exact reason why. Sure, there was no way I was going to catch it during the initial release when I knew the parking lot would be filled with church busses transporting who-knows-how-many devoted followers eager to hear/see the story told yet again through the lens of a different director/producer/et. al. Not that I have a problem with most devotees so much as I hate a crowded theater. Even if I were the only one there, the fact of the matter is that it IS a theater.
Theaters are where I go to be entertained. Of course there are numerous moral lessons to be gleaned from practically any movie. It's the nature of the "story" to have moral to it. But the gospel isn't something you go to for entertainment. In the grand sense it IS a "story", but should it be presented as that and nothing more? And if it IS presented as "something more", is the theater the place to do it?
I remember when "The Passion of the Christ" was in theaters. Even the most god-hating atheist would have to admit that it's an incredibly powerful film. It's too visceral and evokes sympathy, you cannot remain unmoved. In my work at the time I had occasion to see it not once, but twice. The second time I had a completely different reaction. It was like watching a collaboration between George Romero, Quentin Tarrantino and Ron Howard. All I could think was "what am I doing watching this level of violence in a theater? What am I getting from it? Is it packing a more brutal punch than it would had I only read about it?" And the biggest question of all, "what's the point?" Indeed, what's the point.
Evangelism? Okay, fine. It's certainly not the medium I would use, but I'm not out there waving bibles so I don't know. It would, however, explain why there are so many Christians in the USA who think Jesus looks like Jim Cavaziel. (that's a joke). If someone had come up to me after I'd seen "The Passion" and tried to use the movie as a springboard for whatever message they were selling I would brush them off with contempt. Who are you to exploit my emotions and assume you have all the answers to any questions I might have had about what I've just seen in the film? Surely a Cinema Center conversion must be difficult to maintain.
Viewing "The Passion" twice made me consider the reasons I wanted to watch it in the first place. "It's so historically accurate", they say, "the actors even speak in Arabic!". That's nice and intersting, but I don't think it would make me want to buy a ticket. "Oh, but the acting is first rate, and the cinematography so realistic!" Ah, yes, but that should be the state of any good movie. "It sticks pretty close to the actual biblical account!" I guess that seperates it from "Jesus Christ Superstar", but I'll bet there are no rock songs... "But..." and? "But"...and? "But.............
"But it has the most REALISTIC DEPICTION OF JESUS' SUFFERINGS AND CRUCIFIXION"........okay, now I'm intrigued. Now I'm in line at the box office. No, I'm not a sucker for gratuitous violence. I've seen my share of blood in the movies. Somehow it's different when the subject matter is so controversial. As much as I want to deny it, I sat in that theater because I wanted to cringe when the whip tore the flesh. I wanted to jump when the first nail was driven into his hand. I wanted to cover my eyes when the Roman soldier thrust the spear into his side. But most of all I wanted to walk out of those theater doors and be able to join the chorus, "Man, that was the most realistic depiction of the crucifixion I've ever seen!" And I KNOW I'm not the only one. I may be one of the few who will ADMIT it, but I would bet there are many, many, many whose primary reason for watching it was to see a man get flogged, beaten and nailed to a cross...not unlike the people who lined the road to Calvary back when it was all going down.
Then again I expect the sadistic element in "Son of God" will be played down if for no other reason than because of time restrictions. Not saying it will be less powerful or gruesome. But the effect of maybe a ten or twenty minutes given to the Stations of the Cross will surely be less of a blow to the senses than Mel Gibson's two hour marathon.
I don't need to see the crucifixion. I don't want to see it. There's nothing they could present, with all their CGI and method acting degrees that could make it appear any more graphic and upsetting as it already does in my mind. I don't want to see Jesus walking on the water because it will look like a really unconvincing magic trick next to the incredible vision that's in my mind. Speaking of magic tricks, how are you going to make the feeding of the 5,000 look like anything more than a parlour stunt on film? And yet for me it is one of the most amazing miracles. In my imagination I can almost see Jesus gathering those fishes and loaves as they seem to manifest from another dimension.
Any movie about God...any movie about Jesus...is going to be a letdown. It's going to be a waste of money. Like watching Justin Bieber in the lead role of a John Lennon biopic. Like One Direction headlining a Joy Division tribute show. Like Honey BooBoo on the Board of Education. It's not going to tell you anything you didn't already know. It's not going to provide any context with which you can formulate your own understanding of the material.
So I have to face it. As far as I'm concerned it's a fact. "Son of God" is entertainment. Plain and simple. As such it cheapens the original, which I think we can all agree was not written for such meager purpose. I think that's the core of why I'm not so psyched to watch it. I'm not saying I WON'T eventually go. Who knows, I might go see it tomorrow night in lieu of church services. Which is a funny joke, at least I think so, until you realize that there are probably thousands of people who actually did just that last week.
By now the crowds have dwindled down, who knows but I might get bored between now and "Son of God" closes.
No comments:
Post a Comment