I haven't seen "The Bible" miniseries from which this film was constructed (apparently some scenes from the series were not in the film and vice versa). Nevertheless, the film's lack of focus made it easy to see that it had been cobbled together from preexisting footage. There were even multiple occasions where strangely timed fades to black seemed designed to segue into commerical breaks.
Making a movie about Jesus interesting is a daunting task. Most of the best regarded films that tackle the subject use him as only a peripheral character ("Ben-Hur") or feature a provocative new angle from which to approach the story ("The Last Temptation of Christ"). While the latter film was met with much controversy over the way it chose to depict Jesus and his story, it was not boring. "Son of God" was boring. Incredibly so. After briefly covering his birth, the first half of the film is basically Jesus' Greatest Hits, as he goes around collecting followers and performing miracles. There is no real sense of progression and, even worse, there is no sense of purpose. Why is Jesus gathering disciples? The film never tells us. And why is he successful? As portrayed, he has an excessive, almost lobotomized, calmness to his voice no matter the situation. He has no sense of charisma, most certainly not enough to inspire any followers.
The second half of the film is the lead up to the crucifixion and the event itself. This also runs on for too long. Everyone who goes to see this film already knows the story. "Son of God" has nothing new to say--it is just a bland retelling, going through the motions in obligatory fashion.
Another film, like "On the Waterfront", that I'm not going to spend tons of time discussing, as most everything that is to be said about the film already has been.
I hadn't seen "Rear Window" in several years before catching this screening, and I really had a lot of fun with it. One of its best aspects is that it was interesting and held my attention even before the "real story" began. The film spends a lot of time with set-up, establishing not only the major characters that we as the audience spend our time with, but also the lives of all the people James Stewart's character spends his days watching (incidentally, the voyeuristic appeal of the film helps the audience identify with the lead character, as we join him in his spying). We know that, this being a Hitchcock movie, something sinister will eventually happen, but the characters and their activities are more than enough to maintain interest until that inevitability occurs. And when it does, the time spent getting to know the characters pays off, as we are truly invested in their fates, raising the tension of the climactic scenes.
No comments:
Post a Comment