Jerry Frank
4th December 2006, 11:50 AM (11:50)
My wife dragged me to this movie last night. I thought I would offer some comments. This may contain spoilers for some people so stop reading here if you are not looking for honest opinion.
I have read a number of good reviews extolling the high budget and other virtues about this film but tend to be less convinced about its merits than some others.
First of all, if you go with the expectation of experiencing the same kind of drama and emotion as "The Passion", you will be dissappointed. The film is an extravegant version of a typical Christmas play you might see presented by the large church in your nearest city. If you go with the lesser expectation, you will probably be pleased.
Costuming was extravagant and appeared true to life. However, I am not an historical expert so cannot say if that would stand up to close scrutiny. Acting was pretty good with Joseph and Herod being my favouites. Mary seemed rather unemotional throughout, considering the impact of many changes going on in her life thoughout the one year time frame of the film.
High budget? Well, how high is high? I am convinced that the same olive tree grove, with shots from different angles, was used for numerous scenes purportedly in different locations. Some reports I have seen indicated that people were impressed by the artistic background shot of the city of Jerusalem. Not me. Wasn't much more impressive than the backgrounds used in old 1950s films. With the ability to do good quality computer modelling these days, I think it could have looked much better and more realistic.
Representations of the Israeli landscape were the worst. The building of Herod's palace on Masada appears to be taking place on a plain rather than on the top and side of a desolate mountain beside the Dead Sea. As Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth, they pass by the Sea of Galilee. Huh?!?!? The south end of the Sea is due east of Nazareth and Bethlehem due south. No way would they have travelled all that distance east first when other roads would take them directly there. There might be some hilly type mountains and desolate country between Nazareth and Bethlehem but nothing like the steep mountain gorge and wide river which they are shown as crossing. Further, they would have been using well travelled, relatively wide Roman roads rather than the narrow mountain paths depicted in the movie.
Historical accuracy? Not too bad with the exception of course that the wise men arrive at the stable rather than a house. And Joseph and Mary flee directly from the stable to Egypt on the night of Jesus' birth. Both of these are of course typically included in this way in church plays to compress the time. The movie could have taken the time to develop this correctly if they had used less time detailing the trip between Nazareth and Bethlehem. I suppose it is OK that some tradition was used in the making - three wise men with their traditional names. I have no problem with that.
Three scenes which I couldn't figure out. One is on the trip between Nazareth and Bethlehem when the donkey is spooked by a water snake as they cross a river. Joseph saves Mary's life. Where did that come from? Is it by chance in the Apocrypha? The another is a questioning glance between Joseph and a helper as they are building his house. The scene is not just a passing adder. It is clearly thought out and included as part of the story line. Yet it goes unexplained. Was Joseph wondering if this man might be the father of Mary's baby? I don't know. He never makes the accusation. And the third is at the Sea of Galilee where Joseph saves some of his own bread for the trip to feed his donkey. Just seems like a frivolous scene that takes up time with no significance to it.
Just some thoughts. Be nice to hear some other opinions.
Jerry
I have read a number of good reviews extolling the high budget and other virtues about this film but tend to be less convinced about its merits than some others.
First of all, if you go with the expectation of experiencing the same kind of drama and emotion as "The Passion", you will be dissappointed. The film is an extravegant version of a typical Christmas play you might see presented by the large church in your nearest city. If you go with the lesser expectation, you will probably be pleased.
Costuming was extravagant and appeared true to life. However, I am not an historical expert so cannot say if that would stand up to close scrutiny. Acting was pretty good with Joseph and Herod being my favouites. Mary seemed rather unemotional throughout, considering the impact of many changes going on in her life thoughout the one year time frame of the film.
High budget? Well, how high is high? I am convinced that the same olive tree grove, with shots from different angles, was used for numerous scenes purportedly in different locations. Some reports I have seen indicated that people were impressed by the artistic background shot of the city of Jerusalem. Not me. Wasn't much more impressive than the backgrounds used in old 1950s films. With the ability to do good quality computer modelling these days, I think it could have looked much better and more realistic.
Representations of the Israeli landscape were the worst. The building of Herod's palace on Masada appears to be taking place on a plain rather than on the top and side of a desolate mountain beside the Dead Sea. As Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth, they pass by the Sea of Galilee. Huh?!?!? The south end of the Sea is due east of Nazareth and Bethlehem due south. No way would they have travelled all that distance east first when other roads would take them directly there. There might be some hilly type mountains and desolate country between Nazareth and Bethlehem but nothing like the steep mountain gorge and wide river which they are shown as crossing. Further, they would have been using well travelled, relatively wide Roman roads rather than the narrow mountain paths depicted in the movie.
Historical accuracy? Not too bad with the exception of course that the wise men arrive at the stable rather than a house. And Joseph and Mary flee directly from the stable to Egypt on the night of Jesus' birth. Both of these are of course typically included in this way in church plays to compress the time. The movie could have taken the time to develop this correctly if they had used less time detailing the trip between Nazareth and Bethlehem. I suppose it is OK that some tradition was used in the making - three wise men with their traditional names. I have no problem with that.
Three scenes which I couldn't figure out. One is on the trip between Nazareth and Bethlehem when the donkey is spooked by a water snake as they cross a river. Joseph saves Mary's life. Where did that come from? Is it by chance in the Apocrypha? The another is a questioning glance between Joseph and a helper as they are building his house. The scene is not just a passing adder. It is clearly thought out and included as part of the story line. Yet it goes unexplained. Was Joseph wondering if this man might be the father of Mary's baby? I don't know. He never makes the accusation. And the third is at the Sea of Galilee where Joseph saves some of his own bread for the trip to feed his donkey. Just seems like a frivolous scene that takes up time with no significance to it.
Just some thoughts. Be nice to hear some other opinions.
Jerry