If SON OF GOD looks familiar, its because its derived from The History Channels series, The Bible. Producer Roma Downey (who plays Jesus mother in the series and the film) and her producing partner and husband, Mike Burnett, wanted audiences to have the shared experience of seeing the story on the big screen. Ordinarily this would not bode well for a theatrical release, recutting several episodes of the series into a film using existing footage, and some from the cutting room floor, but that is not the case here. There are a few obvious flaws, the story is more episodic than it should be, with Jesus going from birth directly to his ministry, and the panoramic views of ancient Jerusalem are noticeably hinky, but the film itself, even for this Jewish reviewer, is a refreshingly non-dogmatic iteration of the Gospel of John, focusing less on blame and more on the human reaction to radical change. It is, in fact, a wonderfully accessible story about the triumph of both fear and of hope, and for that the filmmakers are to be commended. It is worth noting, though, that the scenes of Satan have been excised, either for time, or for the controversy of the actor playing him bearing a putative resemblance to Barack Obama is never stated,
Their Jesus (Diogo Morgado) is also wonderfully accessible. This is a Jesus who not just charismatic and compelling, he is also warm, palpably compassionate, and wears a face that smiles even when his lips dont. He is the essence of a serene sort of joy, the which he wants to share with the world, and a robust figure who strides through the world with purpose. In a country and time when life is a struggle even without the Romans oppressing the population, it is easy to see why he would gather followers, and be treated like a rock star by crowds clamoring to see and hear him.
None of this sits well with the established orthodoxy of the Pharisees, and this is another instance of where the film, while remaining true to the gospel on which it is based, digs deeper, showing an all too human failing in an establishment that fears change. In this case not just the loss of its authority, but the simmering revolt Jesus unintentionally inspires against the Romans that will, without question, bring down the wrath of Caesar in the form of his governor, Pontius Pilate. As for Pilate, he cant afford a revolt, which would be viewed by Caesar as another failure, and failing Caesar is almost always fatal.
What results is less finger-pointing at who is responsible for sending Jesus to the cross, as it is a rather sophisticated examination of the dangerous game of realpolitik before that term was coined. What is most striking about this telling is that no one responsible for it is happy about the execution itself, only relieved at having solved a problem. In other words, it was nothing personal.
Is this as blasphemy? That is not for me to say.
SON OF GOD also eschews melodrama of any kind. Having been made for television, it uses wide vistas sparingly, instead focusing on faces, all of which are superbly cast, from xxx, whose face is like a sour apple, to Caiaphas (Adrian Schiller), whose expression and demeanor bespeaks a man worn down by both bureaucracy and keeping his people safe, or at least safer, from the Romans. It makes for an intimate film, with even the miracles done with an emphasis on the emotional impact rather than the special effects. As for the passion of the Christ, it is made all the more visceral by the sparing use of gruesome details. As we learned from Mel Gibsons film of this portion of the Jesus story, prolonged exposure to suffering and gore has the effect of inuring the viewer to what is happening on screen, thereby losing its intended impact.
For me, the pinnacle of Jesus films was Zefferellis superb mini-series. Artistically it was impeccable, but SON OF GOD has some of the same resonances, including set pieces, particularly the pieta, that are wonderfully rendered with the same aesthetic spirit. It may, however, edge out Zefferelli in one respect, this version is suitably reverent, but not at all stuffy. The characters here are vibrant and passionate, yet always undeniably real, right down to their dirty fingernails.
Your Thoughts?