A Short Review by Paul Collander: Last Friday evening, I watched the premiere of Roma Downey and Mark Burnetts Son of God. The short review: awful. I mean, just awful. In fact, there is no need for a spoiler alert because the film itself is actually its own spoiler. Suffering through “Son of God” makes me even more appreciative of the cinematic achievements of both Franco Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and George Stevens in “The Greatest Story Ever Told”. But the real problem of this film is not behind the camera. While no film will ever do justice to the God of Scripture (how could it?), Downey and Burnett’s movie really “misses the mark” through its inaccurate portrayal of the gospel accounts of Christ. I doubt that this poor gospel adaptation to the big screen will improve with time among Christians who are well-versed in the biblical narratives. Son of God is a poorly directed, poorly edited, poorly cast film. But even worse, it is a loose (and often blatantly unscriptural) adaptation of the biblical scriptures. While no two-hour film can include all the material from the gospel narratives (and there are many scenes from Christs life that are sadly missing in the film), the failure of this film production isnt the limited scope of gospel content but rather the quality of content presented. The core problem with “Son of God” is theological: Catholics simply give as much weight, or more, to the traditions of their Church in comparison to that given to Holy Scripture and this tension is evident throughout the film. Such a bifurcation of tradition and scripture leads of necessity to a reinterpretation of a gospel narrative frequently unmoored from the biblical text. Therefore, it no surprise that “Son of God”, a Catholic-produced and scripted film, produces a Jesus story that is selectively edited and scripted to balance the demands of RCC tradition with the frequently irreconcilable claims of the biblical text itself. Matters of creative license aside, “Son of God” proves to be a triumph of liberal biblical hermeneutics instead of a faithful film adaptation of Jesus Christ and the gospel. The positives: this movie attracted publicity attention both in the movie industry and worldwide and put “Jesus” on the lips and minds of many, but hopefully in their hearts as well. There are some moving scenes in the film: my favorite scene is the call of Matthew, which was done very well (except for the Scripture twisting at the end of the Luke 18 parable--more later). The flogging of Jesus, while avoiding the vividness of Gibson’s film, appropriately did not shy away from our inhuman torture of the Messiah. Roma Downey’s tears and crippling grief as she watched the final hours of her son’s life gave the audience a powerful image of the Mother of God (so too did the ubiquitous Catholic-inspired blue mantle of Mary). The opening and closing scenes with the apostle John were also rendered well, and Pilate is faithfully rendered as the ruthless man the gospels attest to. But not all that glitters is gold. The disciples were simple backdrops while Pilate’s wife enjoyed a surprising length of screen time. The story line was disjointed (eg. Nicodemus here approaches Jesus on the day of his death and not at the beginning of his ministry per John’s account) and the film lacked a narrative flow. Scenes tended to be standalones without the backbone of a progressing gospel narrative. Peter walks on water, fails, wakes up. Scene cut, new setting. Clear references to the time of day in the gospel were discarded---Nicodemus approaching at “night”, Peter’s denials before “dawn”, and Mary’s trip to the tomb at “early dawn” all morphed into high noon in the film! I don’t mind that the producers left Satan out of the script as much as I mind they left important biblical words like repent and justified out of the script. The tax collector from Luke 18 didnt return home blessed; Scripture says that he returned home justified. Miracles and signs in “Son of God” eclipse the preaching the Word. Even the wind in the John 3 discourse with Nicodemus is miraculously created at that moment to make Jesus’s point. And heaven forbid the “Son of God” actually offend Nicodemus! This Jesus only offends the bad characters on screen—certainly not sinners like you or me. There are many theological blunders which jump out at the alert viewer but I’ll just mention a couple of the worst: Jesus didnt stare into a bowl at the Last Supper and only at that moment realize that Judas was going to betray him; the Bible says clearly that Jesus knew from the beginning who was to betray him (John 6:64). In fact, this is a Jesus who is constantly surprised. Surprised to find large crowds waiting for him, surprised they want to make him king, surprised to learn Lazarus has died (he’s even a bit surprised that he in fact succeeded in raising Lazarus from the dead!), surprised to hear John the Baptist has been killed, surprised to learn Judas has betrayed him---all through the movie, Jesus seems to be taken aback by events instead of in control of them. This is a Jesus being swept along with the tide of history instead of fulfilling the plan of God. The person who climbs into Peter’s boat in the beginning of the film resembles more Joel Osteen than Jesus. Jesus-Osteen came to “change” Peter’s life, but not make him a fisher of men. Subsequent loose handling of Scripture will practically make Peter into the Pope on resurrection Sunday. And whether you call it “artistic license” or plain old “Mariology”, the perpetually virgin mother of Jesus (Satan wasn’t the only figure conspicuously missing on screen) can be seen hoisting the cross for a fallen Jesus via Crucis. More disturbing was the gleeful, not prophetic and somber, Jesus who poked a little girl’s stomach and happily exclaimed that “not one rock will be left standing” of the Temple. Aside from Judas’s bad teeth, the betrayer of Christ gets pretty sympathetic treatment as well. Casting, direction, and artistic vision aside, the real reason that “Son of God” fails as a film and as a reliable portrayal of the gospel narratives is because its producers and script writers didn’t adhere closely enough to the text and context of Scripture. For Protestants who are historically enjoined to struggle with the text, to read and study and believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”, the loose handling of the gospel text in this film is both alarmingly apparent and regrettable. Morgado’s Jesus says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life”, but he stops short of telling his disciples that “no one comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.” For a film whose core audience embraces Mary as Co-Redemptrix and believes in praying to innumerable patron saints, this Scriptural omission is understandable, but transparently self-serving nonetheless. My advice to the faithful: Spend a few hours reading the Biblical gospels instead of going to see this film; the time spent will be far more profitable to you.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:25:29 +0000