Jésus de Montréal

Denys Arcand(The Decline of the American Empire,1986; Love and Human Remains,1993), a founder of Canada's National Film Board, creates a contemporary passion play in the metropolitan streets of Montreal. His satirical look at the meaning of art and religion and the integrity of performing artists themselves is both poignant and insightful while at the same time humourous. This film is rarely trite or predictable, taking the viewer on a powerful journey which explores personal morality and realistic and idealistic conventions of Christianity. Jesus de Montreal is successful on many levels, from biblical parallels to Christ's own legendary life to the challenging views on religion adopted by many people today. Set in the Catholic stronghold of French-Canadian Society, Jesus de Montreal questions the relevance of spirituality in a society dominated by scientific dogma and material competitiveness.

A priest in a large Catholic church in Montreal thinks the church's annual passion play is getting stale and needs updating. He hires Daniel, an actor, to accomplish this task. Daniel takes his assignment seriously, thinking and studying and putting together a cast of talented actors. The quest for the cast is quite humorous - one actor is dubbing an adult movie, another is appearing in a perfume ad (where she is seen walking on water), and so forth. The actors indeed come up with a play that has the play's audience moving from location to location for the performance of each station.

The passion play performed in this movie gave me a better appreciation and understanding of the power and significance of the Jesus myth than anything I have ever read or seen. As a lifelong atheist I can say it is wonderful. Lothaire Bluteau gives a powerful (even passionate?) performance as Jesus.

I was uncertain where "Jesus of Montreal" was going after the performance of the passion play. But that is where things really got interesting. Performing the play has had a marked effect on the cast and Daniel's life starts to take on certain aspects of the life of Christ. Director/writer Denys Arcand is clever in the way he presents the parallels.

Daniel is tempted by a publicist who tells him he can make him rich and famous and details some of the techniques. One suggestion is that Daniel write a book, and when Daniel says he doesn't have anything to say the publicist retorts, "Some ways of saying nothing go over so well. Think of Ronald Reagan." And there are plenty of writers who could write the book and, at the least, Daniel could publish a cookbook, since they always sell.

There is a parallel to Christ's running the moneychangers out of the temple, healing the sick, and even the crucifixion. The play is too avant-garde for the Church and they try to shut it down - refusing to desist Daniel is arrested in the middle of the play while he is on the cross. The movie is filled with such pointed commentary.

In passing Arcand touches on the deficiencies of the Canadian health care system (an emergency patient is told to take number forty-eight and wait in line), a topic that he would expand on in "The Barbarian Invasions." As a subtle commentary in the context of the story, Saint Mark's Hospital is seen as hopelessly chaotic whereas the Jewish hospital is shown as professional and efficient.

As Daniel and his troupe of actors take on more and more of a modern day version of Jesus and his disciples the question arises as to what the reaction would be to Jesus in our modern society. The answer seems to be that he would be regarded as a nut case except by the few who knew him closely and identified with his message.

Arcand's talents as a director are not to be underestimated. The staging of the passion play is beautifully done and some of the camera angles used in the church scenes are very creative. As in other Arcand films he uses music by Francois Dompierre mixed with some classical compositions (in this case Pergolesi) to great effect.

I came to this movie after having seen and enjoyed Arcand's "The Decline of the American Empire" and "The Barbarian Invasions." After now having seen "Jesus of Montreal," I think I can say I am an Arcand fan.

This is a clever, humorous, satiric, and absorbing film.

What if Jesus had been born in the year 1970 instead of year 1, and as unheralded now as He was then- how would our society have dealt with Him?

And if people can get possessed by the Devil, can a regular guy -- not a nut or a fraud -- become gradually and genuinely possessed by Jesus?

Denys Arcand answers both questions in clever and entertaining fashion. With actual events, people, words and thoughts from Jesus' life being transposed to our modern times. Of course a movie like this is aimed at people who don't turn both their brain cells off as they enter the movie house, and won't be happy with 90 minutes of gunshots, car chases, or Jesus being whipped.

And yet this highly hypothetical parable still comes off as a plausible dramatic tale, with the usual Arcand mix of tragedy and comedy. You could have never heard of Jesus and still enjoy this movie.

The cinematography is gorgeous and the main actors are uniformly excellent. Some of the minor characters bother me intensely, which they are meant to do -- they're just too darn good at it.

The script and direction are nicely conventional - in the sense that at no time does the viewer wonder who that guy is or what the heck is going on. Jarring "artsy" cuts, unannounced flashbacks and weird camera angles are many critics' cup of tea but not mine, and thankfully, not Arcand's either.

There is quite a bit of tension-relieving slapstick in this story; some viewers may like it- it *is* funny, but it makes me uncomfortable at times. And the ending is a bit of an anticlimax, although at the second viewing I think I began to see the light.

I originally rated this movie 8/10, but after seeing it again I got more in tune with it and also noticed a few very clever details, so I'm upping it to 9/10. Maybe 10/10 when I see it next.

"Jesus of Montreal" is one of my two favorite films...it's tough for me to decide on one or the other (the other is "With Honors"), but it's one or two. This film has meant so much to me over the years, with its simple, powerful messages of artistic freedom, personal redemption, perseverance during a personal quest...and how heartbreaking the world, and reality, can be.

The male lead has a beautiful Zen-like quality about him during this film...meaning the character as well as the actor. I'd love to see more of his work.

I can only watch this movie once in a while, as it moves me to tears too easily. It's very funny in places, too.

This film was utterly astonishing. It was one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Every word, every action and every track of music that was played was completely appropriate. It really gave me, and I'm sure, all of it's other audiences, something worth thinking about regarding modern religion's morals and even hypocrisy. The film,to me, was like three revolutionary religious ideas in one. First, there was the actual Passion story that caused a stir in it's time, secondly the much disputed portrayal of the Passion performed by the actors, which is what the film basically revolves around, as well as the actual film itself. All three stories, incredibly similar in their own way, are not against religion but simply point out the irrationalities and stupidity of organized religion of the past and of the present. It was a truly wonderful film, and I recommend it to all who are willing to sit down for a couple of hours and be completely absorbed in a very intense yet delicately put together film. The film was one of the most clever I have ever seen.