The Body

This year we have been inundated with childish air-headed teen flicks! This movie doesn't "gross you out", or special effect you to death!! It tells a simple story with simple characters searching for answers to some very complex questions. Well acted, but poorly directed and edited. It has many flaws, but it is nice to see an adult film that doesn't insult your intelligence. It does not answer many questions, but does make you ask several of yourself.

The premise of this movie seemed interesting enough, although to some, it might be blasphemy. What if one day, the body (or rather, skeletal remains) of Christ was discovered in a similarly described tomb, with tell tale signs of the crucification, the spear wound, injuries inflicted by the crown of thorns, and the tomb dating back to 1 AD? This film looks at the possible destruction of the faith which hinges on the one man's resurrection as God. Olivia Williams plays an Israeli Sharon Golban, who discovers this body in a tomb she excavates. Suspecting she could be on to something big, she calls for a priest to confirm her suspicion. Soon, word gets around, rumours get spread. The Vatican dispatches one of their priests, Father Gutierrez (played by Antonio Banderas), and ex-military intelligence officer, to investigate and proof or disproof the claim.

While science points to the fact that the body may be that of Christ, it gives a chilling insight into what could make, or break, a religion. Is it blind faith that keeps it going, even if there should come a day when science can ultimately disproof certain theories and events? Here, discovering that body has serious implications because of the repercussions that the major event in Christ's life have on Christians. But what diluted this film from its primary premise is the introduction of Hollywood subplots to jazz up production, like having the Vatican embroiled in political intrigue, and having terrorist organizations taking an interest in the findings as well.

It's a relatively low budgeted production, but one which raised thought provoking questions even if the delivery somehow got distracted in attempts to become a bigger movie in terms of action sequences. I think this film probably would be a good prologue to the controversies that surround next year's Da Vinci Code.

Code 1 DVD contains "special features", but nothing out of the ordinary besides the usual trailers, audio, and scene selections.

Once again Antonio Banderas shows us he can act well. I mark the film 9 out of 10, especially given the risks run by all those involved in making this film on site, in Jerusalem. I am staggered that the film could be made in Jerusalem at all, with all the differing Christian, Jewish and Palestinian groups and splinter groups so well depicted, if fictionalised in their representation. The violent scenes may not drip the blood of a Tarantino movie but it is enough to convey the "to the death" intolerance of each other that so shamefully characterise so many of these groups and splinter groups today. The actors and the script show the intensity of so many who refuse to acknowledge/accept the rights of the others - to their differing faith, or even to exist. The film brilliantly reminds us of how these groups and splinter groups lose sight of the essential truth of their own faith/belief system in their violent intolerance of the other. This is the key to facing the stark reality of the intractability of the various players in the Middle East which the film so well depicts. Especially it underlines these groups and splinter groups' willingness to misuse/abuse: the innocent trying simply to live peacefully with their families; the combatants' own faith/followers; as well as that of those they oppose. The tragedy of the Middle East is that, I believe, the same fate would befall the ancient prophets of these faiths, were they alive today, as befell them centuries/millennia ago. The religiously-intolerant attacks by some on this film simply demonstrate how correct this belief is. The actors, film director and all those others involved in making this film deserve congratulations for their courage in making it on site - despite the risks to themselves from the intolerant.

Greyollie, Canberra, Australia.

Well, an Israeli widow, Olivia Williams, uncovers a hidden tomb in Jerusalem, and there is some suggestion that it might be that of Christ. This causes a considerable stir in the Vatican because, after all, Christ's body shouldn't be there unless he was an ordinary man. So they send Father Antonio Banderas down there to investigate, telling him ahead of time, so that he doesn't misunderstand his mission, that "the body is not that of Christ."

Banderas and Williams form at first a kind of mismatched cop/buddy team, he instense and inhibited, she breezily outgoing and scientific. But they soon run into trouble that pulls them together in their goals. I admit I didn't understand all of the reasons why so many groups wanted to interfere with the investigation or to exploit the find for political purposes. The first trouble they run into is an orthodox Jewish sect whose members bombard them with rocks and steal an important artifact. Then there is the leader of a Palestinian group, the PLO, I mean the FLP, or rather the PDQ. He wants his henchmen to get their hands on the bones. I forget why but I'm sure the purpose is nefarious. You can tell because he's got a face on him like the assassin in Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much." And you can identify his thugs when you see them because they're all swarthier than everybody else. The head Israeli honcho in this business, Shrapnel, informs the Vatican that as soon as Jerusalem is recognized as the sole capital of a united country, the bones will be released. (I understood that.) This all leads to a final semi-violent confrontation between the PDQ leader and the priest, in which the latter is wounded and the former is blown to smithereens. Oh, that reminds me, there is some comic relief from a sloppy young Irish priest who is a computer hacker. The question of whose body it is, is resolved at the end, but nobody in the movie finds out about it, only the viewer. Father Banderas resigns his commission and decides to follow God in his own way. He writes a very nice letter to Williams, but the movie stops short of having them fall into each other's arms. Let's not disturb anybody by raising REAL problems. (Are we going to observe Shabbat? How are we going to raise the kids?)

The photography is okay, and it's an interesting exploration of modern Israel and the political and ethnic maelstrom that it is, while at the same time much less didactic than "Exodus," which might have been called "Zionism for Dummies." The acting is better than one might expect. Antonio Banderas has a sympatico appearance. He exudes sincerity in this part. And he's not a bad actor, the kind of ordinary man who engages us without being particularly glamorous, the way some European actors like Jean-Louis Trintignant or Jean Moreau do. Olivia Williams isn't quite as convincing but she is very sexy and appealing, and looks the part of a 30-ish practical-minded Israeli woman, worn but warm. She almost, but not quite, gives Banderas some chicken soup one night. The musical score sounds like it's from a stock library somewhere, from a file labeled "Suspense music." Shrapnel looks the part of the Israeli honcho too. He sounds uncannily like Paul Stewart.

This isn't a puzzle that I find particularly interesting, although I don't know why. Religious belief leads so regularly to violence and intrigue. But I don't really think that if a body were positively identified as Christ's it would change things very much. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that, if anything, it would strengthen our beliefs in some way. (Cf., "When Prophecy Fails.") The problem would at least be papered over somehow. I'm happy that I watched it, I suppose, if only because of Olivia Williams and Antonio Banderas, both of whom are worth watching, for somewhat different reasons, but in fact I did spend two hours following this complicated story and may just be reducing post-decision dissonance.

For a Christian, the main interest is about the question. The doubt. The Resurrection as root of his faith. And, in this sense, the film does a well job. Because, it propose a clash, proofs from a tomb, expectations and, without be the most ispired constructed, the end is the only reasonable. A film proposing a challenge. Not in the best form but acceptable.