ljp-2

I've been reading about and curiously awaiting this film for months, and now that I've finally seen it for myself, I can only say first "what a powerful experience!" and second, "how can so many critics be so wrong?"

I am a Christian, and like Mel Gibson, a Catholic. I share his beliefs about the suffering and death of Jesus. But like the powerful filmmaker he is, he took me to an understanding of that death and what it means for all of us that I never before had, or ever expected to have. I'd like to add that the slanders against against Mel in the press -- that's he's an ultratraditionalist who is anti-Semitic, doesn't accept Vatican II, etc. -- are utterly false. His interview with Diane Sawyer proved that his mind is with the Church (he merely prefers Tridentine-rite Masses as many orthodox Catholics do). His screening of his film for John Paul II proves it. Above all, his film proves it. This is a beautiful, compassionate film brimming with sorrowful love for humanity.

From the very first moments, when I saw the anguished and terrified Jesus weeping in Gethsamane, I was drawn in by the emotion. Jim Caviezel transformed himself so utterly into a first-century Palestinian Jew speaking Aramaic that there was absolutely not disbelief to be suspended -- I was there. I watched his suffering with what felt like a ten-ton weight of sorrow on my chest and often overflowing eyes. The attractive strength and grace this wonderful actor showed in the flashbacks to his preaching and the Last Supper moved me even more for Jesus' sorrows. (I would love to watch him in a film of the complete life of Christ).

And how can I ever forget the heart-wrenching, haunting (and nearly wordless) portrayal of Jesus' mother Mary by Jewish actress Maia Morgenstern? Mary suffers so much with her Son, but she knows why it has to be done. When I heard her say "so be it" to the beginning of the Way of the Cross, I thought back to what C. S. Lewis said -- there must have been a lot of iron as well as gentleness in the Virgin. All the other performances were equally compelling.

The violence was brutal and harrowing, true, but I didn't find it as difficult to watch as I have other violent films (I had to keep my eyes closed during the whole first half hour of "Saving Private Ryan"). Here I was held fast to the screen. I thought: If Jesus suffered this for me, I can certainly bear to watch it. And I did.

The film's reality was amazing. I might quibble with a few historical details, but that is definitely beside the point. Most of all, I admire the way that Mel has understood the meaning of the Passion and not wavered from it. In this film, he couldn't show the whole of the teachings of Christ. He concentrated on the teaching about love. It was done almost entirely through the actions of the characters and a few well-chosen words.

That is why those who say this movie is hate-filled, or will incite anti-Semitism are wrong. Many people, of course, have said that already here. But I don't think anyone has pointed out just how deeply the message of universal love comes through the film. Everyone is lined up on one side or another. Either you love or you do not. Either you show compassion or you do not. Critics are arguing over whether the Jews or the Romans were responsible. They argue whether Pilate is depicted more sympathetically than Caiaphas. This totally misses the point.

There are two very different, but equally horrible, types of guilt here. Caiaphas, the high priest, is depicted as a grim, narrow-minded fanatic, implacably self-righteous. People claim he wasn't seen as being "conflicted" like Pilate. But self-righteous fanaticism isn't very often conflicted (I imagine Osama bin Laden sleeps pretty well nights. His kind always do). But this type of hatred isn't confined to a single time or to one religion. It is with us always. The film does not show the whole Sanhedrin this way, much less the whole Jewish people. Other members of the Sanhedrin protest the unfairness and illegality of the trial. Many ordinary Jews show compassion for Jesus.

Is Pilate conflicted? Sure. He's conflicted over which course of action will best save his own skin. He tells his second-in-command to have Jesus beaten within an inch of his life "but don't kill him." There is no real compassion in this man. Pure political calculation is like that. To underscore this, Gibson has Pilate's wife cut through his self-pitying "what is truth" monologue by saying "if you can't hear truth, no one can tell you." Then she goes out and crosses the racial and social barriers to show compassion to the mother of Jesus. Truth IS compassion.

Racism and hatred are rampant everywhere in this film. And it is significant that the racism is entirely directed by the Romans against the Jews. Pilate complains about the Jews as a smelly rabble he doesn't like or understand, as he stays completely isolated in his palace. When Simon of Cyrene, who is forced by the Romans to help Jesus carry the cross, and who at first doesn't want to get involved, begins to show compassion for Jesus, the Roman soldiers kick him and spit out "Jew" at him.

And the message was carried through to its unbearable but triumphant conclusion. I watched as Jesus was scourged until his back was a bloody pulp. I watched as he said "My heart is ready, Father," and embraced the terrible cross. I watched him forgive his tormenters again and again, and even, when he was almost unable to move because of the pain, crawl to the cross so he could lay his arms be nailed, so we could be saved from our hatred and violence. No, this film does not incite hatred! Jesus even forgives Caiaphas specifically. And how does the fanatic react? Well, it's enigmatic, but -- just watch for yourself.

I think the problem so many secular film critics have is that they are unwilling to face the real cause of violence and hatred, much less face its real cure. They want to dwell on anything but that. They want to have a film with Caiphas and Pilate politely debating politics, because that's what they're comfortable with. They want to argue about who had the most guilt 2,000 years ago, so they can ignore their own. They want the death of Jesus to be about anything but what it really was about -- the reality of sin, especially violence and hatred, and our need to be saved from it. And the hypocritical ranting about violence! The lovers of "Kill Bill" suddenly crying "ICK! Get that blood OFF me!" In fact, the majority of U.S. film critics would get my nomination for Pontius Pilates of the Year. They don't want the blood on them and they wash their hands of this film. But if we truly understand, then like Mary at the foot of the cross, we will embrace not only Jesus, but his saving blood as well.

"Alex and Emma" has nifty opening credits, done in a kind of 1920's art-deco style that mirrored the 1920's story within a story. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. This isn't a bad or reprehensible movie, just a dull, uninspired one.

What went wrong? That's what I kept asking myself all the time I was watching it. Rob Reiner is (or was) a fine director; after all, he made "When Harry Met Sally," the gold standard for romantic comedies. The idea had some promise: a writer's work reflects and is reflected by his real life and love. Usually I really love this type of literary stuff. So why???

Partly the fault lies with the script. Reiner seems to have literally thrown Jeremy Leven's first rough draft up on the screen. The script is so poorly thought out even in its basics that you can't believe any thought was devoted to it.

For instance, if you were a Cuban thug and your only way of getting the money a guy owes your Mafia boss is to make sure your victim gets an advan ce for his book, would the first thing you do really be to destroy the computer he's writing it on? Evidently Cuban thugs aren't very bright (at least not in this movie). Alex's need for a stenographer is unbelievable too. He couldn't ask his editor for the loan of just a few dollars to rent a laptop or at least a typewriter? (Maybe they should have had the thugs break his arm, so he would have to hire a stenographer). And why lie to her right off the bat for no reason -- no reason, that is, except that in a romantic comedy, the guy always lies to the girl? Again, Adam, the lead in the novel that Alex is writing is supposed to be going on vacation to write the great American novel, but we never hear of him writing a word once he gets there.

The general lack of imagination extends to the supposed comic bits, such as Emma being the au pairs of different nationalities, but almost nothing was done with the idea except to have her speak in funny accents for a few seconds for each one.

The flat, uninteresting characterizations are another problem. The ones in the 1920's story are, like the art deco credits, quite literally cartoons. The story within the story, as well as the writer-falls-in-love-with-stenographer idea, was taken from Dostoevsky's "The Gambler," but something sure as heck got lost in translation. Sophie Marceau is wasted in her role.

Alex and Emma themselves are no better. They are tenth-generation copies of the most stereotypical romantic comedy hero and heroine. Alex is your average nice guy, clueless in the generic way about women; Emma is the combination of anal-retentive annoyance and adorable ditz patented by Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally." (Her character is also astonishingly uninformed about the purpose and nature of literature, probably so Alex can explain it to the audience; this doesn't help).

I guess Reiner knows that this has worked before. Maybe that's the problem. Couldn't Alex, as a modern writer, have more edge? A little beard stubble is not enough. And a woman who wants to criticize a man's approach to romance, writing a sex scene, etc., could do much better than Emma does (though Adam's idea of a sex scene for his novel is one of the only vaguely witty bits in the film).

No matter how good the performances were, they couldn't save this movie. Luke Wilson is one of the most uncharismatic actors I know, and he seems barely able to move his body (though he at times has a nice energy with the lines and good comic timing). Kate Hudson at times is radiant, and is perhaps the thing most worth watching in this mess. She tosses off her accents with aplomb too.

But why can't there be a little re-thinking of the romantic comedy? It's getting a real black eye and a bad name it doesn't really deserve, as so many snide comments by guys on this site prove.

And for you guys on imdb who snicker at the very idea of "chick flicks" -- just go watch another movie based on a COMIC BOOK, OK?