Jesus of Montreal (1989)

Nice effects though.

Am I Missing Something?

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I had been impressed by this on first viewing (despite its being in French only), watched on another Good Friday several years ago; a second look (and the benefit of English subtitles) only reinforces its inherent quality. This is an absorbing, original, savage, funny, and frequently stunning piece of work - although, in view of its subject matter, it does have the occasional heavy-going passage. In fact, Jesus OF MONTREAL was expected to emerge victorious at that year's Academy Awards as the Best Foreign Language Film: facing stiff competition from the likes of CAMILLE CLAUDEL (1988) and CINEMA PARADISO (1989), the honor was eventually bestowed on the latter - a nostalgia piece with child interest, it was an altogether safer bet (though I've yet to catch the film in its entirety myself!)...Despite their over-familiarity, the 'Passion Play' sequences are quite powerful - thanks also to excellent performances all around. Lothaire Bluteau is quietly impressive in the demanding central role (of an actor who eventually goes mad from playing Christ!); incidentally, he followed this with another spiritual film - BLACK ROBE (1991). Arcand seems to be one of the most interesting auteurs around, as the only other film of his that I've watched - THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS (2004; which did win him an Oscar) - is also superb (apart from being equally thought-provoking and controversial). Speaking of which, I find Jesus OF MONTREAL to be superior to that other notorious Christ-movie of the day - Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF Christ (1988)...

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.

I first saw this film maybe fifteen years ago, and it had a profound impact. The plot is not original: an actor is recruited by a church to play Jesus in a Passion play, and as he works himself into the part, he becomes increasingly Christ-like. (Nicos Kazantzakis took a similar line in his novel 'Christ Recrucified.') However, its modern-day setting and iconoclastic approach mean that 'Jesus of Montreal' really does have a flavour all of its own.The church that has recruited him in the first place becomes alarmed at the radical interpretation he and his carefully-picked cast give the Passion narrative, and nervous at the hit they have on their hands. The parallels between Christ's life and that of the young hero become closer and closer, when he destroys the equipment a set of a morally bankrupt advertising agency (a la Jesus throwing out the money-makers from the Temple.) The film is packed with humour: the lead actor is interrogated and then arrested by the local police at whilst still on the cross.So does the Resurrection happen too? In a way it does. Our hero dies, crushed by the weight of the cross during a performance. Tragic, but there is a kind of redemption in that his youth makes his organs highly desirable. The film shows the beneficiaries of his death, a woman given sight with a new retina, a man walking with a new heart, and a boy given a new kidney. A situation turned inside out, just as in the actual Easter story.

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.