The filmmaker proposes to offer the viewer a film in favor of the argument that Jesus might not even have existed (not a new idea, by the way, but one regaining prominence; reference a book like "Christainity and Mythology, by John Robertson, written in 1910).
What we get, however, is something much closer to a PPT slideshow of not very well researched, developed, or presented summaries of facts/arguments making that point. Added into this superficial treatment are mention of various quotations and events of questionable relevance to the topic; and several interviews that don't always give the sense of pushing the thesis forward. All of this gets mashed together with some mildly amusing public-domain Messiah film clips and a second-rate techno soundtrack.
The conclusion of the film, however, is where things really fall apart. The film which pretenses that it will discuss the question of Jesus' existence, ends with a somewhat too-embittered revelation by the filmmaker of his own former Christianity, a lengthy going-on about the doctrines and methods of his former Christain school, and a final, awkward, and just plain ill-executed and rather petulant interview with the director of that school.
(For the record, that school director essentially accuses the filmmaker of being disingenuous right in the middle of the interview. He politely asks to stop tape so he can have a discussion about the possible pretenses of that interview; and he ultimately walks off the camera and refuses to continue or complete the interview. It appears to me than this man was entirely justified in the actions he took; and this part of the film demonstrates that the filmmaker really lacks the essentials of good film-making, interviewing, or even editing.)
The "documentary" feels more like a personal memoir by the end, and thus it fails as a film for being dishonest and incompetent in the area it proclaims to offer the viewer materials for thoughtful consideration. That is too bad; because a healthy and skeptical critique of Christianity is an important thing. It is an idea which is being offered up more and more often by popular culture recently. I believe that is a good thing - it is an overdue response to the bully pulpit that Christianity has enjoyed for a very long time. There is much to say, and much that needs to be said on this subject.
This film, while well-intentioned, is a somewhat sloppy attempt at joining this conversation, and unfortunately might actually serve to provide fuel for the counter-counter arguments, i.e. arguments that serve to attack those who are critiquing Christianity. Sloppy art can only serve to embarrass, and portray those who support it in an unfavorable light.
As a reformed (read: former) xian myself, I can sympathize with the filmmaker's sentiments throughout the film. However, such a clumsy attempt might have been better waited upon, with some more time and thought put into the construction, and decision-making, that went into this film. Of course it is easy for us to say this, as we have not made a film, and this person has. But still, when dealing with such a sensitive and important subject, it is better not to misstep, to be as correct and objective as one can, for all the reasons aforementioned.
There are other and better films that attempt to do the same thing this film does. This film is not to be skipped, but needs to be considered for what it lacks, as well as what it presents.
** One final note, however - the film's discussion of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is spot-on, and I have not heard anyone else say what this filmmaker says about it except myself - that TPotC was a horrible, perverse, completely over-the-top orgy of gratuitous violence, more closely resembling violence-pornography that any sort of sacred story. I, for one, only refer to Mel Gibson's film as "The Snuff Film of the Christ" whenever it comes up. Kudos to this filmmaker for making a point that really doesn't get made as it ought to be. **
What we get, however, is something much closer to a PPT slideshow of not very well researched, developed, or presented summaries of facts/arguments making that point. Added into this superficial treatment are mention of various quotations and events of questionable relevance to the topic; and several interviews that don't always give the sense of pushing the thesis forward. All of this gets mashed together with some mildly amusing public-domain Messiah film clips and a second-rate techno soundtrack.
The conclusion of the film, however, is where things really fall apart. The film which pretenses that it will discuss the question of Jesus' existence, ends with a somewhat too-embittered revelation by the filmmaker of his own former Christianity, a lengthy going-on about the doctrines and methods of his former Christain school, and a final, awkward, and just plain ill-executed and rather petulant interview with the director of that school.
(For the record, that school director essentially accuses the filmmaker of being disingenuous right in the middle of the interview. He politely asks to stop tape so he can have a discussion about the possible pretenses of that interview; and he ultimately walks off the camera and refuses to continue or complete the interview. It appears to me than this man was entirely justified in the actions he took; and this part of the film demonstrates that the filmmaker really lacks the essentials of good film-making, interviewing, or even editing.)
The "documentary" feels more like a personal memoir by the end, and thus it fails as a film for being dishonest and incompetent in the area it proclaims to offer the viewer materials for thoughtful consideration. That is too bad; because a healthy and skeptical critique of Christianity is an important thing. It is an idea which is being offered up more and more often by popular culture recently. I believe that is a good thing - it is an overdue response to the bully pulpit that Christianity has enjoyed for a very long time. There is much to say, and much that needs to be said on this subject.
This film, while well-intentioned, is a somewhat sloppy attempt at joining this conversation, and unfortunately might actually serve to provide fuel for the counter-counter arguments, i.e. arguments that serve to attack those who are critiquing Christianity. Sloppy art can only serve to embarrass, and portray those who support it in an unfavorable light.
As a reformed (read: former) xian myself, I can sympathize with the filmmaker's sentiments throughout the film. However, such a clumsy attempt might have been better waited upon, with some more time and thought put into the construction, and decision-making, that went into this film. Of course it is easy for us to say this, as we have not made a film, and this person has. But still, when dealing with such a sensitive and important subject, it is better not to misstep, to be as correct and objective as one can, for all the reasons aforementioned.
There are other and better films that attempt to do the same thing this film does. This film is not to be skipped, but needs to be considered for what it lacks, as well as what it presents.
** One final note, however - the film's discussion of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is spot-on, and I have not heard anyone else say what this filmmaker says about it except myself - that TPotC was a horrible, perverse, completely over-the-top orgy of gratuitous violence, more closely resembling violence-pornography that any sort of sacred story. I, for one, only refer to Mel Gibson's film as "The Snuff Film of the Christ" whenever it comes up. Kudos to this filmmaker for making a point that really doesn't get made as it ought to be. **