Jesus of Montreal

While watching Denys Arcand’s absorbing 1989 film Jesus of Montreal again, I wondered (again) how true Arcand’s contention was, that the crucifixion had to happen, that Jesus would always be rejected, in any time and place he showed himself. That somewhere in the world he is being rejected right now.

The plot

If you’ve seen the film skip the next five paragraphs. For those unfamiliar with the film, it is set in 1989 Montreal, Quebec and tells of an actor returned from abroad, Daniel (Lothaire Bluteau), who is asked by a parish priest to revise a passion play popular for many years with the faithful. He assembles a cast and researches his text.

René, Constance, Daniel, Mireille and Martin

Daniel finds his cast from many sources. Martin (Rémy Girard) is a pornographer who takes on an apostle’s role. Mireille (Catherine Wilkening) works in the exploitative advertising industry as a model. She is cast as Mary Magdalene. René (Robert Lepage) is an actor doing voice-overs. He becomes an apostle. Constance (Johanne-Marie Tremblay) is the parish priest’s mistress. She plays the part of Mary, Jesus’ mother.

Daniel finds that modern archaeology and biblical studies can find no definitive evidence of the existence of Jesus, but can confirm ancient beliefs about him. His play, which consists of the stations of the cross staged in church grounds, is interpolated with exhortations to the audience taken from the Gospels, and interpretations of the story taken from modern researches.

The play is outstandingly successful, but it alarms the Catholic hierarchy by its heterodoxy and is eventually banned. Following an incident in which Daniel overturns tables and damages equipment at an advertising sketch rehearsal during which the director insults Mireille, he is arrested and arraigned for trial while on the cross during the play’s last performance. The audience go to his defence, there’s a scuffle, and Daniel is hit on the head by the heavy crosspiece.

Rushed to hospital with severe concussion, Daniel regains consciousness and leaves, only to begin to act erratically on the underground, earnestly admonishing those waiting for a train with precepts from the Gospels. He collapses, cannot get attention at the Catholic hospital and is sent instead to the Jewish one, where he arrives too late to be saved. His organs are donated and save many patients, and his acting group resolve to continue to perform in the way he has shown. A financial manager explains how they can make a fortune and gain extensive publicity by following his advice. The film ends at this ambiguous point.

The first century

As far as we can understand Jesus he was a revisionist who attacked many traditional Jewish beliefs and rituals, and demanded total spiritual commitment. You have to remember he lived before the movement begun by Paul of Tarsus which produced the New Testament, and many miles away from it.

In Jesus’ day Rome was the enemy of Jerusalem, and there had been many insurrections by the Jews. Now there was an uneasy peace. Trying to keep that peace were the Temple priests, the Sadducees. Temple worship and the offering of a continuous sacrifice to god was a reminder of god’s covenant with Moses, and the Sadducees were dedicated to its continuance, even at the cost of some compromise.

Not all Jews felt the same way. A terrorist organisation called the Zealots waged guerrilla warfare against Rome, and their murders had to be explained away. A non conformist group called the Essenes lived apart, and expected the coming end of the world and final judgment. A popular preaching group called the Pharisees de-emphasised the ancient rituals and tried to make traditional teachings more understandable to the unlearned through parables. John the Baptist had a large following through his reformist forgiveness of sin through baptism rite.

And now here was Jesus with teachings from several of these groups, whose fervency had attracted huge crowds. The people were gathered in an uncertain temper at Jerusalem for Passover. Any of these groups could cause a riot and another clash with Rome.

And that’s what happened eventually. Jesus was crucified, the Romans were made to feel they were in control, but then came another insurrection, and the Romans retaliated by wiping Jerusalem from the earth, as they had Carthage. Gone were the Sadducees and the Temple, the Essenes, the Baptist’s followers, the Jewish followers of Jesus and many of the Pharisees. What was left were the Jews of the Diaspora, many in Alexandria, who began work compiling the Jewish scriptures. While over in Greece the breakaway movement of Paul of Tarsus, who thought Jesus’ message was for both Jew and Gentile, began work compiling what would become the New Testament.

The situation

In the first century you had an unstable political situation, even though the sides were unevenly matched. On one side a monolithic empire with overwhelming firepower, on the other a dependant theocracy riven by factionalism. Any of these factions could destabilise the weaker side, leading to a destructive confrontation with the super power of the day. What Jesus taught wasn’t in the least political except that it devalued political power and substituted spiritual concerns. But it was enough to bring the factional house of cards down. The result was not just war but annihilation. In the process Jesus was killed.

In the 21st century we have an uneasy balance of power between three powerful countries and their subject states and dependant allies. Economic forces are weakening these powers, and environmental changes may soon destroy some of their bases of power. At the same time increase of world population has led to the introduction of restrictive techniques of managed famines and obsessive consumerism. Opinions are divided, not between sects, but between those who deny any crisis, militant supporters of outmoded state doctrine, and those whose concern verges on paranoia. Many think their beliefs will protect them from all problems, just as the Churches believe they give comfort to millions (first having made these fearful).

If there were a man like Jesus today, who demanded integrity, honesty and commitment to spiritual values, even prophesied the end of the world; if the situation in which he taught these things was desperate, and attracted many followers, how would established factions react? After all, it’s confrontational to tell someone to concentrate on spiritual values they’ve been avoiding, and to abandon the little defences they’ve been clinging to, assets and liabilities, possessions and neuroses they don’t really need. People so treated often run for cover: especially when the cover is power. This situation is a constant in human history.

The film

Arcand is not just a talented film maker, but a great writer. His scripts for Jesus of Montreal, The Decline of the American Empire and The Barbarian Invasions are masterpieces of satire and characterisation.

When Daniel recruits the pornographer we see an extended scene of a film being dubbed. The absurdity of filming sex, not participating in it, is depicted by the ridiculous dialogue. Later in the film Arcand shows a savage indictment of the Canadian hospital system, with overcrowded wards and harassed staff, and people dying in emergency care. Towards the end Arcand gives a witty parody of acting styles when the unwilling group of actors are asked to go back to the old script of the passion play. Although these pieces are integral to the film’s plot, they show Arcand’s satirical and political concerns clearly.

But the outstanding aspect of the film are the extraordinary performances of the five actors taking part in the passion play. These are all nuanced portraits. Martin for example is equally cynical as pornographer and as apostle, to quite different effect. René’s love of theatre, stifled by doing voice-over, results in a ludicrous recital of parts of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy at the empty tomb of Jesus which is also somehow apt.

Those who know the Gospels can deconstruct the film’s parallels, which are close but not exact.

Daniel (Lothaire Bluteau)

But it is Daniel’s haunted recital of Jesus’ sayings, especially in a great set piece in a rail underground station, that bring home the film’s main point: we all need a Jesus, and need him desperately, and never have we been further from him. We seem programmed to kill Jesus. Instead of solving a problem by listening to his message, we add to our problems by denying him. By ‘Jesus’ I mean the exercise of our spiritual facilities. Bluteau is impressive as the actor who gives of himself so completely to his role that he keeps giving, to everyone, becoming Jesus and of course proving unequal to the role and dying.

The film has a magnificent soundtrack. I especially liked Le Mystere Des Voix Bulgares. Overall, an absorbing film, always kept entertaining through Arcand’s mordant sense of humor, but with deeper issues to capture the viewer’s attention.