Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie''s plot.
I know I've made a point of needing to watch more risky movies, whatever the hell those are. Actually, the only reason I would call any such movie "risky" is because I'd be afraid this movie would mess me up for life -- because of my notorious squeamishness. In truth, though, Im sure I've done a lot more risk-taking than other people of my age -- I doubt a regular guy my age would go to the video store, and rent The Snake Pit, Opening Night, and The Life of Jesus.
I dont really see The Life of Jesus as an example of me taking a big risk, however, although it was directed by Bruno Dumont, who directed Humanite and Twentynine Palms, two films which, according to what Ive read, are more extreme. I didnt find this film to be particularly problematic for me, although it isnt for all tastes.
Freddie is a young guy in his 20s, living a really dull life with his equally dull friends in some dull French village (do you see a pattern here?). All he and his friends do is drive around in their cars and/or motorcycles, goof around, whatever. None of them have jobs, and just collect welfare. Freddies girlfriend, at least, has a job at the supermarket, and they are supposedly in love, although all their romance consists of besides tedious small-talk is some rather unerotic (at least to the viewer) sex.
Freddie is suffering from epilepsy and occasionally suffers attacks, although the film doesnt make a huge issue of his illness. It just seems to be there. He also has an issue with parking his motorcycle apparently, as he manages to throw himself off of the thing every time he tries to stop it. For the last half of the film hes walking around with a big gash on his left shoulder. At the very least it was comic relief for me in a movie which is about as dry as they come.
Some drama gets introduced halfway through when an Arab family moves into town. This is where we see the utter baseness of these dull people in full bloom -- none of these guys like Arabs, but I dont think its because they are racist ideologues as its just because theyre such boring, uneducated and inexperienced people that of course they would think nothing of making racist jokes as the Arabs are sitting right beside them!
It gets worse later on when the young Arab teenager decides to take a shine to Freddies girlfriend. Of course, shes no better because she cant bear to be seen with someone of a different race, although her feelings are irrelevant to Freddie and his friends, who are a bunch of losers who see the Arab as different, as someone invading their precious welfare-assisted turf, and who has to be taught a lesson. And of course it ends tragically.
This movie feels very artless. All the events happen with very little if any excitement or tension. I dont even think I can comment too much on the acting, because the energy levels of many of the actors, including the one who plays Freddie, is just enough to make them look presentable on screen. If Ive heard correctly, I think all of the actors in this movie are nonprofessionals, and it shows, as none of the actors actually behave like actors, with all their flourishes and what not.
The script seems very simple and basic at first glance as well. There really isnt much memorable dialogue, and scenes feel like they are happening in passing. Stuff like Freddies epilepsy, his seeming inability to park his motorcycle without hurling himself four feet onto the street, or the whole thing about the guy with AIDS. The movie just shows us things which happen; it doesnt explain anything. Its the sort of storyline where we have to make our own interpretation or else theres nothing there at all.
Ive heard Dumonts films being compared somewhat to those of Robert Bressons. Ive only seen one Bresson film (Mouchette), but I can understand the comparison. Bressons films were known for having nonprofessional actors, and for working them through dozens and dozens of takes, in the hopes that all of the energy would be completely drained from the actors, so theyd basically just go through the motions instead of acting. The Life of Jesus feels the same way -- what were seeing is life, not a movie.
Although I dont think Robert Bresson had hardcore sex in his movies.
Apparently, as a part of the whole naturalistic appearance of it all, Dumont felt it necessary to actually show all the naughty bits. Theres two sex scenes, including one in the middle of a field in which we see actual insertion. The fact that this particular shot consists of a close-up of a female hand assisting the male appendage inside before it moves around for a while may lead a viewer who happens to stumble upon this scene on, say, late-night Canadian television (Im sure theyve aired it!) to believe they are watching porn instead of a naturalistic French film. There are a few non-porn films out there with explicit sexual activity -- but this is probably the only one with a shot that really does look pornographic.
The characters are not sympathetic. The actors dont make them so. Freddie and his friends are definitely not appealing people -- they are the typical sort of undereducated layabouts who dont see anything wrong with making racist jokes or, in a later scene, molesting a young girl in a crowd in school! They dont have any insight into anything. They actually cant believe it would be such a big deal that they fondled a poor little chubby girl, and they dont seem to think its a big deal to chase down a guy from a different ethnic background and rough him up. They behave really apathetically about it, or perhaps they behave as if they have no concept of any other way to behave. The fact Dumont is using nonprofessionals works well in this regard, as these characters seem to act from instinct rather than any deep emotion. They are almost chillingly bland about their actions -- these characters arent evil, just very, very stupid.
And why is this film called The Life of Jesus? Beats me. You will be happy to know, however, that you are not alone -- the films trailer included on the DVD also includes comments from the actors who also have little idea as to what the title means.
The film is quite interesting as a naturalistic story about what Im sure is a reality in some truly out-of-the-way communities, where life is dull, theres no culture or entertainment, and theres no prospects. The filmmaking will not appeal to most, as its not just slow, but very casual about the events. The characters and most of the events are pretty dull, but I suppose thats the point, because this is a film about the possible consequences for people who embrace this limited lifestyle and its behaviours. The film seems artless, but it isnt really -- the film looks good, and is shot in Cinemascope, so Im sure there was some care taken in the production. Overall, it was interesting, Ill grant you that.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.