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, I’m 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 don’t 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 I’ve read, are more extreme. I didn’t find this film to be particularly problematic for me, although it isn’t 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. Freddie’s 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 doesn’t 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 he’s 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 don’t think it’s because they are racist ideologues as it’s just because they’re 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 Freddie’s girlfriend. Of course, she’s no better because she can’t 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 don’t 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 I’ve 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 isn’t much memorable dialogue, and scenes feel like they are happening in passing. Stuff like Freddie’s 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 doesn’t explain anything. It’s the sort of storyline where we have to make our own interpretation or else there’s nothing there at all.

I’ve heard Dumont’s films being compared somewhat to those of Robert Bresson’s. I’ve only seen one Bresson film (Mouchette), but I can understand the comparison. Bresson’s 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 they’d basically just go through the motions instead of “acting”. The Life of Jesus feels the same way -- what we’re seeing is life, not a movie.

Although I don’t 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. There’s 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 (I’m sure they’ve 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 don’t make them so. Freddie and his friends are definitely not appealing people -- they are the typical sort of undereducated layabouts who don’t see anything wrong with making racist jokes or, in a later scene, molesting a young girl in a crowd in school! They don’t have any insight into anything. They actually can’t believe it would be such a big deal that they fondled a poor little chubby girl, and they don’t seem to think it’s 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 aren’t 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 film’s 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 I’m sure is a reality in some truly out-of-the-way communities, where life is dull, there’s no culture or entertainment, and there’s no prospects. The filmmaking will not appeal to most, as it’s not just slow, but very casual about the events. The characters and most of the events are pretty dull, but I suppose that’s 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 isn’t really -- the film looks good, and is shot in Cinemascope, so I’m sure there was some care taken in the production. Overall, it was interesting, I’ll grant you that.



Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD