Before going to the movie I promised a friend that I would try not to analyze the film theologically, instead I would watch it strictly for the story-line. I guess I shouldn't have made that promise because the theological weaknesses, I thought, contributed to the weaknesses in plotting the story.
In many ways this film did not depart from the genre of "Christian films," which often come off as a kind of Hallmark greeting card version of Christianity. They tend to be shallow, on the theological side, and reduce Jesus to a mysterious miracle man. The effect is to produce a story that is somewhat syrupy and superficial, ducking some of the more difficult questions concerning discipleship.
One of the downsides, for me, was how the disciples sometimes came off as '70s-era Jesus freaks. When Bartholomew testifies to the resurrected Christ he comes off as spacey and air-headed, rather than as a sober-minded man who has suddenly had his entire sense of reality turned upside down and is still trying to make sense of what he has experienced. Mary Magdalene, however, was much better portrayed in the film.
It didn't help things that the writers for the screenplay chose to make the miracles the center of the epiphanies in the film. This is a mistake that is common to Christian genre films. It would have been sounder biblically and theologically to focus on the paradox of the "suffering servant" as being the point of epiphany, and it also would have made for a much more interesting story.
Also, there should have been more emphasis on the mystery-element of Christianity. It would have been sounder, theologically and biblically, and it would have added to the sense of mystery, if the epiphanies had occurred after the breaking of the bread, instead of showing the disciples break bread together with no particular meaning other than that it was apparently something they ritualistically decided to do.
Also, the miracles should have occurred within the context of a new teaching, and to punctuate that teaching, instead of being focal points in-and-of themselves. The latter approach suggested that the most persuasive thing about Jesus was that he was an amazing miracle worker, while the metaphors behind the miracles were lost.
There was also very little about the "new creation," or the essential Jewishness of the disciples, or about the confusion and uncertainty among the disciples during the period between the point of crucifixion and the day of Pentecost. These elements would not only have made the story more authentic, they would have added to its depth and made it more interesting. They also would have made it sounder biblically and theologically.
Maybe the screenwriters should have kept the essential story question from Mark, "Who is this man?", at the forefront of their thinking, along with two other Markian story questions, "What does one mean by 'The Kingdom of Heaven'?" and "What is the nature of discipleship?" These questions might have helped them in their portrayal of the miracles and of the resurrected Christ, himself.
I thought the movie began to strike the right chord when the protagonist realized that Jesus knew him better than he knew himself -- and that he encountered, in Jesus, his deepest desires and what he was searching for in life. I thought, however, that this point should have been more fully developed, since it is at the core of what Christians experience in the process of the conversion of their hearts.
I know all of this might sound overly critical, and I don't mean for it to sound that way. Overall I thought the movie was worth seeing, but it followed, too easily, the familiar Christian genre format, which makes all such films thinner and weaker.
But, by all means, go and see the movie. You may want to follow it up by reading the Gospel of Mark in order to get a better sense of the overall story and the message it is intended to convey.
