Saturday, March 08, 2008

I Finally Saw The Passion(less) Of The Christ.

I know I've been a lot more quiet on the blogfront than I anticipated, but the real world has a habit of intruding more than usual, these days.

Working while Magilla is at school, and sorting her out after school can be draining. The child is a bundle full of energy from sunup to sundown. Regardless of how late sundown is.

Also, I didn't get to see Haneef: TheMusical Interrogation as I was intending, due to a bit of a personal emergency here at home.

As a result of a few issues cropping up, YR is no longer a part of the household. While a part of me would be more than happy to explain the situation, as it strikes rather closely to my views on the (over)influence of our modern society and schooling on our children, I have no doubt that YR's mum wouldn't be impressed.

Sometimes, it's just better Not To Go There.

Well, to move along and ostentatiously change the subject, I got a call out of the blue asking if I were still doing fx makeup.

Short answer: yes.

It was for a photo shoot based very loosely around Mel Gibson's film and so my homework was to watch The Passion of the Christ.

So how do I find Mel's biblical epic?

Beautiful, but oh, so cold.

It's magnificently shot, and the soundscape is designed marvellously also, but there is a certain disconnection with the work for me.

I think the best way to describe it is that it's like a moving painting; particularly at the beginning, in Gethsemane and at the trial with Caiaphas. The costuming, lighting and composition of the shots are reminiscent of Byzantine art.

The makeup was excellent, apart from one or two bits which nobody but a makeup artist would notice (which therefore stuck out like the proverbial for both the Godmother and I), but one of those was a continuity issue due to cg being added in post, which conflicted with the application of the makeup.

The other was a particular prosthetic piece which had visible edges.

If you know what to look for.

One bit of logical progression that was missing to my mind, what that Jesus in the film kept all his beautiful teeth.

My beef with that is that if He had been beaten nigh unto death before being crucified, surely He would have lost some teeth. Even just one?

But this is just nitpicking, I know.

It was ultimately, the characterisation of Jesus that left me cold. So much makeup had been applied to Jim Caviezel's face that it made reading it difficult.

There was no connection to the inner journey of the Son of God as He toiled towards death.

Sure, we all know how the story ends, but presumably the idea behind this film is to provide us with a means to share His path, perhaps to imagine more closely what it means to those of us who have a strong faith.

In any case, I just reminded myself that it's only one man's portrayal of the event.

My photo shoot is another, and a much more intriguing and interesting one. To my mind, anyway.

How the photos come out, how my work looks, I'll have to wait and see. I suspect I will be blown away, as we were using top-end photographic equipment.

I've got at least a month to wait, and I'm hanging out already!

And Mel's Passion?

Meh. I prefer Dogma.


At 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Passion? I watched the movie and thought it overlong.

Dogma? I'd do Alan Rickman.



Post a Comment

<< Home