Paul, Apostle of Christ ~ Telling part of the story

Click here to view the trailer.

With the idea of supporting religious film-making, I took the family out to see Paul the Apostle last night. Despite the PG-13 rating, I brought the whole crew, including the six year-old. As it turned out, there was really nothing in there that he couldn’t handle. The only scene of frightening violence is when one of the crucified Christians was set ablaze to become one of “Nero’s torches.”

That said, this movie wasn’t made for the six year-old crowd. Compared to most modern major market movie fare, it had a much slower pace, much more artistic use of camera work, particularly the manipulation of light and shadow and the incorporation of frequent hazy, cryptic, slow-motion flashbacks. Indeed, this was a very dark film about a dark time in human history, and I left the theater feeling contemplative but not wholly satisfied.

Here are three lauds and caveats if you are thinking of going to see this film during the Easter season:

Lauds:

1. Luke. Jim Caviezel, playing the part of Luke, dominates the screen. Indeed, a couple of my kids came out of the theater wondering why the film hadn’t been called “Luke”. Caviezel is at the top of his game in this film and the character of Saint Luke as the writer and physician is very compelling.


2. The history. The film gets several aspects of the historical situation of Rome during the reign of Nero spot-on. I particularly liked the incorporation of Nero’s Torches. This is a important because it serves to introduce our historically illiterate generation to the famous passage in Tacitus’s Annals:
   
   “And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night.” [Tacitus, Annals, Book XV, Chapter 44]
   
   It should be recalled that Tacitus was not a Christian and had no particular sympathy for them. That the film takes place in the immediate aftermath of the great fire of Rome helps to explain some of the grimy condition of the Christian community and the dark, smoky, gritty settings within Rome itself. This was very effective, I thought.
   
   

   

   Nero's Torches by Henryk Siemiradzki, 1876.

3. The ending. I won’t spoil it for you, but the end tied things up very well for Saint Paul. It also made my wife cry which, admittedly, is not difficult. It was, however, a very poignant scene.

Caveats:

1. The accents. It’s clear that several of the main actors were not native English speakers. Normally, I find this to be a positive in that it tends to add flavor to the characters. However, in the case of Olivier Martinez, his accent occasionally descended into utter unintelligibility. This was a shame because I thought he was otherwise very engaging as Mauritius, the brutal prefect of the Mamertine prison who eventually comes to see his prisoner, Paul, in a different light.


2. The poetic license was off. The writers of the film introduced numerous fictional characters into the early Christian community in Rome. While this is not a flaw of itself, it could have been done better. For example, a Roman boy who plays a prominent role is named “Tarquin”. Given that Tarquin was the name of the last hated king of Rome, it’s fairly unlikely that such a name would be used in 1st century Imperial Rome. It would almost be like naming a kid “Adolph” today.
   
   Another mild problem was the “rebellion” of Cassius, the cousin of Tarquin. Tired of simply knuckling under to the Romans, one of the Christians decides to recruit young men and break into the Mamertine to rescue St. Paul. As far as I know, this incident is made up of whole cloth, and while it helps with the story-telling, it does not really reflect the historical attitude of the Christian community in Rome in the first century AD.
   
   The inclusion of Aquila and Pricilla as the leaders of the Roman Christian community is also problematic. Though they are historical and appear in St. Paul’s letters, there is no indication anywhere that they were leaders of the Roman church.


3. The Protestant slant on early Church history. Make no mistake, the story-telling here is a version of history that is not well-informed by the traditions of the Church Fathers. In fact, it’s almost as if the early fathers (and mothers) of the Roman church were specifically disregarded and replaced by the writers’ poetic license as mentioned above. This is evident not so much in what is presented as what is not presented. First, as we know from his Gospel and from later tradition, St. Luke was close with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Yet, the Blessed Virgin’s name is not mentioned once in the film. The other glaring omission is Saint Peter—who is only mentioned in passing twice—and his successors Linus and Clement. These men would have been the leaders of the Roman Christian community. Yet Linus and Clement warrant not even a mention. From the perspective of viewer with any knowledge of the early Church, this seemed bizarre and unnecessary. One is forced to assume that the writers were more comfortable with the idea of a married couple leading the Christian congregation like a pastor and his wife, than the successor to St. Peter. The omission of Linus is especially egregious because he is even mentioned in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy as someone who was with Paul in Rome near the end of his life [2 Timothy 4:21] while Aquila and Priscilla were not. 

Keeping these flaws in mind, I would encourage Catholics to support this film. While it is not the second coming of the Passion of the Christ, it is a well-done production with some memorable, poignant moments. It was one of those films that I will have to watch again after some time has passed in order to catch things that I missed the first time around.

That said, to echo another reviewer of this film, this is not the definitive epic about the life and works of Saint Paul that many of us were hoping for. I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer for that.