Analyse a film focusing on the theme of religion

Religion and cinema are intrinsically linked. Although the two are not formats that one would necessarily associate as sharing a relationship, it was crucial to keep in mind when researching this brief that in essence, religion and cinema are one in the same, in that they both allow, albeit in different formats, some form of worship.
Although the more conventional forms of worship and devotion take place in the mainstream religious buildings of conventional faiths, Das Gupta argues that: “Cinemas are the modern temples of our time,” (1981: 130) Both focus on the devotion and the idolisation of its stars, and both focus on elements of ritual that underpin it, such as the ritual of visiting the building itself, and the ritual of taking time/money to make the effort.
Religious films themselves however, are rarely a popular or particularly well-known genre. This is despite the fact that, as Jonathan Bock, president of US distribution company Grace Hill Media, argues: “Forty-three percent of this country [America] is in church; that’s a big chunk of folks.” (Loc cit: 28/05/07: Ivry, S.) And there is undoubtedly, a market, as Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ (2004) proved. Grossing $604,370,900 worldwide, the film was an extremely graphic depiction of the life of Christ, which culminated in his crucifixion. There have been many theories surrounding the film’s success. Some centre on the fact that, spoken in entirely Aramaic and painstakingly recreated in detail, the film is likely to be one of the truest accounts of Jesus’ life and death on screen, if not in any other format. Others suggest that it was Gibson’s well-documented devout Catholic faith that led like-minded churchgoers to place their own faith in the film, and go on to make it one of the most popular of all time.
Although The Passion, a largely American and Australian-funded film caused elements of controversy for its portrayal of the Jewish, it took a British film to truly rock the boat. In 1979, the team behind Monty Python’s Flying Circus created their own version of events in the time of Christ, but decided to make it instead about the life of Brian Cohen, a boy born on the same day as Jesus, at the same time – in the stable next door. He grew up constantly being mistaken for the Messiah, and would eventually pay the price. The Life of Brian (Jones: 1979) was released first in the US, following the theory that they would more open-minded than those in Britain. (2003: Chapman et al: 249) The film was picketed by religious groups of all faiths, with Rabbi Abraham Hecht, president of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, claiming: “Never have we come across such a foul, disgusting, blasphemous film before.” He added that it had clearly been “produced in hell.” This did nothing to dispel interest, and the film went onto become the fifth most successful film of that year. Similarly the film opened in the UK to a storm of controversy and was banned by a number of local councils, many of whom admitted they had never seen it. However, it was still the fourth highest-grossing film of 1979 (figures from www.boxofficemojo.com).
One of the most controversial parts of the film, and also one of the most popular and well remembered, is the scene of Brian’s crucifixion. The scene is a crucial example of how humour is combined throughout the film with essentially gruesome rituals (including stoning and the torture of criminals) that were seen as a part of daily life in the time of Christ.
To truly assess how the film deals with the ritual of crucifixion it must, on some level, be compared with another piece dealing with the same subject – the aforementioned Passion of the Christ. Perhaps one of the most distinguishing features of The Life of Brian is the look and style of the film itself. Granted, The Passion was made more than 20 years later, and there have undoubtedly been more advances in special effects and big budgets since then, but the stylistic image of the Life of Brian illustrates much about the tone of the film. In the case of The Passion, much of the film was shot in bleached, almost sepia-like images, which paid particular attention to detail, particularly the more violent images. In contrast, The Life of Brian is shot in bright sunlight and which in itself could be argued as a metaphor for the film’s sunny disposition.
Also key here is the latter film’s attention to detail to accentuate the humour in the situation, and above all portray a crucifixion, and perhaps the crucifixion of Christ himself, as nothing to be scared of, something that should not be used to strike fear or gratitude into worshippers. As noted in the Channel 4 documentary The Secret Life of Brian, “most Christian protestors said that it was mocking as it was supposed to be when Jesus suffered and forgave sins and they turned it into a ‘Boys Day Out'” (01/01/07: Channel 4) As Tomkins goes on to argue of the scene: “However indirectly, the movie is laughing about the death of Jesus” (1999: Ship of Fools magazine) The humour in this situation is essentially drawn from placing modern situations within the context of the crucifixion itself. This begins with the Romans comparing those about to be crucified with a squadron of army cadets, warning them that they “will be on show so best smiles, steady paces, crosses over the left shoulders and you’ll be there in no time.” Likewise, when the crosses are being erected and one man explains he is a Samaritan, another indignant man replies incredulously: “A Samaritan? I thought this was meant to be a Jewish crucifixion?!”
With these comments the writers are lampooning the modern situation in a historical context, outlining the fact the prejudices prevail, even at the darkest of moments, and that despite the situation often the highest powers will insist that everyone keeps up appearances. Compare this with the laboured, drawn-out scenes of Jesus dragging the heavy cross up to the mount in The Passion and the excessive torture he endured beforehand and The Life of Brian is undoubtedly portraying the scene as one not to be approached with the dread it is more normally associated with. This is supported by a distinct lack of realism which was seen as one of the unique selling points of The Passion. Also worth noting is that the character who called for a Jewish crucifixion, along with Eric Idle’s character Mr Cheeky, both have recognizable, modern, and in Idle’s case, colloquial accents. This gives the impression that the people involved are just like the viewer, suggesting that if the viewer were put in this situation, they should not be afraid either. Indeed, when Mr Cheeky declares that he is Brian of Nazareth and therefore should not be hung from the cross he is told he can go home. This appears to disturb him and he wants to go back, shouting: “I’m not really Brian, I’m not. I’m pulling your leg.” It is also he who tells Brian: “See? Not too bad when you get up here is it?” This gives the impression of the character as someone who ritually ends up with this sort of punishment, and regularly gets away with it (he goes on to explain that he is often rescued by his brother). This is key however, as it brings one more dimension of realism to the film – that petty criminals were often hung on the cross for little more than stealing a loaf of bread. Although Brian is portrayed as some sort of political prisoner because he is believed to be the Messiah, the same reason which Christ himself was sent to his death, with the inclusion of the Mr Cheeky character, the film emphasises that this was in fact, at this time, a violent death sentence handed to the most petty of criminals. This in itself also slightly denigrates the image of Christ on the cross, as it implies that he is by no means the only one to have undergone such a violent death, despite the fact it is his image that is most noted. Indeed, there are at least twenty crosses on the mount at the climax of the film, implying that crucifixion was instead a particularly common way to die.
Also telling here is that although The Life of Brian skims over the key elements of the crucifixion, for example the nailing to the cross, it does pay service to the rituals that surround the crucifixion itself. This focuses not only on dragging the crosses to the mount, but also on Brian’s friends and family coming to visit him and pay their last respects at the cross. Unfortunately for him, whereas in a film such as The Passion Christ’s mother came to wash his feet and pray, Brian’s mother came only to tell him that the situation was “all your fault. You go and get yourself crucified – you just see if I care.” Likewise his girlfriend, Judith appears at the foot of the cross to tell him she is “very proud of him,” and runs off. Neither of the two stop to offer him words of comfort, accentuating the image again that a crucifixion, and possibly death itself, is nothing to be afraid of. It is also noted that although each man carries his cross, as is part of the traditional ritual of the crucifixion, he does so with an element of ease, standing tall while they walk. They are also tied to the cross by their hands as opposed to nailed, which glosses over one of the key images of the crucifixion itself. Similarly those tied to the cross do not have their feet bound, which not only veers away from realism, but also allows for them to dance to the sing-a-long at the end of the film.
As a whole, although it proved to be popular, The Life of Brian became known for the controversy attached to it, and the derision it attracted from religious quarters. However, perhaps one of the key elements to keep in mind is the fact that with its humorous take on one of the most ritualistic and violent forms of slow death the world has seen, the film is bringing the question of religion into the modern age. As Glaister argues, the film itself covers all sorts of modern issues such as health (lepers and ex-lepers) and the economy (the compulsory haggling at markets), making it an enduring piece of film that stands the test of time. (24/03/04: The Guardian) Similarly, Kermode goes on to suggest that it is the films’ modernity that allowed it to “provide platforms for the serious and heated discussions of issues of faith in an increasingly materialistic, secular society.” (24/12/06: The Observer) Indeed, as comedian Bill Maher argues, humour is an ideal way to bring religion into the public conscious, claiming: “Comedically, the topic of religion is hitting the side of a barn; it’s literally hard to miss.” (20/07/07: Entertainment Weekly)
Meanwhile, the crucifixion itself defines the film as it lampoons not only the violent ritual of crucifixion, but also the people who revere Christ for going through it. As countries from Northern Ireland to Iraq are torn apart by sectarian violence, undoubtedly one of the biggest questions surrounding religion today is how such violence can be justified. Bringing the element of humour into this argument essentially makes it easier and more accessible to understand in the modern age. As Terry Jones, director of The Life of Brian suggests, lampooning the crucifixion is perhaps in itself a comeuppance for a religion which celebrates one man’s violent death, claiming: “Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly. ” (01/01/07: Channel 4)