Posted by Dr. Don at asm2.mit.edu on November 15, 1999 at 10:15:23:
Greetings,
Saw Dogma Friday night, and I was delighted. I was curious to see
what the Catholic league was up in arms about (I, myself, am Quaker,
not Catholic), and I have been studiously avoiding spoilers for months
now. And I had a great time. I can't think of a film I've seen in
several years where I wanted to go back the next day and see it again.
While I would hardly call the film either great art or great theology,
it was great fun. I think a film has to be judged on what it tries to
be, and it's not fair to blame a film for not being something it never tried to be. That said, I think the disclaimer at the beginning is a little disengenious (if hysterical), because the film does so clearly
want to be taken seriously when it appeals for a deeper, more personal,
and more important role for faith in people's lives. Amen!
I particularly enjoyed Alan Rickman's performance, although I didn't
think he pulled off the 6-million dollar man quote. Affleck did much
better than I expected with his transition from compassionate observer
to brutal avenger. The conversation between him and Bethany in the
dining car was the second best scene in the film (the "rant" in the
parking garage was a close third). The best scene was Bethany's
epiphany by the lake with the Metatron. Very moving. Rufus and
Serendipity were all right, but their roles were primarily expository
and to be mouthpieces (Rufus talked about blacks being left out of the
Bible, and Serendipity talked about women being left out of the Bible.),
and they often felt extraneous. And the Golgothan didn't work for me
at all.
So now I've been catching up on all the reviews and articles I've been
avoiding, and I've been infuriated at the lack of attention critics are
paying to what they're watching. I mean, if I had a dollar for every
time I saw Bethany referred to as a "descendent of Jesus", I could take
myself out for a very nice dinner. And these people get *paid* to
watch movies, you'd think they could pay attention to what they're
watching.
So, here's my Bible question: when Rufus brought up Bethany being a descendent of one of Jesus's *siblings* (pay attention, you critics :-)),
I was expecting him to go on and cite chapter and verse where the Bible *says* Jesus has siblings. He's got four brothers that are mentioned by name ("James, Joseph, Simon and Judas", Matthew 13:55, see also Mark 3:31 and parallel verses), and an unmentioned number of sisters ("all his sisters", Matthew 13:56 -- Serendipity would not be suprised that the sisters don't get names.). Paul's letters and the book of Acts confirm that his brother James (not to be confused with the Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, Matthew 3:17 and Acts 12:2) took over the leadership of the movement after Jesus's departure (Galatians 1:19, Acts 15:13), and the book of James is traditionally believed to be written by this brother (who was executed just prior to the big Jewish rebellion in 66 CE.). So why did Kevin resort to this rather odd, hypothetical, "you don't think Joseph and Mary didn't do it, do you?" approach? It makes it seem like he's suggesting something controversial. I don't even understand why Bethany was so suprised. Is this something that is widely believed by Catholics, despite the Biblical evidence to the contrary?
If anyone has some insight into this issue and the filmmakers decision
on how to present it, I'd be interested to hear it.
Thanks,
Don