Canadian Film Forum

Raluca

Raluca Ghimbulut

A GREAT MOVIE...A NEW TOPIC OF DISCUSSION... Smile

Here are the questions and issues we decided to have an approach on:

1. Est-ce que l'Art peut sauver le monde (l'âme du monde)?
2. L'artiste (doit-il) devrait-il se sacrifier sur l'autel de son métier?
3. Why the title Jesus de Montréal?
4. What’s the purpose of faith?
5. Is there strength in the ‘Red Letters’?
6.Is there any resemblance between religion and theatre?
7. On assiste à une metamorphose?
8. Why was the ‘show’ a public danger?
9. everyman is an actor
10. To what degree is the film a critique of Quebec/ Montréal?
11. Why those actors? Any meaning behind their backgrounds?
12. Advertising vs. mystical film/theatre
13. Humiliation/ humility
14. Calling/ following
15. Is the film itself a retelling of the ‘stations of the cross’?

Catalina Apreotesei · Trimis: 22/11/2009 23:22 Titlul subiectului: Jesus de Montreal - Cast

Executive Producer: Monique Létourneau
Producers: Roger Frappier, Pierre Gendron

Director: Denys Arcand
Screenwriter: Denys Arcand
Cinematographer: Guy Defaux
Editor: Isabelle Dedieu
Composer: Yves Laferrière

MAIN CAST:

Lothaire Bluteau: Daniel Coulombe
Catherine Wilkening : Mireille
Johanne-Marie Tremblay: Constance
Rémy Girard: Martin
Robert Lepage: René
Gilles Pelleitier: Fr. Leclerc
Yves Jacques: Richard Cardinal
_________________
Take care of you!
Catalina :-)

Catalina Apreotesei

I think the film is a retelling of more than the stations of the cross. It looks like the whole life of Jesus retold in modern settings.

The stations of the cross refer to the final hours of Jesus, but elements of His life before the Passios were also represented in the film.

Jesus calls His Apostles from among simple people, fishermen, and asks them to follow Him. He turnes them from simple fishermen into Fishermen Of Men. Daniel Coulombe recruits actors playing "low" roles (even as canteen worker) and casts them into a mystical play. Thus, they discover their true calling.

Jesus began preaching and healing people with His words, changing their lives. The actors left a significant impression on the people watching their play.

I think a scene which very much resembles the biblical story is that of Daniel smashing and destroying the instruments in the theatre room. It happened when Mireille took part in that cast for a beer advertisment. The biblical scene is that of the Temple disturbance, when Jesus overturned the merchants' tables in the Temple. They both were angry on people profaning God's Temple/ the art of theatre. For their burst, they were arrested and were brought charges.

They were both questioned by "impartial" judges: Jesus by Pontius Pilate and Daniel Coulombe by a psychologist. Neither of the judges found anything wrong with the defendants.

Besides the stations of the cross, common to both stories, I think these scenes complete the image of Jesus de Montreal as a modern version of Jesus de Nazareth.
_________________
Take care of you!
Catalina :-)

Raluca · Trimis: 26/11/2009 13:07 Titlul subiectului:

Raluca Ghimbulut

3. I must confess that when I heard the title Jesus de Montreal I thought that Jesus would be just a character called like that in the movie. I did not necessarily think of a similarity to the biblical one. Furthermore, I did not expect of a retelling of the biblical story or of a story of an actor, namely Coulombe playing the role of Jesus.
Nevertheless, it was extremely accurate and interesting in the same time. It was not just the story of Jesus the Christ but also the story of a man living in a society that wouldn’t allow anyone to become famous or maybe just follow his dream due to social and religious constraints.
I personally consider that towards the end of the film, Coulombe becomes exactly the character he plays in the movie he wanted to make, namely Jesus. He thus becomes sort of a Jesus, through the pronouncements he made before dying at the station, preaching somehow and teaching them things about the world, especially about good and evil in the world and about choosing the right way. Therefore, the title is significant and relevant revealing maybe even a ‘reincarnation’ of Jesus.

2. I think that yes, the artist should sacrifice himself on the altar of his ‘metier’...some consider this a rule, it might not be so, there might be exceptions, but this is definitely following the rule. While Mr. Coulombe was alive he was not recognized as being talented and gifted. He was even ignored and marginalized, considered unscrupulous by the church. Had he not died he wouldn’t have been appreciated. The proof is to be seen in the fact that after his death, that businessman tried to convince Coulombe’s friends that his story might become a ‘successful blow’. Why didn’t he help Coulombe while being alive?

7. I believe that we assist to at least two metamorphoses. One is that of Coulombe, an ordinary man who fights for showing his art, a man that gradually becomes an artist, and then an artist that becomes exactly the character/ person that incorporated his masterpiece (the person- Jesus, the masterpiece- the film he wanted to make). Through fighting for his dream, he enters the dream and thus we witness a metamorphosis of his self. Troubles and impediments transform him into a different man, making him realise how hard it s for art and artists to survive in a world full of fake acts, faces and decisions.
Another metamorphosis is that of Mireille, Coulombe’s friend. We assist to another metamorphosis of the self, namely Mireille’s revelation and acceptance of her body not just as an object to be exposed in commercials but as one to be valued through the spirit of the person that embodies it. There was also an important aid to her metamorphosis: Coulombe.

Chioran Claudia · Trimis: 30/11/2009 16:01 Titlul subiectului:

Why the title Jesus of Montréal?
Probably to paraphrase the name Jesus of Nazareth, to create a connection, a parallel between them. Seeing from the beginning this title, we will recognize easier several similarities between these two destinies.
Why was the “show” a public danger?
Why was Jesus a public danger?
To be a “public danger” means to be a proscribed, a person who refuse to fallow the dogmatic rules imposed by the heads of the church. Why is that dangerous? Because showing to the people another way to fallow, put under the sign of doubt all religious concepts.

Michelle1 · Trimis: 03/12/2009 01:26 Titlul subiectului: Jesus de Montreal

Could art save the world?
I don't know if it can, but it should. Too much crime and evil around us. Art, superior forms of it, at least, can appeal to people on a higher level and bring out the best in them. For example, when I first saw the actors that were chosen to perform in that play, I wouldn't have said they were capable of acting that well those religious parts or to have such an effect in the viewers. When art is combined with religion (like this play based on the life of Jesus Christ) inspires hope and faith in all that's good and pure.

"every man is an actor" Well.. yes. We all have different masks we wear when dealing with the world around us, when in contact with other people. For example: many of us, very often, pretend that nothing is wrong when actually they're heart-broken. That is one form of acting. It is difficult most of the times to really get to know the people around you because not everybody shows their true colors, regardless of the circumstances.

this is it for now...brb
_________________
Michelle Smile

maria daraban · Junior Data inscrierii: 02/Dec/2009 Mesaje: 4

As a religious person, I think that Jesus of Montreal was an attempt to modernize the perspective of christianity. I cannot say that the actors mocked at the true Jesus and Mary, I just see the actors' performance as a means of attracting the new generations towards church. As an amateur, I consider that the actor who interpreted Jesus was brilliant, his face and gestures were very expressive. Even though the film is not actual any more, the society and the problems which christians face are the same.

nico_kerekes · Junior Data inscrierii: 16/Mar/2009 Mesaje: 9

Throughout the history of the cinema there have been many films about Jesus which have different structures and approaches. They vary in style, perspective.

The most transparent parallels to the life of Christ in Jesus de Montreal are contained in the final film sequences involving Daniel’s persecution, death on cross and resurrection.

Regarding the question To what degree is the film a critique of Quebec/ Montréal? Tony Simons in Where are the voices coming from?: Canadian culture and the legacies of history?gives an answer “ This is a film which sets out to explore the reception and understanding of history in general , and the control of is meaning, but which also has a very specifically Quebec context, offering an input into the debate about history and identity that is specifically that of Quebec. The film, which ends in tragedy, may ne seen as a paradigm of the historical and political developments in Canada. The authorities are portrayed asa having a hidden agenda, one that is predicated on retaining the safe, accepted vision of the past, and rejecting by any means attempts to review or rewrite history. It thus combines the universal –the control of historical interpretation by groups in power – with a clear set of examples about what is happening in Quebec. “

In my opinion the film is concerned with the universal issue of understanding history.

Tabita · Trimis: 30/12/2009 22:19 Titlul subiectului:

One.
This is such a cliché… art will save you, art will save the world… Art does not save the world, it just makes it bearable.

Two.
“Dumnezeu nu a trimis arta pe pământ pentru ca aceia care o practică să devină martiri... Dacă este să faci artă, aceasta ţi se„dă” când vii pe lume şi nu prea ai de ales”. (Mircea Bochis)

Three.
I think the title becomes obvious after you've seen the movie. I expected a guy from Montréal with a life somehow similar to that of Jesus, or an actor living in Montréal and playing Jesus. I got both. Cool.

Five & Seven.
I believe there is (strength in the ‘Red Letter’). It changes people, lives. René and Martin were just voices before; Mireille was just an image. In Coulombe’s play they are “whole”. The play changed their life. The Red Letter changed them as human beings. Especially Mireille. She is no longer vain and superficial. She got rid of her smug and arrogant boyfriend. They saved her she says.
Coulombe also changes. I don’ know how to explain it… The only thing that comes to my mind when thinking about the character’s evolution throughout the movie is a man running fast, then slowing down more and more until he stops.

Eight.
I think “public danger” is too much. The people that watched it ran no risks (provided that they took it for what it was, a play). The church was in danger. Very well kept secrets were disclosed; people might lose faith… not in Divinity, but in the clergy. And that was not wanted.

Ten.
I don’t think the film is a critique of Québec.

Eleven.
I think the movie promotes the idea that “staring” in ads is the lowest form of acting. Not only that, but it also mocks the making-of a commercial.

Fifteen.
I agree with what Catalina said about the movie being a retelling of more than the stations of the cross. But it cannot be asserted that is retelling of the whole life of Jesus.

Besides the resemblances already mentioned, I’d like to add the scene with the lawyer. It can be compared with the tempting of Jesus. The same way Satan tempted Jesus with the riches of the world, the lawyer tempted Coulombe with a great career. The set was very well chosen… the top of the city.

ralucarat · Trimis: 03/01/2010 18:54 Titlul subiectului:

The story of Jesus has been told in hundreds of ways. I’ve seen a lot of movies on this theme, but, to be honest, this one, along with Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ are the only two that made me think of the life of Jesus beyond the biblical story. During watching this film I also remembered Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code which is again a piece of work that together with these 2 movies mentioned above leaves us with a lot of thoughts and questions regarding the Christian story of Jesus’ life.

The film gives the viewer a chance to introspection, an opportunity to ask yourself a lot of questions regarding different aspects of this special way of telling the story of Jesus. Like in Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code, or in Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ there are some puzzling aspects that contradict the general Christian believes regarding the life of Jesus. In Denys Arcand's version we find out, after extensive research done by the team of actors, that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, and that Jesus was a magician. These elements plus the avant-garde style in which the story is told (in an outdoor place, with the spectators very close to the actors) made the film into a very interesting and controversial re-creation of events from Jesus life. But, as I see it, this film doesn’t speak directly about Jesus, but it is rather Daniel’s vision about it; the story is told through the eyes of Daniel, is his belief that we see in the play he created.
_________________
Raluca Rat

viorica · Junior Data inscrierii: 10/Dec/2009 Mesaje: 6

Pour répondre à la question si l’art peut sauver le monde, ma réponse est certainement OUI. L’art est le grand travail plein d’inspiration pour transformer les choses en merveilles.C’est offrir son âme , son esprit pour rendre l’humanité meilleure par l’intermédiaire de la force des émotions qui éveillent en nous la conscience , la sensibilité des cordes par lesquelles nous percevons le monde. Quand l’art est jumelé à la religion l’OEUVRE est parfaite, car on y ajoute la foi, l’humilité face à la perfection que l’on veut atteindre, la communion avec la Divinité et... l’amour. Nous sommes les créations du Grand Créateur qui a fait le monde avec toutes ses splendeurs et pour nous montrer son grand amour il nous a donné son unique fils pour nous sauver du péché originel...Les artistes à leur tour sont des créateurs qui essaient de communiquer, de transmettre leurs sentiments et leurs idées afin de modeler les caractères des hommes., les rendre plus sensibles, plus humains...plus beaux a l’intérieur. Alors, l’acteur qui joue le rôle de Jésus, dans une variante moderne, croyait-il vraiment au message qu’il voulait transmettre au monde... ? Était-il conscient des risques qu’il courait en jouant un si grand rôle ??? Un acteur qui joue le rôle d’un personnage doit très bien connaitre son personnage, en arrivant à s’identifier avec celui-ci...Quel courage de prendre une telle décision ! Une fois prise cette décision, on se demande quelle en est la finalité , le but de son art...A-t-il reussi à changer ce monde, donner de la vie...apporter de la lumière, du bonheur ... ? Je ne sais pas...mais je suis sûre que par sa mort il l’a fait...

adela_bm2007 · Trimis: 01/02/2010 14:25 Titlul subiectului:

Jesus de Montreal -la synthese d'une ironie ravageuse et d'un retour vers a l'essence de la religion chretienne.Un film dans lequel Denys Arcand ne se depart pas de la critique au vitriol.Ce n'est pas un film pieux et respecteux,il n'y a pas de message, mais une quete: comment trouver la force d'aimer et comment nourrir sa foi?
Le film est un cri de rage contre une societe hypocrite et un hymme a l'amour du prochain

Grand_Shaman · Administrator Data inscrierii: 26/Oct/2007 Mesaje: 112

Grand_Shaman · Administrator Data inscrierii: 26/Oct/2007 Mesaje: 112

Grand_Shaman · Administrator Data inscrierii: 26/Oct/2007 Mesaje: 112

Gabi Rosus · Trimis: 07/07/2010 21:07 Titlul subiectului:

For some reasons when I first saw the title I expected a comedy. It was a nice movie but not very impressive to me. I think was an attempt to bring the OLD BIBLE to a modern time. I think a movie about the Bible and the life of Jesus should follow the words writen 2000 years ago. But that is my opinion. Sorry