Christianity Today‘s David Neff, in the new issue:
“This film … runs from the horror [of Herod’s bloodshed] and quickly reverts into Silent Night”-happy ending mode. The shift from the realism of Mary and Joseph’s life in Nazareth to the romantic iconography of the Nativity scene seems to be a surrender to the romantic structrure of the plot. The gritty reality of village life in first-century Palestine is abandoned in favor of Christmas-card sentimentality, with wise men, shepherds, animals, and the holy family posing as if they were ceramic figurines on your mantelpiece. … The Nativity Story is not boldly realistic like The Passion of the Christ.“
UPDATE: Here’s the link to the whole article, which is, in fact, a very positive review.
I posted this excerpt because Neff’s point here seems to contrast with others that I’ve read that argue that the film is authentic and realistic beginning to end, down to the smallest detail.
The Passion of the Christ wasn’t particularly “realistic” — it just took a different approach to the intrusion of mythic realities on factual realities.
Another difference: I don’t think that The Passion of the Christ will soon be accused of sentimentality.
Well, the flashbacks with Mary have certainly been accused of something. I myself am on record as saying that the boy-Jesus-skinning-his-knee sequence would have worked better, and less sentimentally, if Mary had laughed off or shrugged off the skinned knee the way most parents would (thus highlighting the contrast between her powerfulness as the mother of the boy and her powerlessness as the mother of the man); and Benedict Fitzgerald, the co-writer of the film, is on record as saying that the furniture-making flashback doesn’t really work either.
Great job. I love great cinematography, so I’m even more curious to see Children of Men. Especially if it’s “groundbreaking.”