The Book of Life (Hartley, 1998)

[madali]

The Book of Life
Hal Hartley | USA | 1998
63 min

Deadline to post your review: Anytime during November, 2009
Availablility: If you are unable to find this film from your regular sources, then PM one of our moderators (click: Shariq, Kaytee, Fizz or Mad) and they will help you out.

- If you've already seen this film, then see it again, and most importantly write a review.
- Post only your reviews and discussion on the film below.
- To discuss the WM Forum Film Club and its rules, use this thread.

--


The Book of Life (Hartley, 1998)
IMDB Link

“I could never get used to that part of the job. The power and the glory. The threat of divine vengeance. But I persevered. I was about my Father’s business. It was the morning of December 31st, 1999 when I returned, at last, to judge the living and the dead. Though still, and perhaps always, I had my doubts.”

Some movies seem to just be made for me. I can’t recommend movies like these because I know the things I like about them are probably flaws to everyone else.

Get this. Its 31/12/1999. It has been prophesized that it is the end of the world. Jesus Christ has come down to earth to retrieve the Book of Life and open the final seals (it has seven seals), and bringing the apocalypse.

A fairly straight forward story, but directed by Hal Hartley (where have you been all my life, baby?) it has a completely unique approach to it. Hmm, let me see how I can describe it. The budget is very low, and it has a very angst, pretentious, artsy, beatnik feel to it. Jesus looks like an angry, conflicted, handsome politician (he wears a suit), and Mary Magdalene follows him around looking like a Goth chick. The devil is long-haired, wearing a red shirt under a black jacket, and looks confused and distressed that the world is ending. Sometimes, the movie breaks the fourth wall, such as the devil suddenly walking in another scene that has a mike hanging from god knows where and talking to us. In another segment, a scene is played out like a cooking show. Hartley directs from weird angles, so it gives his film an unrealistic, disorienting feel to it. The music is experimental and alternative. The dialogues will irritate a lot of people and they’ll claim that it is at the level of film school. But fuck them, it’s only because we live in an age that loves criticizing intellectual attempts. I’m not saying Hartley is profound, but he’s amusingly smart, and the movies knows there is no earth shattering ideas, and I know there isn’t, but Hartley and myself enjoy a bit of intellectual rapport anyway.

And it is FUNNY. It is funnier for me because it is all played with a straight face. The dark, brooding soundtrack does not stop just because something is funny going on. And when I say that, I do not mean that there are jokes in the traditional sense. Jesus’ Book of Life is not some ancient, worn out text, but a folder in his Mac PowerBook called “Book of Life”. It’s funny, but the movie does not miss a beat, it does not treat that has a punch line, it treats it like the obvious choice. And why not? In the reality of the film, it makes perfect sense for the book to be in a laptop.

I’m going to transcribe some of the dialogues from the movie now. There is no point reading them to be honest, the dialogue is only workable in the context of the scenes, the way it is played out. Written, it may seem like Hartley is taking it too seriously, but to me it only works because the way it is executed.

Jesus (lying down on Magdalena’s lap, in a hotel room, while she is watching the TV): “I remember the flood, Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, it was before your time, Magdalena. My father, he is an angry God. To him, the law is everything. Still, to this day, attorneys are his favorites…ah, let’s get on with it.”

--

Satan (talking to us): “Let God the Almighty rule eternity. My precincts are the minutes and the hours of the everyday. And as long as people have hops and dreams…well, then, I have my work to do.”

---

Satan (talking to an atheist): I have been misunderstood. They think I hold a grudge against humanity, but that is not it at all. I just happen to think that this is a good system. This tug of war between heaven and hell, keeps people honest.

--

Jesus (voice over): It was the darkest hour of a long, dark night in the soul.  The chills center of divine callousness. What twisted fairly tale had I allowed myself to be tangled up into? What misplace gratitude had I believed to be awe? Why did I let these souls believe there was anything other than sacrifice? Why where they comforted with dreams of vengeance? Why hadn’t I interfered more? Agitated, questioned, revolted…panicked by both the legitimacy and the hopelessness of their cries, I rose to the occasion. And lied.

--

(Jesus meets Satan at a bar to talk, which is against the rules)

Satan: This is breaking the rules, you know.
Jesus: I work for the one who makes the rules.
Satan: Yeah, well, I use to work for him too. Until I quit! Started making my own rules!
Jesus: You didn’t quit, you were fired.
…
Jesus: I imagined the truth of the Gospels to be self-evident. But I had no idea that it would be perverted by the very people who claim to preach it in my name.
Satan: You shouldn’t take it so hard. People just like to kill each other. It’s natural.
Jesus: No, you are generalizing, you can’t do that with these human beings, they are too complex.
Satan: Ahh, that’s how it starts. The allure of their free will, the infatuation, the thrill of infinite possibilities, and before you know it, whaaam! You are addicted to human beings.
…
Jesus: It’s not that you are so despicable, it’s that you are so amazingly trite.

--

Satan: He’s a bastard after all. More human than me. Hard to read.

5/5

[X.]

You seem to like Hartley a lot. Have you seen Fay Grim, the 'sequel' to Henry Fool?

[madali]

No, I have only seen those two, but I will be checking more out. I'll probably leave Fay Grim until the end, as I would like to watch his earlier works, before checking his latest ones.

[X.]

The Book of Life
Hal Hartley | USA | 1998
63 min



Jesus: "I work for the One who makes the rules."
Satan: "Yeah, well, I used to work for Him too. Until I quit! Started making my own rules."
Jesus: "You didn’t quit. You were fired."

Book of Life is a comedy and it is brilliant. Hal Hartley is a challenging director, but once you 'get' his very specific style of filmmaking, you will be hooked. Book of Life may be the most reasonable introduction for viewers new to him – it is only 63 minutes long and, perhaps, his most narrative-driven film. However, to best enjoy this film, a basic understanding of Hartley’s technique (derived from literary and art techniques) would help. I once wrote a paper on Hartley, and talked about his techniques by connecting Henry Fool (his previous film) to those used by playwright Bertolt Brecht and English painter William Blake. Now is the best opportunity to publish it. Read it here.

Back to Book of Life: Jesus Christ is played by Martin Donovan (who Al Pacino shot dead in Insomnia) and he arrives with Magdalena played by P.J. Harvey (who I love as a musician and would very much like to fuck, one of these days) at New York’s JFK airport. Soon they will check into a hotel called Armageddon & Armageddon. Jesus is depressed because this is his Second Coming and, as every Christian should know, that means it is the end of the world. God wants Jesus to bring the Apocalypse to Earth, but Jesus being compassionate and forgiving does not want to kill humans. This is the conflict. Satan (played the Hartley’s recurring character-actor Thomas Jay Ryan) also checks into the same hotel and at one point Jesus and Satan meet in a bar, who like two disgruntled employees of a corporation run by a ruthless CEO (God) drown their complaints in shots of vodka! It is the most ingenious scene in the film; in fact one of many in this cleverly constructed film.

Of course, familiarity with Christianity and/or Judaism would help because Hartley subverts the 'mythology' of these books and infuses them with irony. There is a character in the film – his name is Dave -- and after selling his girlfriend’s soul to the Devil, he complains to Magdalena that "Look, I’m an atheist. How was I supposed to know he was the Devil? They don’t teach atheists stuff like that!" Then when he finally meets Jesus, the first thing Dave can muster is: "Hello. My name is Dave. And first of all, I’d just like to apologize for my entire existence.” Ha ha...

Let’s talk a little bit about the aesthetic of the film, because I am sure that will put off a few viewers. Book of Life is shot on digital video camera, and has a very low budget look. Hartley’s films are made inexpensively, but that is not the only reason why they seem "cheap." If you had the opportunity to read my paper, you may understand that he uses this aesthetic purposely to remind the viewer that they are watching a movie; he employs other tricks which include characters speaking into boom mikes, looking directly into the camera (Brecht’s alienation effect) and melodramatic music. That said, I actually think the amateurish digital look is perfect for this film and, most importantly, is used in an original way. Hartley’s cinematographer Jim Denault uses color filters to create a hyper-reality as Slawomir Idziak did in Kieslowski’s A Short Film About Killing; he also uses dutch angles to bring a feeling of chaos to the screen (as if characters will slide off the screen at any moment: at one point, one character literally does that!) and shoots most of the film with an open shutter which adds motion blur. If you ask me, Book of Life is a very beautiful looking film. It is also an apocalypse film like no other.  

[madali]

Im a bit conflicted about my feelings regarding the motion blur look. I like the angles, the zoomed in effect, the random 4th wall scenes, but not sure about the motion blur.

[X.]

I like the motion blur because it gives the film a dream-like quality.

[ayaa1977]

I made it on the deadline (it still 25th in here) and watched the film. It was an experience that I am glad I took, that being said, I am really not in a hurry to watch any other Hartley film after seeing this one. Although a short film, but I couldn't wait till it ends. To be fair the last third of it was engaging, but it was to late for me. The scenes of Satan in the bar are my favorite. Acting was good in the most part, but the hazy dream-like blurry shots was a put off to me. It was just too zany for my taste. I would give it 2/5.

[shariqq]

I've seen this too, but don't have much time on the web until I'm back at work on Sunday. Will try to post in detail then. But in short, I liked it, especially the humor. Actually, mostly the humor.

[ayaa1977]

I've seen this too, but don't have much time on the web until I'm back at work on Sunday. Will try to post in detail then. But in short, I liked it, especially the humor. Actually, mostly the humor.

I agree with you that I liked its humor too, but beside that and the fine performances, not much else I am afraid.

[madali]

You didnt like the dialogues?

[ayaa1977]

You didnt like the dialogues?

Of course when I say humor I mean what is carried out through dialogue. Yes it was witty and it has certain musicality to it, and that is what I give the film credit for. But that was about it. The cinematography and the look of the film might be considered brilliant for you guys, but to me it was disengaging. It is just a personal preference, and that is why a films like Linklater's Waking Lives and A Scanner Darkly are revered by money but I not me.

As for the story, I mentioned in my review that I was only engaged by Satan's scenes when he is seducing the man, and the last part of the film. The Lawyer scenes were brutal to me. Some things I found it utterly on the nose, like locker number 666 where the Book of Life was hidden, and some other things I found rather cute in a good way, like Satan's exchange with the computer maintenance guy. Long story short, I disliked the film as a whole but I can appreciate the flashes of brilliance in it.     

[shariqq]

I liked Book of Life. It is such an easy movie to watch and enjoy. The credit for this goes to to, in order, the wonderfully quirky dialogues, the humor that it evokes, and the slant it takes on the coming-soon doomsday.

The movie is mainly about Satan, as a hyper guy in a red-shirt, and Jesus as a clean-shaved brooding fellow in a suit, both in turn-of-the-millennium New York debating and discussing God, the apocalypse and their roles in it. While it is commonly understood that they have their tasks cut out and follow it without contemplation, Book of Life takes a different view: What if the course-of-action that is predestined was open to debate. Jesus has second-thoughts, Satan tries to take advantage of this. And they have a wonderful little debate in a bar! Jesus eventually gives away the (apple mac)Book of Life to Satan, but he can't open it or use it!

The manner of depiction of these biblical characters in '99 New York is what makes this movie good. Without much spent in production, the movie retains a simple, to-the-point look and uses it to its advantage. Where it does lack is in the "look" and most of the acting. The movie looks poorly shot, mostly out-of-focus and many times poorly framed. Is this intentional? If so, then to what intent? It certainly does not help the movie. It comes across as screaming for attention just because it wants to be different. Apart from the actor playing Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan), who does a fantastic job realizing what the movie is and what he can bring to it, the others are all mumbling or hamming their parts with such desire that it makes the scene seem very... put on. Like bad theater actors, they are either too loud, or too soft.

The shot running time helps a lot. It was the easiest of the movies of the WM Film Club yet, due to the fun-factor of the movie, and how quickly is started and finished. Even at a little over-an-hour, it seems like a shorter piece, that's how much it keeps a hold on you. It's also not the kind of movie that requires 2 days to make your mind on or to unravel its mysteries. This is popcorn entertainment for the seasoned movie fan.

My rating --> 3.5 of 5

[madali]

You guys are not giving much love to Martin Donovan. I think it is a bit difficult to fully "get" Donovan's acting in the context of Hartley's film with just one performance of his. But its not bad acting, he is able to align himself perfectly in line with Hartley's tone.

You can't have Donovan give a realistic, emotional performance. It has to be cold, unrealistic, almost LITERALLY, because the film would look stupid if Hartley and his guys treat it to seriously.

Look at this scene in "Trust" and how Donovan is delivering his lines. It's almost like he is reading, and he should do it like that, because Hartley's films are like visual literally pieces, perfect adaptation from non-existent books.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTok_lIkHPc&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/JTok_lIkHPc&rel=1</a>

[X.]

I admire and love Donovan, and if I have my way, you may get to see Donovan in something I have written in the future.

[madali]

That would be awesome.