Skip to main content

The Mismatched Theology and Satire of The Book of Clarence


One of the most important things Jeymes Samuel’s The Book of Clarence needed to do was distinguish itself from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, a film it had almost no chance of not being compared to. Perhaps aware of this, Samuel leans into the imagery at the start, panning from a shot of an apparent Jesus on the cross to his own hero Clarence (LaKeith Stanfield) very much in the vein of how the titular Brian met his fate. But The Book of Clarence does prove itself quite different, even as it makes a few similar points and allusions. The big one though is that unlike Life of Brian it takes itself and even its theology remotely seriously. To the point that where the former film was famously highly controversial within the church, The Book of Clarence could potentially be embraced by it.
Though maybe just up to the part where Jesus is depicted as black (played by Nicholas Pinnock). Otherwise very little plays out in the movie that contradicts the Biblical story or upends its major figures. Samuel is however very interested in the subject of faith, which forms a backbone of his protagonist’s arc. Clarence is an atheist at the start of the movie -a very rare thing in first century Jerusalem- and a notable contradiction to his twin brother Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles. The underdog Clarence is a bit of a petty thief, in debt to and in danger from a powerful loan shark. In an effort to improve his station and make some fast money, he schemes to first become an Apostle and then claim to be a Messiah himself, preaching the virtues of logic and reason with the same fervour that Jesus does faith -ultimately landing him in a similar kind of trouble with Roman authorities as the more legitimate Messiah.
And the film is very serious on that mark, as demonstrated through several scenes in which characters, from Thomas to John the Baptist (David Oyelewo) to Mary (Alfre Woodard) try to convince Clarence of the authenticity of Jesus's divinity -while he won't be convinced. All the while he is the one seen as stubborn and unyielding to the simple power of belief. It is unusual for a movie that is otherwise fairly satirical with regards to its setting and subject, to so openly and earnestly espouse a pro-faith theme; to cast Clarence as a kind of Ben-Hur figure on an arc of conversion while drawing the world he exists in with wry social commentary -for example likening the Romans' treatment of the Hebrews (all of whom are black) to police brutality and systems of race-based inequity. 
Certainly within the sardonic context he establishes -a world that in attitude is not unlike his Old West in The Harder they Fall-, Samuel preaches an interesting theology. One that comments playfully on the presumed whiteness of Jesus and cleverly subverts the crucifixion for this, only to play straight an applicable sacrifice for the purpose of personal growth. A theology that directly links ancient Israelite struggle and the faith of the early Christians to the plight of the marginalized bleeding into the present. It expresses a very particular, fascinating religiosity, seemingly prioritizing the conversion of one man, yet it’s not supported much by the film's critical qualities.
Among these is Clarence himself whose faith journey is simply not that interesting. Outside of some vague affection for his mother (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) whom Thomas seemingly abandoned to follow Jesus, there isn’t a strongly defined sense of why it matters that he become a believer -apart from the usual antipathy found in Christian media towards atheists. He’s drawn as something of a typical fun roguish cynic, who sees ambitions, whether to join the apostles or claim to be the Messiah himself, as a scheme of revenue and exploitation. And save for a handful of interactions the question of his faith is thrown to the background until it becomes a principal theme around the last act.  It’s a wishy-washy thing, and that seems to be Samuel’s attitude through the film, almost torn between wanting to make an earnest homage to classic Biblical epics and sending them up.
He does at least keep the film entertaining  through some style and musical choices, as well as an astoundingly impressive cast of established and up-and-coming black talent alike. As Biblical characters, in addition to Woodard, who is never not magnetic, and an energized Oyelewo, the film features Teyana Taylor as Mary Magdalene, Micheal Ward as Judas Iscariot, and Omar Sy as slave turned vocal rebel Barabbas -probably the most interesting character of the movie. Anna Diop plays Clarence’s principal love interest Varinia, the sister of the crime lord, while RJ Cyler is his best friend and accomplice Elijah, and Caleb McLaughlin appears as their occasional sidekick Dirty Zeke the driver. James McAvoy’s Pontius Pilate is a delight, and Benedict Cumberbatch in a role I won’t spoil turns out maybe the funniest performance I’ve seen from him yet.
The movie is funny every now and then, though it doesn’t invest so much in its humour as may be expected. It’s got a solid mood to it, particular choices in music and pacing that give it that same modern cultural flare that The Harder They Fall applied to its period setting; but a preoccupation with the sincerity to its message -though in its own way bold- renders it a bit tedious. Especially around the crucifixion, which is extremely intense and serious. There’s symbolism to be found here too, relating again to the trauma of black American history, but it is indulgent, and especially with the subtle proselytizing taking place. Overall, the movie could have stood to emphasize its humour more, Samuel does have a strong sensibility for it -as in a miracle scene (the film’s last wholly comic beat) where Clarence after confessing the Messiah bit was a scam tries to prove he can’t walk on water only to against all odds do it. It may not be the movie that Samuel wanted to make, but it would have been a better one.
Still, there’s a kind of cultural, theological reclamation happening here that is not altogether unwarranted. The Book of Clarence, in filling a void of black examinations of Christian faith and history (outside the exhaustive realms of Evangelical-produced drivel) is certainly interesting if nothing else. If it was more sure of itself or more effective on either its satirical or sincere counts, it would’ve worked a lot better. It might have lived up to the shadow of either Life of Brian or Ben-Hur, instead of sitting awkwardly within.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more