Although I was born in Quebec, and I've lived here for the better part of my life, I still have a hard time identifying with the rest of the province. I don't follow hockey, I still don't understand heavy jouale (a highly slang-ridden form of French specific to Quebec), and I haven't even seen "Les Boys", "Les Boys 2", or "Cruising Bar", three of the highest grossing Quebec films ever made. Yet, despite the amount of money these films have made, the only place you're likely to meet anyone who has seen (or much less appreciated) these films, is here in Quebec. A film like "Jesus of Montreal" on the other hand, while not being as successful in terms of dollars, has reached a much broader spectrum of people. It has played in theaters across Canada and the world, and was even nominated for an Oscar for best foreign language film. Most writings on "Jesus of Montreal" focus on it being a modernization of Christ's story. I will focus on how the film is a reflection on Arcand's own struggles.
Denys Arcand is now a highly respected and admired director. However, since making "Jesus of Montreal" in 1989, Arcand has only made three features. Despite his reputation, it is extremely difficult for him to get a film made. Positive feedback no matter how strong, doesn't mean anything to the companies that provide the funding, if it doesn't rake in the cash. I mention these points for a reason, because, among other things this is one of the key themes of "Jesus of Montreal".
Of course, the film is about other things as well, but it is important to remark on the interesting parallel between the story that takes place in the film and Arcand's real-life situation. In the film, Daniel's version of the Passion Play is popular amongst the public, but because the Church disagrees with the content of the play, the play is canceled. In real-life of course, it is not the Church that prevents Arcand from making films, but still, the popularity doesn't help either Arcand or Daniel produce their art as often or as easily as they would like to. Another parallel is that that Daniel refuses to sell out or compromise, and subsequently so did Arcand. Although Arcand has gained a lot of recognition for his work over the years, he has never made a blatantly commercial film. Arcand's film after "Jesus", "Love and Human Remains", although in English and not up to his usual standards of quality, was by no means an escapist film, and was clearly not made to rake in easy money.
Of course despite the message in "Jesus of Montreal" that trying to create meaningful art without selling out is a constant uphill battle, the film is not cynical. On the contrary, the film seems to be saying that the rampant commercialism in the world is one of the very things that give true art its meaning. Twenty years from now, no one will be discussing "Les Boys" and its importance to Quebec Cinema. Whatever makes money one day is forgotten the next and replaced by something that makes more money. But a film with a message that remains relevant throughout the years will never be forgotten. "Jesus of Montreal" is as meaningful and inspiring today as it was eleven years ago when it was released. It has lost none of its wit or bite, and that is it's true value, not how much money it has made.
Denys Arcand is now a highly respected and admired director. However, since making "Jesus of Montreal" in 1989, Arcand has only made three features. Despite his reputation, it is extremely difficult for him to get a film made. Positive feedback no matter how strong, doesn't mean anything to the companies that provide the funding, if it doesn't rake in the cash. I mention these points for a reason, because, among other things this is one of the key themes of "Jesus of Montreal".
Of course, the film is about other things as well, but it is important to remark on the interesting parallel between the story that takes place in the film and Arcand's real-life situation. In the film, Daniel's version of the Passion Play is popular amongst the public, but because the Church disagrees with the content of the play, the play is canceled. In real-life of course, it is not the Church that prevents Arcand from making films, but still, the popularity doesn't help either Arcand or Daniel produce their art as often or as easily as they would like to. Another parallel is that that Daniel refuses to sell out or compromise, and subsequently so did Arcand. Although Arcand has gained a lot of recognition for his work over the years, he has never made a blatantly commercial film. Arcand's film after "Jesus", "Love and Human Remains", although in English and not up to his usual standards of quality, was by no means an escapist film, and was clearly not made to rake in easy money.
Of course despite the message in "Jesus of Montreal" that trying to create meaningful art without selling out is a constant uphill battle, the film is not cynical. On the contrary, the film seems to be saying that the rampant commercialism in the world is one of the very things that give true art its meaning. Twenty years from now, no one will be discussing "Les Boys" and its importance to Quebec Cinema. Whatever makes money one day is forgotten the next and replaced by something that makes more money. But a film with a message that remains relevant throughout the years will never be forgotten. "Jesus of Montreal" is as meaningful and inspiring today as it was eleven years ago when it was released. It has lost none of its wit or bite, and that is it's true value, not how much money it has made.