SPOILER WARNING: This comment contains specific references to plot elements that reveal the ending. It is strongly recommended that you see the film before reading this review.
Stigmata' uses as its premise the actual existence of the gospel of Thomas, a gospel taken from a scroll found in 1945, and condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy. This gospel gives essentially the same message as the gospel in the film, that the kingdom of God is of this earth and it is not about heaven, churches or religion. But clearly, the gospel in the film is not Thomas, despite the allusion at the end of the film. Thomas was written in Greek not Aramaic, and has been dated by scholars to the second century, hardly contemporaneous with Jesus. The film is a highly contrived fictional yarn that imaginatively invents a scroll of Jesus' words and then takes the religious mythos of stigmata and combines it with the mythos of possession (in ways not consistent with either) as a device to reveal the plot of the Church to keep the gospel a secret.
We are asked to believe that an atheist gets stigmata (no such event has ever been reported) as the result of possession by the spirit of a dead human whom she never knew (this is the purview of the devil; human spirits are not thought to possess living beings) because she touched his rosary beads (also touched by her mother, the boy who sold them to her and Father Kiernan without effect). Ok, I guess that's what fantasy films are supposed to do, conjure improbable situations out of the imagination. Still, it takes liberties that distort and misrepresent religious beliefs, which is always risky business. While watching this film, I had to pretend I didn't know what I know. Once over this hurdle, it was an fascinating, engaging and frightening story.
There are other strange inconsistencies and unanswered questions though. Father Alameida was a good and pious man. Yet he possesses Frankie with an evil vengeance and attempts to use Frankie to sexually seduce Kiernan, beating him from pillar to post when he doesn't consent. That's just not consistent with who Alameida was. Also, why was Frankie strong enough to throw Kiernan around the room like a rag doll, but helpless to stop Cardinal Houseman from choking her? And what was all the dripping water about? If that was explained somewhere, I must have missed it.
Comparisons between this and The Exorcist' are misplaced. They really had nothing in common other than the fact that the main character was possessed. There is one scene during the rage following Frankie's seduction attempt of Kiernan that had obvious elements of comparison but that was about it. This was not an exorcism and the devil was nowhere to be found.
From a filmmaking standpoint, this film was terrific. Rupert Wainwright does a marvelous job from start to finish with this film. The photography was fantastic. The use of the camera perspectives, scene set up and various techniques including slow motion, double exposures, rapid fire jump cuts and reverse slow motion were all fabulous (though sometimes used to excess) and added power and impact to create some very scary footage. I've read complaints about the sound, but the sound on the DVD copy I had was great with excellent surround effects. It was a bit loud at times but not so much that I had to ride shotgun on the volume control.
This was a marvelous breakthrough performance for Patricia Arquette. When she was in Frankie mode she was sometimes arrogant and self centered, and at others sweet, helpless and terrified. When in possession mode she was powerful and frightening. She handled all these states believably and with aplomb.
Gabriel Byrne also gave a wonderful performance as Father Kiernan. He achieved just the right balance between intellectual skepticism and self doubt with a genuine concern for Frankie.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. Yes, the story was flawed, but not irretrievably. As a supernatural thriller it was first rate. I rated it an 8/10. Not for the squeamish.
Stigmata' uses as its premise the actual existence of the gospel of Thomas, a gospel taken from a scroll found in 1945, and condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy. This gospel gives essentially the same message as the gospel in the film, that the kingdom of God is of this earth and it is not about heaven, churches or religion. But clearly, the gospel in the film is not Thomas, despite the allusion at the end of the film. Thomas was written in Greek not Aramaic, and has been dated by scholars to the second century, hardly contemporaneous with Jesus. The film is a highly contrived fictional yarn that imaginatively invents a scroll of Jesus' words and then takes the religious mythos of stigmata and combines it with the mythos of possession (in ways not consistent with either) as a device to reveal the plot of the Church to keep the gospel a secret.
We are asked to believe that an atheist gets stigmata (no such event has ever been reported) as the result of possession by the spirit of a dead human whom she never knew (this is the purview of the devil; human spirits are not thought to possess living beings) because she touched his rosary beads (also touched by her mother, the boy who sold them to her and Father Kiernan without effect). Ok, I guess that's what fantasy films are supposed to do, conjure improbable situations out of the imagination. Still, it takes liberties that distort and misrepresent religious beliefs, which is always risky business. While watching this film, I had to pretend I didn't know what I know. Once over this hurdle, it was an fascinating, engaging and frightening story.
There are other strange inconsistencies and unanswered questions though. Father Alameida was a good and pious man. Yet he possesses Frankie with an evil vengeance and attempts to use Frankie to sexually seduce Kiernan, beating him from pillar to post when he doesn't consent. That's just not consistent with who Alameida was. Also, why was Frankie strong enough to throw Kiernan around the room like a rag doll, but helpless to stop Cardinal Houseman from choking her? And what was all the dripping water about? If that was explained somewhere, I must have missed it.
Comparisons between this and The Exorcist' are misplaced. They really had nothing in common other than the fact that the main character was possessed. There is one scene during the rage following Frankie's seduction attempt of Kiernan that had obvious elements of comparison but that was about it. This was not an exorcism and the devil was nowhere to be found.
From a filmmaking standpoint, this film was terrific. Rupert Wainwright does a marvelous job from start to finish with this film. The photography was fantastic. The use of the camera perspectives, scene set up and various techniques including slow motion, double exposures, rapid fire jump cuts and reverse slow motion were all fabulous (though sometimes used to excess) and added power and impact to create some very scary footage. I've read complaints about the sound, but the sound on the DVD copy I had was great with excellent surround effects. It was a bit loud at times but not so much that I had to ride shotgun on the volume control.
This was a marvelous breakthrough performance for Patricia Arquette. When she was in Frankie mode she was sometimes arrogant and self centered, and at others sweet, helpless and terrified. When in possession mode she was powerful and frightening. She handled all these states believably and with aplomb.
Gabriel Byrne also gave a wonderful performance as Father Kiernan. He achieved just the right balance between intellectual skepticism and self doubt with a genuine concern for Frankie.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. Yes, the story was flawed, but not irretrievably. As a supernatural thriller it was first rate. I rated it an 8/10. Not for the squeamish.