"The Nativity" is this year's most cowardly cinematic offering
By VANESSA D. OVERBECK
Staff Writer
“The Nativity” is 2006’s most cowardly film. It takes no risks, offers no interpretation and instead presents the flattest, most boring renditions of one of the greatest stories in human history.
“The Nativity” sucked all the joy and wonder out of what should have been a passionate and beautiful tale of love, faith and sacrifice. In its attempt at biblical accuracy, the film had little to offer cinematically. The script gave very little to the actors to work with and was practically emotionless. Perhaps not wishing to alienate Christian audiences, the film seemed to avoid any attempt at explanation at every turn. The writer and director may have succeeded in not alienating viewers, but instead they created a characterless, lifeless, uninteresting film.
All along the road to Bethlehem Joseph and Mary have only one conversation regarding their role as the parents of the world’s most miraculous child. It essentially amounted to we’re both scared and we don’t know what we have to offer him. The parents of the Son of God must have had a lot more to say and certainly must have had strong, complex emotions about their future role in the life of Jesus Christ. Yet this is all the producers of “The Nativity” could come up with. What a cowardly copout. Show a little heart and take a little risk and offer your audience a little human emotion.
Furthermore, when the angel first tells Mary about the Immaculate Conception, the Bible reads that she humbly accepted her burden on faith alone. However, the big screen gives one the opportunity to elaborate on the complex feelings Mary must have had about her pregnancy, the terror she must have overcome and the joy she must have felt at the impending birth of her people’s savior. At best, these themes are only lightly touched on.
The director also offered nothing as to what made Mary worthy of bearing such a fabulous child. These flaws made Keisha Castle Hughes’ job not only difficult, but also next to impossible. Her performance was the weakest of the entire cast and that is in large part a result of the gutless script.
And what about Joseph? He delivered the best performance with what the pathetic script had to offer, but a gutsier interpretation would have given his delivery even greater strength.
Perhaps the film’s greatest offense was the presence of the three wise men at the birth of Christ. The film went to great and gutless lengths to stick closely to the Biblical tale, then goes completely cliché at the end, including the wise men in the manger scene. They did not arrive until months later. It was ridiculous to offer such a boringly accurate big screen rendition of the nativity story and then blow it in the final moments.
Most disappointing is, what with director Catherine Hardwicke’s solid filmography, which is characterized by gutsy risk taking — “The Newton Boys,” “2 Days in the Valley” and “Tombstone,” — that she offered such a boring and flat cinematic presentation in “The Nativity.” There is also no excuse for writer Mike Rich with such passionate and moving tales as “Radio,” “Finding Forester” and “The Rookie” to his credit.
Shame on both of them for their gutlessness. They had a rich opportunity here to present a colorful, exciting and inspiring film akin to “The Passion of the Christ,” but settled instead for a dull, stale and practically unwatchable film. Next time, in the interest of good art, do not settle for the safe road. Risk a little and you just might achieve both accuracy and beauty.