MovieChat Forums > Hail, Caesar! (2016) Discussion > It really is a tale of the Christ, not a...

It really is a tale of the Christ, not a Hollywood spoof

posted 8 years ago by Komarovski
42 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed the movie's wacky look at Hollywood of the era, but I don't think it was meant to be the focus. Audiences can't be faulted for looking only at and being disappointed by the comic relief, though, as that is how the movie was promoted in the trailers.

After the opening scene, the words "A Tale of the Christ" wipe onto the screen. We are then immediately shown Mannix to make the connection. Mannix shepherds a vast world populated with sinners, but who ultimately create good. He stands over bickering religious leaders, growing frustrated at their interpretations. Mannix considers his worst sin to be smoking, so it's no wonder the Devil, a head-hunter from Lockheed, tempts him with a cigarette as they meet in a very red restaurant. Mannix is offered an easier path, but one that leads to destruction rather than creation. To me, Mannix's struggle with which path to take is the crux of the movie. It is only after seeking his Father's advice that the decision is made.

Other elements of note are the demons (the blacklisted writers) who have stolen away Baird, one of Mannix's flock. Ultimately, the angel Hobie brings Baird back to the fold, while we see one of Mannix's truly lost ones pulled down into Hell (or the Pacific Ocean, as it were). The wayward son Baird is welcomed back, but when he extols the virtues of his captors, he is sternly punished with a regretful slap. Humbled Baird resumes his role in Mannix's creation, though Baird again shows he is not perfect when he forgets "faith."

[–] stas_ 8 years ago

I totally agree -- the movie is full of Christian allegories.

[–] jimboreynolds-960-289779 8 years ago

Brilliant thanks for providing such insight

[–] joasiafly 8 years ago

Great analysis. Thanks for sharing it.

Now I wonder how many will criticize and ridicule you for this insightful review.

[–] fiore2 8 years ago

Excellent analysis to which I agree. Good job!

[–] vilafire 8 years ago

Interesting. I think people need to stop freaking out about biblical allegories. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are old stories for a reason, they've stood the test of time.

[–] ricaltman 7 years ago

True, mysticism and ignorance are very powerful. I did like the review though.

[–] Pianohero4 8 years ago

You can do that with any movie, and any other story. This is just a desperate attempt to make the movie something more than it is. It's always sad when people do this with *beep* movies. This analysis has more artistic merit than the film itself.

Please excuse any typos, this was typed on an iPad

[–] frankstallone1 8 years ago

Actually, since a Coen brothers movie is (admittedly by them) amost never really about what it seems to be on the surface, saying you can do what the OP did with any movie is hardly refuting his take on the movie. I get the feeling you may not have seen any other of their movies than The Big Lebowski or Fargo, and not even realized the message wasn't straightforward in those either. The beauty of their films in the past has been, even if you weren't paying close enough attention to get the message they were trying to portray, it is still just as enjoyable to watch, which is where this one dropped the ball.
As a matter of the fact the last few minues of this movie, with Brolin in the confessional and the final voice over, seem to go very far in backing up this analysis if you hadn't already reached the same conclusion.
How well it was delivered this time around is debateable, but the allegory was there for sure.

"I'm sorry that the pretzel fell out.I honestly don't know how long it was in my underpants."

[–] drew1116 7 years ago

"You can do that with any movie, and any other story. This is just a desperate attempt to make the movie something more than it is. It's always sad when people do this with *beep* movies. This analysis has more artistic merit than the film itself."

Although this comes across in a mean way, I agree with the point. I remember someone telling me once that the giant insect movies of the 50's were a reflection on communism and its hive mentality. More likely is that they were just giant insect movies.

It's very easy to reflect back on a movie and find hidden meanings and intent and ascribe that to the genius and subtlety of the director. I don't buy it in most cases and not in this one either.

[–] DaliParton 8 years ago

Other elements of note are the demons (the blacklisted writers) who have stolen away Baird, one of Mannix's flock. Ultimately, the angel Hobie brings Baird back to the fold, while we see one of Mannix's truly lost ones pulled down into Hell (or the Pacific Ocean, as it were).

I saw it completely differently. I thought Burt Gurney (the guy who boards the submarine) was the christ and the writers were his 12 disciples (seems safe to say they were all jews too). They made Gurney look like an old-timey-hollywood version of the christ - buff, blonde, blue-eyed and noble. I took him getting on the sub not as going to hell but as going to heaven, and dropping the suitcase of money as a nod to 1 Timothy 6:7 "For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it." Jesus was pretty much a straight-up socialist after all - the one and only example of him getting violent was when he thrashed the moneychangers and merchants in the temple - and the USSR was supposed to be a workers' paradise.

Also I thought Mannix was to Autolochus as Schenk is to Caesar - a "roman tribune" in the studio system ruled by a dictator. When Clooney comes back preaching the gospel of socialism, Mannix beats him like the way the Romans treated early christians.

Unrelated to all of that was DeeAnna Moran - the scheme to adopt her own child is basically a 'virgin birth.' Also her name is an anagram for "Naree Madonna" which is a little bit of a stretch with Naree instead of Mary, but if you said it outloud no one would notice the difference.

[–] sussman8454473 8 years ago

You might be onto something. ;-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069198/movieconnections?ref_=tt_ql_trv_6#spoofed_in

[–] Pianohero4 8 years ago

This makes more sense. The Coen brothers are jewish, and thus likely have a genetic pre-disposition to socialism/marxism. A film created by jews being against marxism is statistically unlikely.

Please excuse any typos, this was typed on an iPad

[–] DaliParton 8 years ago

Ugh. I needed that like I needed a hole in the head.

[–] agentalbert 8 years ago

Oh please tell us more about these "genetic dispositions" you've encountered.

[–] Pianohero4 8 years ago

If you are going to take issue with me stating the fact that Jews are disproportionally in favor or Marxism, and have been since its creation, at least try to argue something like "but Marxism is good, so so what?" rather than by being belligerently obtuse and feigning that you were unaware of or deny the existence of that fact.

Please excuse any typos, this was typed on an iPad

[–] HereComesMadness 8 years ago

Yeah, Jews are so in favor of Marxism when they were practically run out of Russia. Makes sense.

Oh yeah, you're retarded.

---
No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Never mind that $#!+! Here comes MADNESS!

[–] Aqqk 8 years ago

Stalin ran them out because he didnt trust them but only after the war when Israel allied itself with the USA.

[–] drew1116 7 years ago

"Yeah, Jews are so in favor of Marxism when they were practically run out of Russia. Makes sense."

This is actually something I've pondered over the years and no one has given me an adequate answer. It was well known that the Soviet system treated Jews terribly and yet many Jews spied for them and joined communist parties in other countries. Why the affinity for a system that was so brutal to them?

[–] mikainen 7 years ago

So that's why they do so well in various areas of business. They have a genetic pre-disposition to socialism/marxism...

[–] robertsjason55 7 years ago

Genetic disposition? I don't think "genetic" means what you think it means*. You could make a case that Jewish people may have been culturally more likely to favor Marxism/socialism in the early to mid 20th century than, say, Episcopalians. But it's not like Israel is a Marxist Utopia.

* there is no reason to think there is a "Marxism" gene in someone's DNA

[–] xxCUTHBERT_ALLGOODxx 8 years ago

Very, very astute observation. I kinda was feeling let down (it's IS Joel and Ethan after all) but now I have a whole knew perspective. Thanks!

Oh you tricksy Coehn Bros...