Stigmata: A Revelation or Just Eye Candy?
By Nicole Burkholder
Capital Times Staff Writer
Bless me Father, for I have
sinned. I have just seen Stigmata.
Well, I’m not really confess
ing a sin. Actually, I’m glad I
saw this movie.
Director Rupert Wainwright’s
new movie Stigmata rocked my
Catholic mind, for a little while
at least.
The movie’s message implies
that Jesus Christ himself actually
wrote his own Gospel, which
Christians have not discovered.
It explicitly describes how one
should follow the teachings of
Christ. Shockingly, the descrip
tion does not discuss any manifes
tation of the Catholic Church as
the world knows it: no ornate
churches, no frightening icons, no
patriarchal hierarchy. Hmmm.
So is Rupert Wainwright try
ing to tell me that the very reli
gion which has structured my
entire Irish Catholic family’s life
for generations is wrong? Ouch!
I have to say that as much as 1
pots.e tvm at my own xehgvons
affiliation, I suddenly had a burst
of defensive indignation and sup
port for everything the Vatican
has ever stood for.
It made me squirm, and I
watched for the bolt of lightening
to hit my car as we left Hershey’s
Cocoaplex. But, I liked it.
As I mentioned before, I was
only “rocked” for a short while.
The flaws in the film lightened
up the whole attack on Catholics
enough that I could sleep better
that night.
The story begins with the
death of a certain Father Almeida
(Jack Donner), who had discov
ered the lost Gospel shortly
before his death.
From the beginning, cine
matographer, Jeffrey L. Kimball,
presents visually stunning frames
filled with religious icons.
One in particular cries tears of
blood. For just about anyone,
especially Catholics, tears of
blood are just plain freaky.
Bloody tears are not the end of
this visual overload.
They are accompanied by
rosaries, crucifixes, and crowns
of thorns and of course a cathe
dral choir soundtrack to make
your skin crawl a little more.
This visual assault is actually
what created a paradox for me. It
is nothing new to throw a lot of
religious paraphernalia at an
audience and thread it through a
weird story. It will be controver
sial and powerful if done well.
This was true. The paradox
lies then in this question. If the
director stands in any way
behind the message he was deliv
ering (i.e., Jesus doesn’t like
structural, ornamental religion)
than why did he use it so much to
his advantage?
This is where the controversy
was lost for me, because
Wainwright seemed to just be
trying to make people like me
squirm, rather than really slam
the Catholic Church.
Another flaw in the movie
was the mediocre acting. Most
of the characters do not seem
genuinely concerned about what
is happening.
This is particularly aimed at
Patricia Arquette who plays
Frankie Paige, the non-Catholic
who is experiencing stigmata.
Large, gaping wounds are
being dished out to her by an
unseen force in the likeness of a
religious figure she does not
believe in, and she seems only to
be annoyed.
Lines like “I just want my life
back” just didn’t ring sincerity.
Maybe it’s just me, but I always
thought that people would react a
little differently when they are
slowly becoming a symbolic,
sacrificial lamb.
My last complaint lies with the
utter waste of two excellent actors,
Jonathan Pryce and Gabriel Byrne.
Byrne’s rendition of the pri
vate-eye priest who is going to
uncover the mystery of the lost
Gospel falls short of compelling.
Similarly, Pryce is not quite
scary as Cardinal Houseman who
tries to stop the Gospel from
being released, for fear it will
dissolve all authority of the
Catholic Church.
I don’t really blame either one
of these actors. The screenplay
did not offer any dramatic or
original lines to allow these two
actors to go down in film history,
but nevertheless they did the best
they could.
I know I seem to have a lot of
complaints about this movie
which might seem strange to then
give it the B+ grade that I did.
The movie wasn’t the greatest
thing I’ve ever seen, but I rather
enjoyed myself. I like to be pre
sented with issues that make me
feel uncomfortable, so I wel
comed the challenge to my
beliefs.
Better yet, since Wainwright
only offered a meager criticism
with little support for his argu
ment, I could win my own debate
with little justification, my
favorite kind of argument.
By Daniel McClure
Capital Times Staff Writer
I’ll agree with Nicole about
the entertainment value of
Stigmata.
Unfortunately movies can be
both entertaining and severely
flawed.
1' is a shining example of style
over substance. The movie is pure
eye candy with images of crucifix
ion set to music.
This is very fitting for a Nine
Inch Nails (no pun intended)
video instead of a movie which
attempts to rock the foundation
of the Roman Catholic Church.
Coupling the visuals, there is a
techno-industrial soundtrack
scored by none other than ado
lescent angst icon Billy Corgan
of the Smashing Pumpkins.
It would have been respectful
of Billy to at least give homage
to Ministry’s “Stigmata,” since
Ministry is far more capable of
developing a brooding, angry,
industrial sound.
The actual plot of Stigmata
gives me mixed feelings. It is
interesting, but it is carried out
poorly on almost every level.
The movie’s cardinal sin is
failing to follow up on it’s shock
ing premise: Jesus did not
believe churches were necessary
for faith and service to God. This
idea is not new. Many literary
figures and philosophers shared
this idea, so I was interested in
seeing how Rupert Wainwright
would present this idea through
film.
Unfortunately, it is pointlessly
presented as a conspiracy within
the Catholic Church.
I have no idea why servants of
God would want to cover this up,
and neither does Wainwright. It
seems as if Wainwright’s inspira
tion came from watching Oliver
Stone’s JFK and a few episodes
of the X-Files.
To add to the criticism, the
acting leaves much to be desired.
In the beginning we are shown
what a “bad” person Frankie
Paige (Patricia Arquette) is. She
drinks, goes to clubs, and even
has sex with her boyfriend.
She is horribly unconvincing
as a “bad person”. If you really
believe that she is the most
unlikely candidate for sainthood,
then you haven’t been on a col
lege campus lately or watched
Abel Ferrara’s far superior film
Bad Lieutenant.
When she begins to experi
ence stigmata, the Vatican’s
Agent Moulder - Father Andrew
Kieman (Gabriel Bryne) is called
in to investigate.
Gabriel Bryne, an excellent
actor, unfortunately chooses not
FEATURES
to act well in this film. Having
an Arquette in a film is usually a
red flag, but I figured the other
wise remarkable Bryne would
cancel her out.
The final blow to the acting
comes when the chief conspira
tor, Cardinal Daniel Houseman is
revealed. Houseman is played by
another excellent actor, Jonathan
Pryce, who like Bryne, gives a
disappointing performance.
The movie on a whole leaves
much to be desired. What could
have been a brilliant take on faith
and redemption deflates into a
two hour long music video filled
with uninspired acting, amateur
ish direction, and a horribly
unconvincing story.
Instead of going to see
Stigmata, I recommend renting
two films of religious commen
tary by underrated filmmaker
Abel Ferrara: The Addiction and
Bad Lieutenant.
Internships
Individual Study
Student Teaching
Summer Programs
Semester Abroad
Study Tours
pennState
jg Capital
Campus
717-948-6475
WlO6
Olmsted
http:/Avww.hbg.psu. edufpvtreach
I■ * V