Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Review: Hail, Caesar! (dir. Joel & Ethan Coen, 2016)

Review: Hail, Caesar! (dir. Joel & Ethan Coen, 2016)

Last updated on: February 6, 2016 at 9:39 am by Peter T. Chattaway

Review: Hail, Caesar! (dir. Joel & Ethan Coen, 2016) 2016-02-06T09:39:12-08:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Hail, Caesar! is the name of the new Coen brothers movie, a comedy of sorts set in and around a Hollywood studio in the early 1950s. It is also the name of a movie within the movie — though the full title of that other film is actually Hail, Caesar!: A Tale of the Christ. And there’s a lot we could start unpacking just with that title.

The first and most obvious thing we might notice is that “A Tale of the Christ” was also the subtitle of Ben-Hur, one of the classic Bible films that Hail, Caesar! parodies. The Coen brothers’ movie is set in 1951 — that’s the copyright date we see on one of the other movies within the movie at its premiere — and that is the year when Quo Vadis, the first of the classic New Testament epics, came out. But the Hail, Caesar! within the Coen brothers’ movie is more like a pastiche of 1953’s The Robe and 1959’s Ben-Hur: the main protagonist, a Roman tribune played by the George Clooney character, is present for the crucifixion of Jesus just like the Richard Burton character in the former film, while in an earlier scene he encounters Jesus after dragging some thirsty slaves to a well, just like one of the Roman soldiers in the latter film. (As in Ben-Hur, so here: the face of Jesus is kept off-screen — we see only the back of his head — so the power of the scene hinges on the facial expressions of the Roman who encounters Jesus. Suffice it to say that whoever played the Roman in Ben-Hur does a masterful job, while the Clooney character’s performance is laughably bad.)

The second thing we might notice about the title is that, just as the movie within the movie is in some sense about Jesus, the Coen brothers’ movie revolves around a Christ figure of sorts, namely Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), a “fixer” at Capitol Pictures (the same fictitious studio that we saw in the Coens’ earlier Barton Fink) who produces the studio’s movies and does everything he can to make sure that the potentially scandalous behaviour of his studio’s movie stars does not end up in the gossip columns. The idea that Mannix might be some sort of Christ figure isn’t as much of a reach as you might think: apart from the fact that the movie begins with a shot of a darkly-lit crucifix, and apart from the character’s personal religiosity — he goes to confession so frequently that even his priest tells him it’s too much — Mannix genuinely believes in the power of film to uplift and inspire people, and you could say that he takes the sins of his actors upon himself, protecting and forgiving them while bearing some sort of guilt for his complicity in the system that enables them. (That being said, it is interesting to see how Mannix confesses the littlest of personal sins to his priest — lying to his wife about not smoking, for example — while never mentioning professional sins like how he lies to the police and bribes them to protect his actors’ reputation.) Oh, and Brolin himself has talked about the “Christ-like” nature of his character in promotional interviews, so there’s that, too.

But there is a third thing implicit in the title: the juxtaposition — or dialectic, if you will — between Caesar and Christ. Caesar, historically, represented brutal, imperial, political, economic power, while Christ, born to the poorest of poor families in a backwater fringe of the empire and ultimately executed in the most horrible of ways by that empire for spreading a message of love and forgiveness, represented the opposite of all the things that Caesar stood for. And one of the great ironies of the Bible-epic genre, of course — certainly in the studio system’s heyday — is that these films were usually produced by very rich and politically-connected companies that aimed, on some level, to profit from a story that tells us wealth and power aren’t everything. The temptation to turn Christ into a new Caesar, a new means of attaining earthly power, has been with us forever, and there is something of that quest for cultural clout in every movie that aims to turn the story of Jesus into a box-office hit.

The gap between what Bible movies say and how they are made is expressed most vividly in what might be my favorite scene in the Coen brothers’ film (mild spoiler warning, since it comes very late in the film): a crew member goes to the Golgotha set and asks the actors on the crosses (whose faces we never see) whether they are “principals” or “extras”, because it will affect what kind of breakfast they get on set. The actor playing Jesus — who sounds very uncomfortable — doesn’t know how to respond at first, and finally, hopefully, says, “Principal?” There’s irony in the way the producers behind “a tale of the Christ” would leave the actor who plays Christ hanging like that (literally as well as figuratively!), but there’s also irony in the way the actor — unlike Jesus, who made himself nothing — seeks to elevate his status by claiming, however uncertainly, that he should be one of the film’s “principals”. (The way the actors’ status is linked to their food also brings to mind Pier Paolo Pasolini’s short film La Ricotta, in which an extra who plays the “good” thief in a movie about the crucifixion dies from indigestion because of his mistreatment on the set.)

One of the other central themes that runs throughout this film is the “split” between masters and servants: between the studio chiefs and the people who work for them, between the big-time writers and movie stars on the one hand and the mere extras on the other, between the Soviet masters and their Communist stooges in America, between the ancient Romans and their slaves, and so on. The word “split” first comes up when Mannix calls some religious leaders together — a Catholic priest, an Orthodox patriarch (impressive, since there are no patriarchs in North America!), a Protestant minister and a Jewish rabbi — to consult on the movie within the movie. The hilarious theological argument that ensues leaves Mannix confused, especially when the Catholic priest makes a distinction between “God” and “Son of God”. Is God “split,” Mannix asks? “Yes,” replies the priest, “and no.” The word comes up again when movie star Baird Whitlock (Clooney) is kidnapped by some Communist screenwriters who say that mankind is “split” between the people who do the work — like them — and the studio chiefs who profit from their work. But here, too, a pipe-smoking philosopher suggests that there may be some sort of unity behind the division. And all of these themes are ultimately touched upon in the final speech that Whitlock’s character is called upon to give at the foot of the cross in the movie within the movie. (Though note that, even here, the point is made that it must be Whitlock’s character — a high-ranking Roman, played by a top movie star — who gives the inspiring speech, and not just “some Roman schmoe”.)

There’s an apocalyptic undercurrent throughout the film. If my ears weren’t deceiving me, I got the distinct feeling that there was a rising ominous sound at the end of a few scenes, just before they cut to the next scenes. In one scene, a random accident almost kills a filmmaker and burns a hole through the movie she’s working on. There’s a passing reference to the fact that television is beginning to eat into the movie business, threatening the studio’s future. And while Mannix deals with all of the movie-studio craziness, he also has to figure out what to do with a job offer from Lockheed Martin: the hours would be better and he would spend more time with his family, but the company makes hydrogen bombs (“Armageddon!” the religiously-minded Mannix exclaims when he sees a photo of the first thermonuclear test), which casts a darker light on all his efforts to keep people entertained with light, “frivolous” movies.

Of course, there’s a lot more to the film than all these heavy themes. Hail, Caesar! also works as a frothy tribute to the Hollywood films of yesteryear, from singing cowboys to posh romances and sailor musicals with not-so-subtle gay subtexts. (Channing Tatum, who has already proved himself adept at comedy, drama and dancing, here adds singing to his résumé.) While the film is set in the early 1950s, it tips its hat to other decades, too: a friend of mine pointed out that a scene in which cowboy star Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) entertains his date by twirling a piece of spaghetti like a lasso may be a nod to the “spaghetti westerns” of the 1960s, and there’s a subplot in which the pregnant but unmarried Esther Williams-like water-ballet star DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) is encouraged to have her child in secret and then “adopt” it, just as Loretta Young did in the 1930s. (Notably, no one ever suggests that the promiscuous Moran get an abortion, as other female movie stars of that era often did at the studios’ behest. Young, for her part, was a devout Catholic who claimed years later that she had been date-raped by Clark Gable.)

Fans of Bible films will also get a kick out of some of the homages, coincidences, and opportunities to nitpick here. Curiously, the first bit of footage that we see from the movie within the movie is a clip of Saint Paul on the road to Damascus — an incident that, as far as I can tell, has never been depicted in a movie made by a major Hollywood studio before. (Paul himself has appeared in big-studio films like Quo Vadis and The Last Temptation of Christ, but the Damascus-road incident has not, to my knowledge.) Some of the movies within the movie are shown in a widescreen format, even though widescreen films didn’t really take off until The Robe came out two years later. A narrator tells us that the fictitous Hail, Caesar! takes place “twelve years into the rule of Tiberius,” which is actually off by at least three years. It is amusing, and probably purely coincidental, that Baird Whitlock is playing a Roman tribune, just as Joseph Fiennes will later this month in Risen. (Fiennes’ brother Ralph — who voiced the part of Jesus in The Miracle Maker — plays an effete movie director in Hail, Caesar!) And it is fun to see Jack Huston, star of the upcoming Ben-Hur remake, appear in a cameo as one of Capitol Pictures’ many movie stars.

It’s also fun to hear the characters talk about movies we never see with titles like On Wings as Eagles and The House of Ahasuerus. It’s a reminder of a time when writers and audiences were more biblically literate and could reference the Bible in their titles even when the stories themselves didn’t actually come from the Bible.

As entertaining as Hail, Caesar! is in places, I must confess that it doesn’t strike me as top-tier Coen brothers, at least not on first viewing. Actors like Tilda Swinton (who plays rival twin gossip columnists) and Jonah Hill (as a notary who steps in whenever the studio needs a “person” to take the fall for some celebrity’s misdeeds) appear so briefly and get so little to do that their fans may be disappointed. The scene where Fiennes tries to get drawling cowboy star Ehrenreich to speak upper-class dialogue is less funny in the film than it was in the trailer that featured this scene. And all the various setpieces are just barely held together by the sketchiest of plots.

But as an absurdist romp through Hollywood history and a provocative, deeply ironic riff on politics and religion and the things that give us meaning, Hail, Caesar! is a delight. As Mannix himself might say, the picture has worth.

Previous Post

February 4, 2016

The Brazilian Moses movie is big, but not quite that big

Next Post

February 8, 2016 Risen: the Joseph Fiennes interview round-up (2016/2/8)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why did God reject Saul as king?

Select your answer to see how you score.

He was tricked by David He lost in battle He was too old He disobeyed God