…other than the fact that her name’s ludicrously hard to spell?

Everything.

But its because of Secretary, the 2002 movie by little-known director Steven Shainberg, that I’m saying this.

Finally seen yet another in my list of movies-to-be-seen (I will watch Donnie Darko v. soon!), and deeply enjoyed it. Here’s what you get: recently discharged from a mental institution, from a family imposed stay following their near-fatal discovery of her more self-damaging tendencies, Lee Holloway (Maggie-dear) looks for a way to put meaning into her life, and begins to find it in the routine tedium of an administrative job. “It’s boring, very boring. You’re over qualified, really,” says Mr Gray (James Spader), clearly selling the job well. “I like boring,” is Lee’s simple reply, and on they go. What follows is an absolutely bizarre courtship, complicated by Lee’s semi-autistic fiancee (also the victim of a nervous breakdown), and the progression of Mr Gray’s relationship with Lee Holloway from curt boss and fragile employee to (literal) sadist and (literal, but empowered) masochist.

And then they fall in love.

I don’t know how this holds up in terms of authenticity, but the film does what I require from film: it tells a story well, with believeable (albeit improbable) characters and a strong narrative drive, with superb acting on all parts, even the more minor characters. Jeremy Davies, who plays Peter, Lee’s fiancee, provides the same delightfully quirky semi-autistic performance he gave in Solaris, Steve Soderbergh’s remake of the 1972 movie of the same name. Maggie and James are both solid, too.

Highly recommended (though probably not for younger audiences).

I finally watched The Passion of the Christ. No moral outrage, oddly enough: I see what the fuss was about, and am glad to have seen the film for that reason, but on calm reflection found nothing morally objectionable about the film. I do, on the other hand, have some slight artistic outrage at the limited aesthetic values of the film.

What were Mel’s motivations? He claims to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit – of course I think that’s less than likely. It seemed more likely that Mel was making a personal effort to stir up Christianity as a whole; which I don’t find laudable, but certainly don’t think should be beyond his rights (although I don’t doubt that Mel believes that the Holy Spirit directed the film…).

The film, though, isn’t one with a good story: which is tragic, given that most of the stories about Jesus, whether you’re a Christian or not, are fascinating. The story of the big JC’s final hours is diminished by emphasizing the brutal torture rather than making an attempt at cohesive, coherent narrative flow. The torture/flashback sequences get, for want of a better word, somewhat tortured after about 30 minutes, and I found it remarkably difficult to empathize with Jesus’ reticence; which was just irritating.

I think most of the cries of “anti-semite” were overstated. It is true that Pilate’s role in Jesus’ torture and crucifixion is played down; but, in fact, the performance of Pilate was superb, and it was an interesting perspective, if one without massive historical evidence. But the Jews were hardly made out to be vicious psychopaths – only Caiaphas, really, and his motivation would be clear to anyone with any inkling of the story. Mob psychology is clearly the order of the day.

In short, furore aside, you’d be better off watching the 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar. It has a better grasp of the themes of Jesus’ life, the tragedy of Jesus’ death and a coherent flow from one to the other, not to mention some very funky tunes. The Passion seems more like a manic snuff film than anything else; but I guess, if that’s your thing, then go for it.