Jesus of Montreal was a Palme d'Or winner at Cannes, and must certainly count as one of the more intellectual and challenging films even to have won that accolade. The group of actors, putting on a revised version of the passion play, fall foul of the Church authorities who find it too radical, while living lives that come to mirror their roles quite closely. It seems to get to the heart of the enigma of Christ, and questions how he would be received if he were alive today. It could be read as a Christian film, or a debunking of Christianity, presenting at the same time an apparent mystery of coincidence without any divine explanation, and focusing on context as all-important. It also shows how many Christian precepts obviously make sense as a code for living, while the mystery of events near the end adds one layer of enigma over another, like a palimpsest. The core group of 'actors' are very good, while Lothaire Bluteau astonishes in his psychological radiance, becoming something quite sublime - or possibly just delirious - after he has bumped his head. So there's the mystery of great acting as well - is it 'faking' something or does it get to deeper truths than normal existence? My only criticism arises out of its distancing stance - there is something detached about it, taken as a whole, that leaves you slightly unsatisfied, in the way you might be by Brecht. In one sense this throws Bluteau's heartrending flights into stark relief, but there is a slight sense of an intellectual puzzle that demonstrates rather than inhabits. If you like the classic German playwright, you're more likely to respond positively to this.