A couple of years ago, Jeymes Samuel (otherwise known as The Bullitts, under which he recorded music for several years) made a shift across the artistic aisle, going from an acclaimed musician to a film director, following the path of a small but solid group of artists who spread out into other areas in the entertainment industry. His narrative feature debut with The Harder They Fall, one of the most genuinely ambitious films of the present decade, and an attempt to revive the Western genre from a distinctly unique perspective, focusing on black figures that we know existed and played a vital role in the rich history of the Wild West, but are inexplicably erased from the narrative for reasons that have never been made quite clear. That film was a major success and immediately established Samuel as someone to watch. He has now followed that film with another voyage into the past, going even further back into history to 33AD, in which he once again crafts a revisionist film, this time forming it around the biblical epic. A genre that has been lost to time, replaced with cheap, mostly uninteresting faith-based films that lack the splendour and spectacle of the works of directors like Cecil B. DeMille and William Wyler, who made religion seem profoundly cinematic. The impetus for this film isn’t clear. Still, the result is The Book of Clarence, in which the director tells the fictional story of a man who lived concurrently with Jesus Christ and chooses to follow in his footsteps by proclaiming himself a messiah, which proves to be both an ingenious decision and one with severe consequences. A film that blends darkly comical satire with subtle social commentary aiming to draw correlations between the past and present, The Book of Clarence is quite an accomplishment – it is deeply flawed and has several shortcomings that stop it from achieving greatness, but the sheer audacity with which this story was crafted is truly a sight to behold, and something that immediately catches our attention from its first striking moments.

A sentiment usually shared by those who followed Samuel from his days recording and producing music under the moniker of The Bullitts is that his journey to being a filmmaker was nothing if not inevitable, with his music videos and stage shows being steeped heavily in cinematic references. It seemed like it was only a matter of time before he stepped behind the camera to make films of his own – and while The Book of Clarence is flawed in ways we will get to momentarily, we have to remark on just how brilliantly directed this film is, perhaps being too well-made for its good. Without any doubt, Samuel is a profoundly gifted filmmaker with a strong directorial eye, and while some of those talents may be slightly wasted in The Book of Clarence, there are countless moments where it feels genuinely quite electrifying. This film flows with a fascinating rhythm, and it is directed by someone who has a background in music since the tempo is unique and doesn’t pander to the same traditions of the genre. There are problems with this film, but none of them are necessarily related to the execution, which is sharp and extremely memorable. Samuel set out to make a film that feels like a bona fide spectacle, and he certainly succeeded in more ways than one – the visuals of the film are astonishing. A lot of effort is put into the period details, as well as transforming the locations to look exactly how we would imagine biblical-era Jerusalem would have looked at the time. Samuel has a great eye for detail, and he directs this film with incredible skill, enough to make it obvious that, as divisive as this film may be, he’s got a deeply promising career ahead of him that will be more than just a trivial attempt to move into a new medium, and more one that has the potential to reinvent the art of cinema in a small but significant way.

One of the main points of attraction with The Harder They Fall was the cast – somehow, this director who had not previously helmed a feature narrative film managed to wrangle some of the most acclaimed and gifted actors currently working, which is a rare feat for a debut filmmaker (and arguably had to do with the very famous producers and their influence), but which led to a truly exquisite, sprawling ensemble. The Book of Clarence follows a similar concept, employing a wide range of actors to play several folkloric figures, breathing new life into these characters with their unique interpretations. Returning from their previous collaboration, in which he plays a supporting role, LaKeith Stanfield takes on the titular role of Clarence (who is the identical twin brother of the apostle Thomas – it cannot be a coincidence that Samuel chose Clarence as the protagonist’s name, and instead it is more likely one of the many wry historical and social references that populate this film), and proves to be just as captivating as ever. It’s not a particularly difficult role, but it’s one that Stanfield convincingly plays from beginning to end. He’s joined by a tremendous ensemble, which includes R.J. Cyler, Omar Sy, Benedict Cumberbatch, Micheal Ward and exquisite but unfortunately small performances from the brilliant Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Alfre Woodard, who anchor the film emotionally and narratively. Perhaps the cast is too big because there’s hardly enough space to develop the majority of these characters. Yet, there’s still something profoundly captivating about how Samuel puts them all together and creates this vibrant and compelling ensemble, who are exceptionally led by Stanfield in yet another terrific performance that proves that he is amongst our greatest working actors.

However, the inherent problem with The Book of Clarence comes down to the writing. The mistake that Samuel makes is that he writes the script himself, and on his own – and while he’s certainly a gifted writer, something that becomes abundantly clear is that his grasp of humour is slightly lacking, and was severely in need of a co-writer who could emphasise the comedic aspects – The Harder They Fall was fantastic because it depended on the direction more than the writing, and wasn’t designed to be particularly funny outside of a couple of moments of comedic relief. The fact that this was intended to be a comedy, but sorely lacks any discernible humour outside of some mildly amusing moments, makes us wonder whether it was designed to be a straight drama that was reconfigured to be funnier in the editing room. There have been many comparisons between this and Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which is an identical story of an unknown contemporary of Jesus Christ who is mistaken as the Messiah. The primary difference here is that The Book of Clarence is neither nearly as funny nor as complex as it could have been, nor does it possess that renegade spirit. Understandably, not everyone is adept at satire, and Samuel doesn’t come across as someone who prioritizes the humour more than he does the spectacle, which would be acceptable had this film managed to choose a tone. It never quite knows what it wants to be, oscillating between satirical dark comedy and a hard-hitting social drama that uses biblical allegory to comment on contemporary issues. The result is a film that is entertaining but muddled, which is far from ideal for something that had so much promise and ambition behind its creation.

Predicting how a film like The Book of Clarence will be received in the future is a fool’s errand, since it is one of those works that doesn’t easily lend itself to a particular path, and instead depends on how forthcoming audiences will receive it, as well as how Samuels will develop as a director. It seemed poised to become something of a cult classic – it’s certainly still a very good film with tremendous eyes and several promising qualities, but it doesn’t come across as possessing many elements that make it clear where it will land amongst contemporary entries into this genre. Certainly, it will be viewed as a valiant attempt to revive a dormant genre, showing that interesting ideas still exist in biblical epics, but it will always carry the sentiment of not having gone far enough with its main themes. It’s a decent film, but one that relies too heavily on the concept and in the process loses the ability to choose a coherent direction, which leads to a middling effort that feels like a bundle of missed opportunities. However, there are elements of The Book of Clarence that still show a lot of promise. The creativity that went into the film is astounding, and it feels like Samuel is on the precipice of a breakthrough that will establish him as one of our greatest and most exciting filmmakers. The performances are strong and the message carries a lot of weight. Even though the tonal imbalances and sometimes jagged narrative, The Book of Clarence is entertaining and reliable, and it proves that there is still a market for this kind of large-scale epic, granted it has some sense of subversion lurking beneath the surface. It may not revolutionize the genre, but it offers something unique and compelling, which is more than enough for such a simple but evocative piece of filmmaking.