For those who aren't aware, this is an anthropomorphic retelling of two Biblical stories: how Judas betrayed Jesus, combined with the story of how armageddon begins with wh*re of Babylon and the seven-headed dragon. I say combined because neither of these stories are connected (other than through being in the same religious text), and the representation of Mary's character alone shows that Encke's knowledge on Christianity is purely based on ill-preached zealots and pop culture.
The animation of the short is fantastic -- smooth movements, expressive body language, and exaggerated facial features really call back to the classic hand-drawn cartoons done by Warner and Disney. That alone is what garnered three stars because it's that impressive. I say this because, well... not much else about this is.
The story itself is very ham-fisted with the satire, to the point that it feels like Encke tried too hard to be offensive; where the animation feels like classic hand-drawn cartoons, the satire echoes that of modern day MacFarlane or South Park, begging for negative response so one can point and laugh and say "Ha! You're SO mad!" Satire, when done correctly, can deliver an important message about cultural and social issues. Encke just seemed to forget that satire isn't supposed to be consistently blatant.
The characters themselves are also pretty flat: Jesus, the privileged-born self-made martyr who makes a point to show off his holiness while implying it to all be a farce, being just as bad as everyone else. Judas, the under-privileged bad boy born, living a hedonistic life and being the only one to see how self-righteous Jesus is. Mary Magdalene, the love interest of both, who is indulged by Judas and scorned by Jesus.
The irony is how much of a martyr the story seemed to make Judas -- born poor and in a wh*rehouse (meaning no nuclear family dynamic and no loving parents), he wants people to see what a horrible person Jesus truly is, and in the end, is lynched for selling him out. It's very clear the intention was to show the audience how Christianity obviously twisted the story to make the pompous guy the hero and the only one who saw what an a-hole Jesus was the villain. "The wrong side of history blah blah blah". This message is made clear 2 minutes in yet they beat it to death for an entire 15.
The music choices were just as overly blatant. In any scene featuring Judas' bad-boy lifestyle habits and choices, I can't pinpoint any songs by name, but I feel that I could tag any stereotypical rock and roll "i'm no saint i'm a stone cold sinner" song from the '70s or '80s and it would fit. The way the songs were cut in and out was unnatural; it reminded me of the early YouTube days when people would use MovieMaker and make those video stories, and any time the mood changed they'd just have the current song fade out completely in the middle of a line and then fade in a new song, in the middle of a new line. It made the audio as a whole very distracting and somewhat jarring in contrast to tne quality of the animation, like a high schooler did the audio editing.
As a retelling, it is, once again, on the same Bibical knowledge level as someone who went to one church sermon with a biased preacher, and the rest of their knowledge and experience on Christianity came from neckbeard atheists and adult cartoons. Anyone who does their research -- which one would if they were to write a satirical piece on the subject they're criticizing -- will quickly find these things in the first hour or so of research: Jesus did not shame anyone for their sins. The whole point of him being seen as holy as he was, was that others would shame people for their sins, and he would tell them, "do not shame them; forgive them". Yes, this can he taken in a self-righteous manner, depending on the "sin" in question and whether or not the intention was to "forgive" them for being offensive to the masses, or to "forgive" them for what makes them human and ultimately, not shame them for being human. The depiction of Jesus in this film reflects how Christians may act, but the point of the film wasn't about the hypocrisy of modern day zealots versus scripture. If it was, then this satirical depiction would be perfect! But it wasn't. Judas wasn't scorned or othered; he was one of the twelve disciples and followed Jesus' teachings. This alone makes this entire satire that much more ineffective; in the Bible, they only demonize Judas once he decides to betray Jesus. Until then he is treated just like the other disciples. There's also discrepancies on whether Judas betrayed Jesus due to greed (as depicted in this animation) or if he was literally influenced by Satan -- something not completely within his control, something that would actually make his situation, to a degree, sympathetic. Mary. As mentioned earlier, Mary's depiction alone solidifies that Encke has little knowledge of Christianity. In fact, I retract my statement about research for an hour, just for this part, because I Googled Mary Magdalene just for the hell of it to see if this would be buried information, and it wasn't: Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was not seen as a sexual deviant. She is, in fact, a saint. And this information comes up in the wikipedia on her within the fourth paragraph of the introductory information on her! This alone highlights how little Encke actually looked into Christianity, and, frankly, seals the fate of this entire short.
Satire is meant criticize issues and reveal the idiocracy of those causing the issues, but in order to criticize, you first need to understand your topic. As someone who was never even devout to Christianity, I can say this is hardly a satire, because Encke doesn't know anything about what he's criticizing. This is more so an edgy furry fanfiction retelling of the relationship of Jesus and Judas.
As a disclaimer: I'm a former Christian, now polytheist. So no, my review isn't influenced by any kind of religious bias. I love to pick apart all religions -- they're fascinating! And Western Christianity has a LOT of problems! But the execution of said dissection for entertainment should be judged just like any non-theistic satire. This was a failed attempt at satire and should be regarded as such. Does that mean you can't enjoy it or be entertained by it? Of course not! But no, this is not good satire. Just edgy, uninformed, and probably reflecting some pretty hard bias.
The animation of the short is fantastic -- smooth movements, expressive body language, and exaggerated facial features really call back to the classic hand-drawn cartoons done by Warner and Disney. That alone is what garnered three stars because it's that impressive. I say this because, well... not much else about this is.
The story itself is very ham-fisted with the satire, to the point that it feels like Encke tried too hard to be offensive; where the animation feels like classic hand-drawn cartoons, the satire echoes that of modern day MacFarlane or South Park, begging for negative response so one can point and laugh and say "Ha! You're SO mad!" Satire, when done correctly, can deliver an important message about cultural and social issues. Encke just seemed to forget that satire isn't supposed to be consistently blatant.
The characters themselves are also pretty flat: Jesus, the privileged-born self-made martyr who makes a point to show off his holiness while implying it to all be a farce, being just as bad as everyone else. Judas, the under-privileged bad boy born, living a hedonistic life and being the only one to see how self-righteous Jesus is. Mary Magdalene, the love interest of both, who is indulged by Judas and scorned by Jesus.
The irony is how much of a martyr the story seemed to make Judas -- born poor and in a wh*rehouse (meaning no nuclear family dynamic and no loving parents), he wants people to see what a horrible person Jesus truly is, and in the end, is lynched for selling him out. It's very clear the intention was to show the audience how Christianity obviously twisted the story to make the pompous guy the hero and the only one who saw what an a-hole Jesus was the villain. "The wrong side of history blah blah blah". This message is made clear 2 minutes in yet they beat it to death for an entire 15.
The music choices were just as overly blatant. In any scene featuring Judas' bad-boy lifestyle habits and choices, I can't pinpoint any songs by name, but I feel that I could tag any stereotypical rock and roll "i'm no saint i'm a stone cold sinner" song from the '70s or '80s and it would fit. The way the songs were cut in and out was unnatural; it reminded me of the early YouTube days when people would use MovieMaker and make those video stories, and any time the mood changed they'd just have the current song fade out completely in the middle of a line and then fade in a new song, in the middle of a new line. It made the audio as a whole very distracting and somewhat jarring in contrast to tne quality of the animation, like a high schooler did the audio editing.
As a retelling, it is, once again, on the same Bibical knowledge level as someone who went to one church sermon with a biased preacher, and the rest of their knowledge and experience on Christianity came from neckbeard atheists and adult cartoons. Anyone who does their research -- which one would if they were to write a satirical piece on the subject they're criticizing -- will quickly find these things in the first hour or so of research: Jesus did not shame anyone for their sins. The whole point of him being seen as holy as he was, was that others would shame people for their sins, and he would tell them, "do not shame them; forgive them". Yes, this can he taken in a self-righteous manner, depending on the "sin" in question and whether or not the intention was to "forgive" them for being offensive to the masses, or to "forgive" them for what makes them human and ultimately, not shame them for being human. The depiction of Jesus in this film reflects how Christians may act, but the point of the film wasn't about the hypocrisy of modern day zealots versus scripture. If it was, then this satirical depiction would be perfect! But it wasn't. Judas wasn't scorned or othered; he was one of the twelve disciples and followed Jesus' teachings. This alone makes this entire satire that much more ineffective; in the Bible, they only demonize Judas once he decides to betray Jesus. Until then he is treated just like the other disciples. There's also discrepancies on whether Judas betrayed Jesus due to greed (as depicted in this animation) or if he was literally influenced by Satan -- something not completely within his control, something that would actually make his situation, to a degree, sympathetic. Mary. As mentioned earlier, Mary's depiction alone solidifies that Encke has little knowledge of Christianity. In fact, I retract my statement about research for an hour, just for this part, because I Googled Mary Magdalene just for the hell of it to see if this would be buried information, and it wasn't: Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was not seen as a sexual deviant. She is, in fact, a saint. And this information comes up in the wikipedia on her within the fourth paragraph of the introductory information on her! This alone highlights how little Encke actually looked into Christianity, and, frankly, seals the fate of this entire short.
Satire is meant criticize issues and reveal the idiocracy of those causing the issues, but in order to criticize, you first need to understand your topic. As someone who was never even devout to Christianity, I can say this is hardly a satire, because Encke doesn't know anything about what he's criticizing. This is more so an edgy furry fanfiction retelling of the relationship of Jesus and Judas.
As a disclaimer: I'm a former Christian, now polytheist. So no, my review isn't influenced by any kind of religious bias. I love to pick apart all religions -- they're fascinating! And Western Christianity has a LOT of problems! But the execution of said dissection for entertainment should be judged just like any non-theistic satire. This was a failed attempt at satire and should be regarded as such. Does that mean you can't enjoy it or be entertained by it? Of course not! But no, this is not good satire. Just edgy, uninformed, and probably reflecting some pretty hard bias.