 |
| 'The Return of the Prodigal Son' (c.1669), Rembrandt |
-Brian Mendonca
The Sunday reading for today was the return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1-32). I was looking forward to listening to the parable after a long time. I was even more eager to see how the priest would interpret the sermon in today's context. I like the way the words of Jesus reify themselves over time.
But this experience was not to be had today. The priest informed us that he was reading the 'shorter form' of the Gospel. (Luke 15:1-10) That meant that the prodigal son stayed out. We were left with scraps of finding the lost sheep and the lost coin. We were totally lost.
What was more galling was that the screen at the service showed an unattributed picture of 'The Return of the Prodigal Son' by the Dutch master, Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669). Since the screen was in landscape mode and the painting in portrait, the painting was butchered by chopping off the head of the elder son in red on the right. The headless image was visible on the screen most of the time during the Mass, except when the hymns were being sung.
The Return of the Prodigal Son, oil on canvas, is believed to be one of the best works of Rembrandt and among the finest in the world. There is a sharp contrast of light and darkness. The detailing is minute. The father, for instance, has tired eyes, indicating his age; the prodigal son has one sandal on, and the other off. The right hand of the father is described as 'feminine,' the left as 'masculine.'
Shadowy figures lurk in the darkness. In the depths there is a woman, in the centre a lad, and next to him a contemplative figure. These are the secondary characters. The primary three characters are the father, with a red cloak, and the son; and the elder son (also in red, on the right.)
This painting is a masterpiece, painted just before Rembrandt died. At least be faithful to the original painting. This kind of a hack job on the screen does nothing to edify either art or God, besides being a gross violation of copyright law.
Unsurprisingly the priest only made a brief reference to the prodigal son and stressed that God loves us inspite of everything. This bland explanation of a passage rich with deeper meanings and psychological insights was the pits. If you do not enunciate the Gospel, how will you comment on it? The laity should not be taken for granted.
The explanation offered by the amiable priest was that 'the passage of the prodigal son is the first parable you are taught in catechism class, so there is no need to repeat it.'
Devotion increases with reinforcement. My Sunday was scalded because the prodigal son was thrown out of the church readings for the day when he had every right to inspire others by his remarkable volte face. The least the Sunday service could do is be faithful to his journey.
On the other hand, if the shrine puts out more of the great painters - if only to evoke the unvoiced portion of the gospel - I am ready for an art appreciation session, as this one turned out to be!
-------------------------------
Pic source: Wikimedia Commons.
Comments