Anyone been keeping up with this? Mel Gibson's upcoming movie about Christ? Spoken entirely in Aramaic and Latin (with 'reluctant' subtitles, according Empire Online).

I just watched the trailer and it looks like a very good film (I wouldn't expect less from Gibson!).

http://www.aintitcool.com/ThePassion.mov

I am not a big Shakespeare fan, but thoroughly enjoyed HAMLET with Gibson. Therfore, I'll definitely go see THE PASSION!

Empire online describes it as having "humiliation, torture and buckets of blood . . .". Definitely not a typical feel-good movie about Christ. I imagine more historically accurate (if anyone actually knows for sure!).

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?story=4882

Watch the trailer and judge for yourself.

I heard about that... Latin and Aramaic? Gee it had to be hard to get a role in that film! "Do you speak Latin and Aramaic?" "No, but I know some French." "Sorry!" It will be a hard movie for me to enjoy, cause I don't like subtitles. They take away from the performance.

Not so historically accurate as to have a Jew play the title role though :-/

Like Braveheart, where an Aussi played a Scottish folkhero?

I'm not sure if the subtitles will bother me or not. I like foreign films and the trailer for TP looks very good.

Certainly not to take away from screenwriters (or any writers!), but if movies are a visual medium (in general), then it may be entertaining without understanding the dialogue!

I'll see it anyway. It will definitely be different!

And not so historically accurate as to get the placement of the nails right. Experimental evidence shows that if one were to crucify a full-grown man with nails through his palms, his weight would just tear the nails through his hands. If nails were used--and there is evidence that victims were nailed in the 1st Century--the placement would have been between the radius and cubitus. Roman documentary evidence validates this nail placement.

Also in that period, the cross would not have been a crux immissa (Latin cross, shaped like a +) but more likely a crux commissa (Tau cross, shaped like a T). The condemned would have carried only the patibulum (crossbeam), not the stipes (upright portion), which would have been permanently fixed at the execution site.

Both of these factoids are have been common knowledge to Christian scholars for some decades, so it's surprising to see a movie released in 2003 that still gets them wrong.

Trouble with religious flicks is that everything you do is subject to being considered blasphemy by someone else. There are many religions and variations on those religions that all have very different takes on Jesus. For example, Catholics, Unitarians, various Protestants and Muslims all believe in Jesus as being a holy figure of some sort - but all very differently. There's just no way you could make a film about it and not offend at least 50% of the populace...

Kevin Smith managed to piss off 90% of the churches with Dogma :)

Like Braveheart, where an Aussi played a Scottish folkhero?More like Braveheart, where an Aussi misplayed a Scottish folkhero!Trouble with religious flicks is that everything you do is subject to being considered blasphemy by someone else. There are many religions and variations on those religions that all have very different takes on Jesus. For example, Catholics...Strange things is, of course, that although Gibson's a Catholic, Jesus wasn't a Christian! ha ha ha

I agree with Imran that any religious film will get grief from someone. I remember when LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST came out and it was being creamed by various groups (most who had not seen it!).

I wonder which groups (and for what reason) will bash PASSION? I still think it will be a well-made film, with a much different slant on the Gospel (at least told more graphically). I'm actually looking forward to it!

I, for one, welcome any re-telling of the tale from a different angle, being largely unhappy with most portrayals thus far. I'm sorry, I just can't reconcile myself with the visions of Jesus in Hollywood thus far - blonde hair and blue eyes? Please. If we can't even get Hollywood to have a non-Fabio looking Jesus, how can we expect them to tell the tale without serious question of their true intentions behind the production?

They say the Bible is the most sold book of all time. I guess Hollywood is trying to cash in on that hype? Jeez. (pun intended). :P

As far as I can figure, Jesus was actually dark skinned, not Caucasion. Of course, that would just send the world into a tizzy, wouldn't it?

Has there ever been a film about the Gospels (or Christ) that used dark-skinned actors for all characters? You would think that with all of the movie making around the world, there would be one somewhere, but maybe not!

Hmm. It could make an interesting short - if all actors were cast 'nationality-appropriate looking'.

This is dangerous for me. Now I something to think about! I would love to shoot a religious short like that. It wouldn't have to be the last three days - it could be any part of his life. Hmm.

Mark,

That is interesting that no major films on Christianity, casting all actors of Middle Eastern descent, comes to mind. Sounds like you're on to something.

I have also seen Documentarys that have said Christ was even darker than that. They showed a "Holy" island in or near Ethiopia, where Christ is supposed to have visited. Mind you, these monks have a tremendous reputation for accurate historical documentation. They showed a painting of the Christ child with his Mother, and they were clearly of black descent.

I would guess that the rationale behind a blue-eyed Jesus lies more in the realm of economics than in outright bigotry. If the film were totally accurate, Jesus would look nothing like Mel Gibson, at which point it becomes an interesting but obscure little bit of movie-making. Big name, big interest, right?

Besides, Hollywood has historically been quite content with gutting historical accuracy for the sake of box office. It's a dream factory, not a fact factory. :)

Alot of what Hollywood has done, is nothing new. The church has been doing it from the begining. You have to remember that Christianity was finally sanctioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 3rd century.

The Romans had always had a strong racial bias, and in order to get the people to follow this religion, certain accomodations were made. Who would follow a Jew, let alone a Black one? So, they made a few changes to attract followers, and followers equal donations to the church. Donations equal power.

Christ was a dark skinned Caucasion like other semetic people. His geneology is clearly outlined in the bible (decent from line of David).
The whole northern European look was made popular by the Catholic church and the artists they hired. Part racial, part business as usual for the church, which tries to adapt christianity to various local cultures. Most of europe didn't convert until Charlemaign(8th century) had his own little holy war and created the brand spanking new Holy Roman Empire.

Conversely, the Orthodox church has always portrayed him with dark hair, dark eyes, more middle eastern/Greek in appearance.

Based on a breif Roman report about his death, he had dark brown hair (chestnut I think).

btw...The blacks jews in Ethiopia were converted, not an original line, though they are fully accepted in Isreal. As far as the christians there...Seeing a picture of a black Jesus is no different then seeing a white one. Depends on the local culture.


I still remember back in the early 70s, we would point to Jesus when somone said something about our long hair.hehehe

"His geneology is clearly outlined in the bible (decent from line of David)."

Except that the genealogy given in Luke differs from the one given in Matthew, and both trace the lineage of Joseph, to whom Jesus is supposedly not related...

What is confusing is Heli is the father of Mary as listed in Luke. It says Joseph pointing to Joseph as the son-in-law of Heli. Matthew is a legal linage and Luke is a blood linage. The Gospel of John also has a linage. That would make three total. It actually does make sense, but is a little long winded for a forum.

I will explain a little anyway.
When a man had no sons his linage ended. But so his line could continue if his daughter married then the son-in-law became as his own son and inherited all his son would have. Heli had no sons, therefore Joseph became his son.

John doesn't have a genealogy.

The legal vs. blood lineage hypothesis conjectures a levirate marriage of Joseph's mother to a brother of her deceased husband to whom she bore Joseph. A stronger hypothesis defended by apologists is that the Luke genealogy is actually Mary's lineage, as Jospeh is the only name in the list without a definite article and may have been a parenthetical insertion (in other words, an error). This is strengthened by the observation that Mary is the chief subject of Luke up to that point but is only mentioned in passing in Matthew. Thus Heli would be the father of Mary.

I don't know any of my own lineages back more than six or seven generations and I would be interested in knowing how they kept better records prior to 4 BC.

John sure does have a genealogy.

Matthew begins the genealogy at Abraham. Links to Joseph and the legal line.
Luke begins the genealogy at Adam. Links to Mary and the blood line.
John begins the genealogy before time and creation. Links to God and the Devine line.

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : As far as I can figure, Jesus was actually dark skinned, not Caucasion. Of course, that would just send the world into a tizzy, wouldn't it? -->>>

Jesus was Jewish. He would look like people in Isreal today. I would not call that dark skinned.

Much like our country (USA) the more time someone spends in the sun the darker they get (usually). With as much time as Jesus spent outside, I would guess that he was fairly dark.
The more we as a whole become cross-cultural the less of an issue this becomes. It is a real shame that it ever was an issue. Personally, I find the pale depictions of Jesus a bit amusing and sad at the same time.

When I first heard of this movie, I thought it sounded a little strange. I had my doubts as to how successful it would be. However the more I have seen of it the more impressed I become. I look forward to seeing it.

I think it will be a good movie. From what I read is Mel Gibson is not going to have
subtitles when it hits the theaters. It will for DVD.
I saw a post that Jesus didn't look like Mel Gibson. If you don't know Gibson does not play the role of Christ.

It's something to see what happens when someone tries to make a film about Jesus that is not blasphemy. Gibson himself said it was a career busting film. Hollywood doesn't like to hear the word Jesus unless it's used with a swear word. But they will give in because they love money and this movie will make money.

It will be a hard movie for me to enjoy, cause I don't like subtitles. They take away from the performance.

That is pretty funny. Here in The Netherlands EVERYTHING is
subtitled (instead of done in a new voice as in germany for
example). I'm so used to subtitles that I don't even see them
anymore.

If the story "sucks" you in I highly doubt you would see the
titles after a little while. The eye is quite quick to adapt.

The trick for me with subtitles in theaters is, while normally I like to sit closer to the front, it's imperative in subtitled movies to hang back a little. That way reading the subtitles doesn't hurt your view of the film as a whole... your peripheral vision always picks everything up and pretty soon you forget that you're reading subtitles.