Son of God

[IrishTiger]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/opinion/c ... ?hpt=hp_c3

[bookworm]

I still don’t get why this is such a big deal. What Jesus looks like could not be more trivial; what is important is how they impart what He came to teach us.

[Blitz]

Plain down wierd.

[jelly]

This is worth linking to: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... cs/1282186

[IrishTiger]

He looks like a scruffy John the Baptist....

And, according to the article, He was short....but that makes sense...

Interesting article.

[jelly]

It's naive to pretend like it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, as if we weren't all inherently guilty of judging people based on their physical appearances. There's been a lot of controversial backlash recently over Photoshop manipulation of women on magazine covers and advertisements, and rightly so. The Hollywood industry has been glamorizing and romanticising reality for far too many years. Indulging in fantasy isn't healthy, especially when it blatantly warps the truth. So Hollywood Jesus falls in this category. Sure, we can pretend that Son of God is an important film because it borrows script from the Gospels, but what's really being marketed here is another indulgence in Hollywood fantasy. Big, Epic orchestral score, cinematic close-ups, expositional dialogue and Movie Star aesthetics. This is an exploitation film. We see them come and go every blockbuster season. There have been plenty of Jesus films, just as there have been plenty Fast & Furious films. Most of them wind up forgotten, because fashion doesn't last. Hollywood Jesus is a disgrace to the Christian faith because it indulges in the superficial, rather than properly reflecting the eternal.

That's why it matters.

[bookworm]

I’m sorry, but I am still not getting this at all. I can understand saying it may be better to not be so stereotypical or whatever you want to label it, but I can’t get why it’s conclusively bad. You like to chide other people for being too narrow minded, but is that not exactly what you’re doing here? You seem to be saying that because, horror of horrors, Jesus is played by a moderately attractive actor, it’s impossible for the movie to have a valid message. That’s just absurd.

[jelly]

I’m sorry, but I am still not getting this at all. I can understand saying it may be better to not be so stereotypical or whatever you want to label it, but I can’t get why it’s conclusively bad. You like to chide other people for being too narrow minded, but is that not exactly what you’re doing here? You seem to be saying that because, horror of horrors, Jesus is played by a moderately attractive actor, it’s impossible for the movie to have a valid message. That’s just absurd.

That's not what I said at all.

[bookworm]

I didn’t think it could be because I know you know better, but that is the message I’m consistently getting. (Which is why I’ve had consistent confusion at your apparent position.) What are you saying then?

[jelly]

That the Gospels deserve far better than the Hollywood treatment.

[bookworm]

Deserve, sure, but does that mean it’s bad to give them the ‘treatment’ if that’s how the movies get made?

[jelly]

I, for one, wouldn't let a movie studio off the hook so easily for botching up the adaptation of one of my favourite books. Why would I hold the Gospels to any less of a standard?

[bookworm]

I thought I was coming around, but now I’m just more confused. I thought we were talking about how the actors look? That’s generally considered acceptable artistic license in movie adaptations. Because, again, it’s one of the least important things.

[jelly]

I thought I was coming around, but now I’m just more confused. I thought we were talking about how the actors look? That’s generally considered acceptable artistic license in movie adaptations. Because, again, it’s one of the least important things.

I already addressed this on the first page of the thread.

[ric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WybvhRu9KU

Doesn't quite pertain but this conversation made me think of it. It's a great song.

[bookworm]

I already addressed this on the first page of the thread.

Not well enough, because as I said my takeaway from everything you've said so far is that if Jesus is fair skinned the movie can't be good. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm truly trying to understand where you're coming from, but I cannot get to the view that what the actor looks like makes or breaks the value of the film's message.

-- 28 Feb 2014 12:34 pm --

I’ll try to help you help me understand. I’ll attempt to identify my disconnect.

To me, it seems you’re saying two entirely different things. For this movie you’re saying that because the filmmakers took the most insignificant liberty imaginable, a character’s appearance, the entire project needs to be condemned. Yet for Noah, which apparently takes huge liberties in what actually matters, the actual story, you have nothing but the highest praise. So this can’t be about how they choose to adapt the story, as you said previously, it must be something else, but I have no idea what it is.

[jelly]

I already addressed this on the first page of the thread.

Not well enough, because as I said my takeaway from everything you've said so far is that if Jesus is fair skinned the movie can't be good. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm truly trying to understand where you're coming from, but I cannot get to the view that what the actor looks like makes or breaks the value of the film's message.

Picture a film based on the life of Martin Luther King Jr starring an actor of caucasian heritage. Or even just an actor who can't act. Even if they "get the message right," a poor artistic choice can quickly undermine everything.

I just saw the film last night. Regrettably, but not unexpectedly, it's rather full of poor artistic choices. Jesus predictably says big things like "we're going to change the world," in a dramatic british accent highlighted by epic music and lens flares, woah flying camera! and claustrophobic closeups, but we never find out exactly what that means. The film doesn't tell us. It's nothing more than a highlight reel of Jesus' "big moments," walking on water one minute and raising Lazarus from the dead the next. It was all SO rushed, SO poorly paced that none of these moments hold any dramatic significance outside of the visceral melodrama of the moment. It was like the trailer but it never stopped being a trailer. It was just a big, exhausting montage. The first half of the film was nothing more than randomly selected miracles (where were the parables?), and the second half tried to do everything that Mel Gibson's Passion film already did but didn't do it nearly as well. The fact that this was originally a TV miniseries was painfully obvious. Maybe it worked way better on the small screen. It certainly didn't work well on the big screen.

For a film that was so rushed and trying so hard to do everything, the real disappointment was all the stuff they DIDN'T include. There's no scene where Jesus talks to the woman at the well. There's no scene where Jesus hangs out with prostitutes and criminals. No scenes where Jesus tells stories to his disciples or even just takes time to relax and eat a meal (the Last Supper scene is rushed and for some bizarre reason Jesus just leaves before they're finished eating). No temptation scene. In other words, there was never a moment where Jesus actually seemed human. He was too busy being a superhero. Superhero Jesus. Performing miracles and not much else. Oh wow, look at all those evil religious leaders whispering to each other in a temple that is lit like a dark dungeon. Look at the way everyone just starts crying when Jesus says things. How could anyone not follow this guy?

THIS is fantasy Jesus. Hollywood Jesus. Sure, it "gets the message across." But what kind of message is that, exactly? The film sure doesn't say. In fact, if you weren't already very familiar with all the Jesus stories, you would have no idea what was happening most of the time (there's a scene where Jesus finds out that John the Baptist is dead, and he's sad for like three seconds. But we have no idea who John the Baptist even is. The film never shows us).

The fact that Jesus is played by a hot british actor is only a small part of the problem.

[Astronomer]

Thank you for that, Jelly. After being confused through this thread, that clarified things.
Would it be safe to boil down your statements to "A story should not be merely a vehicle for a message"?

[jelly]

Would it be safe to boil down your statements to "A story should not be merely a vehicle for a message"?

Yeah, that's absolutely true. When the agenda (message) is driving the story, people are less likely to be interested in the story because they already know what you're trying to do. If I preach to you, you can either agree with me or disagree. If I tell you a good story, you're drawn in, captivated. Then, if the message is in the subtext, you might be compelled to hear what I have to say!

[Jason Whits Son]

It sounds like Jellyfish and I are pretty much on the same page. However, I just saw the trailer for this movie, and I'm not as cautious about it as I was. It occurred to me that scenes with Jesus barely clothed as seen in the article aren't going to be seen throughout the movie. Until that part of the movie, he's dressed modestly and honestly portrays a worthwhile depiction of Jesus as far as I can tell.