Gospel of John Movie

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that I have seen comericals for it, wasn’t it put out by the Mormons? If so than it wouldn’t be reliable. Hope that helps.
 
I have it.

It’s based on a word-for-word depiction of the Good News Bible. So if you have a problem with that translation you’ll have a problem with the movie. But recognize that it’s a movie. You won’t be engaging in comparative word studies while watching.

Having said that, I only found a few quibbles with it. For my taste, the language is a little too Americanized and I would have preferred a more elegant translation. Jesus is constantly saying “I tell you the truth.” It sounds odd coming from the lips of a British actor. And I prefer “Behold, the Lamb of God” which they render as “Look. There is the Lamb of God.” IIRC.

Jesus walking on the water is excellent and wonderous.
The rest of John 6 is handled well. And Peter seems to be handled well.

Mary, however, becomes a dowdy, somewhat overweight, English redhead. Totally out of place to my eye.

Music and voiceovers are very good to excellent. On my DVD version, the lighting flickers slightly and unexpectedly. But I only notice that if I’m looking for it.
 
I thought it was banal and inane. … Want Christopher Plummer doing voice overs THRUOUGHT the ENTIRE movie, that it gets so stupid, that in one scene, where Mary gets ready to tell Jesus they are out of wine (Cana) that you actually see the actress lip the words, “they are out of wine”, but instead of HER VOICE…you get to hear Christopher Plummers VOICE say the line as narration WHILE HER LIPS MOVE! :eek:

Its non stop incredibly lame narration that tells you EVERYTHING you are SEEING with your own eyes! I’ve never seen narration over kill in a film, til now.

Not good at all…not uplifting, no sense of wonderment or that choked up feeling one would expect from watching a movie on Christ… As dry as the desert that the apostles walked thru.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
I thought it was banal and inane. … Want Christopher Plummer doing voice overs THRUOUGHT the ENTIRE movie, that it gets so stupid, that in one scene, where Mary gets ready to tell Jesus they are out of wine (Cana) that you actually see the actress lip the words, “they are out of wine”, but instead of HER VOICE…you get to hear Christopher Plummers VOICE say the line as narration WHILE HER LIPS MOVE!
I think you are being a little too harsh. The film narration mirrors the gospel narration. The movie is a word for word recreation of the gospel. Within that limitation, how else would you film the scene? The filmakers made a perfectly reasonable choice.
Its non stop incredibly lame narration that tells you EVERYTHING you are SEEING with your own eyes! I’ve never seen narration over kill in a film, til now.
Had to be that way, otherwise you end up throwing out half the gospel.
Not good at all…not uplifting, no sense of wonderment or that choked up feeling one would expect from watching a movie on Christ… As dry as the desert that the apostles walked thru.
I tend to agree with you there. Like I said in an earlier post, I would have preferred a more elegant translation.
 
Mary, however, becomes a dowdy, somewhat overweight, English redhead. Totally out of place to my eye.
Yeah, and did you notice how they showed her remonstrating angrily with the servants? There’s not a syllable in the Gospel to indicate that she did any such thing, but the filmmakers apparently wanted to go out of their way to show how non-immaculate she is (in their view). :rolleyes:

I thought their choice of a particularly plain actress was also a subtle stab at Catholic veneration of Mary. Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive, but sheesh–couldn’t they have found someone a little prettier? If they could find a pretty Magdalene, then why not a pretty Mary? Especially since the actor playing Jesus was quite handsome (once one got past his perpetually greasy hair–apparently Jesus never took a bath, not even after His Resurrection. 😛 ). I mean, if Mary was so homely, how did she manage to produce such a handsome Son? Oh, but I forgot–she was just an “incubator.” 😃 That explains it!

I didn’t strongly dislike the movie in toto, though. It had its moments. As others have mentioned, the walking-on-water scene was pretty impressive.

But yes, the translation was banal. And the whole idea of word-for-word narration is pretty questionable, IMHO. A book is not a movie. And even the Book of books can’t be successfully rendered into cinematic form verbatim. Film is an intensely visual medium, not a verbal one. That is why (IMHO) Catholics make better filmmakers than Protestants do. We are visually attuned people. Just ask Mel Gibson. 😃

Blessings,

ZT
 
That is why (IMHO) Catholics make better filmmakers than Protestants do. We are visually attuned people.
Here’s another take (with gratitude to Arthur Machen) that I found enlightening:

“Art is the expression, through various media, of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and that which is in anyway out of harmony with these dogmas is not art, for Catholic dogma is merely the witness, under a special symbolism, of the enduring facts of human nature and the universe.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top