If you can make a Jesus Film, what would you do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can imagine the posts about it already. 😛

I think that would be a bit theologically tenuous, though. Using the same actor’s voice would be a neat idea if it was anyone other than Jesus being tempted. In Jesus’ case, it would have many people interpreting it dualistically as though it means Jesus and Satan are two sides of the same coin. That would be a bit problematic.
Hmm, ya got a point there. 😃
 
Very sorry everyone, but I’ve got another nit to rant on:
Why is it that the Pharisees and the high priests are sometimes depicted as being pretty much the same people - that people at times say, “the Pharisees put Jesus to death”? 🤷

Now, with that off my chest, I’ll resurrect the two questions we’ve all forgotten about:

1.) What about the soundtrack?
2.) I’ve asked how we would characterize Jesus. How then would we characterize His disciples?
 
To be honest, I don’t know that I WOULD go the standard retelling-one-or-more-Gospels route. It’s been done so many times.

I’d be more interested, for example, in imagining what His ‘hidden years’ would’ve been like, including His relationship with His cousin John the Baptist (in view of their very different personalities), Joseph and Mary, His ‘brother’ James and the people of Nazareth who were later so dismissive of Him.

Or perhaps focus on how all those around Him might’ve seen Him and what they might’ve thought of Him. His enemies among the Pharisees and Sanhedrin, Judas, those who rejected Him after John 6, the rich young man, as well as supporters like Nicodemus, the Apostles, those who were healed by Him etc.

I’m thinking a bit Ben Hur here - a film where He plays a large role without the audience ever seeing His face or (if memory serves) hearing His voice
 
To be honest, I don’t know that I WOULD go the standard retelling-one-or-more-Gospels route. It’s been done so many times.

I’d be more interested, for example, in imagining what His ‘hidden years’ would’ve been like, including His relationship with His cousin John the Baptist (in view of their very different personalities), Joseph and Mary, His ‘brother’ James and the people of Nazareth who were later so dismissive of Him.

Or perhaps focus on how all those around Him might’ve seen Him and what they might’ve thought of Him. His enemies among the Pharisees and Sanhedrin, Judas, those who rejected Him after John 6, the rich young man, as well as supporters like Nicodemus, the Apostles, those who were healed by Him etc.
That’s certainly some rarely-explored territory there. 🙂
I’m thinking a bit Ben Hur here - a film where He plays a large role without the audience ever seeing His face or (if memory serves) hearing His voice
Trivia: the 1957 film version of Ben-Hur was made in a time when Hollywood had a sort of phobia against showing Jesus and His life overtly onscreen, due to the 1934 Production Code which required a high standard of reverence toward any depiction of Our Lord, thus discouraging many filmmakers into tackling His life (the last time Jesus can be seen on the theaters was in Cecil B. DeMille’s 1927 The King of Kings; He would not make any further major appearance until the 1961 King of Kings by Nicholas Ray). Filmmakers at the time usually played it safe and filmed religious epics like Quo Vadis, The Robe, Barabbas and Ben-Hur instead, where Jesus can be a pivotal character but does not (have to) make any direct appearance. And they used every opportunity they could to hide His face and sometimes, His voice. Just so there wouldn’t be any danger of irreverence.

The situation was quite similar to the UK, where any depiction of Jesus on film was forbidden by the British Board of Film Censors until the end of World War II (DeMille’s film had to obtain a license to be screened, and Jesus was edited out of other films). This may be the reason why Ben-Hur does not have any full-frontal view of Christ: it was also intended for British distribution.
 
Very sorry everyone, but I’ve got another nit to rant on:
Why is it that the Pharisees and the high priests are sometimes depicted as being pretty much the same people - that people at times say, “the Pharisees put Jesus to death”? 🤷
Ignorance of scriptural History?

Lack of available screen time to depict the conflict between these factions?
Now, with that off my chest, I’ll resurrect the two questions we’ve all forgotten about:
1.) What about the soundtrack?
I’d get a modern composer to do original instrumentals, possibly based on Jewish/Hebrew/mideastern folk music.
2.) I’ve asked how we would characterize Jesus. How then would we characterize His disciples?
Good question. Since there were twelve people, I’m not up to all of it, however:

– Saint Peter: Young man, physically as large or larger than our LORD, muscular and impulsive.

– Saint John: A kid, less than twenty years old, in sort of a “baby brother” role to our LORD.

– Virgin Mary: a sweet voiced, mostly quiet lady between upper middle age and lower old age. (She would have been at least 48 when HE died; and human beings aged fast in that place and time).

Martha/Mary: 2 ladies of similar age and slightly resembling physically, constantly bickering.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Ignorance of scriptural History?

Lack of available screen time to depict the conflict between these factions?
I think that another thing that contributes to this misconception is the Gospels themselves, or at least, a misreading of them. The Gospels mention the Pharisees more than any other group as opposing Jesus and plotting to get rid of Him a number of times, so I think it wouldn’t be too strange to imagine them as the culprits for handing Jesus over to death.
That being said, this misconception actually has no basis, if you’ll look closer into the Gospels and the historical context. In all four Gospels, the Pharisees are sidelined once Holy Week begins and “the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders” take the lead (there are only two instances in all four Gospels where the Pharisees are explicitly mentioned: Matthew 27:62 and John 18:3, and even there they are distinguished from “the chief priests”). They are among the key players in the Passion of Our Lord.

Historically this distinction is correct: it is likely that a number of the top positions at this time, such as the office of the high priesthood and the gerousia (the ‘council of elders’), were controlled by Sadducees or their symphatizers - since Rome found them to be willing accomplices and mediators, but it isn’t really clear whether the ‘chief priests’, ‘elders’, ‘rulers’, and the ‘first men’ were all Sadducees. But what we can be certain is that these groups did share the same political alliances and economic interests, which is why they view anyone trying to upset the applecart with suspicion - and Jesus happened to do so.

By contrast, the Pharisees seemed to be the thorns in the side for the upper-class: the party has in fact suffered persecution during the days of the Hasmonean kings due to their position against the wars of expansion of the Hasmoneans and the forced conversions of the Idumeans, as well as their opposition to the combining of the offices of king and high priest (something that was in effect since Jonathan ‘Apphus’ Maccabeus) - which reached its bloody peak when Alexander Jannaeus crucified 800 Pharisees in Jerusalem and had their wives and children rounded up and killed before their eyes - while Alexander was up there feasting and watching this spectacle. They enjoyed popular support and wide respect - and its members come from all walks of life, but they did not have any political advantage. Most of them had little to no true political authority, with the majority exercising power only by virtue of their broad appeal to the common people.
I’d get a modern composer to do original instrumentals, possibly based on Jewish/Hebrew/mideastern folk music.
Good question. Since there were twelve people, I’m not up to all of it, however:
– Saint Peter: Young man, physically as large or larger than our LORD, muscular and impulsive.
– Saint John: A kid, less than twenty years old, in sort of a “baby brother” role to our LORD.
– Virgin Mary: a sweet voiced, mostly quiet lady between upper middle age and lower old age. (She would have been at least 48 when HE died; and human beings aged fast in that place and time).
Martha/Mary: 2 ladies of similar age and slightly resembling physically, constantly bickering.
ICXC NIKA.
Very good! :yup:
 
I’ll have a go at my own questions:

1.) Music

I’m still undecided here. But I’m thinking of including:
  • Middle-Eastern flavored music. Yeah, this has been done to death since Martin Scorsese and Mel Gibson, but oh well…🤷
  • Jewish chant. Let me tell y’all something: I really like Eyal Bitton’s music, say his renditions of El Nora Alila and Kol Nidrei. 😃
  • Christian chant. Aside from Gregorian, I’m thinking here of the - much stronger IMHO - Byzantine chant.
2.) Characterization

I only have Peter in detail right now. I’m thinking of a man, roughly the same age as Jesus, who is world-weary and simple - yet who is able to speak his mind to a fault (that he has a tendency of not ‘looking before leaping’), working to support his family, along with his now-widowed mother-in-law. If we’re talking about physical appearance, I imagine a medium-sized, stocky man with a beard and short, curly hair.

This is actually what’s interesting about St. Peter: virtually every early depiction of him agrees in showing him with a short, thick beard and curly, close-cropped hair - which may show that a tradition about his (and Paul’s) appearance may have been handed down among the Christians of Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

Such are the earliest painted representations of the Apostles still in existence. With the exception of St. Peter and St. Paul, according to Wilpert, the Apostles show no specially individualistic traits, some are portrayed with beard, some without, but merely for the sake of variety. The two chief Apostles, on the other hand, are always easily recognized and are of marked individuality. St. Peter appears as a man of great energy, with a short, thick beard, and close cut, curly hair, which in the earlier frescoes is partly, in the later wholly, gray. St. Paul is represented as the Apostle of intellect, bald, and with long, pointed beard, dark brown in colour. With slight changes this type of the two Apostles was always represented in cemeterial frescoes, mosaics, and sculptured sarcophagi, and in fact persists to the present day. Indeed so familiar were Roman Christians with the conventional appearances of their favourite Apostles that, save in a few cases, the artists never thought it necessary to inscribe their names underneath their pictures, even when represented with other saints whose names are given. From this persistence of type Wilpert regards it as probable that, if the Romans did not actually possess portraits of Sts. Peter and Paul, at least a tradition existed as to their general appearance, and that catacomb representations of them conform to this tradition. The historian Eusebius informs us that he had heard of “likenesses of the Apostles Peter and Paul” as well as of Our Lord, being preserved in paintings (Church History VII.16).

As for the sons of Zebedee (James and John), I imagine them as having hot and rather impetuous tempers, fitting of the nickname “sons of thunder”. St. John is usually often depicted as being a sort of sensitive, almost soft character - within the Apostles, he is often portrayed as the straight man/wet blanket - but I picture him as having ‘faults’ of his own as well.

I’m still in a dilemma about the others, especially Judas. But let me say this, whenever I think of the disciples, I imagine them as being quite similar to these folks:

http://www.lifeintheholyland.com/images/184_Fisherman_Making_Nets.jpg
 
I have imagined on occasion Jesus as being almost lovingly sarcastic. In one of the Gospels Peter says he doesn’t understand a parable and Our Lord responds “Are you being witfully dull?” It almost sounds like He says with an amused snicker : “Really? You don’t get it? Are you being stupid on purpose?”
 
Many of the stories in the Gospel (like Peter being asked to row Jesus out in his boat to preach) could be expanded, to portray the event as if you were there too. Just building the scene beginning at daybreak, for example, with fisherman rowing in from the night’s work, and the seagulls crying, and people coming down to the shore, one by one, to buy fish, or to take in the morning, etc. Small talk around little campfires. Like normal life. Peter and his crew make it to shore, and begin the work of taking out their nets, and a few scraggly fish. They finally get all the nets out under a tree, and start fixing them, and talking small talk too, about the disappointing catch, or laughing at Peter’s hair sticking out in all directions, and Andrew after a while starts talking about this preacher he met earlier in the week. Then, somebody catches sight of a small crowd way up the shore, slowly making their way towards them …

I would make several half hour to 45 minute films on many of these instances in the Gospels. I would want the films to live.
 
Now a new question: how would your film’s structure look like, in detail?
Mine would somewhere around like:

PROLOGUE (for the moment)

1.) A brief review of the fall of the Hasmonean Dynasty, and along with it, the rise of the Herodians (c. 37 BC). Herod the Great’s reign, the rise of the Tetrarchy of Judea after his death around 4-1 BC, and the transformation of some parts of Judea into a province of the Roman Empire would also be given some mention.
2.) References to certain personages and events such as the revolt of Judas of Galilee at AD 6, and also a bit background on the Judaism(s) of the time.
3.) Then…John the Baptizer and his baptism movement in the wilderness and his call of repentance (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18; John 1:15-18). We get to see John, his baptism, and his preaching of someone coming after him that would baptize with the Spirit and with fire.
 
4.) As John preaches, a man approaches him, who gives his name as Joshua, son of Joseph from Nazara (Nazareth). John’s eyes widen in delight, as if he recognized someone having that name.
5.) Cut to night, as John and his disciples are resting. The scene here is John and Joshua talking to each other, and a chance for them to reminisce about their childhood (allowing the audience to see a glimpse into that). But Joshua has more pressing matters: He asks to be baptized as well. John refuses at first: he admits that he had always felt that there was something different about Joshua. John had seen and met a lot of people, but there he can’t but help feel an aura of uniqueness around Him, even when they were children. Joshua again asks, adding that it must be done. John is finally swayed and agrees.
6.) The next day, John again preaches and baptizes a few people, including Joshua, in the river. When Joshua comes up out of the water, something happens (we see here things from Joshua’s POV): He looks up into the sky and sees something - is it a dove? - coming to Him, and as it does, everything goes bright as if illumined by a strong light and He hears a voice: “You my Son, my beloved. In you I am well pleased.”
7.) He closes His eyes (the camera still in His POV), and upon opening them, He sees everything back to normal. He looks at John, who is silently staring at Jesus, wearing a look of great awe and astonishment on his face. We also notice some folks in the background murmur to each other.
8.) A bit later into the day, Joshua takes leave of John, saying that He is called to go off into the wastelands, but promises to come back after He is done. The two then share farewells with each other, and John (with still a bit of shock and awe due to the last event ;)) sees Him off. Cut to two of John’s disciples who watch Joshua head off into the wilderness of Judea.
 
9.) Scenes of Joshua walking along the rugged hills of Judean desert, trying to avoid bandits who roam the countryside and fending off wild animals that dwell there. The passage of a period of time is implied.

10.) Closing up on Him, we see the trek finally make its toll on Joshua: He is burned by the heat and filled with sores and scabs, tired, sweating. He struggles further to walk across the hills with the wind blowing strongly that He is almost sure to slip and fall, when He sees a man a small distance away from in front of Him. The man - the camera makes sure that the man’s face is obscured, say by only filming him from the back and by having him in front of the sun in frontal scenes - appears to be a fellow traveller, with staff in hand and walking slowly across the rocks. The man notices Joshua, waves at Him to join Him for a moment and they walk together.

11.) The two share a bit of small talk here. We see Joshua being quite wary with the traveller, who to the viewer seems to be rather calm and soft-spoken. The traveller, stopping in his tracks, then points to the stones around them, and asks Joshua that surely He has the power to change these into bread, and if so, why not do it? Joshua then answers the traveller that it is not by bread alone that man lives. The aforementioned wind becomes more stronger as they walk on, causing a sandstorm which causes Joshua to take cover. The sandstorm lifts up, and Joshua looks up. But the traveller is nowhere to be seen.

12.) As the sun sets, Joshua spots a cave, and decides to retire there. He puts His belongings down, and after drinking a little water from His waterskin, stands up to pray. After this, He then lays down and rests.

13.) Joshua is waken up by the morning sun. Rising up, He is startled to see that He is no longer in His cave, but in another location. Walking around, it dawns on Him that He is in the precincts of the Temple. He sees the sanctuary, resplendent in all its gold and marble, reflecting the morning sun, and has a small flashback to His childhood. But this is cut short by a loud, piercing voice - which sounded a bit distant, as if it came on the streets below, yet audible - ordering Him to come. He walks back, and finds Himself approaching an area with an inscription: the place of trumpeting. The voice comes back and calls Joshua. It orders Him to look beyond the wall, and Joshua sees a countless crowd below: the residents and the pilgrims which flock the holy city walking down the street and doing daily business. The voice from the streets then calls again Joshua: jump off, throw Himself down if you are God’s Son. After all, is it not written that God will send His messengers to rescue those whom He favors - would they not make sure that you would be caught into safety? Joshua again looks at the sanctuary, and drawing a deep breath, answers Him back: You must not test the Lord your God. At the blinking of an eye, Joshua finds Himself back in the cave (nothing special here, just a closeup to Joshua talking and then…He’s just there).

14.) Joshua continues His walk. After some time, He stops to rest at a rock, which He sits upon. He reaches for His waterskin, but now finds it empty. Looking off into the distance He prays: let your will be done.

15.) He then finds a snake slithering. For some reason, He feels a pull to follow it. The snake continues up the slope with Joshua walking behind and it. Before long, He finds Himself atop a particularly high cliff. He could see the vast expanse of the desert and far on the horizon, He could barely see the civilized areas. The images of fertile meadows, great cities and rich seas, with tall buildings and wide streets raced in His mind as He looks around. He could not just see them, but also hear and feel them, as if they were real. Joshua notices the snake at His feet, but within Him He could see something - nay, someone - in its place. It speaks to Him in what sounds like a majestic, noble (yet sounding a bit desperate) voice, saying that he has the authority over them and can give them to Joshua. Provided that He bow down to him and give him worship.

But as the voice speaks, Joshua also hears another, smaller and still voice (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one…”). He stands up erect, filled with righteous anger and shouts: You shall only worship and serve the Lord your God. The images He sees with then race dizzyingly, and we can hear a deafening noise (kind of like the one that shock waves of an atomic bomb explosion have) - with a horrible scream - which increasingly becomes louder and more ear-shattering. Joshua is almost deafened by it and covers His ears, but He then shouts again for Satan to leave. The noise then dies down, leaving Joshua alone. He again stands, exhausted yet with an expression of relief and victory in His face. He looks up to Heaven.

That’s it for the moment. Comments, critiques and suggestions for the above welcome.
I also invite other posters to share something similar, or any other thing we’ve talked in this thread. You’re all absolutely welcome to do so. 🙂
 
Many of the stories in the Gospel (like Peter being asked to row Jesus out in his boat to preach) could be expanded, to portray the event as if you were there too. Just building the scene beginning at daybreak, for example, with fisherman rowing in from the night’s work, and the seagulls crying, and people coming down to the shore, one by one, to buy fish, or to take in the morning, etc. Small talk around little campfires. Like normal life. Peter and his crew make it to shore, and begin the work of taking out their nets, and a few scraggly fish. They finally get all the nets out under a tree, and start fixing them, and talking small talk too, about the disappointing catch, or laughing at Peter’s hair sticking out in all directions, and Andrew after a while starts talking about this preacher he met earlier in the week. Then, somebody catches sight of a small crowd way up the shore, slowly making their way towards them …

I would make several half hour to 45 minute films on many of these instances in the Gospels. I would want the films to live.
That’s…good!! :bounce:
Just one two-to-three hour film may not do the whole thing enough justice, so doing a series may be perfect. 🙂
 
To continue the synopsis, if it’s okay (anyone here? :D):

16.) Joshua now descends from the mountain and walk again. At the end of another day, He collapses near a tree out of exhaustion. Someone wakes Him up, asking for Him to eat. He finds two men sitting beside Him, and some bread. Joshua, thanking God, eats of the bread, while one of the men shares his waterskin with Him. It proves very valuable - His strength is fully replenished, and He can now walk. Joshua after thanking the men, prepares to travel again, when one of them says cryptically, “Because he has delighted in me, I will deliver him; I will set him high, for he has known my name.” Looking back, all that Joshua sees is the tree and the coals where the bread was baked.

17.) Shift back to John and his group at dawn. One of his disciples runs to him, saying that he has caught sight of the man from Nazara making His way back. John then proclaims Joshua as the lamb who takes the sin of the world. Joshua and John meet once again. John in private then reveals something to Joshua: John knows that Herod is displeased with him due to the crowds that flock to him and due to his criticisms of the tetrach. John is not sure whether he and Joshua will ever meet again. It is now Joshua’s turn to take the lead and do what He must do: the ‘day of the Lord’ has come, and John has done what he could. Therefore, Joshua must now go, since it is God’s will. The two share farewells, perhaps for the last time, and each go their separate ways.

18.) Joshua, with a final gaze towards the bank of the Jordan, heads back towards Nazareth when two men run after Him. They introduce themselves as Jacob and John, sons of Zebedaios of K’far Nahum, disciples of John. They saw Joshua at His baptism, and John’s mysterious reference to Him as ‘the lamb of God’. They have a number of questions that needed to be answered. Jacob, the oldest of the two, asks Joshua to take them to His home, and He agrees. Joshua also notes with a smile that He also has a ‘brother’ named Jacob.

19.) They make their way towards the small village of Nazara at late afternoon. Joshua makes His way to His house, where some of His relatives, as well as His mother, Miriam. John, the younger brother, notes that He expected a bigger house than this. 😃
 
Slight errata at the last post: the two disciples are not Jacob (James) and John but Andrew and John. Whoops. Gotta read my Bible more there. 😛

Anyways, a rewrite:

18.) Joshua, with a final gaze towards the bank of the Jordan, heads back towards His native Nazara when two men run after Him. They introduce themselves as Andreas son of John and John son of Zebedaios, both natives of Kefar Nahum.
They have a number of questions that needed to be answered: they heard John talking about strange things that surrounded Joshua’s baptism, and now, his mysterious reference to Him as ‘the lamb of God’. Is He the One? John asks Joshua to take them to His home, and He agrees. Along the way, Joshua notes amusingly how many Johns must there be out there. When John talks of his brother Jacob, Joshua smiles and says that He has a ‘brother’ also named Jacob.

19.) They make their way towards the small village of Nazara at late afternoon. John remarks that it has got to be the first time he set foot on a small village such as this - Joshua tells him that Nazara is so small and obscure and has a not-so-good reputation because of that. They makes their way to Joshua’s house, where His mother, Miriam, is, as well as a few relatives.

I’m really in dire straits here on what would the next part would be. :confused:
Please help. Any suggestions and comments are welcome.
 
Guys, something just struck my mind: how would you deal with the desposyni, aka the ‘brethren of the Lord’? I understand that a good deal of the people who look here are Catholics, which puts the whole issue whether the desposyni are ‘brothers’ in the biological sense or not out of the question, since we believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

But I’m curious: will you follow the (1) Epiphanian View, which posits that the brothers are sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, (2) the Hieronymian view which sees them as merely near relatives (first cousins of Jesus) - St. Joseph is thus a virgin himself as well? Or, if you’re daring enough, will you follow the Helvidian view which presents the brothers as subsequent children of Joseph and Mary?
 
If I can pitch another scene:

1.) Early morning at the city of Yerushalayim. Soldiers are pushing the pilgrims who have once again begun to crowd the streets. We see three men with wooden beams slung over their shoulders. One of these three men is actually just forced to carry the beam for Joshua, who staggers behind Him. Walking before Joshua is a soldier carrying a placard: ‘King of the Judeans’. The three condemned men are horribly beaten: huge wounds and welts cover their entire bodies.

2.) Overhead shot of the procession making their way (a la The Last Temptation film, albeit without the slow-motion :D). The streets are filled with the sound of hubbub, wailing and jeering. Joshua stumbles into the ground. As He struggles to rise up, He looks and sees a group of women near Him. And for a fleeting moment, He seems to glimpse His own mother, Miriam, standing with them. Tears flow from His eyes as the soldiers drag Him up and make Him walk again.

3.) The procession finally reaches an area immediately outside the gates of the city: the ‘Skull’. Near the city is an abandoned quarry, and in it, a rocky outcrop which does look like, from a certain angle, a skull. Meanwhile, over the immediate area, near the roadside, we see a literal forest of crosses. In some, we can still see rotting corpses still nailed onto them, with vultures coming and pecking on their flesh. There are already a few soldiers there, some guarding the already-dead victims, some removing the corpses and dumping them off into a corner, where wild dogs chow them down. All in all, this is not a very pretty place to look at (and if we have smell-o-vision, it would have really stank): we can see dung and puddles of urine dotting the area. And swarms of flies.
A small crowd - I’m envisioning around 20-50 people here - gather and stand by the road to watch the execution. And surely enough, some women disciples are nearby, including Miriam Joshua’s mother, as well as Miriam of Magdala, and John.

4.) The soldiers finally stop at a ‘free’ spot close to the road, where three vertical posts - barely larger than a man - stand, with ledges on them. The man who carried Joshua’s crossbeam had finally done His work and was bidden to leave, but not before He took a final look at Joshua. Some women approach the criminals and give them drugged wine to drink, as per custom. They attempt to give Joshua some, but He refuses. Looking around Him, He looks upward (the camera in Joshua’s POV) and mutters: ‘Forgive them, Abba.’

5.) What happens next is short and swift. The soldiers strip the clothes off the criminals, leaving them completely naked, thrust them down to their crossbeams and nail spikes with wooden washers down their hands. The screams echo through the area, as we see Miriam weeping, with John staring in horror. After the victims’ hands are nailed, the team raise their crossbeams up. No fancy contraption here; they use sheer manpower. Afterwards, the soldiers force the three to rest themselves on the ledges, then use two more nails, driving them at their heels/feet. Finally, one soldier takes the aforementioned placard and fixes it above Joshua’s cross. It all ends as quickly as it began.

6.) Some of the hecklers standing on and passing by the road begin to taunt the criminals, especially Joshua. Once again, I would use the filmLast Temptation as a point of reference here (yeah, sorry about that people. Now, I don’t like the film itself, but the crucifixion scene - minus the dialogue and the actual ‘last temptation’ - is pretty good enough that I feel it’s a shame that Scorsese didn’t direct a ‘straight’ Jesus film: it’s got this feeling of raw authenticity and realism in it that only a few Jesus films can rival, IMHO). Joshua hears the voice of the hecklers, telling Him to come down from His cross, yet He does nothing save to mutter again that forgiveness be granted them.

7.) Time passes, and Joshua still hangs on His cross, with birds of prey over His head and flies landing on His wounds and biting on His flesh, and with throat racked with thirst due to the scorching heat. His vision is becoming increasingly blurred, and He briefly blacks out before regaining consciousness. Joshua looks, and He sees the executioners who now busy themselves with gambling for the clothes of the criminals. Beyond them is the road: Joshua can see people passing by or standing and weeping or jeering. He sees the faithful women trying to come near, only to be barred by one soldier from getting too close. Joshua entrusts Miriam to John’s care, and mother and Son share a last gaze as they walk off to stand in the distance.
Joshua then hears someone - one of the two crucified with Him - shouting to Him, begging Him to save Himself if He is ‘King’ - as well as the two of them. The other criminal rebukes the man, and begs Joshua to remember him ‘in (His) kingdom’. Joshua draws up some strength, turns to the man, and makes a promise that he will be with Him.

8.) Noon. The scene changes to the still-crowded city, and eventually to the Temple. Priests and pilgrims alike are doing their regular duties. As daily life goes on, a strong wind suddenly hits the city, carrying a huge cloud of sand and dust with it, so dense and thick that it effectively and quickly obscures the sun. The sandstorm effectively prevents the people on the streets from seeing clearly - a darkness that can be seen and felt, driving everything into near-total silence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top