P
patrick457
Guest
Speaking of which, if supposing that I ever get to make a film (or some sort of video) on Jesus, I’m pretty sure I’m gonna step on a lot of toes because I really want to break free from some of the established depictions. Y’know, Jesus as a soft-spoken, solemn-sounding, long-haired, handsome - even sexy - Caucasian male a la Jeffrey Hunter or Jim Caviezel or Diogo Morgado, “the Pharisees” and the chief priests as dour old men in dark robes and all that.No, it isn’t. That was just a sort of ‘it’d be nice if we had something like this’-sort of post. AFAIK no Jesus film had ever attempted to do that kind of portrayal yet. All of them take it for granted that Barabbas was guilty.
For some reason, quite a number of people out there are afraid of a ‘not-sexy’ Jesus. But then again, Jesus’ appearance or the shape and height of His cross isn’t dogma, is it? I mean, Tertullian thought Jesus must have been ugly because of Isaiah 53: “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.”
Obviously I wouldn’t be breaking core tenets of Christianity (so, no, no emo-y neurotic Jesus a la The Last Temptation or sly deceiver a la The Passover Plot), but in places where there is a leeway, I will break convention.
http://images.tcj.com/2011/05/Underwater10pg201.jpg
Fiorenzo Mattu (Su Re, 2012 - Sardinian Jesus film)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Colin Blakely (Son of Man)
Either that, or we could pull the same tactic as in Lance Tracy’s The Cross (or in that 1976 film about Muhammad, The Message) or in those 1950s films and either film things from Jesus’ point of view or just show His back.