Saint Paul-question

[patrick457]

Fred , can you tell me of any biblical film’s you watched that maybe are accurate and that would be safe to watch??

I’m not Fred, but I’d like to answer. First of all, what exactly do you mean by ‘accurate’? Do you mean ‘true to historical verity’ or ‘something which follows only the biblical text with no addition or interpretation whatsoever’?

By definition, there is no such film which ‘which follows only the biblical text with no addition whatsoever’ since the act of translating the written Word into the film medium is itself an act of interpretation by the filmmaker. Let’s do a little interactive experiment here, shall we?

When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored to the shore. And when they got out of the boat, the people immediately recognized him and ran about the whole region and began to bring the sick people on their beds to wherever they heard he was. And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or countryside, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and implored him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well.

(Mark 6:53-56)

What were you imagining when you read this passage? How do you picture the characters (Jesus, the people) to appear and to act and what do you think the settings look like? I’ll bet that you don’t have the same picture as I do. We both read the same passage, but we each have our own mental image of how the event went. That is an act of interpretation on our parts. And that’s what pretty much what films are: they are the respective products of their filmmakers’ imaging the biblical narrative. So we can’t just immediately jump out on a production and say that “This is wrong” because it simply was not in accord with how we personally think of things. Try to be objective, not subjective. If something you’ve seen on screen is implausible, you should first think about why it is implausible. And if possible, put yourself in the filmmakers’ perspective too: why they thought of including this particular element and why they thought it would work. Saying that it’s just for the bucks is too simplistic and will not really answer the question. (Not to mention that it’s a spit in the face for people who really did their work in trying to adapt this.)

In the case of Saint Paul, perhaps they thought that adding a romance subplot and having them all act like 21st century men and women would make Paul and the other characters more ‘relatable’ to the modern viewer and the film more ‘watchable’? (It’s a common cliche that the OT would make better movie material than the NT, since the OT contains the necessary elements of a standard film: romance and action.) Personally, I think that including a romance or an action element in films like these are not inherently ‘wrong’; executed properly, these elements could work and make for a much better film. Put them in the wrong hands, and it would look cheesy or forced, at worst flat-out out of place.

I’ll give another example: take the 1999 miniseries Jesus by the same director (Roger Young) and production company (the Italian Lux Vide), which I did watch. (Note that there’s actually two versions of the series: the one found commonly on Youtube is apparently the American version aired on CBS; I watched the international version, and that’s the one I’ll be talking about in the following paragraph.) The film shows Jesus (Jeremy Sisto) having a very good father-son relationship with Joseph (Armin Mueller-Stahl), so that when Joseph dies, Jesus is understandably devastated. This in my opinion is a very good use of creative license (after all, we aren’t told in the gospels how Jesus and Joseph got along together) to flesh out something (in this case, Jesus’ humanity).

In the international version, the director also attempts to tackle a rather controversial question “Did Jesus ever fall in love/did someone ever fall in love with Jesus:” the film shows Mary of Bethany having a sort of crush on Jesus (this was before the ministry), but Jesus does not reciprocate her feelings because He has to do what He has to do. (This is the reason why this film is sometimes called the more ‘cleaner’, orthodox version of The Last Temptation of Christ. ) Now where that film fails is its attempt to make Jesus look like a ‘fun’ guy: a ‘buddy Christ’, so to speak, and the reason why it fails is because the director forces it onto the viewer’s faces. We get quite a lot of scenes where Jesus has a huge grin and plays with His disciples, which is okay at first, but the film repeats this formula a number of times that it makes Jesus look like a toothless, ‘fun’-loving prankster with no authority or gravitas.

 

[patrick457]

That being said, there are films which choose to use only a given gospel as their script, with no additional scenes. One I’ll recommend is Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Il Vangelo secondo Matteo (aka The Gospel according to St. Matthew). The film is considered to be one of the best Jesus films out there (it’s my favorite too), which is remarkable considering that Pasolini was an atheist, indeed a homosexual and a Marxist, who have at times made some pretty questionable films both before and after he directed this. The story goes that when Pasolini was stranded in Assisi because of a traffic jam (Pope John XXIII was in the city for a dialogue with non-Catholic artists, and Pasolini was there to attend it), he checked into a hotel and found a copy of the New Testament by the bedside. He read through all four gospels, being particularly struck by Matthew, thinking that it had to be filmed. Here are some scenes from the movie (it’s in Italian; while some clips have subtitles, others have not. Either way, you could figure out what they’re saying if you open your Bible to Matthew anyway):

1. *]The wise men and the flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:1-18)
   *]The baptism and the temptation (Matthew 4:1-11)
   *]Jesus begins His ministry; the calling of the first disciples (Matthew 4:12-22)
   *]The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)
   *]Jesus chooses the Twelve (Matthew 10:1-39)
   *]The triumphal entry and the temple incident (Matthew 21:1-16)
   *]Jesus in the temple (Matthew 21:23-46; 22:15-40)
   *]The woes on the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-39; 24:1-2)
   *]The Last Supper (Matthew 26:17-29)
   *]The carrying of the cross and the crucifixion (Matthew 27:32-61; Matthew 13:14-15, cf. Isaiah 6:9-10)
   *]The empty tomb and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:1-8, 16-20)
   
   P.S. Pasolini filmed in Matera (the same town where Mel shot The Passion of the Christ; he originally wanted to film in the Holy Land itself, but after a tour, he concluded that the locations have become too ‘commercialized’ to be perfect) using a cast of non-actors in true Italian neo-realist tradition. Heck, Jesus was played by a student from Spain, Enrique Irazoqui, who met up with Pasolini. (He’s currently a chess player, apparently.) Because he wanted to approach the gospel on his own terms, he deliberately made the costumes look cheap and anachronistic. (The priests’ weird, big hats and the medieval-looking armor are due to this. )

 

[bogeydogg]

JRKH,

Thank you for answer,

Of course there were arranged marriages that is correct.But i would say there were more people that stuck too religious rules, than of the people of mine and your generation.

For example in Saint Paul’s time you would not meet a guy in a night club and have a one night stand and have a baby. You would be stoned to death

In Saint Paul’s time you not flirt with lots of men to get there attention.You would be stoned to death maybe.

Ahh yeah i know there was pro’s and other scum like that then aswell as today’s generation.
But all in all , people in biblical times lead cleaner lives and more spiritual.

Correct me if iam wrong.But i allways thought this:thumbsup:

I think you are wrong. Remember what the Teacher says in Ecclesiastes “There is nothing new under the Sun.” Now obviously he does not mean Computers and Cars but rather human behavior and sinfulness. Remember the Bible says before the Flood that the Earth was filled with violence. The sinfulness of humanity is a condition of the Fall not a condition of the time in which we live. Do not imagine that people were somehow better.

If you read history about Greco-Roman culture you would see that in some ways they were every bit if not more debased than we are (for example the acting out of the myths in the theatre) and St Augustine talks about the way the people glorified in their shame. Man is as he was and will be.

That is why the Lord said He came “for sinners and not for those who are not sick” because all are sinners and St John says “the one who says he has no sin is a liar and the love of God is not in him.”

I am sorry the movie upset but that is why you should not get your history or theology from movies.

God Bless

 

[patrick457]

I think you are wrong. Remember what the Teacher says in Ecclesiastes “There is nothing new under the Sun.” Now obviously he does not mean Computers and Cars but rather human behavior and sinfulness. Remember the Bible says before the Flood that the Earth was filled with violence. The sinfulness of humanity is a condition of the Fall not a condition of the time in which we live. Do not imagine that people were somehow better.

If you read history about Greco-Roman culture you would see that in some ways they were every bit if not more debased than we are (for example the acting out of the myths in the theatre) and St Augustine talks about the way the people glorified in their shame. Man is as he was and will be.

That is why the Lord said He came “for sinners and not for those who are not sick” because all are sinners and St John says “the one who says he has no sin is a liar and the love of God is not in him.”

I am sorry the movie upset but that is why you should not get your history or theology from movies.

God Bless

Exactly. We all assume that it’s ‘better back then’ but in truth, there wasn’t a time when people did not act like people.

 

[steve53]

To understand the NT, you have to first understand the Roman world of those times.

Then you learn about the Jewish world of those times. When Jesus was living, the Romans had subjugated that part of the world for almost a century.

Pay special attention to the Asamonean royal line and Herod the Great and his family.

THEN you bring in all of the events of the Christian Era found in the NT.

And there are characters common to all three “worlds”.

Only then do you have a hope of understanding the REAL situation of Jesus and the early Christians.

There is an author who has done this, but his name shall be in silence, and only those so chosen shall this name be revealed, verily even as the scales fall from their eyes.

Something to keep in mind- Judea of the first century AD was an Arab world. Walk around Amman in Jordan to give you an idea of how different it was. The big factor is women. They only went out if necessary, and usually in a group of other women, or with the protection of other men. And they were covered up. And in public, they did not talk much. It was a man’s world then.

That being said, the men were far more civil to each other than they were now, greeting even strangers warmly. Communities were real actual communities, where neighbors interacted with each other. You HAD to be friendly with your neighbor, because people could not just hop in a car and spend the weekend on vacation.

How many of the ten commandments dealt with neighbors? Most of them.

A different world without transportation.

 

[fred_conty]

@Bogydogg, you said,
“I am sorry the movie upset but that is why you should not get your history or theology from movies.”​

That’s my point. But so many do.

And even if someone knows history, when mud is slung, some always sticks.

The bible is the holy of holy books. Tho only my opinion, hollywood isn’t fair in it’s treatment.

Again, the motive behind hollywood is anything but God’s will. And I know that this sounds like I’m a bigot, but I have a few years on me, and that is what I have seen. I think they have done a great deal of harm to our faith, especially to those who have little faith to begin with.
It also causes scandal to those outside of faith. I sounds like I’m being harsh, but I don’t believe we can afford to be careless in this regard. If hollywood wants to produce religious movies, which they often do poorly, then that is one thing. But not on the bible.

I realize others will disagree, and that’s ok. But I can’t say it loud enough on my part,
DON’T GO TO BIBLICAL MOVIES. That is said with a please and a beg.

Get your religion where you should get it.

Just a thought.

 

[catholicsaint]

fred conty,

I will read my bible and go to church and i will never watch religious film again:thumbsup:

 

[patrick457]

@Bogydogg, you said,
“I am sorry the movie upset but that is why you should not get your history or theology from movies.”​

That’s my point. But so many do.

And even if someone knows history, when mud is slung, some always sticks.

The bible is the holy of holy books. Tho only my opinion, hollywood isn’t fair in it’s treatment.

Again, the motive behind hollywood is anything but God’s will. And I know that this sounds like I’m a bigot, but I have a few years on me, and that is what I have seen. I think they have done a great deal of harm to our faith, especially to those who have little faith to begin with.
It also causes scandal to those outside of faith. I sounds like I’m being harsh, but I don’t believe we can afford to be careless in this regard. If hollywood wants to produce religious movies, which they often do poorly, then that is one thing. But not on the bible.

I realize others will disagree, and that’s ok. But I can’t say it loud enough on my part,
DON’T GO TO BIBLICAL MOVIES. That is said with a please and a beg.

Get your religion where you should get it.

Just a thought.

Okay, my opinion.

I agree with you in essence, that one shouldn’t only get religion from films - any more than you should get history from them. (Read: almost anything involving historical stuff made by Mel Gibson, especially Braveheart: good film, bad history. ) Watch them for what they are, which isn’t ‘factual documentaries’ or ‘visual Catechisms’.

But again, why the need to blame ‘Hollywood’ and its big studios for something made by an Italian Catholic production company (which is what Lux Vide is, apparently)? You might as well blame Obama for whatever’s happening here in Japan today or say that the Pope is responsible for the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[fred_conty]

Patrick, I respect your opinion, and you probably know the difference.
So many of the faithful don’t and it causes them questions and difficulties.
Is it really worth all that? Especially when we are talking about the most precious thing we have. I hope not.

I cannot rely on hollywood to present the truth and who has the time to go back and do all the research to find the real truth after watching a movie. So the mud dosen’t get cleaned up.

They aren’t producing “going my way” any longer, only “going down hill”.

I don’t mean to sound strong (just a little lie), but they do damage and hurt people.

Just a thought.

 

[patrick457]

I’m going to give another example: passion plays and mystery plays. The very first biblical films were, in fact, originally such theatrical performances that were caught on camera. (There was one from 1897 that claimed to be footage from the famous one at Oberammergau in Germany, but was actually shot at a rooftop in New York!)

Biblical plays operate under very much the same physics that films do: I could say confidently (something I don’t do much often) that all of them involve a fair degree of artistic license. Depending on the production, they may have original characters, additional episodes and added dialogue even. They may attempt to flesh out what is only implied or dealt with briefly in Scripture (the prime example here is of course the Crucifixion: all four gospels tell us about it in not too many words - “and they crucified Him” - but it is a long-standing cliche of plays and films to devote some deal of time in trying to portray the event).

But the question is, do these plays add all these, well, ‘additives’ for a quick buck? Personally, I highly doubt that all of them do.

I grew up in the Philippines were Passion plays is/was a common Holy Week tradition. Many of these productions were low-budget affairs put either by locals or by groups whose purpose was to specifically make and enact these plays. While some (especially the ones like in Pampanga where some participants actually whip themselves or have themselves really nailed to a cross) have become popular tourist attractions, many of these people do not charge for their performance nor earn a single peso out of it. They do it either out of long-standing tradition or out of personal faith, such as fulfilling a vow or whatnot. In other areas, like in Oberammergau, the passion play in addition to being a tradition, has pretty much become a means of revenue for the area, yes, but even then their script really has little to do with it.

 

[patrick457]

The point here is, the ones which would probably fit your (Fred) rubric would be those flicks like Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter (yes, there’s actually a film by that title - I could tell even without watching that this is a train wreck). Also, who are we to judge why filmmakers would want to make films out of Bible?

The ‘problem’ you speak of could be rectified in my opinion if more people realize that what they are watching is just the filmmaker’s opinion. I might sound a bit like an idealist here, but if so much of the faithful don’t know, I don’t see why it could be a teaching moment. Nothing will happen if no one acts, I fear.

 

[patrick457]

The point I’m making is, artistic license, while it could at times be, and are, executed poorly (in that we seem to agree), isn’t a totally bad thing. I would even say that interpretation is necessary if you are going to adapt the written Word, ambiguously vague and ‘bald’ as it is (let’s face it, the Scriptures are some of the most non-descriptive and unclear books in the world), into another media. If one is going to reject interpretation altogether, why stop at films? You might as well become an iconoclast and reject icons or statues of Christ or Mary: we have no definitive portraits, photos or footages of any character or event from the Bible, so every piece of art with a biblical subject made by someone is ultimately the product of that particular artist’s imagination, in pretty much the same way (but to a lesser extent, yes) that plays or movies are. And yes, many people did make these artworks for a living, to get money.

P.S. I’ll try to watch the film as soon as I have enough spare time and’ll post what I thought about it.

 

[catholicsaint]

patrick457,

Yes but when a production company make something,i.e, a film or documentry or whatever,they must go by truth and fact.Iam not talking about batman or superman or some make believe nonsense.Iam talking about Saint Paul. Cathiolism is a reality for 1 billion people world wide. Catholics believe in fact. Jesus was a fact.God was a fact…and so on etc.

I watched sodom and gomoratih last year and when i read the bible the story was tottally different. They said lott had 2 wives but he never did.He never remarried.See how lies in films are stupid.Why watch the film if it is nonsense and no attention to detail. I think producers are too young to have sense and maybe exposed to much s#x and have dirty minds. I thought sodom and gormoith film had too much unbiblical facts in the film.I mean the 1950’s film.

Its like going to a bmw car dealer and asking him for a new bmw car and he gives you a ford car!..Or going in a grocery store and asking for milk and the store clerk giving you bread. Its just dumb.

 

[patrick457]

I watched sodom and gomoratih last year and when i read the bible the story was tottally different. They said lott had 2 wives but he never did.He never remarried.See how lies in films are stupid.Why watch the film if it is nonsense and no attention to detail. I think producers are too young to have sense and maybe exposed to much s#x and have dirty minds. I thought sodom and gormoith film had too much unbiblical facts in the film.I mean the 1950’s film.

I don’t mean any offense, but as everyone has said, you should never, ever watch a film with the intent of treating it as a totally-accurate source for religion or history (or sometimes even other fields, for that matter). I mean, I wouldn’t watch a Chinese kung fu movie and believe that all those fantastic techniques that could make rocks levitate or or kill enemies in a single instant are real. It’s a common known fact that films don’t show ‘facts’: the facts are too ‘boring’ to be good movie material. I mean, swords and other bladed weapons don’t make that metallic chinking sound when they are drawn out of their sheaths, but in the movies they always do. You see people falling in a body of water from a great height and come out in perfect condition in films, but in reality falling into water at high speed from such a height is about as, if not more, dangerous as falling into concrete. You often see Jesus and other biblical characters played by well-groomed, handsome/pretty white Anglophone actors (a trend which is thankfully dying), when obviously that may not have been the case in real life. (Sorry, couldn’t resist that last part )

I mean, up until a while ago I was all heated up over the ‘historical inaccuracy’ in most films (I still am, albeit to a lesser extent). I realised however that artistic license is inevitable, even in religiously-themed films. If you want ‘just the bare facts’, you don’t want a movie - you want live footage.

BTW, Sodom and Gomorrah, is, according to Wiki, “loosely based on the Biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.” So yes, it’s ‘unbiblical’ in the sense that it attempts to build up on the biblical account. That in itself is not necessarily bad (as I said earlier, we all ‘build up’ on the biblical texts in some form or another); the question is, does this particular adaptation handle artistic license in a good way? I believe that the perfect balance is to allow some artistic liberties (they’re inevitable IMHO), but not let them kill the original source.

Now I’ll give an example (you probably infer by now that I’m a biblical film buff ) of a movie which took artistic license a little bit too far (and which is what probably you should avoid): Noah’s Ark.