Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,734 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 526,768
Pageviews Today: 1,054,723Threads Today: 602Posts Today: 11,510
06:40 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors

 
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608312
Brazil
02/05/2009 11:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Ian Cusick looks like a better looking young Dustin Hoffman:
[link to www.lost.com]
It's understandable why both Hoffman and Al Pacino were present in Zeffirelli's mind to portray Christ.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 05:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Willem Dafoe could not see for three days because he got too many eye drops to dilate the pupils of his eyes in bright sunlight to achieve a superhuman effect.

When the film was finally green-lit in the mid-1980 Martin Scorsese offered the role of Jesus to Aidan Quinn who had initially been cast during a previous attempt to make the film. Scorsese then considered both Eric Roberts and Christopher Walken before casting Willem Dafoe. Can you believe David Carradine was also considered????

Martin Scorsese banned smoking from the set, both because he's a severe asthmatic, and to avoid any photographs being taken of the biblical characters--namely Willem Dafoe, who smoked at the time--with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths.


Willem Dafoe filmed the scene where the cobras crawl into Jesus' hut with an extremely high fever.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 05:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 06:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Now, regarding the scientific "reconstruction" of Jesus (who looked uglier than Blutus, Popeye enemy):
[link to www.dadsdayoff.net]
Yet, pay attention where it says:

Forensic depictions are not an exact science, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle, and it is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique. Galloway points out that some artists pay more attention to the subtle differences in such details as the distance between the bottom of the nose and the mouth. And the most recognizable features of the face--the folds of the eyes, structure of the nose and shape of the mouth--are left to the artist. "In some cases the resemblance between the reconstruction and the actual individual can be uncanny," says Galloway. "But in others there may be more resemblance with the other work of the same artist."
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 06:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
So, this is not Jesus real face!
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 07:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Was the hair of Jesus long? Only Nazirites were not to cut their hair or drink wine, and Jesus was not a Nazirite. So he no doubt had his hair neatly clipped like any other Jewish male. (Numbers 6:2-7) He also enjoyed wine in moderation when in the company of others, and this reinforces the thought that he was not a cheerless person. (Luke 7:34) Indeed, he made wine by performing a miracle at a wedding feast in Cana of Galilee. (John 2:1-11) And he evidently wore a beard, which is attested to in a prophecy concerning his suffering.?Isaiah 50:6.
What about Jesus whose name I already said was more like Muslims remember (ISA sounding like EESA) complexion and features? They were likely Semitic. He would have inherited these features from his mother, Mary, who was Jewish. Her ancestors were Jewish, in the line of the Hebrews. So Jesus would probably have had a complexion and features common to Jews.
Even among his apostles, Jesus apparently did not stand out as being very different physically, for Judas had to betray him to his enemies with an identifying kiss. Thus, Jesus could readily blend in with the crowd. And he did, for on at least one occasion, he traveled unrecognized from Galilee to Jerusalem.Mark 14:44; John 7:10, 11.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 07:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Hence, though Israelite skulls were wider, rounder, heavier and more robust than other sort of people, and perhaps due to climate he had wrinkes (and there were Afro-Asian women in his lineage)... in spite of this, the reconstruction made of the scientist is using his interpretation of eyes, nose and mouth, chin, hair style, etc!
[link to www.youtube.com]

I mean, even if he wore short hair it wasn't as short as Romans' hair and there are many styles that make a whole difference. The guy is using a very thick eyebrow that is his personal interpretation.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/05/2009 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
The whole of the book of Revelation is generally taken as highly symbolic, and this passage used by black people is no exception, especially since the remainder of the description clearly cannot be interpreted as being a natural description. Nonetheless this passage has been used to argue that Jesus was black, based on the description of his hair as being "like wool" , which is interpreted to refer to hair that is tightly coiled, as many people of African descent have. However, the full phrase is "white like wool", and it is also compared to snow, complicating this interpretation. In fact, the phrase "white like wool" is reproduced from the Book of Daniel. It is also comparable to language used in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which describes the angel Yahoel as having a body "like sapphire" a face "like chrysolite" and "the hair of his head like snow".[
The "feet of fine brass" line has also been used to argue for a dark-skinned race, but many often leave out burnished and glowing. Additionally, the references to having a white "head" and a countenance that is "as the sun shineth" has been used to argue for Jesus being racially white.

However, all of these descriptions are full of vague poetic imagery, seeming more like attempts to glorify the heavenly body of Jesus than to accurately describe his appearance when on earth. There is also debate whether John the Divine, the author of Revelation, was actually John the Apostle, who knew the earthly Jesus, or even if he was John the Evangelist (see authorship of the Johannine works). The relatively late date ascribed to Revelation by modern scholarship leads many scholars to argue that it seems unlikely that someone who had personally seen Jesus in life wrote the description.

Nicephorus quotes a description of him as tall and beautiful with fair wavy hair and dark eyebrows that met in the middle. He had an olive-tinted complexion, "the color of wheat."

Publius Lentulus is supposed to have described him as perfectly beautiful in features, with "hazel-coloured" hair that flowed to his shoulders, and a forked beard. His eyes continually "change their color." But I already mentioned that is a Greek hoax too. Epiphanius Monachus provides a similar description, in which Jesus is six feet tall, golden haired, with black eyebrows, light brown eyes and swarthy skin "like David's.

The bordering Roman province Judea (Jesus' home region) witnessed multiple waves of immigrants passing through those primarily Semitic lands. As such, it is conceivable that Jesus' lineage could have borne traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry. The aggressive policy of territorial expansion and forced conversion to Judaism practiced by John Hyrcanus a century before Jesus' birth may also have affected the ethnic make-up of the local Jewish populations.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/06/2009 06:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Olive skin and piercing eyes like Afghans?
[link to content.ll-0.com]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/06/2009 06:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Looks like Hindu Kabir Bedi Sandokan to me:
[link to www.deadmentellnotales.com]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/06/2009 06:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
[link to www.deadmentellnotales.com]
[link to images.movieplayer.it]
[link to www.emiliosalgari.it]
[link to 1.bp.blogspot.com]
His son, Adam Bedi, is the product of Kabir’s white wife combo, of course:
[link to www.dnaindia.com]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/06/2009 06:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Years of exposure to sunlight and wind in those days without solar filters means : Jews with a lot of wrinkles looking older than they really were. It's interesting some Pharisees said to Christ "you are not even forty..." when he in fact was a decade younger!
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/06/2009 08:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
It was a torture for Max Von Sidow not to smoke while playing his version of Christ. Robert Powell didn't have any problem as you can see here:
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 04:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Gibson really got some things wrong. He largely rejected their consultants' input, preferring his own reading of the Gospels as well as the “revelations” of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th century Catholic nun who had mystical visions of Jesus' passion. Mel added quite a few non-biblical scenes taken from her visions and as he has said in several interviews, he is convinced she was inspired to see these things. Gibson is not only a strong Roman Catholic believer, he is part of a right-wing break away Catholic sect that sees the reforms of Vatican II as heresy and considers even the present very conservative Pope to be “liberal” in that regard. This has to be considered in any attempt to understand or evaluate how Mel Gibson ended up making the film he did. He has been quite open about this in all his interviews.

The film as an unabashed attempt to present a Roman Catholic version of the story. Throughout the film Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, were presented in both dress and pose as Catholic nuns, their costumes coming about as close to the traditional Catholic habit [/b. Mary especially, in almost every scene, was scripted to look fully the part of The Blessed Virgin Mother of Catholic tradition. The brothers and sisters were not included of course, even at the death, because Mary could not be presented as a normal Jewish woman with a large family of five boys and at least two girls, given the dogma of the “perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of God.”

The Catholic tradition of Veronica and her cloth were included. Jesus carried this unbelievably huge full cross, just like in all the traditional paintings, and at times that part of the film bordered on the ridiculous. This portrait, however appealing to tradition, is unsupported in either the Gospels (Greek word stauros means stake) or what we know of Roman history.

It is worth noting that the two “thieves,’ crucified with Jesus, as this film portrayed things, had only to carry the “cross beam” to which the arms would be tied or nailed, not the entire cross. This would be in keeping with Roman practice, so why have Jesus bend and break for nearly 30 minutes of the film, carrying a “cross” that surely would have weighed over 100 lbs. Here, as in other places, presumably Gibson read his English Bible where the term “cross” is used, and guided by Sister Emmerich’s visions and Church tradition, decided that this was the way things were. Gibson also had Jesus’ nailed to the cross in the hands and feet, rather than through the wrists and the heel bones, as we know was actually the case. Thanks to an amazing accidental archaeological discovery made in 1968—the skeleton of a crucified man contemporary with Jesus found in Jerusalem (see the informative article by anthropologist Joe Zias at: www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html), we are now quite certain about what Roman crucifixion at the time involved and how it was carried out.

Even though Jesus' brutal suffering were portrayed with realism, I noticed that the two “thieves” who were crucified with him hardly looked like they were suffering at all—yet scourging and beating was common for all the victims, and anyone crucified would be in such screaming excruciating pain any of us would have difficulty watching. One had the impression that the important suffering, the only one who really suffered, was Jesus, even though we know that tens of thousands of other Jews died this same brutal death during the very lifetime of Jesus (see www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/cruc-josephus.html for the sources and references).

The Romans, contrary to the portrayal in this film, would have considered the heavy loss of blood, a botched job. The trick was to nail the victim to the wood, but draw very little blood; otherwise one would go unconscious quickly from loss of blood and not suffer for more than a few minutes. Crucifixions, according to the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, were intended to last for several days. The victims eventually died from trauma, dehydration, and shock--not from blood pouring out of severed blood vessels in the hands and feet.

Apparently Gibson was told of some of these things by some of his initial consultants, but chose to follow the visions of Sister Emmerich, who presumably “saw” the wounds in the hands and feet, the huge cross, and so forth, so Mr. Gibson is apparently convinced that the scholars and historians just don't know what they are talking about.


First, one got the impression that not only the corrupt Jewish high priests yelled for Jesus' crucifixion, but also just about the whole population of Jerusalem—that is, at least representatively, the entire Jewish people. This came through very strongly over and over again, mainly in the views of the crowds, who, other than a few women, were rejoicing and even participating with stones, jeers, and spitting, at the brutal suffering of this fellow Jew. Not a single Jew is presented with any kind of character development, nor does one get any sense throughout the film of what the faith of Judaism might have been like—the very faith of Jesus himself. Even the Gospels, as much as they do (especially Matthew and John) put blame on the “Jews,” do not support this view. Jesus was apparently incredibly popular with the masses.

The very reason the Caiaphus was called illegally after midnight was because these leaders knew they could never pull this off in broad daylight, with the likes of Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Gamaliel present, and doubtless many others of such views who had authority and influence. The Gospels witness that Jesus was too popular and loved by thousands to risk an open arrest. The common people heard him gladly and hated this corrupt Temple leadership, as we learn in various Jewish sources.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 03:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Have you seen Robert Powell without the Jesus make-up? You'll see (for example in Harlequin)he has a very thin or narrow face so the beard fits like a glove. Now compare the following images with bearded Al Pacino as Serpico (with longer hair) and bearded Dustin Hoffman as Lenny Bruce and other photo:

[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]

As we can see, probably in the forecoming "Jesus of Nazareth" in 2011, Hollywood would hire another thin face which is the opposite of the actual wider, heavier and more robust Jewish skulls of ancient times.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Robert Powell on his role (I found in a website):

Oh his role as Jesus of Nazareth, arguably one of Zeffirelli's finest
films, Powell has had plenty to say over the years:

"I asked what his first thoughts had been when he heard he had been
given the role of Christ. He laughed. "I wished they hadn't asked me,"
he said. "But, having been asked, I couldn't possibly have turned it
down.

"I was apprehensive. You see, with any other role one has a chance to
turn in a faultless performance. With this particular one I knew there
was no chance at all. A man can't play a god."

"Aside from your misgivings," I asked, "did you enjoy playing the
part?"

"No," came the short, sharp answer. "That's a question not many people
ask and I'm glad you did because it's important. It was the hardest
thing I've ever done. It was also the most physically exhausting. I
lost a stone during the filming. There is no other part where in every
scene you are it. There's no other part where I've had to learn seven
foolscap sheets of script every day and there's no other part where
I've been unable to use any of my own personality.

"For example, if I arrived on the set one day feeling a bit irritable
or fed up, normally I could use those emotions, but with Jesus I
couldn't. But, although I didn't enjoy it, I don't regret having done
it.

"Of course," he added, "now that I've seen it, I would like to do it
all over again - and do it better."

Excerpted from:
'I feel like I'm king of the remakes'

"'Thank God Babs was there,' Powell says of the long months he spent
filming Jesus Of Nazareth in Morocco and Tunisia. It was a
star-studded cast: Lord Olivier as Nicodemus, Ralph Richardson
(Simeon), Peter Ustinov (King Herod), Anne Bancroft (Mary Magdalen)
not to mention James Mason, Anthony Quinn, Christopher Plummer, and
Ian McShane as Judas. 'But it was an extraordinarily boring experience
for most of the actors,' he admits, as they spent weeks on stand-by
awaiting dramatic weather effects for their scenes. Then there was the
food and Tunisian wine. The camera crew's joke was to beg Powell,
please, to change it back into water.


Deliberately, he says, he tried to avoid being emotionally moved by
the part. He wasn't a religious man, and still isn't. 'Particularly
when I was on the cross, it was incredibly cold. And rather than bring
me down between the shots, they left me up there, gave me a dressing
gown and a pair of slippers, and my wife would hand me a cigarette. In
fact, it got so cold I think I was handed a brandy too.'

Almost despite himself, though, there were moments when he was
touched, particularly filming the Sermon on the Mount. 'There were
several thousand extras, shafts of the setting sun over the hill. I
saw these thousands of upturned faces who I don't think could
understand me because they were Moroccan. I thought I'll pitch it to
them, so I raised my voice and, across the valley, I could hear it
coming back and so could everybody else. And it just had a very eerie
effect. The crew were all in floods of tears. It was as if one had
been slightly touched by an external force.'
Jesus Of Nazareth never
made Powell a rich man, he was paid a flat fee of 20,000 for nine
months work and not a ha'penny more for repeats all over the world.
And he wasn't tempted by a business offer to market Jesus sandals and
jeans: 'Good god, no. I wanted another 50 years of being an actor. If
you capitalise on things like that, who's going to take you
seriously?'"

"I looked in the mirror and realised I was looking at the image of
Jesus I had retained from my childhood. It was the image English
people recognise as Christ: Holman Hunt's Light Of The World. Except I
wasn't blonde. But my silhouette could only have been of one man -
Christ. It was extraordinary."



The film was shot in Morocco and Tunisia. Laurence Olivier, Rod
Steiger, James Mason, Anne Bancroft were co-stars. It appeared - six
compendious hours of it - to respectful approval. "The secret to the
success of the film is down to the fact that it's not idiosyncratic.
We were trying to reach thousands of people, all with the same image,"
says Powell. "But the 10,000 letters I got from viewers all said the
same thing: 'It's exactly how I imagined Him.' That's because I did
nothing. It's a blank canvas on which the audience paint their own
image and think their own thoughts. Which is why I was angry with
Dennis Potter."

[...]

"At first, Powell says, he tried to make Jesus sparkier, more of an
individual. He stopped when he realised that "the more I made him a
man, the less I made him divine".
Didn't Olivier give him any tips on
how to act the part? "Yes, he gave me the best note I have ever had. I
was doing the 'spirit is willing - pause - but the flesh is weak'
line. He said: 'Bobsy, do you mind if I say something? Never pause if
the audience know what you are going to say next.'"


On another
occasion, the director asked Powell to shout "I am" when Jesus is
asked if he is truly the son of the living God. He duly yelled. After
the take, Olivier opined: "Bobsy, I think Jesus would have been
quietly proud of being the son of God, don't you?"



In this, my own comment is: I don't think so. Christ abandoned his self or ego. He was aware of the adoption or fusion with God like Hindu experience. Neither he needed to shout nor be cocky.


If one experience
from playing Jesus - aside from the hell of the crucifixion - is
seared into Powell's mind it was hearing his own voice echoing off the
mountains during the Sermon On The Mount and actually listening to the
words - "There was me, the extras and crew in a flood of tears, rapt
at what is, I am convinced, the most profound piece of writing in
history."



-- The film is a remake of Cecil B. DeMille's 1928 classic
-- Filming took place over 9 months in Morocco and Tunisia. Most of
the extras were locals.
-- The film's budget was $25 million, a sum considered extravagant in
its day.
-- Originally cast as Judas Iscariot, it's said that when Franco
Zeffirelli looked into Robert Powell's eyes, he knew that he was
better suited for the role of Jesus. Mr. Powell accepted, and later
received more than 10,000 letters from viewers telling him that he was
"exactly the way I thought Jesus would be".
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 03:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Italian director Zeffirelli's opinion about Gibson's Passion (he directed Gibson in Hamlet, right?):


"once I knew that Gibson had decided to make a film on the Passion of Christ I began to get worried. I knew well that the family culture in which he was raised, dominated by a father who considers the Vatican councils the tomb of Christianity..."

Zeffirelli (who directorially followed up Jesus of Nazareth with Endless Love) takes pride in the fact that his movie, Jesus of Nazareth, was made in accordance with the principles established by Vatican II.

I got news for you, people. Christ wasn't Catholic either non Christian for that matter!
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 05:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings:
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
[link to fotolog.terra.com.mx]
Though his clothes are brown & red, it was not like that!

He had his chest shaven at the cross 'cos the hairy chest was rejected at the pre-premiere! Sweden Max Von Sidow hated his "gringo" accent tooth & nail.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 07:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Robert Powell talking about his eyes :

‘I wore nothing at all on my eyes. All actors discover over the years things that work and don’t work, physical attributes that can be a help to you and the ones that aren’t. And I found out fairly early on that I was able to express a great deal through my eyes alone. But I did something in that which I’m not aware of having done before. I’m not even sure now how it came about, but I discovered that with a little practice I could keep my eyes open without blinking for anything up to three or four minutes. So I don’t think at any point in the film do I blink. One had to find technical ways, coldly and consciously, of expressing something different. I’m a mere mortal and I just grasped at anything to make me slightly apart from the other actors. By keeping the gaze not as a stare but just steady, it was possible to sustain a thread between me and the camera, a thread which would be broken if I blinked for only a fraction of a second. And by maintaining that thread, the eyes become virtually hypnotic for the audience. That’s all it is. It’s a trick.’
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/07/2009 07:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Can you imagine Al Pacino as Christ's utterance:

MY FATHER WILL MAKE THEE AN OFFER THOU SHALL NOT REFUSE
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 02:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
In a would-be film:

Except a silent movie and "Genesis Project, Luke" with Brian Deacon as Christ, all films ignore TRANSFIGURATION. This shouldn't be overlook specially 'cos Christ promised to his 3 favorite disciples they would witness the Kingdom of God a week earlier and a cloud appears along with Moses and Eliah (who performed wonders like Christ, were 40 days in the desert like Christ, Moses' body dissapeared near Nebo mountain and Eliah dissapeared in a charriot and horses made of fire not too far away from there). This should be like a Pink Floyd live concert colorful experience stoner neither Peter nor John ever forgot!

All films commit the same mistake: they are eager to transform Christ into a Christian preacher delivering his utterances like them which is a caricature of the truth and in a couple of hours they want to repeat all sayings Christ did in 3 years!!!!!! NOP, PLEASE! A guru, a master whose words were remembered had to talk in such a way they get into the heart of the people and all of them talk using pauses, like Krishnamurti, like Osho, like Hindu masters, like probably Taoist Lao Tse dweeb or Siddartha Gautama Buda probably did. Hands gestures are important and not just walking in the field and talking. Maybe they can VISUALIZE the parables simultaneously with real scenes.

The EYES are very important and the Scripture mentions several times Christ stared people straight. Instead of repeating over and over the whole Sermon of the Mountain why directors and writers don't focus in all sayings that are rarely mentioned? Specially the ones which could be applied into present day circumstances. Christ's words could be the same but script writer could change the circumstances. A good example was in Zeffirelli's job when the parable of the prodigal son is applied in such a way, Christ uses it to get together Matthew and Peter which is not mentioned in the Bible. If Luke did "edit" Matthew account considering the Master repeated the same things many times, we CAN do the same.

Again and again they use the tradition of Christ being a carpenter when the Greek word used is "tekton" from which the word "architect" comes from. He was a MASON working with stones and wood was seldom used unless he repaired boats. From all 48 parables THERE'S NONE talking about carpenter skills but indeed there's a statement about building houses in solid ground and the sui generis account in Greek literature mixing a measurement of SPACE (height) with TIME (human lifespan) which is as ESOTERIC like the sayings about illuminating the EYE (in singular, not in plural) which keeps all body enlighted. To pay attention in the NOW rather than speculating about the future. This sounds like VEDANTA talking Christians ignore 'cos the same usual preaching and superficial has been repeated over and over and over. Why don't use Thomas Gospel which is considered more authentic with the expressions admitting women have to be transformed into man or Christ calls God both Father ABBA and Mother AMMA?

In The Greatest Story Ever Told we see a wonderful scene where Max Von Sidow preaches about being The Light and uses a torch like everybody else. The fact is that talking was in the temple alright but with MASSIVE MENORAH CHANDELLERS.

Some things have to be corrected, for instance that saying it's easier for a camel to pass through the hole of the needle than a rich man get into God's kingdom. It's already known that was a Greek mistranslation of a single letter, confusing "camel" (kaunlov) with "rope" (kauilov), hence it's easier for a rope to get into the hole of the needle and not a camel!!!!!

Another example is that aweful word "repent cos the kingdom of God is near" since we know in Aramaic that "repent" was "teshuvah" meaning LISTEN, GET BACK TO YOURSELF which is not to repent from a specific greedy or any other action which anyways we repeat over and over: but a change in the life of a person, adquire consciousness. It was never a burden to be sorry for, it's just like Prodigal Son who went away from the Path and get back to his senses. That kingdom of God is 'among you' grouphug should be WITHIN you with a Christ fingering someone's heart because that was Greek original word "entos humoon".

Why don't focus in landscapes and the waves of the sea with more detail?

I think The Greatest Story Ever Told is excellent in portraying a Christ that performed miracles in the people who had faith and usually in the churches don't want to enhance the chapter in Mark where it says Christ COULDN'T PERFORM MIRACLES in his town due to the unfaithful attitude of his country fellow men. In Zeffirelli we see Christ curing a blind man making mud in his hand but we should see the hypnotizer and miracle man doing at least 2 miracles with mud that was made WITH HIS OWN SALIVA and that is something the audience could be shocked but it's part of the Scripture many people are unaware 'cos they simply haven't read!!!!!!It would be good if writers take a look at the Bible, when Eliah and other prophet ressurected people: there was a rite like walking several times spinning around the corpse and lay down upon their bodies, touching lips and eyes. Perhaps Christ did the same after he closed the door and resurrected a girl only in the presence of some of his disciples and the parents.

Gospel of John with that Peruvian/Scottish actor Ian Cusick, Jeremy Sisto Jesus tv series and Genesis, Project Luke and Gospel According to Matthew with Enrique Irazoqui, all 4 show Christ walking on water but it's a good scene to repeat again.

When Christ wrote something on the ground (when the woman was going to be stoned) it's needed to reveal to the audience it was forbbiden even to write 2 letters UNLESS they were made with dust meaning Christ knew their traditions and defied them. One Pharisee or scribe should mention that in a scene like that and it has to be written by script writer who knows. At least in a couple of films we watch he is drawing a fish (equivalent of his name in Greek). Nop! He was probably writing the magic name of God and the pronunciation which is the biggest secret of Judaism! He could write the name in vertical manner in Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew Phoenician better.

When Christ is talking about Pharisees clothes (which used at least 18 pieces) we have never seen him actually revealing those things Christians usually ignore. Maybe Christ could actually show them to his audience (and the viewers of a film):the box they enlarged with the scriptures, the ropes they tied to the arms or mayble holding the schawl in purple or blue. It's more dramatic if those words go along with showing them because it will remember the Protestants wearing necktie and suits or Catholic & Greek popeOrthodox priests (not to mention modern religious Jews) who wear those things NOW to give an appearence of neatness, false morality façade or dedication.

The BAPTISM had to be shown as it was, not just a rite but a process to rise again after dying, that is John the Baptist almost DROWNING the receiver of the Holy Ghost like in the scene of the schizophrenic guy in THE CELL in a Christian rite. Not just merely sparkling some drops of water on people's heads.

Except Gibson's Passion, the movement of the camera sucks in these kind of productions. Now they know better.

Is it possible the producers and directors ignore color WHITE was forbidden by Pharisees and was used mainly to mourn the dead ones? That's a big mistake they make specially in The Greatest Story Ever Told and Jeremy Sisto's tv series. King of Kings and Passion of the Christ and even Zeffirelli were better 'cos they depicted brownish and reddish clothes. Yet Zeffirelli shows women in black mourning Lazarus. People very often lack money to dye their clothes.

Don't hire actors with 2 weeks beards! Beards were important and had to be treated with respect and honour. That's an error when we see Thomas and Barrabas in Zeffirelli's work or even Christ in Gospel of Matthew made by Piero Paolo Pasolini. And yet that film is good presenting AMATEUR people as extras, ugly people with aweful teeth as probably they were 2.000 years ago. It gives authenticity we rarely see except in films like The Name of the Rose in which Annauk hired the most ugly possible people.

It's really sad, Christians ignore Judaism. For instance, rather than watching Satan dressed in black Armani modern suit as we see tempting Jeremy Sisto/Jesus, why don't focus in Apocalypse 12 admitting the same thing mentioned in Genesis 3: Satan is a dragon-snake. As a matter of fact in Hebrew this was not a literal snake as we see in John Huston's The Bible...in the beginning, but it was a SERAPHIM (not arcangel as we see in The Last Temptation of Christ). This interdimensional 6-winged snake dragon apparently was changed into a lesser entity called cherubim. Christians imagine a cherubim like a baby with butterfly wings or long hair androgynous boy/girl. If you read Ezekiel you will understand a cherubim is a hybrid HUMANIMAL with 4 faces in a single head (bull-lion-man-eagle) as in all civilizations. In that sense, or you put that monster like ghost in the Temptation or a beautiful person or use animals like lions (read Mark account) as they did in The Last Tempation of Christ with those wonderful scenes in the desert like a true YOGUI. After all Essenes did a hole in the ground and sat there to meditate as well so it's not too far from the truth. Christ enjoyed to isolate and meditate and we don't see that often in the films. They just insist on preaching!
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 03:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
That horrendous Star of Bethelem mistake is repeated ad infinitum. That's because they mix Matthew & Luke accounts as if they were the same. Herodes did CALCULATIONS about WHEN DID THE STAR APPEAR and then he decided to kill kids from 2 years old down. The Bible never mentioned 3 kings neither their names. That's Catholic tradition only. They were "magoi" magician and took at least 2 years in that trip. Trip where? To Jerusalem. Who was in Jerusalem? King Herod, the one who wanted to kill the baby boy. Why would God alert HIM sending magician to Jerusalem? Isn't that odd?

The star moves from East to Jerusalen during a couple of years. Then remains still there, then it goes from there to Bethelem. Now, by that time the baby was not a baby no more 'cos IT PASSED TWO YEARS ALREADY and then the star STOPS RIGHT ABOVE... above what? A HOUSE where Mary was with the kid (apparently Joseph is not there any more). Well, that star certainly didn't look like Halley comet nor supernova explosion neither alignment of planets! That looks more like a UFO send by a deceiver.

And what else? Ah yes, since the star was sent to alert Herode of the 2-years old kid whereabouts, then THEY RECEIVED A WARNING DREAM not to get back to the same path. So, what we see here is the one who sends the dream is in opposition to whomever guided the moving star, right?

The movies waste too much of a time in that which was probably invented by Matthew anyways! Why wasting 40 minutes or an hour in such a thing?
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 03:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Now, virtual CGI does wonderful things to mimic these:
Herod’s Temple;

[link to web.syr.edu]
[link to www.freewebs.com]
Pilate’s house:
[link to www.masterandmargarita.eu]
Where Christ was judged ? :
[link to www.bible-history.com]

[link to www.thechroniclebook.com]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 06:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
In a would-be film the director should invest at least half an hour in the trail and use flashback. Like a film about lawyers. That's because Messiah was arrested at Getsemani garden, then led to Hannah's house who was ex high priest (when Christ was 12 years old). Later on that same night he is carried to Caiphas' wide house (he was Hannah's son in law)while some of the 71 members of the Sanhedrin are gathering together (that is: the members who hate Christ)and seeking for witnesses. That's illegal meeting. Next day (Friday at dawn) the members of the Sanhedrin gather together but this time at the Sanhedrin in order to legitimate the illegal trial. Then they sent Christ to Pilate's palace who didn't find any reason to judge or condemn him. Then the exhausted Christ is kept on moving to Herod who moked him and put a purple robe on him. He sent Christ back to Pilate who tried to release Christ at least 4 times until he fears when the mob says "we have no king but Cesar" knowing his own life is in jeopardy if he releases Christ. That's because there's the Laesa Majestas law (Wounded Majesty)that could be used by Tiberius against him and his family.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 06:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
The director should build with virtual reality Caipha’s house, check the ruins and dungeons, sacred pit:
[link to image60.webshots.com]
[link to image40.webshots.com]
[link to image42.webshots.com]
Praetorium of Pilate reconstruction:
[link to dubitando.no.sapo.pt]
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 07:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Since there's a lot of talking linking Pilate with Germans & Scotts, in a would-be film probably they should hire a redhair actor not wearing a Roman robe. Pilate ruled in conjunction with the Jewish authorities and was under orders from Emperor Tiberius, to respect their culture. He was more a soldier rather than a diplomat. David Bowie was suggested to play his Pilate as a Scottish. He refused. I liked Gary Oldman cynical performance using Jews to get rid of the problem in tv series of Jesus. Yet, he should've worn the soldier uniform as did Rod Steiger in Zeffirelli's work IMHO. I don't think a militar like him would invest too much time in shaving off his head like King of King's Telly Savalas.
inca=chinitial
User ID: 608480
Brazil
02/08/2009 07:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Well, perhaps Pilate could use his TOGA when was off-duty.
In that "Jesus" tv production with Jeremy Sisto the characters look like wearing colorful clothes from India!!!! Dyes were rare and costly. ORANGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT ALL and purple was so expensive it was worn only by royalty (upper class would indicate their wealth by a STRIPE or FRINGE of purple in their garments.
As I said darl clothing was common, abit brownish or reddish with a ROUGH TEXTURE cos the fabric would be linen or wool. Until the invention of cotton gin, removing the seeds from cotton bolls was such a tedious process that only rich ones wore cotton garments except head coverings. Jewish women often covered their hair which could be seen only by their husbands.
The Guy

User ID: 576468
United States
02/08/2009 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
Jesus was a nazarite meaning that he did not shave the hair off His face and head. so naturally His beard and hair became dreadlocked and nappy. thats why in the bible described that His hair was like lambs wool. so when they crucified Christ they humiliated Him by cutting the beard and hair just like delilah did to samson to weaken him. thats how the roman soldiers got the crown of thorns over His head. you cannot t put thorns over nobodys head if it was dreadlocked. and Jesus was in his 30s so imagine how long and nappy his hair was.
 Quoting: i tell ya 595776


Jesus was a Nazarene, not a Nazarite. It just means he was from Nazareth.
It's good to be open-minded, just don't let your brain fall out.
The Guy

User ID: 576468
United States
02/08/2009 08:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
as described in the bible, YES! and it aint black replacement theology. replacement theology began when the white man began to hide the truth from the original jews and put a fake replacement there. look at all the documentaries and hollywood movies. every last person is either white or arab looking. read Jeremiah 14 verse 2:
"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish, they are black unto the ground.

Lamentations 5 verse 10:
"our skin was black like an oven."

Job 30 verse 30:
"My skin is black upon me."

are those verses black replacement theology or biblical facts? what hollywood did was place the color of the real jews as white or arab looking, which they are not! thats replacement theology! for one white skin dont get black but pale. in the sun the skin dont get black but red. and its so funny how the new versions of the bible changed black to dark and rewrite some of the scriptures to give it a different meaning. thats replacement theology!


God isnt talking about the rest of the world in revelation but of his scattered sheep. if your captors enslaved you you will begin to learn the language and that language became your native tongue. read deuteronomy 28 and it will be revealed which race fit that biblical curse unto today.


nations: americas, caribbean, europe wherever his people are scattered
tribes and people: judah, benjamin, simeon, reuben, levi etc became african americans, jamaicans, haitians, etc
tongues: french, spanish, dutch, portuguese, english
 Quoting: i tell ya 595776


Actually, then a "white" person got a tan, this used to be called "sun-blackened." I'm sorry, but all people are descendants of Noah's family. Whether a person is related any closer than that to the biblical Israelites doesn't matter. God has extended His blessing to all peoples.
It's good to be open-minded, just don't let your brain fall out.
The Guy

User ID: 576468
United States
02/08/2009 08:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: casting Jesus in films, costume & historical errors
So, this is not Jesus real face!
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
 Quoting: inca=chinitial 608480


I'd say that's probably pretty close.
It's good to be open-minded, just don't let your brain fall out.





GLP