Religion
Related: About this forumWhatever Happened to Hippy Jesus?
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/03/whatever-happened-to-hippy-jesus/284138/Serious, Biblically correct films like Son of God make it easy to forget the Jesus Christ Superstar-style whimsical messiah who once reigned at box offices.
EDWARD J. BLUM AND PAUL HARVEY
MAR 4 2014, 7:30 AM ET
Jesus Christ is serious business. The remarkable ratings of The Bible miniseries on the History Channel led to the release of the new film Son of God. Producers played up the fact that it had been 10 years since Mel Gibsons Passion of the Christ was released and grossed at the box office more than $600 million internationally. In its opening weekend, the Son of God made $26 millionnot bad, given that its content had previously aired on television.
Both films are serious for their revenue generating, their strategic niche marketing to the religiously devout, and their tone, style, and approach. The Passion was two hours of brutality. Some reviewers screamed that it was a horror flick, not a holy one. Gibson was intent on accuracy (or at least how his particular Catholicism viewed the sacred story). The characters did not speak English and he had the color of actor Jim Caviezels eyes digitally altered from blue to brown and gave him a prosthetic nose to make him look authentically Jewish. The Son of God is serious in its own way. A political thriller and an epic love story, the film features overtly evangelical themes of the virgin birth, miraculous healings, vicious crucifixion, and the resurrection.
Jesus films have not always been so serious, and they have not always been directed toward particular segments of the Christian community. In the 1970s, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar used whimsy, even silliness, to tell the old, old story, and both sought mass appeal. Neither film grabbed the market share Passion of the Christ did, but they were popular for their day. Why did so many Americans of the 1970s gravitate to inventive, artistic, and playful accounts of Jesus, while today Christ films are brutal and interested giving in a literal-seeming interpretation of the Bible?
Jesus Christ has played a prominent role in the American cinema since its modern genesis. In the beginning of the 20th century, directors D. W. Griffith and Cecil DeMille not only made the son of God a star on the silver screen, but also consciously set him in conversation with the nations most visible problems. After Griffiths Ku Klux Klan-glorifying film Birth of a Nation (1915) had Jesus appear to bless white supremacy, Griffith tried to prove his love for liberty with Intolerance (1916). In it, nasty Jews crucify the peaceful Jesus. Understandably, this had American Jews crying racism, much as blacks had done with the first film.
more at link
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Hippies believe in hippy Jesus.
Progressives believe in progressive Jesus.
Republicans believe in gay-hating commie-killin Jesus.
That's the funny thing about believers. Their gods always just happen to hold the same political views they do.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It must be comforting to know God isn't going to throw you in the eternal slam because you voted for Dukakis.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I really liked that one, too.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)(and his Two-Fisted Pals, Buddha and Krishna)
okasha
(11,573 posts)in my art school's oil painting studio, complete with dark skin and dreads. When he's ready for it to be seen by anyone but his mentor and fellow students, I'll ask the artist's permission to photograph and post it.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)westerebus
(2,976 posts)as in Donna Summers..
struggle4progress
(118,301 posts)even a "Biblically correct biography" seems beyond reach: as Schweitzer pointed out over a century ago, any telling of the "life of Jesus" can only reflect the particular views of the person doing the telling -- and must miss the fact that the Gospels really only relate anecdotes and sayings intended to challenge and trouble us as individuals
The perennial instinct, to combine and reconcile the Gospels into a coherent "life of Jesus," therefore risks rather badly missing the point
... It is only at first sight that the absolute indifference of early Christianity towards the life of the historical Jesus is disconcerting ... Primitive Christianity was .. right to live wholly in the future with the Christ who was to come, and to preserve of the historic Jesus only detached sayings, a few miracles, His death and resurrection ... There was a danger of our thrusting ourselves between men and the Gospels, and refusing to leave the individual man alone with the sayings of Jesus. There was a danger that we should offer them a Jesus who was too small, because we had forced Him into conformity with our human standards and human psychology ... Jesus, as He is depicted in the Gospels, influenced individuals by the individual word. They understood Him so far as it was necessary for them to understand, without forming any conception of His life as a whole, since this in its ultimate aims remained a mystery even for the disciples ... He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time ...
The Quest of the Historical Jesus
A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede
By Albert Schweitzer
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)***This post is a work of satire and not meant to be taken seriously!
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Nicely played.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I love JC Superstar and Godspell at certain points in my life. They were fun, light hearted and even inspirational.