|
Post by MagdaFR on Jan 13, 2024 18:10:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jan 13, 2024 20:46:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jan 15, 2024 15:53:13 GMT
SPOILERS
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jan 15, 2024 22:23:22 GMT
One of the negative comments I read said that these biblical films have been passé since the 1950s, so there was no point in remaking them. Also, many objected to the modern-day lingo. I find these kind of comments funny because they’re accepting that in the 1950s movies they had the characters speaking like it actually was the year 33AD.
Movies are always a product of their time! Look at any movie from the 1950s or 1960s, but set in the past or in the future. All the women have beehive hairdos and false eyelashes. I actually appreciated the fact that they didn’t make the characters look and sound like they walked off the set of Ben Hur or The Ten Commandments!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 15, 2024 23:53:10 GMT
I remember some old Mexican bíblical films in which everyone was talking like Mexicans with the exception of Jesus who used to have a strong Spanish accent! It probably was just the casting but there was this feeling that only Jesus was talking *real* *proper* Castilian/Spanish. lol
I guess it was similar with some old biblical American films with a strong British cast and/or Americans with very solemn dialogues.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jan 16, 2024 2:07:34 GMT
It sounded to me that all the actors kept whatever accents they already had, so they varied. I noticed American, British, Jamaican, and there were probably others. James McAvoy sounded British rather than Scottish, but I could be wrong. Lupin’s Omar Sy spoke English with his French accent. And Benedict sounded like Benedict!
I like that they didn’t try to make everyone sound the same.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 16, 2024 9:19:47 GMT
That was hysterical in The Death of Stalin but I guess some people just take more seriously biblical stuff which it’s ironic because I would say that a religious text it’s not necessarily something historical and, at least, Christianism have always be very free with the idea of adapting the text and images to different context (for example taking local legends, myths and religions from evangelized territories and mixing them with Christianism). But I guess there are always some extremists who think their versions is the only one valuable.
Also apparently there is some tone disparity. The Death of Stalin was very obviously a satire making fun of communism and Life of Brian was also an obvious attack to any kind of fanatic out there (religious, right wing and left wing, any type! Ironically, I think a pair of years ago left wing activists would be more angry about it. Especially about the Loretta stuff but nowadays would probably be both sides, the Christians AND the left! lol) I haven’t watched “Clarence” but a few people said it’s not clear if it’s a serious pro religion film or it’s making fun of it. In any case, a diverse of accents should be valid and it’s not something new for biblical films. I guess the difference would be the “solemnity” of those accents!
You know, what’s a bonkers interpretation, tho. I think it was in The Wall Street Journal where the critic wrote that a black Jesus was more historically accurate than a white Jesus. Again, there had been black, indigenous and white Jesus since forever in Christian lore according to the region so it shouldn’t be something polemic but if Jesus was real and lived in that region of the world then he very probably was “brown” not black or white but apparently Americans still think there are just two categories of people in the world: white and blacks. And they should always been clearly limited and defined because if not you are not pure (according to racists) or a “racist” (according to anti-racists who are actually also just good old racists, too).
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jan 16, 2024 12:46:57 GMT
It actually didn’t occur to me until after I saw it that the black/white issue was not an issue in the movie. Maybe it was supposed to be and I missed it? Yes, the Roman guards and James McAvoy were bad guys and all of them were white. But then there were black bad guys, too.
Of course, Benedict’s character was both silly and crucial to the story, supposedly showing us how we ended up with the image of the flowing-haired, blue-eyed white Jesus that we currently have today.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jan 16, 2024 14:34:27 GMT
Some months ago I read a review on a blog that apparently is about biblical adaptations. There is this small extremist group in America that actually believes that the *real* Jews are blacks who had been involved in some recent antisemitics attacks in NY AND one of them actually murdered Martin Luther King’s mother! This film doesn’t seem to marry that extremist ideology but yeah, according to that blog in this movie the blacks are Jews and the whites are Roman with the big exception of BC’s character! The guy thinks BC is also playing a Jew maybe because he is crucified in the film. Romans mostly crucified Jews. It was extremely rare for them to do that to another Roman citizen .
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jan 16, 2024 15:35:18 GMT
I really don’t know how accurate the religious aspect is of the movie. Benedict’s character is crucified, as is Clarence. There are others shown hanging on crosses, too. We are shown that at the very start of the movie, and the rest of the movie shows us what led up to it.
The Romans explained that they were crucifying anyone claiming to be a Messiah, so they rounded them all up. They knew that Clarence wasn’t a Messiah. He had claimed/pretended to be one earlier in the movie, for the fame and wealth, but then had a change of heart and admitted he had been a fraud. The Romans knew he wasn’t the actual Messiah who going around performing miracles. They only captured Clarence so that he would tell them where Jesus was hiding. But Clarence refused to tell them what they wanted. Benedict’s character never claimed to be the Messiah, either, but arrested anyway because he looked like one, and let others think that he was, and enjoyed the attention and popularity it brought him. (Poor Benedict - he couldn’t catch a break) They explained that the actual Jesus would be crucified three days later when he is betrayed by one of his apostles. So The Book of Clarence is sort of a prequel!
|
|