I don't understand the need for this film. "The Passion" came out two years ago? Do we need the story told with a modern spin? It appears the creater is upset with the blond hair, blue eyed Jesus. In "The Passion" Christ had brown hair and brown eyes. The best depiction given the period and region of the Gospel.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2006-01-19T153717Z_01_L18788195_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARTS-JESUS-BLACK.xml&rpc=22
I'm not quite sure what your point is about not needing this film just because the Passion came out 2 years ago. Firstly films about Jesus come out every couple of years anyway. YOu could ask what the need to bring out the Passion was given that the Gospel of John came out the year before, or Son of God the year or two before that, or the Miracle Maker before that.
Alternatively you could be saying that you think the Passion is definitive. But how can it be given that ignores Jesus' whole misitry oter than his death.
In any case, from what I understand this film is about far more than just Jesus being black. If nothing else it puts him in a modern day context, and a highly politicised one at that. The Passion failed to put Jesus in any context really (except perhaps that of Mediaeval Catholicism).
Matt Page (Bible Films Blog)
http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think that you are overlooking the actual value of this film. It is not a political commentary, in fact it is a look into the life of Jesus. It attempts to understand him, rather than to say "Jesus was black, so white people suck." Relax.
share