A Maori Jesus? - Risen (2016) Discussion

[–] mgsgamer2009 8 years ago

If little things like the location of birth of an actor bothers you that much, maybe you need to stop watching movies.

reply

^^^ this guy gets it

reply

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 8 years ago

If little things like the location of birth of an actor bothers you that much, maybe you need to stop watching movies.

It's not the location of birth, it's the nationality. You can't put an Afro-American to play Napoleon, you can't put a Scandinavian to play an Apache, and you can't put a Maori to play Jesus Christ. Simple as that.

reply

[–] mgsgamer2009 8 years ago

Yes I would disagree with those as well. In this case. He looks middle Eastern, which is what Jesus was. So after they established hope Jesus looked, they started looking for who has the best audition and was available. I think you can guess who did.

reply

[–] Stenian 7 years ago

You're so ignorant about race. The actor who played Jesus in this did NOT even look Middle Eastern. If anything, he looked South Asian. The majority of Semites do NOT possess a dark brown skin. Have you even observed modern day Middle Easterners? Their men don't look that different from George Clooney, complexion wise.

Ironically, a white or European portrayal Jesus is still at least closer to the actual one than a Polynesian one. Semites, like Europeans/whites, are Caucasian. A Maori isn't. This Jesus was of a completely different race. But people are hypocritically blind about this.

reply

[–] Jan_El_Senor 8 years ago

Why? It's just as incorrect as having a white actor play Jesus.

Please stop.

reply

[–] smeg-4-brains 8 years ago

All you humans look the same so what's the big problem? The only good human is a dead human, so Human Race, kindly go extinct at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you and have a nice day!

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

Why not? Cliff Curtis looks enough like a Middle Eastern man and I like that he is not classically handsome as some of the recent actors playing the role have been. It seems there was really an attempt at making the appearances of people of Jesus' time more authentic. They are not squeaky clean and Jesus, shaggy-haired and unkempt looking wears a dark shabby-looking robe. He looks like the wandering preacher He was.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] ilianag007 8 years ago

Why don't you educate yourself and search how the people of Judea and all that region look like. Neither blonde or blue eye btw.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Of course, not every Jew, Lebanese, Arab, etc., would necessarily represent what the historical Jesus looked like. Someone of another ethnicity might work just as well, since "historical-cultural-time period verisimilitude" must remain obscure, until filmmakers obtain access to time travel and can "be there" to photograph Jesus and other major players.

My objection is not that the guy is Maori, but that he has no "Christness". He acts just like a kind of semi-dumpy, sloppy-looking affable guy, not the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration and the miracles, exorcisms, and parables. I can't understand why the disciples are clinging to this guy, who, even in his glorified, exalted risen state, looks and acts like Joe Average.

reply

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 8 years ago

Yes, I should have mentioned that despite my issue with his ethnicity, his performance was very mediocre. He's not a bad actor, he was just miscast. Jim Caviezel was far better.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Agreed - miscast. He didn't need to "look just like" all the standard Christs of art and cinema, but it's like they didn't even try to get an actor who could communicate "Christness"...

:)

reply

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 8 years ago

I couldn't believe my eyes in that scene near the end, when Clavius and the students are in the boat and can't catch any fish, and Jesus appears like a beach hobo, and tells them something like "fish from the other side", and they do, and they catch a ton of fish, and they see him as he walks away like he made a David Copperfield trick. He was walking like the coolest dude, like "yo, I snap my fingers and I do magic tricks!". It was literally like the actor (unintentionally, not his fault I guess) was making fun of Jesus. Look how serious and powerful were the miracle scenes in "Jesus of Nazareth". You really felt like he was the son of God, like something out of this world was happening. They didn't portray Jesus as a street juggler!

Other than that, the movie was fine, I guess. I liked the story of that Roman who discovered his faith. But the general acting was bad. Not only Curtis', but most of the students as well.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Look how serious and powerful were the miracle scenes in "Jesus of Nazareth". You really felt like he was the son of God, like something out of this world was happening. They didn't portray Jesus as a street juggler!

Ouch! Couldn't have said it better myself!

:)

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

We are too used to the Hollywood version of the story of Christ. This version with its dry dusty landscapes, rumpled dusty people in simple dreary colored clothing with wind tossed hair, and naturalistically portrayed miracles is probably much truer to the period.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

I wasn't suggesting another "Hollywood" Jesus, but I was lamenting that the chosen actor had no charisma no matter what his race or clothing was. As another poster said, the actor was completely unremarkable even when he was portraying the risen, glorified, exalted Christ. He was portrayed as just one of the guys and the viewer has no reason to think that this person is the risen Messiah/Son of God. Concerning unkempt hair, iirc Jewish custom required head covering at all times, and this probably would not resemble a modern hat, but rather typical Arab garb - robes with hoods of some type. Therefore not only would hair not be normally visible, but it, along with the scalp, would be protected from wind and sun...

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

Isaiah 53:2New International Version (NIV)

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Isaiah is the prophet whose "Suffering Servant" prophecies are referred to in the Gospels as foretelling the mission and suffering of Christ.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

No offense, but that "prophecy" is not Messianic; much less does it apply to Jesus.

It is part of Isaiah's "Servant Song" in which Isaiah's referred-to servant is not the Messiah or Jesus, but rather the suffering people of Israel. By "his" (Israel's) sufferings ("stripes"), Yahweh's "Chosen" will impress the Gentile nations to the extent that they will come to respect and love Israel, and finally come to the Temple to worship Israel's god in "spirit and truth". The "he" and "him" of the text is simply a singular symbol for a corporate entity - much as we might refer to America as "she"; the "We" of the text represents what the admiring and somewhat jealous members of rival pagan nations will be thinking of Israel's innocent sufferings.

Moreover, if the historical Jesus was as unimpressive as Risen's Jesus, and as Isaiah's (non-)Messianic "prophecy", Judas would not have needed to identify Jesus to the police in Gethsemane. He would have simply directed them to find the most dull, unprepossessing, ugly, unattractive member of the apostolic group.

And my point still stands that Jesus/the disciples' coiffure would under normal conditions have been invisible, hidden by headgear, except in times of bathing or family/national emergency.

reply

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 8 years ago

And my point still stands that Jesus/the disciples' coiffure would under normal have been invisible, hidden by headgear, except in times of bathing or family/national emergency.

What do you mean family/national emergency?

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Earthquake, house fire, pillage, siege of Jerusalem. Other than times of sharp crisis, when missing or disarrayed clothing would be understandably excused, headgear was de rigueur for Jews. As Tevye said, "We always wear our hats to show our constant devotion to God". But if Jews should lose their prescribed clothing through no fault of their own in times of duress, surely the Lord would not hold it against them.

reply

[–] nifabs 7 years ago

Thank you, Jesus did not use makeup or have a six pack, he was simple and grounded ; an ordinary man who turned out to be GOD!!

reply

[–] LaZboyfriend 8 years ago

semi-dumpy, sloppy-looking affable guy, not the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration and the miracles, exorcisms, and parables

So, Jesus had to look a certain way in order to do these things?

No offense, but you seem to have a very Kardashian outlook on life: that superficiality -- the way someone appears on the outside -- gives them their worth.

Does it concern you that if you had lived during the time of Christ, you may have not followed Him if His appearance was anything short of "Matinee Idol"?

Room for one more, honey.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Apparently you didn't understand what I said, namely that the film portrays the risen, glorified, exalted, mysterious, celestial Christ - as "a semi-dumpy, sloppy-looking affable guy, not the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration..." and certainly not the superhuman, risen Messiah/Son of God.

The pre-Easter Jesus may have looked like a sloppy, messy, affable "Joe", but the film is portraying the post-Easter Jesus, whose Resurrection body had paranormal attributes, and who was sometimes experienced as a blinding light and a heavenly voice. Its sloppy, disheveled affable "Joe" doesn't cut it by a long shot.

Moreover, the chosen actor completely fails to communicate the simple but radiant human grandeur of the Jesus of the Gospel stories and parables - can you honestly imagine this guy performing miracles, preaching subversive, pithy stories, teaching the Sermon on the Mount? Come on - he looks and acts like your average grease monkey.

reply

[–] LaZboyfriend 8 years ago

Please tell me what human being on planet Earth could have been cast to portray the "risen, glorified, exalted, mysterious, celestial Christ"?

Or would you have liked for them to have made it a CGI-fest?

Room for one more, honey.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Please tell me what human being on planet Earth could have been cast to portray the "risen, glorified, exalted, mysterious, celestial Christ"?

How would you expect me to know and name the actor? Risen's present actor is a relative unknown, and I would guess that a more appropriate actor could easily, also, come from the ranks of "unknowns". This could be done with a knowledgeable director and a canny, alert casting crew. But since you asked, I think the guy who played Jesus some years ago in National Geographic's "Gospel of Judas" special would have done a great job; so would "someone like" Jurgen Prochnow, i.e., someone with his talent and sensitivity, who played the returning Christ in Demi Moore's and Michael Biehn's The Seventh Sign - Prochnow had all the force and mystical presence required for an earthly-but-unearthly Christ; ditto for "someone like" the late Michael Rennie, who played Klaatu to perfection as a kind of cosmic Christ in Robert Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still. As I said, an actor of this magnitude, supported by minimal, understated fx, would have made Risen's glorified Christ much more believable and worthy of titles like Son of Man/Son of God, exalted Christ, glorified, victorious Messiah, resurrected Righteous One, mysterious stranger on the road to Emmaus, the mystical Bar Enash who enters through closed doors and solid walls, eats with and teaches his disciples and then "vanishes from their midst"...etc.

reply

[–] LaZboyfriend 8 years ago

You're still very much insistent that Jesus must LOOK a certain way. Can you not see how superficial you're being?

Why must He have a certain look?

What does that have to do with who He was and is, and what His message was and is?

You said, for example, that if Jesus looked like the actor in this film, you cannot imagine Him giving the Sermon on the Mount.

WHY?

Room for one more, honey.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

He doesn't have to "look like" anyone in particular - my choices, Jurgen Prochnow and Michael Rennie, look nothing like one another. The "look" I'm demanding for the risen Christ is the "look of mystical presence and supernal dignity" that Risen's actor does not project.

You said, for example, that if Jesus looked like the actor in this film, you cannot imagine Him giving the Sermon on the Mount

I'm finding that you are not a very careful reader. I did not restrict my criticism to the actors looks alone - I also referred to his delivery, which was mostly so unremarkable - not understated, just unremarkable - that it would be difficult to imagine his charisma drawing hundreds to hear/see him preach the Sermon on the Mount.

WHY?

I've explained it more than twice now. If you would do me the courtesy of paying attention to what I mean and what I write, we can continue; if not, this conversation, from my side, is over. Endless repetition is just a waste of time.

reply

[–] LaZboyfriend 8 years ago

my choices, Jurgen Prochnow and Michael Rennie, look nothing like one another.

Wrong. All of the actors you listed have chiseled features. I guess only a certain bone structure, then, conveys to you "supernatural dignity". Once again, you're being incredibly superficial.

The "look" I'm demanding

Oh my. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

it would be difficult to imagine his charisma drawing hundreds to hear/see him preach the Sermon on the Mount.

Are you under the impression that it was Jesus's charisma (and chiseled looks) which drew the crowds to Him? Or do you think it was His much-needed message that their souls were hungry to hear? Personally, I think it was the latter.

The actor cast as Jesus in this movie has a bit of a pudgy face and a rather undefined nose -- so I guess all of that equates to "undignified" to you. Well, that's too bad.

Despite this actor's imperfections, I found he had a very warm, kind and friendly face -- and those are qualities that I've always imagined Jesus's face to radiate. And I believe that's the look the makers of this film were going for.

Personally, I don't need a cinematic Jesus to look like someone who just stepped off of the set of "The Bold and the Beautiful".

Room for one more, honey.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

As indicated, this conversation is over.

'Bye.

reply

[–] rklenseth 7 years ago

Risen's present actor is a relative unknown

Cliff Curtis is a relatively unknown actor? The guy has been in a lot of big movies and currently starring in one of the biggest TV franchises right now.

reply

[–] romanticinsomniac 8 years ago

Most people do not understand that Jesus, yes, Jesus Christ had BLUE eyes. This was documented numerous times by the Romans, specifically Publius Lentulus, Governor of Judea, in a letter to Tiberius Caesar. It was found on an Aramaic stone tablet. This written testimony described Jesus COMPLETELY. Not only did he have blue eyes, he was described as being tall, with chestnut colored hair flowing at his shoulders. He had a high, large, forehead, his cheeks without spot, or wrinkle, beautifully red. He had a thick beard, that reached below his chin. His eyes were bright blue, clear, and serene. Having this, the movie should strive to be more accurate.....however, if this movie brings more to God through his son Jesus, I don't care. I'm just grateful for a good movie, even though some of the characters are fictional. God Bless you all.

100% Comic Book Purist, and Bloody Proud of it !