Not being a religious person, I still have a philosophical and historical interest in the many published versions of the life of Christ. And a human interest. I recently watched Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," and for me, that movie raises an issue I've encountered before. How many of the gospels [and beyond] does the narrative of this film combine to tell its story? Isn't the whole point of having 4 books by 4 different witnesses at the beginning of the New Testament that these 4 points of view are not to be combined? Different authors' interpretations of events are often mutually exclusive, so portraying all disparate accounts of those events as one historical flow is a distortion. What makes the film "The Gospel of John" a standout--besides Ian Cusick's knockout performance--is the use of only one interpretation, word for word the book of John, as its script.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
A Brit a Day [#470]
Not being a religious person, I still have a philosophical and historical interest in the many published versions of the life of Christ. And a human interest. I recently watched Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," and for me, that movie raises an issue I've encountered before. How many of the gospels [and beyond] does the narrative of this film combine to tell its story? Isn't the whole point of having 4 books by 4 different witnesses at the beginning of the New Testament that these 4 points of view are not to be combined? Different authors' interpretations of events are often mutually exclusive, so portraying all disparate accounts of those events as one historical flow is a distortion. What makes the film "The Gospel of John" a standout--besides Ian Cusick's knockout performance--is the use of only one interpretation, word for word the book of John, as its script.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment