Why Are Actors Portraying Jesus Fair-Skin And Hot?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:03 PM GMT
    In a February 14, 2014, film report, the NYT explored: The Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado, who bears more than a passing resemblance to Brad Pitt, plays the title role. His looks will surely tax the patience of historians who say that Jesus, as a Jew of first-century Palestine, was probably more dark skinned than the fair-faced Mr. Morgado, who early on inspired the Twitter hashtag #hotjesus.

    16MOVIE-JESUS3-master675.jpg

    The many faces of a cinematic Jesus, from left, Max von Sydow in “The Greatest Story Ever Told” (1965); Jeffrey Hunter in “King of Kings” (1961); and Willem Dafoe in “The Last Temptation of Christ” (198icon_cool.gif. 16MOVIEJESUS1-articleLarge.jpg

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/movies/heading-off-criticism-when-picking-an-actor-to-play-jesus.html?hpw&rref=movies
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:15 PM GMT
    More accurately, the one on the left:

    Jewish_face-circa-0.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:16 PM GMT
    Looks more like he should be playing Charles Manson.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2929

    Feb 16, 2014 6:17 PM GMT
    A) Because it sells tickets
    B) Because it makes the brainless feel good.
    C) Because the producers don't give a damn about historical accuracy
    d) Because producers and audience are stupid
    E) That's what you get when feel-good religion becomes entertainment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:19 PM GMT
    Filming the Passion is fraught with peril. So is the casting of a personage whom millions of Christians consider divine. There’s little question that when “Son of God” goes into wide release on Feb. 28, bringing Jesus back to mainstream theaters for the first time in a decade, it will invite a certain level of scrutiny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:20 PM GMT
    That guy is not hot..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:21 PM GMT
    When the matinee idol Jeffrey Hunter starred in the 1961 version of “King of Kings,” snarkier critics called it “I Was a Teenage Jesus.” When “The Last Temptation of Christ” played Paris in 1988, with Willem Dafoe as a conflicted Messiah, the theater was firebombed. In both “The Robe” (1953) and “Ben-Hur” (1959), Jesus was a character, but his face was never seen — out of respect, perhaps, but maybe out of caution, too.
  • Thicktoes

    Posts: 28

    Feb 16, 2014 6:23 PM GMT
    tazzari saidA) Because it sells tickets
    B) Because it makes the brainless feel good.
    C) Because the producers don't give a damn about historical accuracy
    d) Because producers and audience are stupid
    E) That's what you get when feel-good religion becomes entertainment.

    Totally agreeicon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 6:35 PM GMT
    The appearance of the different ethnicities evolve rapidly. For all we know, Jews 2000 years ago could have looked like the guy in the OP much more than like a modern Palestinian.

    (And to a certain point, identifying with an important religious figure should be more important than historical accuracy. From a religious perspective, Jesus was probably made fair-skinned (if he ever was) so that his contemporaries could relate to him. I doubt God would have made him Arabic by favoritism.)
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Feb 16, 2014 6:38 PM GMT
    No one knows what he looked like all we know is that he was a Jew. His ancestry I believe is traced through Joseph, but that would be incorrect because Joseph was not his father. His mother was a Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee. One would have to assume that the people of Nazareth have not changed too much over the last 2000 years to determine what his people would have looked. It is unlikely they would have changed much, simply because in that part of the world there is not going to be very much cross religious relationships. It is unlikely that in the last 2000 years Jews intermarried with Muslims or Christians. Only within the last half of the century have such practices come into play. You can see various people of Nazareth now, here
    http://www.allaboutthebible.net/land-of-israel/nazareth-people/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryicon_razz.gifeople_from_Nazareth
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 16, 2014 6:39 PM GMT
    Thicktoes said
    tazzari saidA) Because it sells tickets
    B) Because it makes the brainless feel good.
    C) Because the producers don't give a damn about historical accuracy
    d) Because producers and audience are stupid
    E) That's what you get when feel-good religion becomes entertainment.

    Totally agreeicon_exclaim.gif

    Agree with that, too, but this is the "image" of Christ that has been instilled in the mind of western civilization for over 500 years. Why is it a surprise that this would happen? It would be far more surprising if it didn't!

    ICON-111F_1024x1024.jpg

    christ.jpg

    langdon_jesus_B.jpg

    supper-article_1601823c.jpg
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Feb 16, 2014 6:58 PM GMT
    Racial Profiling Jesus?
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 16, 2014 7:02 PM GMT
    This image is from the 6th century:

    Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg

    The depiction of Christ in pictorial form was controversial in the early church. The depiction of Jesus in art took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

    The image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. Earlier images were much more varied. Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created. Beliefs that certain images are historically authentic, or have acquired an authoritative status from Church tradition, remain powerful among some of the faithful, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism. The Shroud of Turin is now the best-known example, though the Image of Edessa and the Veil of Veronica were better known in medieval times.


    Shroud of Turin:
    shroud-of-turin-face.jpg

    Image of Edessa:
    Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg

    Veil of Veronica:
    Hans_Memling_026.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:18 PM GMT
    MikeW saidThis image is from the 6th century:

    Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg

    The depiction of Christ in pictorial form was controversial in the early church. The depiction of Jesus in art took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

    The image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. Earlier images were much more varied. Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created. Beliefs that certain images are historically authentic, or have acquired an authoritative status from Church tradition, remain powerful among some of the faithful, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism. The Shroud of Turin is now the best-known example, though the Image of Edessa and the Veil of Veronica were better known in medieval times.


    Shroud of Turin:
    shroud-of-turin-face.jpg

    Image of Edessa:
    Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg

    Veil of Veronica:
    Hans_Memling_026.jpg


    actually the Shroud of Turin is actually Albus Dumbledore
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:18 PM GMT
    It took them a while to find Mr. Morgado. “The Bible” was just weeks from filming, and they still had not filled the role. “We wanted an actor who was strong and charismatic, who could also be a carpenter,” Ms. Downey said. “Diogo is 6 foot 3 with broad shoulders. He has a strong presence but also a natural humility. We were really looking for someone who could portray the lion and the lamb.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:25 PM GMT
    Jaggal said
    meninlove said More accurately, the one on the left:

    Jewish_face-circa-0.jpg



    Lebanese Christians use the one on the right.
    Also, semites do not look like inbred ugly brown fucks, that's not accurate.


    http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/217.realfaceofjesus.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-0jU2-m6I

    Educational.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Feb 16, 2014 7:25 PM GMT
    somersault saidactually the Shroud of Turin is actually Albus Dumbledore

    There is a striking resemblance. Of course these bearded long-haired hippy images are what we in the west associate with mages and wizards:

    Gandalf-gandalf-12059931-960-404-800x336
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:26 PM GMT
    The casting of Jesus has gone every which way since a man named Frank Russell appeared in “The Passion Play of Oberammergau” for the Edison Manufacturing Company in 1898. More famous instances include Max von Sydow’s solemn turn in “The Greatest Story Ever Told” (1965); the 52-year-old H. B. Warner in Cecil B. DeMille’s silent “The King of Kings” (1927); the very blue-eyed Robert Powell’s intense performance in Franco Zeffirelli’s popular TV production “Jesus of Nazareth” (1977); and, of course, Jim Caviezel’s work in Mel Gibson’s 2004 “The Passion of the Christ,” that most controversial of Jesus movies.

    “There was really no major, problematic reaction to Jim Caviezel’s casting and portrayal,” said Bob Berney, who as president of Newmarket Films handled the distribution of Mr. Gibson’s movie, which became embroiled in controversy over accusations of anti-Semitism. “The audience and critics were way more focused on the director.” But he added that both “The Passion” and “Son of God” are theatrical films aimed at wide audiences, and those audiences “expects actors who are believable, but who also have a ‘movie star’ look in the tradition that goes back to early Hollywood Bible epics.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:26 PM GMT
    Are you telling me Jesus wasn't a blonde, blue eyed Norse prince? Blasphemy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:27 PM GMT
    The Rev. Robert E. Lauder, a priest who teaches philosophy at St. John’s University in Queens and has been presenting religious film festivals since 1992, said that as far as the Roman Catholic Church’s position on representations of Jesus, “the only criterion that might exist is that Jesus be depicted with respect.” He added: “I think that creators of films like ‘The Robe’ or ‘Ben-Hur’ knew that people have their own images of Jesus, and no matter what actor portrayed him, some people would not be happy with how he looked. Not showing Jesus’ face avoided that danger.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:28 PM GMT
    Mr. Morgado’s face will probably contribute to the fortunes of “Son of God.” So might its efforts to solicit feedback throughout production from an ecumenical group of advisers ranging from two Catholic archbishops (Donald Wuerl in Washington and José Gómez in Los Angeles) to the evangelical pastor Rick Warren and Abraham H. Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League. One goal was to avoid the kind of controversy that surrounded “The Passion of the Christ.” In “Son of God,” the point is emphasized that Caiaphas (Adrian Schiller) and the rest of the Sanhedrin, or Jewish council of Jerusalem, were deathly afraid of the Roman reaction to Jesus’ preaching, which was seen as revolutionary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:31 PM GMT
    "There isn't even proof that Jesus existed."

    How would someone prove that anyone existed back then? Don't we do it with accounts of witnesses? (We probably don't have photographic evidence or DNA.) For example, did Homer exist except through his writings?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:35 PM GMT
    Mr. Morgado said it was his intention to make Jesus a more approachable, human character than has been portrayed in some dramatizations, and balance Jesus’ divinity and his doubts. “He is a man,” Mr. Morgado said, “and it’s O.K. to doubt. Faith is based on doubt.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 7:36 PM GMT
    woodsmen said"There isn't even proof that Jesus existed."

    How would someone prove that anyone existed back then? Don't we do it with accounts of witnesses? (We probably don't have photographic evidence or DNA.) For example, did Homer exist except through his writings?


    I'm not understanding why Jaggal even cares what Christ looked like as he has stated he doesn't believe in Christ, nor Christianity.

    In another topic he said, " No thanks, I left in the first place because Muslims and Christians are retarded and I can't deal with them. "

    -confuzzled

  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Feb 16, 2014 7:38 PM GMT
    Usually every nation portrayed Jesus the way they look:
    Chinese, Russian, Ethiopian:

    ascension-of-jesus-chinese.jpg
    11-02.jpg
    faces_black_jesus3.jpg