Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 06/23/2012 8:22:46 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Paul Verhoeven is known for such films as “Basic Instinct,” in which a character portrayed by actress Sharon Stone uncrosses her legs and shockingly reveals her female privates, and “Showgirls,” about a stripper who aspires to be a Vegas showgirl.
Given not only those films, but his entire body of work – “(e)xplicitly violent and/or sexual content ”are his trademarks, according to Wikipedia – there is hardly any filmmaker less worthy of making a picture about Jesus Christ.
But that’s precisely what Verhoeven intends to do.
In fact, the Hollywood trades reported this week that the Dutch filmmaker has managed to secure financial backing for his highly controversial project, and to find a scriptwriter to bring the gospel of Verhoeven to the screen.
Of course, there are some who would urge a reservation of judgment until the film actually makes it to theaters. But there is absolutely no reason to expect Verhoeven’s film to be anything other than offensive to true-believing Christians.
Not when his financial backer is Chris Hanley of Muse Productions, whose most noteworthy credit is “American Psycho,” a supposed “psychological thriller” about a serial killer.
Not when his scriptwriter is Roger Avary, who shared writing credits with Quentin Tarentino on “Pulp Fiction,” which featured a character played by actor Samuel L. Jackson, who sacriligiously quoted Scripture before shooting and killing his victims.
And, most importantly, not when the film is to be based on the book Verhoeven himself authored, almost mockingly titled “Jesus of Nazareth,” which challenges the veracity of the New Testament narratives of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.
Verhoeven rejects fundamental Christian tenets: That Jesus is the Son of God. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. That he performed all manner of miracles. That He not only died on the cross, but also rose from the dead. That only through Christ are any of us saved.
The filmmaker not only believes that Jesus was mortal, but that He likely was the product of His mother Mary being raped by a Roman soldier. And Christ was no Messiah, Verhoeven is convinced, and surely had no idea He would be crucified.
In the filmmaker’s view, Jesus was little more than a political activist. “The Romans saw [Jesus] as an insurrectionist,” he explains. “what today is often called a terrorist.”
And forget about Heaven, said Verhoeven.
“For Jesus,” he maintains, “the Kingdom of Heaven was a very tangible thing. Something that was already present on Earth, in the same way that Che Guevara proclaimed Marxism as the advent of world change.”
Jesus the son of a rapist Roman soldier? Christ a former day terrorist? The Son of God the forerunner of Che Guevara?
That is the portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth that Verhoeven plans to bring to the big screen. The devil himself couldn’t do a more unholy job of revisionism.
Nah. Easier to go after Christians, they don't retaliate violently.
Hollywood trying to portray Christ in their own image once again...no news here.
God will not be mocked
God will not be mocked
Those who see Jesus as their enemy will only portray Him as their enemy, while deceitfully pretending “good intentions.”
Nothing new under the sun. Just another generation making Christ in their image. I say, "go for it". I would warn them about blaspheming the Holy Spirit but I doubt it would do any good.
This could easily be in blaspheming the Holy Spirit territory, an unforgivable sin. See Mark 3:29. The Holy Spirit overshaddowed Mary and she, a virgin, conceived. To attribute the Spirit’s work to evil/sin would be tredding on dangerous ground.
“The Romans saw [Jesus] as an insurrectionist,” he explains. “what today is often called a terrorist.”
Yes a terrorist who cured lepers, gave sight to the blind made Lazarus rise from the dead.
The man who spoke nothing but love for neighbors and mankind.
Things like that convince me Jesus was a terrorist.
Any theater that shows this trash should be closed up tight.
Jeepers, nothing like encouraging Satan himself.
He’ll find a willing audience at HBO or Showtime.
Actually, more like a community organizer - one who goes around with a messianic complex, one who considers himself greater than the law, one who was the product of a broken home who never really knew his earthly father...
We all know about ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ from 1988, because the media promoted it as much as possible and references it constantly as though it was a major film.
It was nominated for an Oscar and people over 40 probably have the media induced impression that it was a major Hollywood film, a success, although they themselves never saw it.
The reality is that worldwide, the film has grossed 8.3 million dollars. They kept it in theaters for 13 weeks although no one was watching it.
“Switching Channels” from that year made 9.1 million, flopped and was pulled after 3 weeks.
Interesting that Verhoeven believes Christ was the offspring of Mary’s rape by a Roman. Hitler believed the same thing, except for contending Mary was a harlot, and the Roman was a Centurion.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
We don’t know much about newcomer “Diarist,” but I’ve read (and think I understand) Verhoeven’s book, and “Diarist” misquotes him. Verhoeven IS wrong, but not sinfully wrong. I doubt this film will be like his secular body of work. Where Verhoeven gets it “right” is how Jesus was more concerned with the coming “Kingdom of God,” than other things his followers thought important. (P.16) See Luke 17:21-”Behold, the Kingdom of God is Within You.” As I’ve said elsewhere, and gone beyond; judge Verhoeven’s film after you see it. It very well may be not a significiant criticism of our Savior.
How, exactly, was Verhoeven misquoted? And on what basis do you “doubt this film will be like his secular body of work?”
And if we accept your line of reasoning - that we should withhold our judgement of a piece of work until we have actually seen it - that would preclude us from commenting on child pornography, snuff films, homoerotic art (for which Robert Maplethorpe was infamous) and other such ungodly works that most Christians have absolutely no interest in seeing, much less supporting with their dollars.
I’ve just recently finished Montefiore’s latest book, Jerusalem, after visiting there myself last year during both the Naqba protests and Harold Campings prediction for the end of the world.
Honestly, from the descriptions in the book, nasty, brutish and short barely begins to describe the times.
I share your skepticism about a bigtime Hollywood producer doing this kind of thing,the times were just downright ugly a couple of thousand years ago in Jerusalem and environs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.