Losing My Religion: Four New Movies That Could Tick Off The Faithful
As Easter is celebrated the world over, what better way to mark the holiest holiday in Christianity than to note four new in-the-works movies that are sure to cause dissent and controversy amongst the faithful? Soul sister site Deadline examined the increasing power of the religious filmgoer and picked out a quartet of flicks that are sure to be dubbed sacrilegious by some. Throw another crucifix in the urine bucket and take a look!
WHAT: The Final Testament of the Holy Bible
ITS SINS: It's the story of the Second Coming of Christ in modern-day America, and this time the Son of God is a hard-drinkin', boot-knockin' bisexual Lothario. Plus it's based on a book, written by noted bald-faced liar James Frey. Says Frey, "I believe that the Messiah would not eschew the use of alcohol, nor restrict his ability and willingness to love based on what they do for a living or their gender."
WHAT: Jesus of Nazareth
ITS SINS: To be directed by Showgirls auteur Paul Verhoeven and based on the book that he co-wrote, it's a film that's chockablock with Evangelical flamebait. For starters, Verhoeven's Christ is a Jesus denuded of all his miracles, his virgin birth and his resurrection; in fact, Verhoeven posits that Jesus was the product of the rape of a Jewish girl by a Roman soldier. According to Verhoeven, Jesus' death was less a religious event but more of a political reaction: "It's not about miracles, it's about a new set of ethics, an openness towards the world, which was anathema in a Roman-dominated world. I believe he was crucified because they felt that politically, he was a dangerous person whose following was getting bigger and bigger."
WHAT: The Master
ITS SINS: Paul Thomas Anderson's roman à clef about a belief system that starts up in the 1950s and spreads like wildfire has run into various roadblocks on its way to finding funding, though Megan Ellison and Cross Creek Pictures are reportedly opening up their checkbooks. Anderson has claimed that the movie will be less about Scientology but more about the desire to believe in "a higher power." Maybe Paul Haggis wants in too?
WHAT: The Book Of Mormon
ITS SINS: The hit Broadway musical from South Park creators Matt Parker and Trey Stone is being shopped around to become a big screen musical, and while some more liberal Mormons are laughing along, others aren't so jolly. The story centers around three dewey-eyed missionaries as they attempt to convert a Ugandan village but running into a hard dose of reality. Song highlights include lyrics that translate to "fuck God," another song stressing the importance of stifling gay urges and yet another about maggots infesting a man's scrotum.
·Hollywood & Religion: More Controversy To Come If New Films Anger The Faithful [Deadline]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I'm still pissed about how they portrayed warlocks in Your Highness.
Of all those movies, my money is on Verhoeven to deliver the most controversial entertainment.
But if Mel Gibson can make something like Passion of the Christ, why not these guys?
Because "these guys" aren't trying to make a movie that is faithful to Christ; they're trying to pervert him into something less than what he was. And before you say that Verhoeven is trying to be "realistic" or that Frey is just trying to "update" him for the modern day, ask yourself what the entire point of Christ's life on Earth was. Was it to be a political figure? No. He told people to pay their taxes, even though Rome had violently subjugated the Jews. Was it to booze around and sleep with as many women (and men) as possible? No. He eschewed all Earthly pleasures, even in the face of Satan offering him the entire world. And if you don't believe any of that, then you'll never understand why movies like the ones "these guys" are making are so offensive.
I applaud Verhoeven for attempting to make a movie about the real, historical Jesus, not the fantasy mythological figure his followers cooked up after his death.
I'm kind of curious what sort of reaction people expect "The Book of Mormon" to get. Were there any massive protests, or even little ones, when the play opened? Did Mormons gather in meeting houses across the world and put out press releases and videos decrying the way the play depicts missionaries? How many op-eds did Mormon leaders pen condemning the play?
But hey, now it's coming to the "big screen", so maybe groups of Mormons will start egging theaters.
He's not even doing that, as far as I can tell from this synopsis. The Romans didn't arrest Jesus and demand his execution; the Jewish high council did. Pilate was going to release him, until the crowd made it clear they wanted him dead. The Romans didn't persecute Christians.
Well, Romans definitely did persecute Christians. Just not until a few decades after Jesus was dead. Seeing as how Jesus wasn't a Christian, and Christianity as a religion didn't pick up until after he was dead. I mean, you know what ended up happening to St Peter don't you?
Also, considering the various books of the New Testament contradict each other in various ways, would you say the authors were being faithful to Christ? Personally I think Christ was more like Gandhi than anything else (not personally, but in terms of position in the world and impact), and the fact that the bible has turned him into a fancy magician seems more offensive to me.
1. James Frey's book is his attempt to become a critical darling again, knowing that anyone who publicly dislikes the book will be shat upon as a "tool of the religious right." As for a movie version, making one would be the equivalent of taking the cash for the budget, and burning it in the parking lot. Except the fire would attract a bigger audience. Christians won't want to see it because it repels them, atheists don't care enough to see it.
However, the same psychology that gets the book its good reviews, and probably an award or too, could get it made.
2. Paul Verhoven seems to be working out something about the German occupation of Holland during WW2.
3. If it's about Scientology, it might get an audience, but the odds of it being made are slim, and being released theatrically even slimmer.
4. While they do seek to offend, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, unlike most of Hollywood, really know how to offend people right. I haven't seen Book of Mormon, but their record shows that they're more provocative than pettily insulting, and are able to use their "offensive" comedy to look at multiple sides of the issue at hand, which is why they're able to get away with so much.
James Frey is a joke, everyone knows that right? He can't pretend to be an actual author after I Am Number Four can he?
He is a joke, but thanks to his Final Testament, he can now claim anyone who criticizes him for his faux-biographies and book packaging boondoggles is a tool of the religious right.
He's made himself critic proof.
Easy, tiger.
You'd think the Monty Python guys up top there would give away the tone of this article or something...
The good thing about fairy tales is that they're open for interpretation.
I dont get why people get so bent out of shap on the whole subject... let's be realistic, jesus could of been a person, but this is all from record. Hell, the bible itself was written a couple of hundred years after jesus supposedly lived. Its a joke, a lie, an awful and deceptive way of controlling others and it has worked for thousands of years. I feel sorry for the faithful, knowing that LOGIC is everything I will ever need. Tell me the last time jesus rose from the ground and said, "hey buddy, i am going to make your life all better if you just believe that I exist, and give your money to the church". Please, you want miracles to happen? then go out and make them. Bowing down to make believe prophets is just ridiculous. Narrow minded fools I say!
... its sad to see Christianity the target of a society by that is crumbling under its own weight... life is about to get harder for Christians ever were...
I do find it funny that there are so many movies and books out right now that are trying so hard to piss the mormons off. It's not fun to poke the bear if it doesnt bother him. I hope the southpark creators actually make it good. so far all the movies mocking mormons have been boring and lame, and a wee bit sad.
What Jesus did to the temple of the money changers would be enough to get a person crucified in that day and age. Imagine going into a federal tax office and completely freaking out then trashing the place. Wouldn't get you crucified but I don't think you will like the results...
It's incredible to see how misunderstood we Christians stand in the eyes of the world.
First of all, we Christians do not see ourselves as practicing a religion but rather a relationship.
Second of all, we Christians exercise our faith, our relationship with Jesus Christ not because we think ourselves good but because we know very well how wrong we've been and how defective each of us in the natural.
We're spiritually prepared to be hated, misunderstood, and persecuted for our faith because what we have to gain is too awesome to miss out on. I truly feel sorry for those who just refuse to see the truth.
Please! The whole Jesus story existed 2500 years BEFORE the supposed birth of Jesus. Horus, an Egyptian god, had the virgin birth, 12 disciples, walked on water, healed the sick, the crucifixion, the three-day resurrection... the list goes on and on. It is horribly obvious to anyone with a working brain that the human beings who created the bible completely stole this story (which was also "borrowed" by competing religions... there were even several forms of Christianity competing with each other). Nazareth didn't even exist at the alleged time of Jesus's birth! Why don't we have more "proof" of Jesus's existence? The most important man of 2000 years ago and where are his writings? Other writings from the time still exist, so why wouldn't somebody save the writings that were supposedly the most important at that time? Why is it all drawings of him show a white man when he was supposedly from a region where everyone was brown? Wouldn't they have at least gotten that right? Of course not! He was created 200 years after the fact by white men!
DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !
David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (plus Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Joan Rivers, and Sarah Silverman) against Christians like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned such "crucifixion"!
While Letterman etc. are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
For even more stunning information, visit MSN, Google, Yahoo etc. and type in "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," "Obama Supports Public Depravity," "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," "Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts" and "Obama Fulfilling the Bible."
PS - - - There's nothing wrong with Hollywood that a 10-point earthquake couldn't fix !!
Nice
Those weren't tax collectors in the temple, and they weren't there by law. It helps to know a little bit of history and context. The "money changers" were exactly what the name implies. They changed Roman money, which was common and prevalent in that place and era, into Jewish money, which was needed to pay tribute and tithes. The birds and other animals sold on the temple grounds were for the sacrifices Jews made during the season.
When Jesus visited the temple and saw that the holiest building in Judaea had been turned into a marketplace where doubtlessly every trader was engaging in at least some type of fraud or bad business, he drove everyone out. He wasn't arrested because the Jewish High Council knew he was doing the right thing, what they should have done themselves ages ago. It'd be like a Washington politician demanding the law be enforced; no one can criticize him because they don't want to be seen as being against the law, so they just sit back and wait for him to do something illegal himself.
People who are insecure poke fun at others as a way to make themselves feel better, and those who take offense are just as insecure. Sure it is sad and alarming that so many seem to deride people of faith, but that is their way of dealing with their own issues. Too bad more people can't try to be positive instead of constantly attempting to tear others down. Think of all the good they could do as storytellers if Parker and Stone weren't always looking for someone to offend, even if they do it in the name of "enlightenment".
I sort of agree with you, except for your assessment of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. They have often said that although they like to poke fun at religion, they are not atheists or anti-religious. Even the message of this particular musical is that people should not take religion too seriously, but if they take strength out of their faith they should not be looked down upon by atheists or people who have a different religion. The point being that although I’m an atheist myself, Stone and Parker are among some other factors that have convinced me that I should not look down on people who do have faith in God. As long as they use their religion as a set of guidelines to live by, not as an excuse to target people who do not agree with them or, for example, homosexuality. To end with, I’d like to give you the example of my catholic grandmother, who at 91 years old understands that the Bible gives her guidelines that are to be put in a historical context, which means that it’s not always right and that she should not believe every single thing the pope says.
Ugh....can you say "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!"? If alot of religious people publicly bash these films, the makers of the films will be enjoying all the food they are being fed. Why make a film whose only purpose is to OFFEND a group of people? That is so lame.
I agree, it is lame films are made just because they draw attention for being "offensive". However this is unfortunately the way the current film biz works, because it's a horrible big money machine. It's the same reason 90% of the films that come out at the movies are trite, poorly written/directed/acted pieces of shit. And I find THAT truly offensive.
But then on the topic of offence. Honestly it's never the offending party's problem if you are offended. That's your own problem.
As someone else said in these comments, the insecure get offended.
Toughen up. If people are poking holes in your belief system, perhaps it's time to look at a belief system without any holes to poke.
Next »