Saturday, April 12, 2014

Is Jesus too sexy? Danny Trejo as Jesus, anyone?

Is he hot or is he gay? Naahh..just
joking. I couldn't even pronounce
the guy's name. Critics have a point 
in saying that he maybe too sexy for 
the role because it may distract movie 
goers, especially the abs worshipper,
from the central message of the movie.
Anyway, this is supposed to be a
religous and biblically and historically
accurate (or well researched) movie.
But that's the way it is. I have neve 
seen a movie with an ugly Jesus in
it, maybe there is..
There's a new Jesus movie "The Son of God" , and I heard on the news (I think its Inside Edition on Solar TV) that this Jesus was too sexy , or too hot, as the hosts put it.

Of course movie producers don't know how Jesus looked like. The Bible gave no physical description of him. Maybe because it was not important and what was important was his teachings.

Maybe another thing was that Judaism, the faith of Jesus,  implicitly  did not allow any graven image or any likeness to be made; the taboo of idolatry.

Greek philosophers, emperors and other  great men way before Jesus have busts or statues or icons and other representation made for and about them but for the Christian messiah, none. Maybe it was because he was not really that known outside the small Jewish community that had him arraigned before Pilate, or that what happened to him, in the eyes of the ordinary simple folks then, was nothing out of the ordinary.

They ate crucifixions for lunch, so to speak.

But the Bible did describe the actions of Jesus. He was nice and understanding with women. This may not be much to us today but during the time of the messiah, women were inferior to men. They were treated as chattels. (I don't hate Jews in fact I admire them. Gotta make that clear.) 

Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene.
Read an interesting book about Jesus and Women
and it showed how Jesus uplifted and liberated women
during his time on earth.
The Jews then beleived that women were the cause of the downfall of men and hence the cause of human misery. (Even Paul wrote about this in one of his letters). I could only surmised that this was based on the myth of the downfall found in the book of Genesis. It was religious misogyny. There were a lot of rules on dealing with women and most of them were discriminatory and derogatory.

Jesus was revolutionary with his view and treatment of women during his time. He talk with them, defended them. Remember that when Jesus was resurrected, he first appeared to three women.

Jesus walked and dined with taxpayers (in today's Philippine setting it's like eating with senators and congressmen, taxpayers were the epitome of thievery and corruption then), he healed, he exorcised demons, he fed the hungry; he showed compassion and love especially to the downtrodden but he could also be tough. He lashed and drove away the temple peddlers, he  cursed and dished out sarcasms to the corrupt priests and religious leaders.

So after reading about good stuffs about Jesus, it is only natural to picture a good looking Jesus. It is only natural to translate internal goodness to external goodness. It has something to do with how we understand good to be. We connect the word "good" with something that is pleasant to look at, pleasant to the taste, to the ears, etc. Our understanding of good is something that stimulates us positively, something that produce pleasant sensations.

Not only is this true with movies, this is true through out much of  history. Jesus has always been pictured as a good or pleasant (long haired, sometimes feminine-ish, sometimes rugged, sometimes haloed, sometimes of different skin color) looking man.

Have you seen your carpenter neighbor? Maybe they dodn't
that different from Jesus.
As to how Jesus really looked then? I will speculate but let us look at the background.

1. He came from a time where life expectancy was 40. Times of wars, famine, pestilence, hard labor etc. So, one thing can be deduced here, he looked old before he was old. He could be sunburned and may not necessarily wear his hair long and he had no access to hair conditioners.

2. He was carpenter. Imagine a time when there was no electricity, no power tools, the metallurgy was primitive so the iron tools were not that sharp and they blunt easily, no plastic and rubber handles so his hands and fingers were not only calloused, they were enlarged and may even deformed by labor, etc. So he was not soft and he may not necessarily be perfectly toned-- as in having perfect abs. He could look like a carpenter. How does a carpenter look like? I don't know, but they definitely don't look like movie stars.

3. He was also passionate and very smart. Its all in the eyes.

Hmmmm...doesn't have much to work with even on speculations.Well, I'll leave it atthat.

If I were to be asked who could be a most believable actor to play Jesus?

You may not agree with me but I definitely would like to See him play it:

I like Danny Trejo and his life story is inspiring. I would
like to see him play Jesus becuase I saw his soft side on
Kick-Ass. He is not your usual Hero but he did play good
guys quite convincingly, if I may say so.

Now I'm definitely in trouble.

But just like Noah the Movie, the Son of God is also a movie. The difference with Noah though is that this movie and the TV mini series from where this was adapted from was advised by scholars and church (Catholic and evangelicals) leaders and the producers are avowed Christians. This mvie is also endorsed by church leaders.

So, there's this orthodoxy thing going with it. But this is still entertainment.

I am sure the "Son of God" ,pirated version, will be shown in the gyms and in the streets during lent here in the Philippines together with the other lent staples:  10 commandments and "The Passion of the Christ."

The Life of Jesus is not a audio-visual spectacle but a spiritual one. It is not meant to arouse  outrage at what happened to our Lord. It is not meant to elicit rage to his persecutor. It is not even there to remind us of our sins. The story is meant to be read and to be reflected upon and to share to us the gospel: the gospel of hope, grace, forgiveness and redemption.

Watch the movie personally I have nothing against it-- I haven't seen it yet--but read the gospel first.

And again, Hollywood is not a good source of Christian edification, the Bible is.

No comments: