Robert Powell got it about right.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2013, 01:19 PM
Robert Powell got it about right.
For the youngsters, Robert Powell played Jesus Christ in Jesus of Nazareth (1977).

I just noticed this on YouTube. Haven't seen it for a long, long time but remembered it as a pretty good movie; well acted, high production values, bit of a tear-jerker etc.

I'm sure that the orchestra has most to do with the 'spiritual' feelings we sometimes get with movies.

Anyway...

This scene made me think... did Powell deliberately play the eponymous hero as a deranged nut-job or was it simply a by-product of playing pious-ness-osity?




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: Robert Powell got it about right.
I believe it's just the way people used to act back then. When they had to say something "big", they had to be extremely graphic and pompous about it.

Plus it's not really the actor's choice. The director is mostly responsible.

Unless I don't get what you're trying to point out.

Many verses are like silver threads
tied on the chimes of the stars-
if you pull them,
a silver peal makes the horizon vibrate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
31-08-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: Robert Powell got it about right.
(31-08-2013 03:53 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  I believe it's just the way people used to act back then. When they had to say something "big", they had to be extremely graphic and pompous about it.

Plus it's not really the actor's choice. The director is mostly responsible.

Unless I don't get what you're trying to point out.

By "act back then", did you mean 'act in the 70's' or 'behave 2000 years ago'?

Whether actor or director, Powell or Zeffirelli ... I don't know.

I guess my point was that even though I was church-free at the age of 13 (in '77) I saw the acting/directing as somehow ethereal.

Now, with 30+ more years for critical thinking, I see a possibility that the acting/directing may have been deliberately ambiguous i.e. Jesus with psychological issues.

Zeffirelli is a catholic but I don't know how devout he is.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2013, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2013 07:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Robert Powell got it about right.
Not buying any Hollywood BS.
1. Caucasian green-eyed Jebus. Nope.
2. "Fulfilled scriptures". Nope. (Not something they would have said or even had a notion of.) "Fulfilled scripture" was developing by then, but not being claimed at that point by or about the many messiah figures.
3. If he existed, there is no evidence to think he made any claims about *himself*.
4. He was one of many apocalyptic preachers, (if he existed). He would have first said something about the "kingdom being restored", or the "end of the age", not something about himself as a "spiritual messiah", which was cooked up later, (after the temple was destroyed, and Jerusalem destroyed completely in 133 CE).
Just a bunch of "slapped-on" 20th Century (re)inventions.
"Jesus Christ Super Star" gets closer to reality, IMO.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: Robert Powell got it about right.
I mean in the 70's. The further you go back in time, the more unnatural the acting seems (if I'm not mistaken, the first movie actors acted as if they were in the theater, which is a more "extreme" and unrealistic way to act). If you go back to the first movies ever made, the acting is so unnatural it's funny.

I don't know about Zeffirelli's intentions (although I doubt there was any intention for ambiguity) but I suppose he imagined that every time Jesus spoke, he would be in a kind of ecstatic trance (for spirituality's sake) which could easily be confused with madness.

Many verses are like silver threads
tied on the chimes of the stars-
if you pull them,
a silver peal makes the horizon vibrate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
31-08-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: Robert Powell got it about right.
(31-08-2013 04:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not buying any Hollywood BS.
1. Caucasian green-eyed Jebus. Nope.
2. "Fulfilled scriptures". Nope. (Not something they would have said or even had a notion of.) "Fulfilled scripture" was developing by then, but not being claimed at that point by or about the many messiah figures.
3. If he existed, there is no evidence to think he made any claims about *himself*.
4. He was one of many apocalyptic preachers, (if he existed). He would have first said something about the "kingdom being restored", or the "end of the age", not something about himself as a "spiritual messiah", which was cooked up later, (after the temple was destroyed, and Jerusalem destroyed completely in 133 CE).
Just a bunch of "slapped-on" 20th Century (re)inventions.
"Jesus Christ Super Star" gets closer to reality, IMO.




Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 05:37 AM
RE: Robert Powell got it about right.
I do appreciate the response Bucky, I do.

I wasn't really after a critique of the movie though. Which, incidentally, was a British / Italian funded production so it's not just Hollywood to blame.

This was more of a musing as to original intent vs. my interpretation of intent in the light of my (in my dotage) vastly enlightened state of knowledge and wisdom.

Maybe we should start a campaign to have all religious 'art' to carry the kind of warning that starts...
"This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental..."

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: