RoR: Forum

Now I see that this movie is even shallower than I had thought. It reminds me of the left-wingers who seem to think that if they continually bash peoples' misfortune or suffering over our heads, we will become socialists out of guilt. So if Mel Gibson can make us nauseated enough, we can be touched by grace and saved.

The individualistic elements of JC's teaching, though other-worldly-based, were likely a major factor in his charisma. Making the other elements all the more influential and deadly here in reality (the only world there actually is).

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/21, 10:35am)

Post 1

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:46am

I have seen the film myself (on the opening weekend no less) and I concur with the essence of the review. Having said that, there is another scene in the film that I appreciated as an Objectivist. It was the scene that implied Jesus invented the dinner table, as we know it today that is. I am sure it is not historically true but the scene had that Romantic Realist sense of life. It was not a journalistic play-by-play but what could have been and should have been. It was so out-of-place from the rest of the film that it may have been added as an afterthought for comic relief. For those who have not seen the film, it opened with Jesus putting the finishing touches on a table he was hard at work on. The table was higher than the norm of the time, high enough for one sitting on a chair to place his or her elbows on it. He proudly showed his creation to his mother, Mary, and explained to her the concept behind it. In spite of Mary�s incredulity at something she perceived to be impractical, he was certain that it will be of value, especially to the rich who may find it more comfortable than what was around at the time. The smile on Jesus� face was evidence of the happiness he felt on creating a value. There was no regret or guilt on his face though he, a poor Jewish carpenter, created something that may be only of use to the rich. Watching that scene, I could not help but smile myself, particularly as a respite from the rest of the film.
(Edited by Byron Garcia on 4/21, 11:58am)

Post 2

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:28pm

Rodney -

I don't know if you're interested but Thomas Jefferson was very taken with the idea that Jesus was a secular philosopher and that the mystical stuff was added later by church authorities. He even wrote a version of the gospel story leaving out all the mysticism. In light of her comments on the matter, I can't help but wonder if Rand came across any of that stuff.

There is an increasing amount of scholarship suggesting that the mystical stuff is drawn from earlier pagan "mystery cults". Take away the mysticism, and you're left with an anti-state individualist philosopher, albeit with a somewhat dodgy ethical system - though even parts of that are being bought into question. I think he'd probably be real pissed off at what's being done in his name (including this bloody movie!).

Byron -

I do remember that scene with the dinner table now that you mention it. It just didn't stick in my mind at the time. I agree it seemed very out of sync with the rest of the movie.

MH

Post 3

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:41pm

I hadn't heard of that theory, but I do remember reading some time ago about a theory that many elements in the stories in the New Testament are a rehashing of earlier pagan myths. Jesus may not have been a Christian after all--good for him!

Who knows what the man was really like? By the way, I think he actually was resurrected because I'm sure I've seen him walking down Yonge Street talking to his dad.

Post 4

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:36pm

Wow. I distinctly remember those two scenes (the only non-death scenes in the move, which happen to be the best)

I definitely felt a lot of emotion when Mary went to Jesus when he dropped the cross, which I couldn't define.

I guess I felt sympathetic and sad because a innocent man was going to be murdered and his mother was the only one who cared for him, but she couldn't do anything.

And the flashback with the table and Mary. Similar emotion, further showing that he was loving (although really in an evil altruistic sort of way) and he was loved by his mother.

The rest of the movie is a stick beating, a bloody whipping, and boring crucifixion. THAT IS THE ENTIRE MOVIE. Seriously.

Death, death, death, that is what the movie is.

Just an attempt to guilt us into being Christians.

Post 5

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:48pm

Today I read that Tom Harpur, a religious columnist, is coming out with a book announcing his conclusion that Jesus never existed--that he is an amalgam of various past myths, some of them Egyptian. His historical research, he says, led him inescapably to this.

Actually, I do not think Harpur has priority with this discovery. Earlier books have said the same thing.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/25, 2:49pm)

Post 6

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:16pm

Sounds a lot like the "mystery cult" stuff we were talking about above.

Post 7

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:59am