Got a Rise Outta Moi

Tags

Bible, Easter, fantasy, Fiennes, film review, Passion Story, Risen, Scripture

It’s that time of year when religion theme movies come out to play. I was ready for some religious action and went with hope to see Risen.

Let’s start with what I loved. There’s only been one depiction of Christ that I’ve liked and that was in the Matthew Series. In this film, Cliff Curtis has a sweetness about his portrayal that drew me in. The film locations and sets take the viewer to the time period. I delighted in the correct use of Christ’s given name, not the twisted, Latin version we use today.

Joe Fiennes had the tough job of carrying the story along, and he accomplished this but just barely. He looked more comfortable in the battle scenes, which were well conceived, depicting how the Roman military conquered the known world. (China was thousands of years ahead of Western Civilization at this point in time, but that’s another story.) Poor Joe attempting to work his way through a mystery, and find his path after his discoveries, well…not so much. Joe sort of deflated as a regular guy.

I also loved the political aspects of the film, the showing of another perspective and backroom dealings, of how religious leaders plotted to get rid of a threat to their power structure and sleazy dealings in the Temple. (Recall the turning over the tables in the courtyard? Caiaphas and his family had control of that side of the business.)

The way the Pharisees used Pilot and Pilot hoped to use them to secure his own position was nicely rendered. Pilot was definitely under the gun with Tiberius about to visit the troubled Palestine. Tiberius was a vile man and worse emperor. He had no patience for inferiors bungling up the works. In this film version, Caiaphas is marvelously slimy and evil in contrast to the dignified and holy Joseph of Arimathea, a true servant of God. These character contrasts and Curtis’s depiction of Christ made the picture in my opinion.

The clinkers were the use of stirrups and saddles on military mounts. Nuh-uh. Don’t believe me. Look at the bas-reliefs that exist. Egyptians didn’t use stirrups either. They were used elsewhere in the world, but not like what we have today and used in this film. Then there was the funky scene where Joe gets a costume change all within the same time segment. Guess they had to keep the actors on horseback somehow.

There were a couple of other silly things but they didn’t bother me much. What really got to me is coming next, the Mary Magdalene bashing. It goes on and on, even though it has no scriptural verification.

Pope Gregory I took it upon himself to do some Biblical revisionism during a sermon wherein he set Mary M. down as a prostitute. And so the insult was born. The ugly lie has held on throughout the centuries, perpetuated by men, in text, art and repeatedly in film—yeah, that’s you Mel Gibson. This saddens me, especially since I otherwise liked this film. Even got teary-eyed in places. It’s still no excuse for trashing a woman Christ loved and relied on as confidant and friend. His own disciples griped about her, but they were men reared in a culture and religion that separated women and men in religious settings.

So what excuse do men (and sloppy screenwriters) have today for abusing a holy woman? I’m not even going to go there. Too sick, boring and wearying. Anyway, sans the stupid bit in the barracks asking soldiers for a show of hands to see how many men Mary had screwed, I would have really liked this film. If you don’t mind the toying with Biblical truth/ female bashing, go see it. Tis the season.
FYI: Prophecy Denied, the first book my fantasy series is free March 4 through 7.

Also check out Empty Altars by Judith Post, last day free!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B007EW75Y6

M.L Rigdon (aka Julia Donner)
Follow on Twitter @RigdonML
Website http://www.MLRigdon.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Julia-Donner

Advertisement

EXODUS, SCHMECH-XODUS

Tags

ancient history, Bible, Brunner, chariot, Commandments, Egypt, Exodus, Goshen, Hatshepsut, Hebrews, Heston, horses, Isrealites, Moses, movies, Old Testament, Passover, pharoah, Plagues, Ramesses, Red Sea, Torah

Oy vey, yet another mixed-up rendition, but nice.

When I was in second grade, the nuns rented the local movie house, cleared out the school, and walked us seven blocks to see The Ten Commandments. Special effects in 1956 were nothing like they are today, and yet the film influenced me more than any other. There was Egypt, in all its jaw-dropping splendor, with the ferociously yummy Yul Brunner as Ramesses. He looked just like Ramesses the Great but with muscles. Made my heart go platz.

There’s a lot of squabbling about who was pharaoh at the time of the exodus. Given the records of Ramesses’s history—even taking away some of the hyperbole loved by Egyptian historians—this does not sound like the right guy. But back to some blatant film errors with Exodus: Gods and Kings, which still has Moses doing all the talking, and not Aaron, as was also done in the 1956 version. Doesn’t anybody in Hollywood read the Old Testament or Torah?

One thing I did love about this new version, whether accurate or not, was the production work involving Egypt, the city and palace settings, the gorgeous costuming. Luscious and reminiscent of how it was reported to look by historians of the day. (The HBO Rome series had Egypt horribly depicted, dry and dull. One of Caesar’s soldiers wrote about gold everywhere and walls embedded with real jewels.)

Then there was the ill-conceived background shot of Moses fleeing Egypt. The Sphinx, with her crumbling face looks as it does today, not as it would have thousands of years ago. Doesn’t anybody bother to do historical research? Sketches done by Frederic Louis Norden in 1737 and Vivant-Denon’s depictions of Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt, show a less damaged face.

The equine mess-ups are silly. In this new version, Moses rides and drives Friesian horses, a breed not developed until the Middles Ages. Egyptians didn’t ride a lot, and when they did, they are depicted bare-back, no stirrups. Stirrups as we know them were not widely used until the Middle Ages, although there is some argument about that. It’s said the present day stirrups were devised to steady the knights carrying all that metal and for support with the lance.

Then we have the Biblical issues and omissions, too many to count. The one that got me in this recent version was how the Red Sea parted, sort of drizzling away. It’s stated more than once that when the sea waters parted, they crossed on “dry” land. No mud flats or rushing streams as in this latest film. They walked between walls of water, on dry ground, like the 1956 film.

Back to using Ramesses II as the bad guy. It’s now thought that Thutmose III is the dummy who kept ignoring God and prophecy, and that it might have been the marvelous Hatshepsut who pulled Moses from the river. Whoever hauled him out had to be very high up on the chain. Hatshepsut was pharaoh’s daughter, married to Thutmose II (half-brother), and later became regent for her step-son, the not-so-nice Thutmose III. Much of her personal history was expunged, which might have contained remarks about Moses. I’ve included some sites about the controversy.

In the end, I enjoyed the movie when I stopped obsessing about the errors and just enjoyed the scenery. Christian Bale, whose accent had Variations-on-an-English-Theme throughout, is nice to look at, but the Old Testament (don’t remember reading this bit in the Torah) says Moses was beautiful in God’s eyes. Maybe Heston should have played pharaoh and Brunner, Moses. Oy.

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm

http://www.thechurchesofgod.com/WHO%20WAS%20THE%20PHAROAH%20OF%20THE%20EXODUS.html

 

History’s Freaky Mysteries

Tags

anceint, artifacts, Bible, fossils, giants, hoax, mummy, mystery, prehistoric, skulls

When I was a girl, MANY years ago, I read an article in Readers Digest that kept me awake nights. (Yes, I was an impressionable child.) The story was about a prehistoric burial site, bodies that had been unearthed near the Mississippi River, giants, buried sitting upright in chairs. For some reason, the chair-thing disturbed me as much as the shocking news of their size. The physical condition known as Gigantism isn’t news, but this site was—as MPFC used to say—completely different.

From then on, I looked for articles about tall, ancient beings and found a boatload of info, some reliable, some ridiculous. Let’s start off with the Bible: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that” (Genesis 6:4). Historian, Favius Josephus in the first century A.D. wrote about a giant on display. Ireland had theirs. Native American tribes have oral history about red-haired giants.

The eighteen hundreds had numerous, well-documented findings, all with many similarities. More than one site had enormous sarcophagi meant for a single body. The Kossuth giants in Iowa were found in a vault, seven of them, facing each other in a circle.

For centuries, scads of artifacts have been dug up, including weapons and implements so huge in size that no present day person could wield them. Impressions have been left in stone of massive skulls and feet, the dimensions for beings 20 feet and taller. (Whoa.) Some of them have double rows of teeth, extra fingers and toes. Red-haired, mummified bodies and gargantuan skeletons have been unearthed all over the world. Conspiracy theories spout noisy claims foul play and cover-ups. But why deny their existence? Seems silly.

Ancient tall peoples captivated me to the extent that my next YA fantasy is going to have red-haired giants. (I like it when my protags to have big problems.)

http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=giants

So why don’t we see/hear more about these prehistoric beings? What’s the deal? Are they merely tall Hobbits? There are books out accusing “materialists” of trying to eradicate the existence of giants. (We can’t have the Bible substantiated, now, can we?) One work accuses the Smithsonian of taking donated skeletal artifacts out to sea to get rid of them. Sounds a bit extreme. And sillier. More likely the bones are in some box designated as not-a-priority and layered in dust in some forgotten corner, a la the ending of Indiana Jones.

But, if you’re interested, here are some sites. Some of it is repetitive, but there are a lot of great pictures, some of the skulls, bones, and footprints literally and physically embedded in stone, dating back millions of years. That’s right, millions.

http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Paranormal/mystery-of-fossilized-irish-giant-facts-analysis.html

http://www.southmilwaukeenow.com/blogs/communityblogs/187467521.html

Giants and mummies and monsters, Oh,my!