Son of Man film out next month in u.s.
February 11, 2010
Four years ago I mentioned the release of a new Jesus film called Son of Man which resituates the Jesus story in contemporary Africa and portrays Jesus as a nonviolent revolutionary. At the time I mentioned how the film could provide an alternative to the hysteria- and piety-surrounded (and decidedly apolitical, unless you count its anti-Jewish undertones) Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ. It took a while, but Son of Man will finally be released on DVD in north america in March.
The site Rejesus posted a brief but interesting review of the film here. And here is the trailer:
UPDATE: Theoretically Apraxic gives some detailed information on the film here.
16 Comments
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Do you know how the film handles the resurrection? (From the review I am led to suspect that it allegorizes it, but I’m not sure.)
It would be interesting to see whether it draws primarily from Mark, or whether it makes full use of the synoptics plus John.
For whatever reason, I usually can’t stand artistic recreations of the Jesus narrative; there is no justification for this antipathy as far as I am aware–because of this I have still not seen (and never intend to see) the notorious Passion
Do you know how the film handles the resurrection? (From the review I am led to suspect that it allegorizes it, but I’m not sure.)
I don’t know anything beyond the few reviews I have read. I suppose “allegorizing” the resurrection in the film is possible, but judging from the film’s political slant, I’d expect something different than mere allegory. Liberationist perspectives aren’t very interested in allegories.
The “crucifixion” scene looks really interesting. Click around for some other reviews for a description.
The Passion was NOT anti-Jewish in undertone or otherwise and to see it that way says more about the viewer than the film itself – it was a beautiful film and the hysteria around it was generated by media and cynics – sorry but that’s my take and when I saw it I was not a Catholic nor particularly religious – Since becoming a Catholic I have a greater understanding of why its important to remember our Lord’s sacrifice and what it truly entailed – pain and terrible anguish – I don’t ever want to minimize or forget that and if film contributes to that end then so much the better…I hope this new film does as much to inspire as the Passion did for so many…….
A good analysis of The Passion of the Christ is here. I realize that the film inspired many. The important question is: what did it inspire?
There is a very good reason that film portrayals of Jesus Christ are without exception so unsatisfying. All artists choose to present the Jesus they prefer. Mel Gibson’s Jesus is therefore probably quite different from the Son of Man Jesus, who again bears little resemblance to Martin Scorsese’s Jesus. And so on and so forth, and not just in film.
Whether using him as a political tool or as a goad for traditionalist piety, artists’ selective presentation allows the real Jesus to slip through their fingers. It is beyond them, if only because He is not a character in a book or a script and the Gospel can not be plotted like a play. The story can’t be told, and the hero can’t be “fleshed out,” in the same way. While the strategy of “Son of Man” sounds interesting, it seems to make the same mistakes.
The true Jesus of Nazareth is never just who we want Him to be. I have always believed that art is an important gateway to the truth, but the person of Jesus Christ is one truth I don’t think it can grasp.
This is fantastic news! I have wanted to see this film for a long time.
Mr.Michael Iafrate, I saw Mel Gibson’s film, I found it full of piety, and I failed to find any hysteria in it. Could you please be more specific about the hysteria you mention?
Hello, Mr. Polakovic, my man: What I said was that the film was surrounded by hysteria, not that it contained hysteria. Do you still wish to argue or does this satisfy your concern?
TPOTC seems to be a Rorshach (sp?) test for its viewers (and reviewers). The Son of Man sounds like it will have a similar effect.
Hello, Mr Iafrate, thank you for the clarification. I was surprised to find such word, and I just wondered. I have not seen the film you mention. My only comment is that if the film “The Son of Man” portrays Jesus as a non-violent revolutionary, then it is a serious misrepresentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching, and, regretfully, will mislead many people. Jesus was not into politics, and certainly not a revolutionary. Being Israel oppressed by the Romans, He had plenty of opportunities to revolt if that was the purpose of His coming.
We have different understandings of the words “revolutionary” and “politics.” That said, I think you are 100% wrong. You seem to have a reductionistic christology. Revolution /= revolt. Maybe you missed the word “non-violent,” but probably not, since you used that word in your reply to me.
“The time is fulfill and the kingdom of YHAH ELOHIM is at hand.
He that soweth the good seed is the son of man;the fild is the world”.
Son of man
Dear Mr.Iafrate, I appreciate you awarding me with the 100% wrong tag, you must admit it takes some effort to be absolutely and 100% wrong. Now: 1) I do not know what is the understanding that you have of the word “revolutionary”, I just applied the understanding that 99,99% of the people would have about it, in this context. Because “nonviolent revolutionary” can only be understood in such terms, since in other context the clarifying term “nonviolent” would be simply redundant; 2) I can hardly find a more reductionist christology than portraying Our Lord Jesus Christ as a “revolutionary” , no matter if a violent or a nonviolent one; 3) I note that since several decades there is a quite significant group of intellectuals, film-makers and theologists, knowingly or not- knowingly influenced by Marxism, that would love this and other equally misleading marxist concepts to prevail in Catholic’s minds. Mind you, the first and main revolutionary was and still is, the one that said: “Non Serviam!”.
I just applied the understanding that 99,99% of the people would have about it, in this context.
That’s your mistake.
I can hardly find a more reductionist christology than portraying Our Lord Jesus Christ as a “revolutionary” , no matter if a violent or a nonviolent one
Why? Did Jesus not radically change things, in unexpected ways? Is that what you’re saying? Referring to Jesus as a revolutionary is precisely and always meant to correct a christology that reduces Jesus to his “spiritual” significance. Period.
I note that since several decades there is a quite significant group of intellectuals, film-makers and theologists, knowingly or not- knowingly influenced by Marxism, that would love this and other equally misleading marxist concepts to prevail in Catholic’s minds.
There are indeed many people influenced by Marx/ism. One of them was called John Paul II. Have you ever seen Pope Benedict refer to Jesus as a revolutionary? I have.
Mind you, the first and main revolutionary was and still is, the one that said: “Non Serviam!”.
Jesus, essentially, said “Non serviam” to systems and traditions of domination. So should we.
Now that you know what I and countless others mean when we call Jesus a “revolutionary,” it would be pointless for you to continue to smear me as having a “reductionistic” christology when I have insisted otherwise. (Unless of course you’re just stubborn and interested in smearing people.) So please forgive me if I say that this is a tired argument and I’m not interested in continuing it.