Anger at sex change for angel Gabriel
BRIAN PENDREIGH
December 31 2003
SHE has made a reputation for herself by making unusual career choices, but Tilda Swinton is getting ready for what could be her biggest challenge yet -- playing the Archangel Gabriel, in a blockbuster comic-book adaptation with Matrix star Keanu Reeves.
Gabriel, who foretold the birth of Christ and revealed the Koran to Muhammad, is traditionally represented as male. But while Swinton's casting could offend Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, it is the fans of the cult Hellblazer comics who seem most outraged by the planned sex change.
The comic-book stories, about a modern sorcerer who has literally been to hell and back, are regarded by their fans as the holy grail of adult comic-book fiction. Gabriel, who is depicted as male in the stories, becomes the arch-enemy of protagonist John Constantine, after Constantine engineers his expulsion from Heaven.
But fans have been outraged by the casting of the Fettes-educated daughter of the Lord Lieutenant of Berwickshire in the film version, which is entitled Constantine.
Hellblazer was created in 1985 by the comic-book writer Alan Moore, whose work is in huge demand with film-makers. In the comics, Constantine is a blond, working-class Liverpudlian and ex-punk-rocker.
The film-makers infuriated fans by making the character American to accommodate Reeves. He teams up with a policewoman, played by Rachel Weisz, to investigate the apparent suicide of her twin, and introduces her to a hinterland of demons and angels in modern Los Angeles.
"I can't understand why they are not casting a man for the role," said one fan on an internet movie database forum. "It seems to me that none of the Warner Bros execs have even bothered to read the comic."
Publicist Paulette Osorio said: "In the script the Archangel Gabriel was not specified as a man or woman but more of an androgynous character."
Full Version: the archangel gabriel -- a girl?
I don't mind if they cast Tilda Swinton to play an androgynous Gabriel; I'm pretty convinced that angels are neither male nor female, but human beings generally are, so a casting director who wants to go with that POV must either find a pretty man or a rather angular woman. Swinton should be a good choice.
OTOH, I bet Jeroen Krabbe was quite good, though I never saw his performance. But I'd go for the beam of light, in a definitely biblical story, unless otherwise specified--Jacob's wrestling opponent, the "men" who came to Abram & Lot, and the "two men in shining garments" at the empty tomb in Luke.
OTOH, I bet Jeroen Krabbe was quite good, though I never saw his performance. But I'd go for the beam of light, in a definitely biblical story, unless otherwise specified--Jacob's wrestling opponent, the "men" who came to Abram & Lot, and the "two men in shining garments" at the empty tomb in Luke.
Although not named Gabriel, Emma Thompson's angel in Angels in America is pretty good. (Currently 2/3 of the way though it.)
Can we add
Rossana Di Rocco .... Angel of the Lord (Gospel according to St Matthew - 1964)
Cos that's who I'd vote for (and I can't believe I'd be alone in that)
Matt
Rossana Di Rocco .... Angel of the Lord (Gospel according to St Matthew - 1964)
Cos that's who I'd vote for (and I can't believe I'd be alone in that)
Matt
MattPage wrote:
: Rossana Di Rocco .... Angel of the Lord (Gospel according to St Matthew - 1964)
Is she necessarily playing Gabriel, though? The name comes up only four times in the Bible, twice in Daniel's visions and twice in Luke's gospel -- once when he appears to Zechariah, and once again when he appears to Mary. (Oh, and Daniel 9:21 does call Gabriel a "man".)
I agree, though, that if this actress were counted in the poll, she would probably get my vote.
: Rossana Di Rocco .... Angel of the Lord (Gospel according to St Matthew - 1964)
Is she necessarily playing Gabriel, though? The name comes up only four times in the Bible, twice in Daniel's visions and twice in Luke's gospel -- once when he appears to Zechariah, and once again when he appears to Mary. (Oh, and Daniel 9:21 does call Gabriel a "man".)
I agree, though, that if this actress were counted in the poll, she would probably get my vote.
Well one could argue that altho' those 4 times are the only times Gabriel is named that church tradition ascribes Gabriel the ministry of being the messenger, and as such is usually identified with the annunciation to Joseph.
Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
"Thus he is throughout the angel of the Incarnation and of Consolation, and so in Christian tradition Gabriel is ever the angel of mercy while Michael is rather the angel of judgment....As remarked above, Gabriel is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, but it is not unreasonable to suppose with Christian tradition that it is he who appeared to St. Joseph and to the shepherds"
Matt
Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
"Thus he is throughout the angel of the Incarnation and of Consolation, and so in Christian tradition Gabriel is ever the angel of mercy while Michael is rather the angel of judgment....As remarked above, Gabriel is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, but it is not unreasonable to suppose with Christian tradition that it is he who appeared to St. Joseph and to the shepherds"
Matt
An Angel You Wouldn't Want to Be Touched By
Q. You're playing the angel Gabriel, who has traditionally been characterized as unremittingly good and as a man -- neither of which is true in this film.
A. Gabriel is God's right-hand man, his messenger, his bouncer, and he's dedicated 1,000 percent to getting souls into heaven. I think there is something quite extraordinary in the story of this film that places the emissary of good as the one who tortures the world in God's name. It felt like the most radical thing for the film to do.
Q. It's a complete departure from the Bible.
A. Yes, but it is absolutely not a departure from real life as we are living it today, in the grip of people who are dressing themselves up as God's right hand and taking us into war. The challenge was to make sure Gabriel never turns into an evil demon, that we see how he engineers this extraordinarily violent apocalypse out of love. Which is sort of the situation we're all in now. . . .
Q. Gabriel goes through a rather startling transformation, and it involves two rather singularly different costumes. How important were the clothes?
A. Louise Frogley, the costume designer, and I talked about Gabriel being a sort of deific emissary working in the consulate in some far-off country where he is getting impatient with the natives, and he decides to take things into his own hands rather than serve God's plan. He's like some junior executive who comes up with a brilliant plan to take over the company.
New York Times, February 6
- - -
Hmmm, so, not entirely like Walken's Gabriel in The Prophecy, yet not entirely unlike him either...
Q. You're playing the angel Gabriel, who has traditionally been characterized as unremittingly good and as a man -- neither of which is true in this film.
A. Gabriel is God's right-hand man, his messenger, his bouncer, and he's dedicated 1,000 percent to getting souls into heaven. I think there is something quite extraordinary in the story of this film that places the emissary of good as the one who tortures the world in God's name. It felt like the most radical thing for the film to do.
Q. It's a complete departure from the Bible.
A. Yes, but it is absolutely not a departure from real life as we are living it today, in the grip of people who are dressing themselves up as God's right hand and taking us into war. The challenge was to make sure Gabriel never turns into an evil demon, that we see how he engineers this extraordinarily violent apocalypse out of love. Which is sort of the situation we're all in now. . . .
Q. Gabriel goes through a rather startling transformation, and it involves two rather singularly different costumes. How important were the clothes?
A. Louise Frogley, the costume designer, and I talked about Gabriel being a sort of deific emissary working in the consulate in some far-off country where he is getting impatient with the natives, and he decides to take things into his own hands rather than serve God's plan. He's like some junior executive who comes up with a brilliant plan to take over the company.
New York Times, February 6
- - -
Hmmm, so, not entirely like Walken's Gabriel in The Prophecy, yet not entirely unlike him either...
: Hmmm, so, not entirely like Walken's Gabriel in The Prophecy, yet not
: entirely unlike him either...
And vaguely reminiscient of Dogma to boot
:yawn
Matt
: entirely unlike him either...
And vaguely reminiscient of Dogma to boot
QUOTE
Yes, but it is absolutely not a departure from real life as we are living it today, in the grip of people who are dressing themselves up as God's right hand and taking us into war.
Hmm sounds like a nother film mirroring what is going on with America's foreign policy (yawn):yawn
Matt
If Gabriel is androgynous because s/he's a true angel, shouldn't Satan be androgynous too, rather than being played by an unambiguously male Peter Stormare?
If Gabriel is a "half-breed" (i.e., a human soul elevated to angelhood and re-wrapped in human flesh) rather than a true angel, then why should s/he be androgynous? Balthazar isn't.
The character of Gabriel in the film makes no sense, and even the writers couldn't agree whether s/he was the real Archangel Gabriel or a half-breed. Basically, they said in the end, s/he was in the film because s/he was in the comic book from the beginning, but they didn't really know how to fit him/her into the rules.
P.S. Regarding the poll above, IIRC, Gabriel is also a beam of light in From the Manger to the Cross (1912). At least, I'm sure there's no human actor, and I'm sure I remember either Mary getting all lit up when Gabriel addresses her or else it's Joseph who gets all lit up when he has the dream warning him to flee to Egypt.
If Gabriel is a "half-breed" (i.e., a human soul elevated to angelhood and re-wrapped in human flesh) rather than a true angel, then why should s/he be androgynous? Balthazar isn't.
The character of Gabriel in the film makes no sense, and even the writers couldn't agree whether s/he was the real Archangel Gabriel or a half-breed. Basically, they said in the end, s/he was in the film because s/he was in the comic book from the beginning, but they didn't really know how to fit him/her into the rules.
P.S. Regarding the poll above, IIRC, Gabriel is also a beam of light in From the Manger to the Cross (1912). At least, I'm sure there's no human actor, and I'm sure I remember either Mary getting all lit up when Gabriel addresses her or else it's Joseph who gets all lit up when he has the dream warning him to flee to Egypt.
Link to Constantine thread.
A further thought on the androgyny of this film's version of Gabriel. Last year I wrote an essay -- which will probably be published later this year -- on how films about Christ have dealt with sexual matters, and somewhere along the way I said, in passing, that Christian art (at least prior to the Renaissance) had generally not addressed this aspect of Christ's humanity. I showed the essay to my matushka (priest's wife), who is an editor and writer in her own right, and she remarked that she had always thought Christian art DID highlight the sexual aspect of Christ's humanity, specifically because he is depicted with a beard -- in contrast to the angels, who are depicted in the icons as genderless and beardless.
In The Prophecy, we are told that the angels are hermaphrodites, and have both sets of genitals -- but they generally seem a fairly virile, masculine lot, IIRC. Constantine, OTOH, stays away from the discussion of genitals, and simply casts a woman as an angel who is consistently referred to by the masculine pronoun "he".
As for whether Constantine's Satan is "unambiguously male" -- didn't he seem kind of gay? For that matter, Balthazar's sense of fashion is almost TOO good for a straight man, too (and his remark that he expects Constantine to be "finger-licking good" is, um, interesting, too).
A further thought on the androgyny of this film's version of Gabriel. Last year I wrote an essay -- which will probably be published later this year -- on how films about Christ have dealt with sexual matters, and somewhere along the way I said, in passing, that Christian art (at least prior to the Renaissance) had generally not addressed this aspect of Christ's humanity. I showed the essay to my matushka (priest's wife), who is an editor and writer in her own right, and she remarked that she had always thought Christian art DID highlight the sexual aspect of Christ's humanity, specifically because he is depicted with a beard -- in contrast to the angels, who are depicted in the icons as genderless and beardless.
In The Prophecy, we are told that the angels are hermaphrodites, and have both sets of genitals -- but they generally seem a fairly virile, masculine lot, IIRC. Constantine, OTOH, stays away from the discussion of genitals, and simply casts a woman as an angel who is consistently referred to by the masculine pronoun "he".
As for whether Constantine's Satan is "unambiguously male" -- didn't he seem kind of gay? For that matter, Balthazar's sense of fashion is almost TOO good for a straight man, too (and his remark that he expects Constantine to be "finger-licking good" is, um, interesting, too).
Is there any indication anywhere in scripture that angels are sexed at all?
Is there any indication anywhere in scripture that angels are sexed at all?
Not that I can think of, but when they assume human form (i.e., the strangers who showed up at Lot's house in Sodom) they are described as men. I think.
Who says they assume human form? They are 'described as men', but IIRC there's nothing to indicate they were men, nor that they were something else at some other time.
Alan Thomas wrote:
: Is there any indication anywhere in scripture that angels are sexed at all?
That depends on whether you think "the sons of God" (or, perhaps more accurately, "the sons of the gods") in Genesis 6 are the same "sons of God" as in Job 1. To quote an essay I wrote that touches on this:[indent]First, let's consider the nature of the "sons of God". The expression used here for these beings also occurs in Job 1:6 and Psalm 89:6, referring to "heavenly beings". Job 1:6 and I Kings 22:19 suggest a council of such entities, presided over by God; and traces of a committee-like approach to divine leadership remain in three passages in the primeval cycle (Genesis 1-11, esp. 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7), where God appears to refer to himself in the plural. The existence of these so-called "sons" need not mean that God reproduced, sexually or otherwise; in Semitic use, bën ("son") could simply "denote membership of a class or group" (Byrne, ABD 6.156). To support this, von Rad notes the company of prophets who are called benë hannebî'îm ("sons of the prophets") in II Kings 2:3 (p. 114). Although this plurality of quasi-divine beings may point to an originally polytheistic belief, it would seem these members of the heavenly court were subordinate to Yahweh by the time these stories were written down in their current form. If the "sons of God" are heavenly beings, then they are probably not the "men of renown".
This textual interpretation, however, presents its own challenges, and other interpretations have been suggested. The motive for these alternatives is clear: in no other text is it suggested that heavenly beings might enter into sexual relationships with each other, let alone with humans! As one concerned writer put it, "the whole conception of sexual life, as connected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to Hebrew thought" (William Henry Green, quoted in Birney, p. 45). That, however, did not prevent Josephus (Antiquities 1.73) or the authors of Jubilees and other Jewish writings from equating the "sons of God" with the angels, even in a sexual context.
Another objection has been that, if the "sons of God" are not human, God appears in v. 3 to be punishing mankind for something that was not mankind's fault (e.g., Eslinger, p. 65); it is therefore suggested that the "sons of God" are actually humans, either dynastic rulers or the descendants of Seth who are listed immediately before the "sons of God" passage in Genesis. Both of these human alternatives are somewhat weak. This is especially true for the Sethite interpretation, as there is no evidence in the text to suggest a division between the Sethites and any other clan (Cain was not the only other surviving son of Adam, cf. Genesis 5:4) that would warrant a special designation for the Sethites as "sons of God". The activities of dynastic rulers, on the other hand, would certainly provide at least a subtext for a narrative about "sons of God" whose actions prompt God to punish mankind as a whole, since the fate of the people under a king's rule was often affected by the fate of the king himself (Clines, p. 34). Westermann (pp. 367-368) has noted parallels between this passage and the stories of Pharaoh and Sarah (Genesis 12:10-20) and David and Bathsheba (II Samuel 11-12), in which kings notice the beauty of certain women, take them into their possession, and are soon rebuked by God (in Westermann's view, the "sons of God" would have been rebuked, too, in an older and now displaced version of Genesis 6:3). This, however, is not to suggest that the "sons of God" are dynastic rulers themselves; it could be taken to suggest that the "sons of God" had a position of power or even authority over humans which resembled that of kings, and that the fates of these humans were bound to the fates of the "sons of God" themselves. A king in that day and age might often refer to himself as a "son" of the gods (Byrne, ABD 6.156), but this vocabulary was usually limited to isolated cases of court propaganda and is "rarely if ever attested in the ancient Near East as a term for kings in general" (Clines, p. 34). The simple fact is that the term "sons of God" (or "sons of the gods") applied to deities -- albeit "second rank gods" (W. Herrmann, quoted in Westermann, p. 372) -- in the ancient Near East, particularly in the Canaanite world that the Israelites were most immediately influenced by (cf. Suggs, p.16). Thus, they are most likely not to be equated with the "men of renown" referred to in Genesis 6:4.
These heroes are then either the Nephilim or the children born to the "sons of God" and their human wives, or both. This may depend on whether the Nephilim "were" on the earth, and just happened to be there when the "sons of God" mated with human women, or "arose, came to be" as a result of the marriages; the word häyû is open to both possibilities. Birney (p. 50) sees a problem in relating "arose" to the phrase "and also afterward"; however, even assuming that this phrase is not an interpolation, "arose" could still apply to the Nephilim, since they were presumably destroyed in the Deluge and would have had to start anew if they were ever to exist in the post-diluvian world. Vawter prefers "appeared" (p. 110), while Hendel (p. 15), von Rad (p. 113), and Westermann (p. 365) translate it "were"; all four, however, interpret the passage as an aetiology for the gigantic Nephilim.
The Nephilim, then, are a race of giants, born of a mixed divine and human parentage, who became famous for their heroic deeds in the days before the Deluge, and who may or may not have been present in the land of Israel after the Deluge, too, though this seems unlikely.[/indent]I also understand that some of the Church Fathers may have believed that the angels reproduced, though in a spiritual way that was different from the physical, animal, sexual form of reproduction practised by humans.
: Is there any indication anywhere in scripture that angels are sexed at all?
That depends on whether you think "the sons of God" (or, perhaps more accurately, "the sons of the gods") in Genesis 6 are the same "sons of God" as in Job 1. To quote an essay I wrote that touches on this:[indent]First, let's consider the nature of the "sons of God". The expression used here for these beings also occurs in Job 1:6 and Psalm 89:6, referring to "heavenly beings". Job 1:6 and I Kings 22:19 suggest a council of such entities, presided over by God; and traces of a committee-like approach to divine leadership remain in three passages in the primeval cycle (Genesis 1-11, esp. 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7), where God appears to refer to himself in the plural. The existence of these so-called "sons" need not mean that God reproduced, sexually or otherwise; in Semitic use, bën ("son") could simply "denote membership of a class or group" (Byrne, ABD 6.156). To support this, von Rad notes the company of prophets who are called benë hannebî'îm ("sons of the prophets") in II Kings 2:3 (p. 114). Although this plurality of quasi-divine beings may point to an originally polytheistic belief, it would seem these members of the heavenly court were subordinate to Yahweh by the time these stories were written down in their current form. If the "sons of God" are heavenly beings, then they are probably not the "men of renown".
This textual interpretation, however, presents its own challenges, and other interpretations have been suggested. The motive for these alternatives is clear: in no other text is it suggested that heavenly beings might enter into sexual relationships with each other, let alone with humans! As one concerned writer put it, "the whole conception of sexual life, as connected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to Hebrew thought" (William Henry Green, quoted in Birney, p. 45). That, however, did not prevent Josephus (Antiquities 1.73) or the authors of Jubilees and other Jewish writings from equating the "sons of God" with the angels, even in a sexual context.
Another objection has been that, if the "sons of God" are not human, God appears in v. 3 to be punishing mankind for something that was not mankind's fault (e.g., Eslinger, p. 65); it is therefore suggested that the "sons of God" are actually humans, either dynastic rulers or the descendants of Seth who are listed immediately before the "sons of God" passage in Genesis. Both of these human alternatives are somewhat weak. This is especially true for the Sethite interpretation, as there is no evidence in the text to suggest a division between the Sethites and any other clan (Cain was not the only other surviving son of Adam, cf. Genesis 5:4) that would warrant a special designation for the Sethites as "sons of God". The activities of dynastic rulers, on the other hand, would certainly provide at least a subtext for a narrative about "sons of God" whose actions prompt God to punish mankind as a whole, since the fate of the people under a king's rule was often affected by the fate of the king himself (Clines, p. 34). Westermann (pp. 367-368) has noted parallels between this passage and the stories of Pharaoh and Sarah (Genesis 12:10-20) and David and Bathsheba (II Samuel 11-12), in which kings notice the beauty of certain women, take them into their possession, and are soon rebuked by God (in Westermann's view, the "sons of God" would have been rebuked, too, in an older and now displaced version of Genesis 6:3). This, however, is not to suggest that the "sons of God" are dynastic rulers themselves; it could be taken to suggest that the "sons of God" had a position of power or even authority over humans which resembled that of kings, and that the fates of these humans were bound to the fates of the "sons of God" themselves. A king in that day and age might often refer to himself as a "son" of the gods (Byrne, ABD 6.156), but this vocabulary was usually limited to isolated cases of court propaganda and is "rarely if ever attested in the ancient Near East as a term for kings in general" (Clines, p. 34). The simple fact is that the term "sons of God" (or "sons of the gods") applied to deities -- albeit "second rank gods" (W. Herrmann, quoted in Westermann, p. 372) -- in the ancient Near East, particularly in the Canaanite world that the Israelites were most immediately influenced by (cf. Suggs, p.16). Thus, they are most likely not to be equated with the "men of renown" referred to in Genesis 6:4.
These heroes are then either the Nephilim or the children born to the "sons of God" and their human wives, or both. This may depend on whether the Nephilim "were" on the earth, and just happened to be there when the "sons of God" mated with human women, or "arose, came to be" as a result of the marriages; the word häyû is open to both possibilities. Birney (p. 50) sees a problem in relating "arose" to the phrase "and also afterward"; however, even assuming that this phrase is not an interpolation, "arose" could still apply to the Nephilim, since they were presumably destroyed in the Deluge and would have had to start anew if they were ever to exist in the post-diluvian world. Vawter prefers "appeared" (p. 110), while Hendel (p. 15), von Rad (p. 113), and Westermann (p. 365) translate it "were"; all four, however, interpret the passage as an aetiology for the gigantic Nephilim.
The Nephilim, then, are a race of giants, born of a mixed divine and human parentage, who became famous for their heroic deeds in the days before the Deluge, and who may or may not have been present in the land of Israel after the Deluge, too, though this seems unlikely.[/indent]I also understand that some of the Church Fathers may have believed that the angels reproduced, though in a spiritual way that was different from the physical, animal, sexual form of reproduction practised by humans.
This topic has been moved to the better-suited "Film Awards, Festivals, and Lists" forum...
If we could edit polls, I would edit this one to include: Alexander Siddig, The Nativity Story (2006).
(I could edit it, but what's the point? Most folks have already voted.)
(Well, if we could edit our votes, too... 
)
Anyway, this just seemed like something worth adding to the thread. Though I do think Siddig could be the one to finally give that shaft of light in Jesus of Nazareth a run for its money!
)Anyway, this just seemed like something worth adding to the thread. Though I do think Siddig could be the one to finally give that shaft of light in Jesus of Nazareth a run for its money!
Gabriel
Angels don't have wings, and humanity is a pitiful species requiring redemption in Oz gothic sci-fi fantasy "Gabriel." Made on a wing and a prayer by debuting helmer Shane Abbess, this derivative, low-budget HD effort will be hellish for anyone outside its targeted youth audience. . . .
Arc Angel Gabriel (Andy Whitfield) -- known simply as "Ark" -- is sent by "the Light" to a film noirish purgatory, where he must do battle with bug-eyed Dark Angel leader Sammael (Dwaine Stevenson) and save humanity from itself. . . .
Russell Edwards, Variety, November 29
Angels don't have wings, and humanity is a pitiful species requiring redemption in Oz gothic sci-fi fantasy "Gabriel." Made on a wing and a prayer by debuting helmer Shane Abbess, this derivative, low-budget HD effort will be hellish for anyone outside its targeted youth audience. . . .
Arc Angel Gabriel (Andy Whitfield) -- known simply as "Ark" -- is sent by "the Light" to a film noirish purgatory, where he must do battle with bug-eyed Dark Angel leader Sammael (Dwaine Stevenson) and save humanity from itself. . . .
Russell Edwards, Variety, November 29
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.