I did a search here and did not come up with anything resembling this topic. (for Peter)

This morning on the way to work I heard that Mel Gibson was planning on making a movie on the Resurrection. Does anyone know if there is any truth to that statement?

It was also stated that Mel is not keeping any of the profits from The Passion of The Christ. He was said that he is using all of the money to create a production company “dedicated to religious programming.” If this is true, let’s at LEAST hope it isn’t “religious”.

Has any one here heard any similar reports?

“All I want is the truth’ – John Lennon

Oh my--I would guess that a film detailing the events from the death of Jesus to his ascension might be a bit more devisive among Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox believers.

Steve, would this period of time include the BA of the BVM?

Gibson plans The Resurrection
Saturday March 13 2004 17:09 IST
ANI

NEW YORK: Hollywood hunk Mel Gibson is all set to star in Jesus II: The Resurrection ,the sequel to his movie The Passion of the Christ .

According to a report in The Sun, Gibson has got hooked on to eligious movies.

The star intends to set up an elaborate studio in Hollywood , which would specialise in making movies on religion.

Mel informed a select audience of viewers that he would commence the work on his new movie later this year.

I have tried Asher's link several times and can't get the page.

If this is true, and I have my doubts, I have serious reservations about such a project. I am equally unenthused by a campaign currently underway to try to persuade Gibson to make a movie about Francis of Assisi.

In a recent email I applied to TPOTC words from John Gardner originally referring to the 14th-century Alliterative Morte Arthure:

QUOTE

The virtues of the Morte Darthur are those of the medieval warhorse: it is slow and somewhat clumsy, sometimes inelegant, but large and powerful; and like the warhorse it holds with absolute firmness to its course.

I think this approach works admirably well for a passion play -- at least, it did here. I do NOT think it is the best way to make a film covering events from the book of Acts, and CERTAINLY not the life of Francis.

The best thing Gibson could do here would be to produce, and get the right people for the job. If he wants to direct religious films, he should choose stories more congenial to his talents as a filmmaker.

Alan: By "BA of the BVM" I assume you mean the Assumption (not sure what the initial B stands for [blessed?]; doesn't seem to be common RC jargon or a common abbreviation; Google turns up no matches). Anyway, I should think this would be a likely event for inclusion in such a film.

(Incidentally, not now having on hand my copy of the Alliterative Morte Arthure to turn to for the Gardner quote, I did an online search, and in the process turned up ANOTHER description of the AMA that resonates interestingly with TPOTC: "It is often uncompromisingly technical, for the poet delights in realities and solid facts, and it abounds in idiom and forcible, homely phrase." - Mary Macleod Banks)

SDG wrote:
: I have tried Asher's link several times and can't get the page.

What's more, if you delete the redundant "http:" at the beginning, it takes you to an entirely different story about The Passion.

: I am equally unenthused by a campaign currently underway to try to
: persuade Gibson to make a movie about Francis of Assisi.

Wasn't too long ago Mark Pinsky was reporting that Mel might be planning a film based either on the Maccabees or on the Simon Bar Kochba revolt in the AD 130s.

: Alan: By "BA of the BVM" I assume you mean the Assumption (not sure
: what the initial B stands for [blessed?]; doesn't seem to be common RC
: jargon or a common abbreviation; Google turns up no matches).

I assumed "Bodily", FWIW.

: Anyway, I should think this would be a likely event for inclusion in such a film.

Really? Even though Acts clearly places Mary at that first meeting of the Apostles AFTER the Ascension of Jesus?

Ah, Asher's link is now working.

QUOTE

Wasn't too long ago Mark Pinsky was reporting that Mel might be planning a film based either on the Maccabees or on the Simon Bar Kochba revolt in the AD 130s.

THAT would be VERY interesting... if a whole lot less marketable than the Passion.

QUOTE

: Alan: By \"BA of the BVM\" I assume you mean the Assumption (not sure : what the initial B stands for [blessed?]; doesn't seem to be common RC : jargon or a common abbreviation; Google turns up no matches). I assumed \"Bodily\", FWIW.

Ah. Duh. Still, the acronym threw me... just not something that seems to get used. But who knows, maybe there's a whole strain of devotional literature that does use it that for some reason hasn't made it online.

QUOTE

: Anyway, I should think this would be a likely event for inclusion in such a film. Really?  Even though Acts clearly places Mary at that first meeting of the Apostles AFTER the Ascension of Jesus?

Sure, the Assumption would be WAY after the Ascension. I guess I thought the film would be going well beyond Acts 1. The 40 days of resurrection appearances just don't seem to have the drama to carry a feature film... you need to get into Pentecost, the early persecutions, etc. At least, that's what I would have thought.

Thanks Peter for pointing out the redundant http://, I didn't realize that had happened. The link has been corrected. It says the same exact thing I pasted. I placed the link for reference.

Try Again


Here's another

BAAAAAh. I was hoping he'd either get real artsy and scare off all the Christians or go back and make the Book of Judges. There ain't a screen big enough to contain all that blood.

-s.

Or he could go the other direction and do Numbers. Think of it: two hours of the miracle of birth, over and over again!

I bet showing all them folks begetting other folks'd be a challenge for Mel, and hey, no killin'!

And they'd all be Jewish too. No chance for bias.

-s.

Would I be out of line in saying that I'd really like to see Mad Max 4?

Hmm...maybe Riggs and Murtaugh could get stuck with having to take the census before the Apocalypse bomb goes off...along the way they discover Murtaugh is related to Simon of Cyrene (which turns out to be a hoax played on him by Getz), and then they find that Lorna Riggs neé Cole gives birth to the final child they need to account for—and Riggs dislocates his shoulder catching it as it comes out.

QUOTE

Would I be out of line in saying that I'd really like to see Mad Max 4?

I hope not. I am looking foward more to this than any other current film on the horizon. Pins and needles.

QUOTE

Would I be out of line in saying that I'd really like to see Mad Max 4?

I read that the Mad Max: Fury Road production has been shot down.

No. Tell me this isn't true. Do you have a link? I will be most disappointed if you do, thus verifying this cruel news.

QUOTE

Sure, the Assumption would be WAY after the Ascension. I guess I thought the film would be going well beyond Acts 1. The 40 days of resurrection appearances just don't seem to have the drama to carry a feature film... you need to get into Pentecost, the early persecutions, etc. At least, that's what I would have thought.

A film about Pentecost would certainly arouse controversy among Christians. Image a screen full of people speaking in tounges. :wink:

QUOTE

QUOTE Sure, the Assumption would be WAY after the Ascension. I guess I thought the film would be going well beyond Acts 1. The 40 days of resurrection appearances just don't seem to have the drama to carry a feature film... you need to get into Pentecost, the early persecutions, etc. At least, that's what I would have thought. A film about Pentecost would certainly arouse controversy among Christians. Image a screen full of people speaking in tounges. :wink:

Good point. Remember how anemic the "receive the Holy Spirit" line was in Jesus of Nazareth? Everyonejust bowed their heads and got quiet.

However one approaches Pentecost, it surely wasn't quiet!

This is all fine and good for dealing with Acts. But in terms of Mel Gibson and Acts, and what he could seriously consider in regard to following up The Passion of the Christ:

The reinstatement of Peter. All we see of Peter in The Passion are his lowest points in life: The moment he chops the ear off of the Roman soldier. The three times he denied Christ. The gaze he received from his Savior's eyes in that moment. His admissions to Mary and John and Mary Magdalene of his guilt. We are talking about the man who brought the faith to the Gentiles, people! We are talking about the person responsible for the major busting out of Christianity from the grasp of Jewish control. "Upon this rock" was the new covenant built, but nothing is shown here except a man at the lowest point in his life. He is the first man after Christ himself that we owe our faith to. If it weren't for Peter, who knows who would have brought the story of Christ to us? Not only that, but the stories of dreams, angels, Cornellius, and everything that is involved with how Peter (years later) finally realized that Jesus wanted the Gospel to be for every nation. This is 1/14th of the book of Acts, yet we sometimes fail to realize everything that's involved in Peter's act of taking Christ to those who were already living the Kingdom life.

The shipwreck of Paul. The stories toward the end of the book of Acts are just begging for someone like Gibson to come along and dramatize it to full effect. I can just see a raging storm, and i can see Paul on the island bitten by the snake... It's Master and Commander meets Cast Away. This is your Hollywood Bible, people. It's all there just waiting to be told.

-s.

QUOTE

No. Tell me this isn't true. Do you have a link? I will be most disappointed if you do, thus verifying this cruel news.

Well, IMDB shows the following:
Production Notes:
Status: Unknown
Comments: Production offices have been closed, sets warehoused; project seems dead.
Status Updated: 23 September 2003
HERE


HERE's anOther

These aren't the most detailed comments but it look slike the movie has at least been pushed back.

QUOTE

A film about Pentecost would certainly arouse controversy among Christians.  Image a screen full of people speaking in tounges.   :wink:

Subtitles would certainly be a sign of failure.

SDG wrote:
: Sure, the Assumption would be WAY after the Ascension. I guess I
: thought the film would be going well beyond Acts 1.

Well, Alan asked his question after making a remark regarding "a film detailing the events from the death of Jesus to his ascension."

: The 40 days of resurrection appearances just don't seem to have the
: drama to carry a feature film... you need to get into Pentecost, the early
: persecutions, etc. At least, that's what I would have thought.

So would I. I won't bother to re-post all the stuff I wrote elsewhere on Acts-related movies, but I will say here that it is interesting how A.D. Anno Domini shows Mary in a couple of early scenes (the Resurrection, Pentecost) but never shows her after that point.

asher wrote:
: I read that the Mad Max: Fury Road production has been shot down.

Maybe so that Mel could go and make Lethal Weapon 5!

QUOTE

QUOTE A film about Pentecost would certainly arouse controversy among Christians.  Image a screen full of people speaking in tounges.   :wink: Subtitles would certainly be a sign of failure.

Would it be a sign of failure? Doesn't Paul say we should have an interpreter when speaking tongues in public? So the subtitles could be thought of as our interpreter.

QUOTE

asher wrote: : I read that the Mad Max: Fury Road production has been shot down. Maybe so that Mel could go and make Lethal Weapon 5!  :)

As much as we might enjoy another Lethal Weapon movie I sure hope Mel doesn't go the way of Mr. Eastwood or Mr. Bronson in such a role.

asher wrote:
: As much as we might enjoy another Lethal Weapon movie I sure hope
: Mel doesn't go the way of Mr. Eastwood or Mr. Bronson in such a role.

I doubt he will -- as I recall, they had to coerce him into making the fourth film as it is. Heck, he couldn't even be bothered to grow out his hair for that one!

QUOTE

Would it be a sign of failure? Doesn't Paul say we should have an interpreter when speaking tongues in public? So the subtitles could be thought of as our interpreter.

If the scene's really well done we won't need interpreters:

QUOTE

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

;-)

Klaas

QUOTE

QUOTE And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Now wouldn't that be something!!

The Holy Babelfish!

Peter T Chattaway wrote:
: Wasn't too long ago Mark Pinsky was reporting that Mel might be
: planning a film based either on the Maccabees . . .

Aha, here's more fuel for this particular rumour's fire:

Tale Tied to Hanukkah Holiday Stirs Gibson Vision

Wednesday March 17 3:49 PM ET

Mel Gibson, whose hit film "The Passion of the Christ" was attacked as anti-Semitic by some critics, says he is now intrigued by the revolt of the Maccabees -- the story behind the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.

"The story that's always fired my imagination ... is the Book of Maccabees," the actor and director told ABC Radio talk show host Sean Hannity on Tuesday.

"The Maccabees family stood up, and they made war. They stuck by their guns and they came out winning," he said. "It's like a Western."

The Maccabees led a three-year war, some 200 years before the birth of Jesus, against Antiochus, a king who forced the Jews to worship false gods. The war led to the liberation of Jerusalem and rededication of the Temple that is celebrated in the Hanukkah holiday.

Gibson's "The Passion," which depicts the last hours of the life of Jesus, has been a huge box office hit, making $264 million since its Feb. 25 opening.

But several critics and religious leaders have blasted the film, saying Gibson made an unflattering portrayal of Jews and blamed them in the movie for the crucifiction of Christ.

Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman was not pleased with Gibson's interest in Jewish history.

"My answer would be 'thanks but no thanks,"' Foxman said on Wednesday. "The last thing we need in Jewish history is to convert our history into a Western."

"In his hands we may wind up losing," he joked.

Gibson did not say he was planning another biblical film.

Hmmm, this last paragraph has me slightly confused -- is the writer saying Gibson is merely "intrigued" by the Book of Maccabees but has no plans to do anything with it, or is the writer mistakenly thinking the Book of Maccabees is not biblical?

Interesting, though, that the Book of Maccabees should survive in the Christian Bibles after being deemed non-canonical by the Jews, and that a Jewish spokesman should now object to this part of Jewish history being considered for film adaptation by a Christian filmmaker.

I also wonder how Mel would bring his newfound "forgiveness" theme into THIS story.

QUOTE

Interesting, though, that the Book of Maccabees should survive in the Christian Bibles after being deemed non-canonical by the Jews, and that a Jewish spokesman should now object to this part of Jewish history being considered for film adaptation by a Christian filmmaker.

Some bibles, I suppose you mean, and there only in the Apocrypha? Wouldn't that also make it non-canonical by the Christians?

QUOTE

QUOTE Interesting, though, that the Book of Maccabees should survive in the Christian Bibles after being deemed non-canonical by the Jews, and that a Jewish spokesman should now object to this part of Jewish history being considered for film adaptation by a Christian filmmaker. Some bibles, I suppose you mean, and there only in the Apocrypha? Wouldn't that also make it non-canonical by the Christians?

I was thinking the same thing Alan but my comment would be, wouldn't make it non-canonical to the Protestant umbrella/division of Christianity?

1 and 2 Maccabees are included in the Catholic OT canon; Protestants reckon them among the apocrypha. 3 and 4 Maccabees are considered apocryphal by both Catholics and Protestants. (In the Orthodox Church, to the best of my understanding, the status of all four books is rather an open question, there being no agreed-upon closed OT canon in those Churches.)

This is all from memory, but my understanding is that the Orthodox understanding is that, when Paul told Timothy that "all scripture" was God-breathed, the only scripture he could have had in mind was the Septuagint, i.e. the Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures that was produced a couple centuries BC. This was then the standard Old Testament throughout the Orthodox and Catholic churches, until the Protestant Reformation came along in the 16th century and, in its zeal to translate texts from their "original" languages, rejected books like Judith and Tobit and Maccabees because they could no longer be found in the original Hebrew -- and this, in turn, was because the Jews had rejected these books as non-canonical at some point AFTER the birth of the Church, perhaps at the Council of Jamnia in the AD 90s. So one could legitimately ask why the church should follow a non-Christian canon.

I see what you're saying Peter, but then IIRC the idea of a holy book isn't as central in Judaism as it is in Christianity - there's more of a focus on traditions, and Hannukah & the Macabees is one of the bigger stories where that's concerned.

What would be interesting about this film would be if it included Daniel at any point.

Also would Christians still praise the violence as realistic if it was R rated?

Matt

QUOTE

I see what you're saying Peter, but then IIRC the idea of a holy book isn't as central in Judaism as it is in Christianity - there's more of a focus on traditions, and Hannukah & the Macabees is one of the bigger stories where that's concerned.

The Reformed jewish guy I work would we be surprised to hear you say that--he talks about the "word of God," and the Jewish tradition of midrash (sp?), that is debating over the scriptures. And that's the 'liberal' tradition.

MattPage wrote:
: What would be interesting about this film would be if it included Daniel at any point.

Heh.

QUOTE

1 and 2 Maccabees are included in the Catholic OT canon; Protestants reckon them among the apocrypha. 3 and 4 Maccabees are considered apocryphal by both Catholics and Protestants.

Maccabees 5 and 6 are pretty much universally considered to be flat-out commercial money grabs, summer-time releases intended to cash in on the audience's nostalgic attachment to the originals. Fans of the genre consider them derivative and "inauthentic."

News is, all six are soon to be re-released on DVD in a handsome box set, with commentary tracks by noted scholars. Unfortunately, none of the artists involved in the original project were available to participate.

QUOTE

QUOTE I see what you're saying Peter, but then IIRC the idea of a holy book isn't as central in Judaism as it is in Christianity - there's more of a focus on traditions, and Hannukah & the Macabees is one of the bigger stories where that's concerned. The Reformed jewish guy I work would we be surprised to hear you say that--he talks about the "word of God," and the Jewish tradition of midrash (sp?), that is debating over the scriptures. And that's the 'liberal' tradition.

Oh I'm not saying they have no value, clearly they do, but the tradition aspect of their faith is more important than it is for Christians (or at least certainy for Protestants), and its because of a strong emphasis on traditions (including Hannukah) that the Macabees is important to them, even if they don't count the books as "Torah" (in the wide sense of the word, not the "pentateuch" sense)

Matt