|
As I said before, strictly from a technical and historical standpoint, the Romans would not have beaten a condemend man as badly as depicted in the film. The Roman who whipped Jesus from behind on the walk to Golgotha was not there to beat Jesus so bad that he fell down...he was there to make sure Jesus walked expeditiously to his execution...as you can imagine most people would drag their feet on that trip. By whipping him and knocking him down it kind of defeats the purpose of his job...which is to make sure the execution goes off before they all die of old age. I mean it's mid-spring in the Mid-East...it's fucking hot outside.
As I mentioned in the other thread there's the discrepancy in the languages used by some Romans, which I thought would have made almost no difference to the average movie-goer...but if you're going to do it in an ancient language you should get it right...the Latin pronounciation was also ecclesiastical and not classical...which is another very minor mistake.
I don't know much behind the story of the movie, but I thought the table building scene was inserted to give Jesus a personality outside of the gospel story. Almost like George Carlin in Dogma said "...he was a booster" not dreary and prophesizing and spending his time being all preachy. I liked that addition. Although I felt that it takes away from the "veracity" of the direct porting of the story into film, I thought it was an appropriate addition to make. I really didn't read as much into it as LeCercleRouge did, but I'm really not in a position to say. I think the whole movie was devoted to "Jesus as Savior" and that 4 mins was "Jesus as Man" (which, to Catholics, he was).
|