Friday, February 14, 2014

Jesus of Nazareth VS Sammy Hagar


Just watching some clips of Jesus of Nazareth ('77) on YouTube. What an incredible portrayal of Christ by Robert Powell, truly. Check out this scene where Jesus rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees. And here's a playlist that begins with a scene of Laurence Olivier playing Nicodemus. Incredible all-star cast also includes Ernest Borgnine and Anthony Quinn among others.

At the end of the scene where Jesus heals a blind man, my video choices appeared:


Hmm. Eleven more scenes featuring Jesus - OR - 'Does Sammy miss his relationship with Eddie?'

Without hesitation, I went with the raising of Lazarus and moved away the stoned. Yesterday, however, I'll admit I was only briefly diverted by a clip about a naked tribe of the Amazon, and it was amazing.

Is this Google's idea of cognitive dissonance? I'll admit, it reflects my viewing history, but I'd love to know how my choices impact my target profile. WWAD?

Apparently most of these tribal people only live to be thirty-five years old because they euthanize themselves with poison berries in order to be with those they miss in the afterlife. Any children born with defects are either buried alive or sent into the jungle to be eaten alive by jaguars. The one tribesman said he will never marry because the women talk too much and constantly complain.

Very interesting. I was grateful that the clip validated my viewing behavior. I did return to watching Jesus of Nazareth.

Of particular interest regarding controversy surrounding the film, Jesus of Nazareth, this blurb from wiki:

Before its initial broadcast, Jesus of Nazareth came under ideological fire from some American Protestant fundamentalists, led by Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Zeffirelli had told an interviewer from Modern Screen that the film would portray Jesus as "an ordinary man—gentle, fragile, simple". Jones interpreted this as meaning that the portrayal would deny Christ's divine nature. Having never seen the film, Jones denounced it as "blasphemy." Others picked up the cry and 18,000 letters were sent to General Motors, which had provided $3 million of the film's cost. Sacrificing its investment, GM backed out of its sponsorship.[7] Procter and Gamble eventually took it over, buying the U.S. rights for a relatively low price of some $1 million, and their financial support allowed the miniseries to be screened.[38]

In making his film, Zeffirelli explicitly wished to deemphasize the traditional accusation of deicide against the Jews. Some 26 years later, Zeffirelli criticized The Passion of the Christ (2004), which was produced and directed by Mel Gibson, for its portrayal of who "...was to blame for all the bloodshed".[39] Zeffirelli had directed Gibson in Hamlet (1990).

Personal Note

How did I end up watching this? I saw an article showcasing the 'devlishly-handsome actors' who've played the Son of God, a gallery of maybe 11 guys. With the recent slew of religious films and tv series running amok, I'm a little cynical about what I perceive as opportunism, or at least I find the 'hunky' portrayal very annoying. It just doesn't work, it's distracting and disrespectful, which was a main reason I didn't want to see the Passion, and particularly why I thought the controversy blurb was worth adding in for perspective. Of the eleven actors, I found Robert Powell to be the most compelling.