'Color of the Cross' (no spam)

[dragon wench]

I just came across this story..


Film 'Color of the Cross' Depicts Black Jesus
By Mike O'Sullivan
Los Angeles
17 October 2006


Artists through the ages have depicted Jesus in different ways, according to their culture and audience. The new film, 'Color of the Cross,' shows Jesus as black. African-American filmmaker Jean-Claude La Marre offers a new way of viewing the Christian story.

With the success of the 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, Hollywood discovered an enthusiastic audience for religious films. The latest is a life a Christ that shows Jesus and some of the people around him portrayed by African-American actors. The rest of the cast is Caucasian or Middle Eastern.

ANNOUNCER: "This fall, one film will ask, What color is faith?"

Director and actor Jean-Claude La Marre says the film has no political message.

"When you mention Black Jesus to anyone, the first thing that pops to mind, I guess, is something radical and a lightning rod for controversy," he said. "And so we knew we weren't going to get any real warm reception at the studio, on the studio level. But you know, there are a lot of people out there who support the notion."

Some of that support came from a prominent black minister in Los Angeles, the Reverend Cecil Murray. He has credit as a producer on the film, which was independently made without studio backing.

La Marre says he is trying to do what artists have always done, present his subject to viewers in a way they can understand it.

"I think da Vinci in the 1400s did something that I found very commendable, and that is that he took a revered figure and made that figure accessible to the people that lived around him," he added. "And that is what we chose to do."

La Marre began his career in Hollywood as an actor. He had a supporting role in the 1992 feature Malcolm X, the story of an African-American activist of the 1950s and 1960s.

Then he turned his hand to writing and directing. Among his recent projects was last year's Brothers in Arms, a film starring David Carradine.

In his current film, the accomplished actress Debbi Morgan portrays Mary, the mother of Jesus. La Marre plays the title role, a circumstance that came about by accident. He says he lost his leading actor just before the filming started.

"We sent an emergency casting call out and we had a couple of takers, but no one we felt really strongly about," he recalled. "And then I thought about it. You know, I lived with this movie in my mind and my soul for four years, and I'm an actor. And the guy I was looking to cast looked like me. Jump into it. And that's what I did."

The film was made for just $2.5 million, which is minuscule by the standards of Hollywood. The director says he is confident, however, that it will find an audience, especially among evangelical Christians.

"I think evangelicals are going to seek this film out, if only out of curiosity," he noted. "I think black people are just a natural target audience for this, and will naturally gravitate towards this picture."

He says despite the racial theme of Jesus as a black man, the film focuses on the message of brotherhood. He says Color of the Cross is a film about unity, not division.

Sounds reasonable enough to me... Given that he was from the Middle East I've always doubted Christ as having been fair-haired and blue-eyed...

[url="http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-10-17-voa37.cfm"]link[/url]

[DesR85]

No matter what the intention of the producer is for this movie, there will still be controversy surrounding this movie. That's the reality. I'm not going to say much here as I don't want to get myself into trouble.

[VonDondu]

This reminds me of a critically-acclaimed play I read when I was 14 called "The Green Pastures" by Marc Connelly. It was made into a Warner Brothers movie that is available on DVD, but I haven't seen it. Basically, it's the story of the Old Testament as it "might" be envisioned by a young black Sunday School pupil in the Old South. It is based on racial stereotypes so it has always been controversial, but when I was 14 I thought it was moving and entertaining. It has been a long time since I've read it, so I'm not sure what I would think of it now.

[Bloodstalker]

Don't see a problem with it myself. After all, Europeans kidnapped Jesus and made him into a long haired pretty boy white guy with an English accent. It's not like there's a longstanding tradition of a historically accurate presentation of Jesus to have to worry about. Personally, I don't care if they cast him as Black, White, or Asian. There will be controversy of course, but there's controversy over anything you do these days. The world is so hell bent on not offending anyone that you can't cross the street without someone crying about it somewhere.

I say good for anybody who does something knowing it's gonna cause a stir.

[mr_sir]

I don't see a problem with having Jesus as being portrayed as non-European/Caucasion as, to be honest, he wouldn't really have looked European considering where he was born and grew up.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about when people portray Jesus as anything other than white. Surely it doesn't affect the actual Christian religion in any way or form as its just skin colour and doesn't change the person.

[dragon wench]

To be brutally honest about it... I view anyone who absolutely insists on Christ as having the physical features of a Third Reich poster child as half a step away from being part of the KKK....

I seriously don't intend to offend anyone here, and my apologies if I have. It is just that (a) Christ was from the Middle East and he would have most likely been Semitic in appearance, and (b) it really shouldn't matter in terms of faith or spirituality. I can't think of one single reason why Christ needs to be Caucasian/white in somebody's mind unless they are some variety of racist who equates Christianity with white "supremacy."

[fable]

To be brutally honest about it... I view anyone who absolutely insists on Christ as having the features of a Third Reich poster child as half a step away from being part of the KKK....

Too far north. The typical representation in modern Europe and the Americas of Christ comes from the Italian Rennaissance, degraded and simplified with a nasty addition of cloying sentimentality. (The Eastern Orthodox still prefer their traditional iconic, expressionless view, even to the point of having a sub-profession of wood painters who do nothing but recreate old icons for home purchase.) That explains the beards, which, when you think about it, are anathema in their daily lives to many of the people who keep this "divine image" in their heads.

I seriously don't intend to offend anyone here, and my apologies if I have. It is just that (a) Christ was from the Middle East and he would have most likely been Semitic in appearance, and (b) it really shouldn't matter in terms of faith or spirituality. I can't think of one single reason why Christ should be Caucasian/white in somebody's mind unless they are some variety of racist who equates Christianity with white "supremacy."

Absolutely, but this is a tough point to get across. And let's expand this cross-culturally a bit: how often do followers of Islam worship their deity in the language of their native lands? How often do followers of the many Hindu gods see their objects of worship in other than their traditional representation, with multiple arms to express their abilities? How often do matriarchal pagans insist that "God is a woman"?

Seems that deities are continually being cut down to the size of their worshippers, or buried under mountains of tradition--which while useful from one perspective, also tend to create a sense of non-kinetic stasis that's foreign to the concept of a living universe.

[VonDondu]

(a) Christ was from the Middle East and he would have most likely been Semitic in appearance, and (b) it really shouldn't matter in terms of faith or spirituality. I can't think of one single reason why Christ needs to be Caucasian/white in somebody's mind unless they are some variety of racist who equates Christianity with white "supremacy."

Considering the fact that Jesus was most definitely not white, all the fuss about any portrayal of Jesus as a non-white person just goes to show what an upside-down world we live in.

[PyroDrew]

The film "Son of Man", released at the Sundance Film Festival in January, was marketed as the first black Jesus movie. "Color of the Cross" will have as much controversy, protests and fuss as "Son of Man" did... as in near zero. The truth is Jesus and God have been protrayed as black, asian, and more for a long time.

Now for controversy how about a movie portraying the life of Muhammad (make him blue-eyed) and his 11 wives (especially the young one)?

[Lady Dragonfly]

I personally don't mind movies with black Jesus or black Cinderella (it is just a movie after all). Old Masters painted the Biblical characters wearing splendid medieval costumes.
However, I will risk being politically incorrect and will say that Jesus could not be black. He was a Jew, so He could have a dark complexion, black beard and black curly hair. But having a dark complexion does not make Him black.
The Bible traced His genealogy quite meticulously.
But we are talking about a movie, so... that's fine.

[fable]

But having a dark complexion does not make Him black. The Bible traced His genealogy quite meticulously.

The bible also claims that hares have cloven hooves. I think that the bible's writers were not necessarily notable either for their powers of observation, or their careful objectivity in matters such as genealogical research. Were they likely to portray Jesus as a black man, when their main efforts at winning over the populace were directed at Greeks and Romans? In my opinion, no. With due respect, veracity was not at the top of their list of virtues.

[Lady Dragonfly]

The bible also claims that hares have cloven hooves. I think that the bible's writers were not necessarily notable either for their powers of observation, or their careful objectivity in matters such as genealogical research. Were they likely to portray Jesus as a black man, when their main efforts at winning over the populace were directed at Greeks and Romans? In my opinion, no. With due respect, veracity was not at the top of their list of virtues.

Of course not. And I am not debating religious dogmas here. It is just a common sense. You say that Gospels falsified Christ's race for political benefits. But all things considered, there is absolutely no proof that Jesus and Mary (!) were black. Or did I miss something? If it is all a myth, there is nothing to argue about. If such man (not "Son of God') existed and was crucified for his outrageous claims, he must have been a Jew because he "was teaching in synagogues", and other faithful Jews called him "Son of David" and apparently believed his claims.
But it is perfectly fine, in my opinion, for a black Christian who accepts Jesus as a personal Savior, to personalize him a little bit more. Fortunately, there is no Inquisition to show us the errors of our ways, so everything is cool.

[fable]

Of course not. And I am not debating religious dogmas here. It is just a common sense. You say that Gospels falsified Christ's race for political benefits. But all things considered, there is absolutely no proof that Jesus and Mary (!) were black.

Two points: I'm not suggesting that the bible falsified Jesus' race; nor is there any proof Jesus and Mary were black, brown, or white. I was only responding to your comment, "The Bible traced His genealogy quite meticulously." Unless you meant that sarcastically (which I can't assume, as it has no emoticon), it makes assumptions about the bible's various writers over time, and the veracity of their claims, for which no evidence exists. I'm not here to affirm a specific view. I'm only pointing out that theirs can be frequently, reasonably disputed. There is no reason to accept the biblical geneology of Jesus, anymore than there is to accept, as I mentioned above, that hares have cloven hooves.