Color of the Cross

Love seeing the true essence of the people of the bible with earth tone skin. For it seems to make Jesus "white" is acceptable even though it is clear, that the Bible is truly our history & filled with black and brown people with beautiful wooly hair. There's an abundance of christian movies made with white/europe characters, falsely betrayed as the true people. If color didn't matter why not make the people of the bible "black".

We need more biblical imagery to be accurate such as this movie along with great content, please continue to make more!

I had never heard of this and its sequel before the proprietor/friend of the DVD store I frequent mentioned them to me; being a radical and potentially controversial take on Christ's passion and death (nothing less would do after Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE Christ {2004} I guess!), I opted to check them out over this Easter season.

However, I was not impressed: of course, the first two things that are immediately evident is that the protagonist's name has been given its 'correct' Jewish pronunciation of Yeshua (but, then, so did the notorious THE PASSOVER PLOT 30 years previously!) and that he is black (again, this was hardly new: BLACK Jesus {1968} and BROTHER JOHN {1971} – both of which I will be checking out presently – had depicted him as such too...though, admittedly, the events were usually approached in allegorical terms). Incidentally, this is the first time the actor playing Christ has also directed himself(!) – and still, one other novelty here is that Arimathea (pronounced here "Aramithea"!) has become the location where the narrative unfolds!

Anyway, the film presents the familiar story of intolerance, betrayal and sacrifice, with most of the famous characters intact and then some: in fact, here Mary and Joseph (Jesus' parents) are shown as having had other children as well, and they are all affected – in different ways – by his plight. Curiously enough, the film skimps entirely on Christ's trials – jumping from his arrest in Gethsemane (where Jesus' sudden and unwarranted over-emoting is quite jarring, by the way!) to the predictably bloody crucifixion on Golgotha: that said, the version I watched was about 20 minutes shorter than the official running-time of 108 (which, for all I know, may account for this 'missing' segment)!

The film's lack of a reputation suggests that it made no significant ripples when it emerged: the thoroughly amateurish production and deliberately realistic yet low-key nature may equally have had something to do with this.

I wasn't particularly bothered by the racially charged angle this movie takes, nor was I too bent out of shape about the historical inaccuracies. I mean, hey, this is a fictional drama not a documentary. So, much like the masterpiece "Amadeus" which took extreme historical liberties about the life of Mozart yet delivered a creative & satisfying experience, I was hoping to get the same here.

But right in the first 10 minutes, in Jesus's first scene, we encounter what I consider to be a fatal flaw which carries through the rest of the film. Practically the first words out of Jesus's mouth are that he is the son of god, the messiah, and that his Father will take care of things. This is coupled with the actor's portrayal of a stoic, divine hero who is (to quote Amadeus) "so lofty you'd think he sh!tz marble!" Now, Christians, non-Christians and atheists alike, please correct me if I'm wrong. But I thought the one thing we can all agree upon and the 1 thing that defined the essence of Jesus was that he tried to teach the world humility and service. Not pride, for Chrissake! (Oops, sorry, 12 Hail Marys) I don't believe he ever proclaimed himself to be the Son of God (that came later from followers after his death), and like other landmark historical figures like Gandhi and even Mohammed, he made it a point that he didn't want people deifying him or treating him as anything more than a simple human being whose example we can all follow.

"The Color of the Cross" portrays a Jesus who is like a high commander who gives his disciples orders, who is never seen working while his followers put up the tents, cook and clean, and who annoyingly keeps referring to himself as the supernatural Son of God. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the real Jesus wash the feet of lepers to show that he was no better than anyone? To fail at this one crucial point, to me, renders the entire film flawed. It's not about Jesus (whether or not Jesus was the son of God or just a man, doesn't matter) because it fails to portray the 1 thing Jesus was supposedly all about: humanity.

You can read all the other reviews for other reasons why this promising film failed, but I just wanted to chime in my 2 cents on why I think it crashed in the first 10 minutes. Well, who knows if we'll ever get an accurate portrayal of Jesus, but for my money I'll stick with those classic Cecil B Demille movies which, even if they got the facts wrong, at least kept the spirit true to what we would like to believe.

I tried to see this film with high indulgence. And it has many good points, from the image of large family and the Pesah supper scenes to the racial perspective ( for the last, I ignored the difference between Hamitic and Semitic ). The only sin, in essence, is not inspired use of this point of view. The second big mistake - the dialogue , from fragmented message of Jesus to the innovations of scriptwriter. And , sure, the embarassing pieces of freedom of interpretation , from the presence of Saint Joseph to the relation between Saint Mary Magdalene and Judah or the attitudes against Romans. Sure, the image of Black Jesus , more than decent proposed by Jean Claude La Marre, is not wrong, but it impose a fair drive of it. Unfortunatelly, the color of skin becomes the only subject. But, sure, each film about The Savior is a personal testimony of director and his team. But it is fair to expect more than this supperficial aspect ruling a film about Him.

The movie was great, but should not have used any pacifiers strictly bloodline facts, the Middle East and Africa before Rome was Black, Brown, Light Skined and Proud. The introduction of the non colored Jews came well after the slaughter of the original Jews decedents of the tribe of Judah. this statement shouldn't be a shock popular history is almost always re written by the ones in power to reflect themselves and blow up or burn the truth lick the Sphinx and other artifacts throughout history. Contrary to popular believes black is back the meek shall inherit the earth but with less cruelty, seek and you shall find the truth choose not and and continue with blindness. God Bless all.