• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Crux Scenes in Movies

Go to CruxDreams.com
Finally nailing a scene of feet long and real. I have always maintained that the most painful for the victim is the nailing of the feet. Compared to the wrists, feet have to cross the metatarsus. The bone is harder. So even for the executioner nailing must be very special and difficult. Finally, I agree in saying that the crucifix should be hung on the tree with only three nails without any other media.
 
The nail and rope method always seemed redundant, to me. Sure, it would work, but either one alone should be sufficient.
 
It looks interesting but not mind-blowingly different. Without actually seeing it does Jesus & the other thieves look as if they are struggling for life on the crosses? Do they move & writhe around, heaving themselves up in agony, arching forward, etc. all the movements that victims would make in such a terrible & traumatic situation? Every Jesus film I've seen all the actors just stand there motionless with a pained expression as if desperate for the photo-shoot to end & they can get to the bar again! It must be possible to make these scenes without the curse of the inevitable loincloth as well.

After Scorsese the idea of a naked Christ on the cross cannot be a taboo any more, but obviously still full frontal would be pushing it that bit too far. But there must be ways to do a naked crucifixion scene as well as keep a respect for the sensibilities of pious Christians. Nobody is going to be outraged by bare buttocks, so I could imagine a film where the views of the complete cross would be from behind or the side, this would also show the mocking crowd in front & their eager faces enjoying the humiliation of Christ; that would be quite a moving heady notion that so far has never been exploited in film. To make it even more intense the back view of the cross could show the knees splayed wide leaving us with no doubt as to what the crowd were laughing & pointing at. Interspersed with this could be close-ups shots of Christ's face & torso from just above the groin, some pubic hair showing would make the situation clear. His face would show, if he was a good enough actor, the mix of terrible agony as well as shame & humiliation of how he is being displayed. Long shots from the front could be possible as any intimate detail would be pretty sketchy.

I think similarly the scourging could be the same, shown from behind, as is fairly usual. But the bearing the cross bit he'd have to have his robe or chemise-type of garment back on again. But this could be good as it could show the thin material sticking to the bloodied back. The thinness also making it clear when viewed from the front that Christ had nothing on underneath; shots of the crowd goading him would show that they are all fully aware of this & that very soon the garment would be removed. At the cross the savage removal of this garment, again with careful camera angles (maybe from low down) could be very intense.

I think it possible to make a realistic crucifixion scene in a movie without stepping over the bounds of acceptability, it would make the utter horror of what Christ had to endue all the more shocking.
 
NatGeo is a basic cable channel, so they tend to shy away from nudity.
Given the historical accuracies & deviation from biblical text, the producers may not have wanted to offend people even more. It didn't help; the reviews were pretty bad.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...jesus-documentary-review-20150328-column.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/tel...t-with-wigs/2rdbSVBLRYnmMwibGtFsKJ/story.html
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/bresciani/150401
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/04/bil...the_fox_news_anchors_history_of_jesuss_death/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/29/bill-o-reilly-kills-jesus-all-over-again.html

The film is based a book by right-wing pundit (a fancy word for "loud-mouthed jerk") Bill O'Reilly. He has his own take on the bad reviews:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/bil...ows-its-open-season-on-christians-in-america/

When O'Reilly was asked about casting a Muslim as Jesus, he said the actor "nailed the audition".
 
There is a good resolution bit of the scourging in that film but I don't understand the instruction "Click on blue link to watch full movie" in the full versions.

Looking again at the screenshots above I am disappointed that at the crucifixion there is nobody around except the three or four involved. This seems a new development, the BBC film of five years ago was the same, a deserted Golgotha. Surely this is inaccurate, possibly an economy drive to employ less extras! I believe the gospels say that many people witnessed it. Just five days before huge crowds turned out in Jerusalem to welcome Christ arriving in the mistaken belief that he was coming to lead a mass insurrection. The anger & feeling of being let down that they would all have once they realised his was a message of peace or else a fraud would I think mean they would turn out again in such numbers to watch his demise & death. There was mass hatred in the people of Jerusalem against him by the Friday.
 
It looks interesting but not mind-blowingly different. Without actually seeing it does Jesus & the other thieves look as if they are struggling for life on the crosses? Do they move & writhe around, heaving themselves up in agony, arching forward, etc. all the movements that victims would make in such a terrible & traumatic situation? Every Jesus film I've seen all the actors just stand there motionless with a pained expression as if desperate for the photo-shoot to end & they can get to the bar again! It must be possible to make these scenes without the curse of the inevitable loincloth as well.

After Scorsese the idea of a naked Christ on the cross cannot be a taboo any more, but obviously still full frontal would be pushing it that bit too far. But there must be ways to do a naked crucifixion scene as well as keep a respect for the sensibilities of pious Christians. Nobody is going to be outraged by bare buttocks, so I could imagine a film where the views of the complete cross would be from behind or the side, this would also show the mocking crowd in front & their eager faces enjoying the humiliation of Christ; that would be quite a moving heady notion that so far has never been exploited in film. To make it even more intense the back view of the cross could show the knees splayed wide leaving us with no doubt as to what the crowd were laughing & pointing at. Interspersed with this could be close-ups shots of Christ's face & torso from just above the groin, some pubic hair showing would make the situation clear. His face would show, if he was a good enough actor, the mix of terrible agony as well as shame & humiliation of how he is being displayed. Long shots from the front could be possible as any intimate detail would be pretty sketchy.

I think similarly the scourging could be the same, shown from behind, as is fairly usual. But the bearing the cross bit he'd have to have his robe or chemise-type of garment back on again. But this could be good as it could show the thin material sticking to the bloodied back. The thinness also making it clear when viewed from the front that Christ had nothing on underneath; shots of the crowd goading him would show that they are all fully aware of this & that very soon the garment would be removed. At the cross the savage removal of this garment, again with careful camera angles (maybe from low down) could be very intense.

I think it possible to make a realistic crucifixion scene in a movie without stepping over the bounds of acceptability, it would make the utter horror of what Christ had to endue all the more shocking.

Scorcese did a good job, it's surprising he was able to do what he did, though he could have gone just that little bit further.
ph150.jpg ph196.jpg
It adds something real when you know that the actor is really naked, even if you don't see everything.

Back view with knees splayed wide? Something like this?
ph133.jpg ph133a.jpg

It's funny really, The Passion of the Christ was able to show gore in quite obscene and unnecessary detail, yet a hint of genital is completely beyond the pale

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon in a biblical film. We are creeping up on it in non biblical TV though!
 
That manipulation you did with the knees wide was what I was thinking of. I'm sure it shows quite a realistic possibility.
 
Three variations on those screenshots, this time not Christ but some other poor man who they didn't allow any loincloth, same sort of scenario, probably how it would have looked though.

Seeing them reminds me of the wheeling execution in the Borgias (I think it was).
 

Attachments

  • Scourging.jpg
    Scourging.jpg
    396 KB · Views: 978
  • Bearing the cross.jpg
    Bearing the cross.jpg
    339.6 KB · Views: 1,053
  • Crucifixion.jpg
    Crucifixion.jpg
    181.9 KB · Views: 1,243
Scorcese did a good job, it's surprising he was able to do what he did, though he could have gone just that little bit further.
View attachment 225954 View attachment 225955
It adds something real when you know that the actor is really naked, even if you don't see everything.

Back view with knees splayed wide? Something like this?
View attachment 225956 View attachment 225957

It's funny really, The Passion of the Christ was able to show gore in quite obscene and unnecessary detail, yet a hint of genital is completely beyond the pale

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon in a biblical film. We are creeping up on it in non biblical TV though!
There is a reluctance to show male genitalia in films in general. There are only a small number of films & a small number of actors willing to do so. It's definitely a double standard & the reasons are no doubt complex. Showing the genitals of Jesus would probably push things too far - even in a film like The Last Temptation, which pushed things pretty damn far as it was.

This is nothing new. Renaissance artists had no problem depicting male nudity for other Biblical figures, but they always put a loin cloth on Jesus.
 
I think that is understandable. I doubt if showing genitalia of any revered figure of religious worship would ever be acceptable whilst religions exist, though in Christian art Christ is shown very revealingly nude as a baby or young boy in Virgin & Child paintings, this is perhaps to emphasise that the Son of God was indeed created Man & he really was human. It seems that with adulthood natural bodies are not allowed to be seen or even thought about except by references like skimpy bits of cloth hiding all we know what! Leo Steinberg the American art critic wrote an essay on this very subject, the Sexuality of Christ, but I haven't read it. Other saints & holy figures depicted in art were coyly covered whatever the means of their executions. The only artist who confronted it was Michelangelo, but even he did it in rather a dainty way in terms of anatomical accuracy.

It is psychologically odd that though my Christian faith by now is pretty weak when I did those manipulations yesterday I couldn't bring myself to make the naked victim in the images the figure of Christ even though we all know that the stark nakedness would have been the reality of the events. I had to change the title board above the cross to make it just some common criminal. I left the crown of thorns because I think this cruelty was used quite often, if only to prohibit victims trying to knock themselves unconscious because of the unbearable pain.
 
Many painting of revered figures were originally nude only to have 'appropriate' covering added later. At one time Michelangelo's 'David' even had a fig leaf added...

Tree
 
Three variations on those screenshots, this time not Christ but some other poor man who they didn't allow any loincloth, same sort of scenario, probably how it would have looked though.
To
Seeing them reminds me of the wheeling execution in the Borgias (I think it was).
That is One way I liked to be flogged before vebeing crucified I would then be covered in a red toga then forCed to carry the beam to the site where I'm stripped naked then flogged on my front then hung on the cross
 
I like the story. Wish I knew more about the girls though.

Read the plot synopsis for green inferno. You wanna share your review for us? The ones I found didn't answer my questions.

It has lots of unexpected plot twists. It incorporates funny moments. Only thing I did not care for was that it was a little light on the nudity, specially given that there were three relatively obscure nubile young lovelies in the movie.
 
It has lots of unexpected plot twists. It incorporates funny moments. Only thing I did not care for was that it was a little light on the nudity, specially given that there were three relatively obscure nubile young lovelies in the movie.
Light as in there was none?
 
Light as in there was none?
Light as in there was barely some, but only for a fraction of a second and you almost had to strain your eyes to see it.

On the other hand, there was a scene wherein two of the hotties french-kissed each other.
 
Three variations on those screenshots, this time not Christ but some other poor man who they didn't allow any loincloth, same sort of scenario, probably how it would have looked though.

Seeing them reminds me of the wheeling execution in the Borgias (I think it was).
Very realistic, scenery, soldiers, victim, everything.
 
Back
Top Bottom