-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Crux Scenes in Movies
- Thread starter jonesygirl
- Start date
Celticvirgin
Tribune
Yes I'm serious. The whole thing!
coolman999
Spectator
i would have liked a little less gore and more nudity..
AlexArts
Soul of Cinder
That's what i'm talking about...
coolman999
Spectator
but this was an Indian film..and i dont think they allow nude scenesor such graphic violence..I wonder how this got through in the first place.
cruxme51
Guard
WOW....great pictures.....really hot, especially the "bearing the cross" picture. That is one of my fantasies, forced to walk naked thru town with a hard on......very erotic.
Tygorn
Magistrate
Risen (2016) Hd-movie Crucifixion Screenshots / Review
Ave,
the "Risen"(2016) movie is finally out in HD.
Here are a few additional screenshots for those who are interested in crucifixion scenes in Hollywood movies and may consider buying it on DVD/BR.
As already known its the classic "triple crucifixion" with Yeshua (Jesus) and the two "thieves" in the "Yehohanan"-style (nailed through the wrists and sideways through the feet) to T-crosses without any rope support. Jesus is already dead and the thieves are killed by breaking their legs, then the nails are being pulled out and the dead bodies wasted on a near dump.
The scene lasts about 6 minutes from timestamp 10 - 16 min. (A second, very short, crucifixion scene from far away and behind comes later)
There are some interesting close-ups from the thieves and the nailing style.
The victims are more, lets say, "gruffy types". If you prefer either gladiator muscle hunks or slender and skinny boys as victims you may not be completely satisfied... the loinclothes of the thieves are also not exactly my taste, I would have preferred the flapping-style like shown on the Yeshua-figure.
The attention to details is very good, for example the discarded clothing of the victims at the foot of the crosses or the direction of the blood-flow (first down the patibulum wood, when nailed to the lying cross and then down the arms after the cross was being raised) like make-up, sets and uniforms, all top-notch hollywood quality. The victims bodies are bathed in sweat and blood, but by far not as overdone as in the Gibson movie. All in all, a far better effort.
So, now judge yourself....
enjoy.
best regards
Ty.
Ave,
the "Risen"(2016) movie is finally out in HD.
Here are a few additional screenshots for those who are interested in crucifixion scenes in Hollywood movies and may consider buying it on DVD/BR.
As already known its the classic "triple crucifixion" with Yeshua (Jesus) and the two "thieves" in the "Yehohanan"-style (nailed through the wrists and sideways through the feet) to T-crosses without any rope support. Jesus is already dead and the thieves are killed by breaking their legs, then the nails are being pulled out and the dead bodies wasted on a near dump.
The scene lasts about 6 minutes from timestamp 10 - 16 min. (A second, very short, crucifixion scene from far away and behind comes later)
There are some interesting close-ups from the thieves and the nailing style.
The victims are more, lets say, "gruffy types". If you prefer either gladiator muscle hunks or slender and skinny boys as victims you may not be completely satisfied... the loinclothes of the thieves are also not exactly my taste, I would have preferred the flapping-style like shown on the Yeshua-figure.
The attention to details is very good, for example the discarded clothing of the victims at the foot of the crosses or the direction of the blood-flow (first down the patibulum wood, when nailed to the lying cross and then down the arms after the cross was being raised) like make-up, sets and uniforms, all top-notch hollywood quality. The victims bodies are bathed in sweat and blood, but by far not as overdone as in the Gibson movie. All in all, a far better effort.
So, now judge yourself....
enjoy.
best regards
Ty.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member jedakk
Guest
Those huge metal washers seem very unlikely, considering the cost of iron back then, and also unnecessary, since typical Roman nails had pretty large heads.
CrossMyHeart89
Spectator
It would have been better if they had been crucified with the nails driven through the tops of their feet, I'm not big on ankle-nailing. Personal preference, though, I guess 
D
Deleted member jedakk
Guest
It would have been better if they had been crucified with the nails driven through the tops of their feet, I'm not big on ankle-nailing. Personal preference, though, I guess
I have always had a problems with the nailing through the heels thing. The way they show it in these pictures it appears that the nails are actually passing through the soft tissue in front of the heel bone rather than the bone itself, which I think would tear out pretty quickly during a victim's struggles. If the nail was driven through the heel bone, it would almost certainly crack, and then the nail wouldn't have anything solid to bear against and most likely end up tearing out quickly as well. In fact, the famous heel bone with a nail through it found at Giv'at ha Mivtar in Israel was cracked.
If nails were driven through the tops of the feet, they would pass between the metatarsal bones and have the solid bones of the tarsals to bear against as well, a much more secure way to fasten a struggling victim to a cross.
arber1456
Executioner
This are very exciting photos. The crucified men must suffer much pain before the die.
Yes, I would much prefer to be nailed through the tops of my feet. Assuming I was given a choice, of course
Probably lead, if they were used at all.
The Romans were pretty keen on lead, used it for a great many purposes,
and I think where 'washers' like that are found in Roman buildings and other structures, they're usually lead.
Tygorn
Magistrate
Thank you for your feedback. I agree about the different "taste", I personally like the (classic) "frontal" nailing of the feet style more, too. I also think that breaking or piercing (heel) bones inside living flesh is more difficult, so piercing the feet through the flesh between the bones of the toes (without breaking any bones) was at least as easy or difficult than the method we know from the archaeological "Yehohanan"-findings.
As far as I remember the "washers" were made of wood, not of metal (see the "Last Temptation of Christ"-movie). Surely you can discuss if they were "necessary" for the fixation of the victim. If the body weight hangs on the pierced wrists I doubt it would be possible to pull them out for the victim even without the washers. Maybe thats different for the legs/feet.
I think the main "mistake" many scientists and archaeologists may make, is to think the "Yehohanan"-style is representative for ALL crucifixions ever conducted. Because only ONE victim was ever found does not mean there were no other methods where no victims were ever found (and the "Risen" movie is showing WHY, by the way...).
Considering how many centuries the Roman Empire ruled the world and even historians like Josephus wrote about "different styles" prisoners were tortured and crucified in front of the Jerusalem city walls during the war - so, all in all, we may conclude: Only our fantasy is the limit (and, maybe, the conditions of human physique).
best regards
Ty.
As far as I remember the "washers" were made of wood, not of metal (see the "Last Temptation of Christ"-movie). Surely you can discuss if they were "necessary" for the fixation of the victim. If the body weight hangs on the pierced wrists I doubt it would be possible to pull them out for the victim even without the washers. Maybe thats different for the legs/feet.
I think the main "mistake" many scientists and archaeologists may make, is to think the "Yehohanan"-style is representative for ALL crucifixions ever conducted. Because only ONE victim was ever found does not mean there were no other methods where no victims were ever found (and the "Risen" movie is showing WHY, by the way...).
Considering how many centuries the Roman Empire ruled the world and even historians like Josephus wrote about "different styles" prisoners were tortured and crucified in front of the Jerusalem city walls during the war - so, all in all, we may conclude: Only our fantasy is the limit (and, maybe, the conditions of human physique).
best regards
Ty.
And fantasy we here at CruxForums have in abundance
D
Deleted member jedakk
Guest
First of all, I'm not at all persuaded that Yehohanan was actually a crucifixion victim. All we really know is that he had a nail driven through one of his heel bones, but the why remains an unproven assumption. He may have been crucified upside down, and he may not even have been alive when that was done. Those are just possibilities; I have no way of knowing.
There were remains of wood found around the head of the nail, and that has been assumed to have been some kind of wooden washer. But it might have been a titulus, if Yehohanan had been hung upside down. He could not have pulled his foot off over the head of that Roman nail through his heel, whether he was inverted or not, so a wooden washer wouldn't have been necessary for the purpose of preventing that. If there was a piece of wood there at all, I think it more likely that it was to keep the victim from cutting himself - maybe on purpose - against the sharp, rough edge of those nail heads in an effort to open a vein and speed his death.
CrossMyHeart89
Spectator
Another thing to consider with the feet being nailed through the heel (specifically in Jesus' case) is that not a bone in his body would be broken, as prophecied, and a nail through the heel would break those bones. As Jedakk pointed out, if the nail passes through the Achilles Tendon it would eventually tear upward or outward out of the crucified's body. Nailing the feet through the tops would likely push the long bones of the toes aside and would provide plenty of support when the person pushed against the nail, without breaking bones...I know what I would choose if I had the option, but damn...heel nailing is too much for this girl!
Tygorn
Magistrate
Ave,
Interesting thoughts. thanks for the inspiration.
But if Yehohanan was not crucified, why were his legs broken? As far as I know, his bones did not only show the "famous" nail-pierced heel-bone, but also the breaking of his lower legs, as told in the Gospels happening for the "thieves". I think, Yehohanan was probably really crucified, but the used "method" was only one of many possible "variations" for conducting crucifixions over the centuries in the vast Roman Empire. The used variation may depend on the cultural background where it took place (big city?, capital city?) , environmental conditions (climate? wood?), how many victims should be executed, how quickly they should die, how much additional cruelty should be inflicted and so on...
Regarding the nailing of the feet - here is my opinion:
First of all there is the "one nail or two nails"-controversy. I think, if iron nails were really "precious" items in these ancient times, why waste more of them than absolutely necessary? It may also depend on the amount of victims to be executed. For the execution of a worthless runaway slave or a prisoner of war using three instead of four nails would spare 25% iron, wouldnt it? Sure, you may argue it may be (too?) difficult, to hold the feet of a struggling victim in pain still to pierce both with a single spike at the "correct" spot.
But maybe we under-estimate the normal use of brutality and force of Roman soldiers had to use in these ancient times. For us "civilized people" it appears as barbaric and brutal, what 2000 years ago happened, but piercing or cutting off limbs and lots of bloodshed was a soldiers "everydays work" in these times. I dont think handling a crucifixion was a "too difficult" job for a normal soldier.
Another point is the question how quickly the wood of the pole would be ruined by hammering in two nails at every execution. If the pole was re-used (maybe likewise the patibulum) it would last about double the time when using only one nail for the feet. After many re-uses the wood is going to "break" anyway and in areas like ancient Palestine where, according to historians, even trees would be used as "cross-poles" due to lack of other wood, that may have been even more important. Maybe thats another reason for different nailing styles, if the wood was already too "ruined" to nail the feet to the front of the pole they were nailed to the sides (and vice versa...)
The second controversy is about the use of a "foot-rest". I think in most cases the crosses would have been constructed as simple as possible (T-form) for efficiency and speed and sparing resources, but the last point (how long would the cross-pole hold before being ruined by hammering in all these big spikes?) may suggest there could be a solution by using some type of foot-rest to prevent the nails from being driven directly into the stipes.
I dont know if anybody knows the Jesus movie "Mary, mother of Jesus" with Christian Bale. Its less known, since it was only a cheap TV movie from 1999.
You may check it out on youtube
At timestamp 1:18:25 Jesus feet are being nailed to the cross and here some type of half-cut wood piece is being used as a foot rest, which may make sense in such a "elaborated" construction to prevent the pole from being ruined. the footrest could be easily replaced in such a set-up. But a "real" foot-rest to stand on as seen (for example) in the famous "Jesus of Nazareth" mini-series from 1977 is ridicolous in my opinion.
best regards
Ty.
Interesting thoughts. thanks for the inspiration.
But if Yehohanan was not crucified, why were his legs broken? As far as I know, his bones did not only show the "famous" nail-pierced heel-bone, but also the breaking of his lower legs, as told in the Gospels happening for the "thieves". I think, Yehohanan was probably really crucified, but the used "method" was only one of many possible "variations" for conducting crucifixions over the centuries in the vast Roman Empire. The used variation may depend on the cultural background where it took place (big city?, capital city?) , environmental conditions (climate? wood?), how many victims should be executed, how quickly they should die, how much additional cruelty should be inflicted and so on...
Regarding the nailing of the feet - here is my opinion:
First of all there is the "one nail or two nails"-controversy. I think, if iron nails were really "precious" items in these ancient times, why waste more of them than absolutely necessary? It may also depend on the amount of victims to be executed. For the execution of a worthless runaway slave or a prisoner of war using three instead of four nails would spare 25% iron, wouldnt it? Sure, you may argue it may be (too?) difficult, to hold the feet of a struggling victim in pain still to pierce both with a single spike at the "correct" spot.
But maybe we under-estimate the normal use of brutality and force of Roman soldiers had to use in these ancient times. For us "civilized people" it appears as barbaric and brutal, what 2000 years ago happened, but piercing or cutting off limbs and lots of bloodshed was a soldiers "everydays work" in these times. I dont think handling a crucifixion was a "too difficult" job for a normal soldier.
Another point is the question how quickly the wood of the pole would be ruined by hammering in two nails at every execution. If the pole was re-used (maybe likewise the patibulum) it would last about double the time when using only one nail for the feet. After many re-uses the wood is going to "break" anyway and in areas like ancient Palestine where, according to historians, even trees would be used as "cross-poles" due to lack of other wood, that may have been even more important. Maybe thats another reason for different nailing styles, if the wood was already too "ruined" to nail the feet to the front of the pole they were nailed to the sides (and vice versa...)
The second controversy is about the use of a "foot-rest". I think in most cases the crosses would have been constructed as simple as possible (T-form) for efficiency and speed and sparing resources, but the last point (how long would the cross-pole hold before being ruined by hammering in all these big spikes?) may suggest there could be a solution by using some type of foot-rest to prevent the nails from being driven directly into the stipes.
I dont know if anybody knows the Jesus movie "Mary, mother of Jesus" with Christian Bale. Its less known, since it was only a cheap TV movie from 1999.
You may check it out on youtube
At timestamp 1:18:25 Jesus feet are being nailed to the cross and here some type of half-cut wood piece is being used as a foot rest, which may make sense in such a "elaborated" construction to prevent the pole from being ruined. the footrest could be easily replaced in such a set-up. But a "real" foot-rest to stand on as seen (for example) in the famous "Jesus of Nazareth" mini-series from 1977 is ridicolous in my opinion.
best regards
Ty.
D
Deleted member jedakk
Guest
Nails weren't so precious that the Romans couldn't leave about 875,000 of them behind when they left Inchtuthil, their furthest north outpost in Scotland, in the late first century AD. Those were discovered back in the 1960s, mostly in pristine condition. Plautus says in his play "The Mostelaria" that four nails were used.
And my own structural analysis of a single nail, based on a 150-pound victim, and using the mechanical properties of wrought iron similar to that which the Romans used shows that it would take a big nail, almost 0.4 inches square where it entered the wood, likely about 0.75 inches square by the time it passed through the top foot. Big enough to really wreck a victim's foot. Bear in mind that the nail would have a lever arm equal to double the thickness of the victim's foot plus a little, and it's likely that at some point a struggling victim would manage to put all of his weight on that top foot, at least briefly. On the other hand, a nail through a single foot could be much smaller - about 0.28 inches square at the point where they entered the wood - and have much less bending moment to resist since the lever arm is half as long.
Also, according to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm it appears that the three nails thing is something that was simply for artistic effect:
Bottom line is that I'm persuaded by the words of people who lived back then such as Plautus, by scientific analysis, by the research of others who have no reason to fabricate their findings, and by sheer practicality that two nails were used for the feet.
And my own structural analysis of a single nail, based on a 150-pound victim, and using the mechanical properties of wrought iron similar to that which the Romans used shows that it would take a big nail, almost 0.4 inches square where it entered the wood, likely about 0.75 inches square by the time it passed through the top foot. Big enough to really wreck a victim's foot. Bear in mind that the nail would have a lever arm equal to double the thickness of the victim's foot plus a little, and it's likely that at some point a struggling victim would manage to put all of his weight on that top foot, at least briefly. On the other hand, a nail through a single foot could be much smaller - about 0.28 inches square at the point where they entered the wood - and have much less bending moment to resist since the lever arm is half as long.
Also, according to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm it appears that the three nails thing is something that was simply for artistic effect:
In the thirteenth century complete realism is reached by the substitution of one nail in the feet, instead of two, as in the old tradition, and the resulting crossing of the legs. All this was done from artistic motives, to bring about a more moving and devotional pose.
Bottom line is that I'm persuaded by the words of people who lived back then such as Plautus, by scientific analysis, by the research of others who have no reason to fabricate their findings, and by sheer practicality that two nails were used for the feet.