The opening scene of Son of Man depicts Jesus and Satan together. In it, Jesus throws Satan down a sand dune and states “This is my world!” Throughout the movie, after an evil act is performed the face of the Satan character is shown. It certainly sets the tone for a good vs. evil portrayals. Jesus keeps repeating the phrase “This is my world” to show that he will ultimately triumph over Satan.
Unlike the rest of the movie, the crucifixion scene was strikingly different than the story in the Gospels. In it, Jesus was not executed on the cross, but beaten to death in private by a group of government militia. It was interesting to see how Jesus’ captors gave him the option to join them and escape his fate, but instead he chose to die rather than give in. Also, instead of the women finding the “tomb” empty, they remove his body and bring it back. They then put his body on a cross that overlooks the village to spread the word of what the corrupt government is doing. Jesus’ body being placed on the cross symbolized his resurrection in that his followers gained a new sense of power in exposing the government corruption that was prevalent.
There is obvious intertextuality between the Gospels (mostly Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the film. The film (text B) took the stories of the Gospels (text A) and just retold them in a different setting. Even though I admittedly do not know the stories of the Gospels well, it was easy to see the parallels between the two and even easier to follow the stories of the Gospels as the movie progressed. This observation raised a new question in my mind about the timelessness of the story of Jesus. Perhaps the Gospel stories were written in a way that the writers knew could stand the test of time. Since it was so easy to make the connection between the biblical time stories and those of modern-day Africa, it must be easy for followers to relate the Gospel stories to their own interpretations. From the standpoint of an early Christian trying to gain followers, I can see this being greatly beneficial for my cause.
Unlike the rest of the movie, the crucifixion scene was strikingly different than the story in the Gospels. In it, Jesus was not executed on the cross, but beaten to death in private by a group of government militia. It was interesting to see how Jesus’ captors gave him the option to join them and escape his fate, but instead he chose to die rather than give in. Also, instead of the women finding the “tomb” empty, they remove his body and bring it back. They then put his body on a cross that overlooks the village to spread the word of what the corrupt government is doing. Jesus’ body being placed on the cross symbolized his resurrection in that his followers gained a new sense of power in exposing the government corruption that was prevalent.
There is obvious intertextuality between the Gospels (mostly Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the film. The film (text B) took the stories of the Gospels (text A) and just retold them in a different setting. Even though I admittedly do not know the stories of the Gospels well, it was easy to see the parallels between the two and even easier to follow the stories of the Gospels as the movie progressed. This observation raised a new question in my mind about the timelessness of the story of Jesus. Perhaps the Gospel stories were written in a way that the writers knew could stand the test of time. Since it was so easy to make the connection between the biblical time stories and those of modern-day Africa, it must be easy for followers to relate the Gospel stories to their own interpretations. From the standpoint of an early Christian trying to gain followers, I can see this being greatly beneficial for my cause.
RSS Feed