Cool News
A Small Tidbit About PAUL VERHOEVEN's Background and Passion for making a Historical JESUS CHRIST movie
Hey folks, Harry here with a tidbit of knowledge that you might not have known about everyone's fave filmic Dutchman... Paul Verhoeven. Now it seems a lot of talk backers had a lot of... fun... with the concept of Verhoeven making this type of film, but... well... the man does have the background and passion for the story. Strangely enough, many filmmakers that work in the Horror/Sci-Fi/Fantasy realms actually have quite a bit of religious backgrounds. For example... Guillermo Del Toro often credits catholicism as being the birthplace of much of his love of horror... something about those tortured saits and emaciated visages of Jesus dying on a cross. A lot of people like to laugh at these filmmakers when they take steps to making serious films with serious subject matters, but personally... I'd welcome Verhoeven's vision... Here's John with the Verhoeven biography info...
Harry,
Just a small tidbit, and something not many people are aware of: Paul
Verhoeven is a PhD. in New Testament Studies as well as being a
director. He was even a member of the Jesus Seminar in the 1980's,
which was an attempt to reconstruct (using any and all available
sources, no preference given to the Four Canon Gospels) the historical
Jesus. So, with his background and apparent passion for the topic, he
could really make a great film.
John
-
+ Expand All
-
With Arnold Schwarzenegger starring as Jesus Christ. O.K. That has my eight dollars!
-
Jan 23, 2000 6:26:20 AM CST
Hey....Larry Flynt has a religious background too....doesn't he?
by mademan
I think Paul is looking for something to rebound his career and stir the shitstorm like "Robocop" and "Basic Instinct" did. I can't wait to see Jesus fall off that crusifix, rams a nail through Pilates skull and snorts coke off the hipbones of his sister.....to quote "Patton": "God help me I do love it so!"
-
I don't care if Verhoeven was nailed to the cross himself, he has still never shown an ounce of insightful filmaking for any of us doubters to think about him in any other way. His apologists are somehow trying to make him come off as a scholar and a background in theology. So what!! His filmaking history shows that he is most adept at frivolous movies and tit shots.
-
Jan 23, 2000 7:03:09 AM CST
Jesus lived his Life in a cheap Hotel on the edge of Route 66.He
by vuzz
Verhoeven rules alright his movies are not only about frivoulos tit shots that was the great Russ Meyer and if so than its right with me .But have you seen Soldier of Orange with Rutger Hauer or Fourth Man?These are works by Verhoeven before his US films they're great and already have the themes of Starship Troopers or Basic Instinct .And whats wrong with frivoulos tit shots .After the bible god created human like himself sort a way.
-
Paul Verhoeven is an exploitative director. Just listen to the press he does for his movies. He had the audacity to claim that Showgirls was a coming of age movie, which every girl in the United States should see! Why, Paul, so they could learn what a bad movie looks like? I'm sorry, Harry, but I don't buy it. And I in no way am trying to limit him from making this movie - I just won't be there. I don't think Verhoeven has enough depth in him to make this subject compelling. Hell, if Kevin Smith made a movie about Christ, I would at least know he was trying. Look, I'm probably the least religious person I know. I was raised Catholic, but had too many problems with the politics of that religion, so I no longer practice. (Ask any Catholic - you never stop being Catholic - you just stop practicing it.) But when people do films on Jesus, they at least should try to do it with a little dignity and tact. Scorsese is a perfect example. Those protesters were morons. Last Temptation was a beautiful film. But Paul Verhoeven in my mind would fuck with it just to fuck with it. I'll see The Hollow Man, and I'll probably enjoy it. But in no way do I consider Verhoeven one of the greats. His movies are entertaining at best, and at worst, they're funny as shit. Showgirls - "You look different without cum in your hair." No. Verhoeven will always be genre, and nothing more, because he quite simply doesn't have the skills to do otherwise.
-
I still remember the controversy over The Last Temptation of Christ. I would love to see Verhoevens version just to see all the bible thumpers get up in arms about it, and start sending death threats and bomb threats to every theater that dares to play it. Wacky bastards. Verhoeven always makes the most appropriate movie for the subject matter. Showgirls was about a stipper's climb to success, what the hell did you expect? A powerful character driven drama? If you want to see this guys range check out Flesh + Blood. It has one of the greatest scenes in movie history where a young couple engage in a passionate kiss under three hanging decayed corpses. You gotta love it!
-
The Jesus Seminar is a bunch of losers. Any film based on their works would be a waste of time. Paul V. needs to stick to what he does best, although I'm not sure what that is...:)
-
Having this guy as PART of the project is just an example as to how ridiculous it was. They STARTED with a naturalistic bias, which means anything that mentioned Jesus performing miracles or making any spiritual comments were rejected outright, without consideration. The vast majority of those on the Jesus Project had NO scholarly background whatsoever. It was riddled with an agenda that they set out to support from the beginning.
-
but does it mean I'd want to see a Ed Wood film on the story of Jesus Christ?? Actually, yes. It would probably be better than Verhoeven's upcoming Jesus film! BWAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAA!!!! Verhoeven's films are the most wretched things in the world! Let him do it. It'll be funnier than Showgirls!!!
-
Was a complete fucking joke. It had nothing to do with Jesus and religon, it was nothing more than another failed attempt at rebuking the gospels. It failed, as always and to see people pointing to this fact that Vehoreen was a part of and makes him some GREAT biblical scholar shows how stupid people are.
And for the other lame-brain quoting the Dead Sea Scrolls that tell us Jesus was short and fat..ha ha ha.
The dead sea scrolls say NOTHING about jesus! How stupid are some of you? Do you even bother to get anything from the bookstore that doesn't have the word FICTION on it? The DSC are made up of old teastament books, with the other half being the rituals and practices of a sect that left the jews and lived on their own. -
Jan 23, 2000 11:04:24 AM CST
Of course the Jesus Seminars have nothing to do with religion...
by mr superbad
It would be impossible because every religious figurehead believes they are 100% right and won't budge an inch on any issues. Organized religion isn't about facts anyway. The Jesus Seminars are just about what, if anything, can be historically proven about Jesus. If anyone is actually interested go here for more info http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html
-
kewl. Does anybody get their penis cut off?
-
Here is anotherone. Paul Verhoeven thinks that all humans are bi-sexual by nature. In the bible it says that Jesus loved his fellow man. So now you'll know what to expect if this movie gets made. WW3??
-
Verhoeven must think he has a big hit on his hands with THE HOLLOW MAN if he is talking about raising 60-million to make his Jesus film with. So maybe he is already confident about his clout.
-
SHOWGIRLS is Verhoeven's American remake of his Dutch film SPETTERS, a Coming-Of-Age movie. He comes from a background where sex and nudity on film is not a big deal, as common as a girl and a gun in America. His SHOWGIRLS is heartfelt, but he is trying to push against the repressive tendencies of American cinema, thus more sex and nudity, because he is trying to get the American industry more used to it, so that he can experience the kind of freedom he felt when he began making films in his homeland.
-
I for one would be delighted to see an *accurate* movie about the life of Jesus.
I'll be watching the developments of this project with great interest.
~Eileen
http://members.aol.com/hfwebpage/index.htm
(Harrison Ford Universe) -
the Jesus Seminars have been proven as nothing than more than a self-ritious circle-jerk of "scholars" who want to belive they are more important then they really are.
MrSuperbad, so no one who practicies a faith budges an inch? That is the most ridiclous statement ever. If that's the case, then the Vatacan would still be practicing indulgences, as well as the protestant movement would never have taken place.
Instead of reading the pyscho-bable these people say, read some good alternate views, like C.S.Lewis, Luther, Calvin, T.S. Eliot, or even Peter Kreeft.
While any religon isn't based on facts, but faith, you're best bet is C.S. Lewis and Kreeft, who discet Christianity from a Socratical point of view. That is using logic. -
C. S. Lewis is a fine writer and he makes some excellent points in his book, "Mere Christianity". It's heartening to be reminded, for instance, of a time when christians embraced literature of all kinds (Lewis was an Arthurian scholar and also incorporated much of Greek mythology into his works) and didn't feel the need to throw out all the physical sciences in order to maintain their belief (he believed in evolution). However, there are also some major holes in his "logical" argument of why Christianity is the One True Faith. For starters, he clearly knows next to nothing about other religions...he's WAAAAAY too quick to dismiss "Hindoos" and "Mohammedans" on extremely subjective grounds. For another, he's too proper to really delve into the possibilities (even if only to reject them) and therefore his arguments are riddled with holes; for instance, he says, [paraphrasing] "Jesus was clearly not just a great secular leader...look at some of the things he said. Either he was the son of God, or he was insane." He then ignores the possibility that he WAS insane, for starters, but he also misses the most likely possibility: that we have an incomplete or altered record of what Jesus *did* say, and therefore are in no position to judge. Scorsese's Last Temptation was ultimately a far more convincing pro-Christian argument, because it wasn't afraid of really facing down some of the unpleasant and irreverant possibilities.
-
I don't care who the people in the seminar are, because i don't care about what they are doing. I was just saying that they're just trying to come to figure out what can be proven about Jesus, without relying on 1900 years of dogma attached. Either way, I read a report that Verhoeven told the seminar about his plans for a movie, outlining the plot and such, and the seminar were displeased because it doesn't follow what they all have agreed upon so far. If it did, Jesus would just walk around talking about being good to each other. So if this ever got made it would likely piss off everybody.
-
Hope this flick turns out to be more like Robocop or something. Jesus kickin' some ass and stuff, real violent. Love Verhoevens' "ruthless" way of depicting violence.
-
Get the leaders of every different flavor of Christianity in a room and ask them all to come to an agreement about what Jesus said and see how far you get. The only thing they could agree on is that Jesus was important.
-
... you condemn the Jesus Seminars without knowing what you're talking about. Obviously you have opinions based on zero facts. It's like condemning Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ without having seen the movie.
Keeping an open mind and having actually read a few books some of these Jesus Seminar guys have wrote, I can say that their facts are backed up by historical facts and not dogmatic beliefs. Ever wonder what you actually have to do to be crucified? Ever wonder if the Roman's kept records? Ever wonder if that stuff actually exists and if you can go look stuff up? What it does show is that the Church is not open to idea's and if new facts come to light they are squashed like bugs. When the Gospel of Thomas was found, did the Church allow it into the New Testament? No. They swept it aside and said it was a forgery or some such thing because it had statements in there that were opposite of Church dogma. Better for them to stick their heads in the sand than change a couple milleniums worth of belief.
What all of this tells me is that christians have no problems feeding people with different views or questions to the lions. I wonder where I can find that viewpoint in the Bible? I'm reading through it now and I keep coming back to what Capt. Kirk says in Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, "What does God need with a Starship?"
Leave Paul Verhooven alone and if God finds it to be blasphemy at the end of his days, then leave it to the two of them. Keep your rocks to yourselfs and watch your glass houses. -
With the exception of 'Showgirls'....EVERYTHING that Verhoeven touches turns to perfection.'Robocop' and 'Starship Troopers' are two of the finest satires and critques of American society ever filmed,subversive and acute in a way that say Robert Altman or Oliver Stone could never possibly imagine.Watch 'Basic Instinct' again with an open mind and you'll find one of the cleverest Hitchcock homages ever put on celluloid,exploring Hitch's regular theme of how men fear and do not understand women on any level.And 'Total Recall',for al it's minor flaws,remains one of Arnie's finest moments;a terrific and very visceral piece of work.The greatest pity is that he was forced to make 'Showgirls' in '95 rather than 'Crusade'....fucking Carolco made 'Cuthroat Island' instead...wankers!I'm looking forward to 'The Hollow Man' more than any other project this year,including all those projects given much more coverage at AICN ( X-men,et al).Oh,and Joesph Fiennes for Jesus.
-
Jan 23, 2000 8:23:06 PM CST
The historical Jesus is NOT the Jesus of the "New Testament"
by quentin69
JUST THOUGHT YOU FUCKING IDIOTS MIGHT LIKE TO BE REMINDED OF THAT.
-
Fans of Verhoeven keep saying that his films are satire of blah, blah, blah. That Verhoeven films are full of irony and are subversive. But that's the problem with his films: it's all irony and pseudo-satire and prententions, and nothing else! He hits you with a sledgehammer with his "satire,' which you get the point fast, oh let's say, in the first 5 minutes of his films, then have to watch the remaining two hours of the same treatment, the same narration repeated over and over and over and over... Man, I got the freaking point already, so stop showing off how freaking clever you are and create something meaningful! Take away the so-called satire and there's nothing left to enjoy. His films are empty, souless. His films end-up looking like overlong Tom and Jerry cartoons, with no cleverness or subtlety to them. Just big, overblown cocain brained, aneurism enducing "films" created with crayola crayons. There's nothing subversive about that. Real, original creations are subversive by themselves through their originality, no matter if it's a painting, music or film. Not by showing off one's cleverness of things. If I need irony, I'll get it from a few jokes from a stand-up comic or a chapter in a book, and this way I don't have to watch a 2hrs+ wretched Paul Verhoeven "film."
-
I find that so many are offended over a project they know little about a bit amusing. Calling something sacrilegous doesn't work if you don't believe in that same religion. Now Paul V. seems to have strong religous ties, so he would want something like this to be accurate. But what if he does try to explore new angles? Is your religion built on such a flimsy house of cards that any possible deviation in thinking is discouraged? After reviewing history I would say, yes. Someone mentioned "indulgences" but the Vatican didn't repeal them until 1993, and present rumors indicate they may bring that back. This all isn't new though. Religion is always about mind control. The best way to institute mind control is to keep people from ever investigating the truth behind what you've told them. It'd be awfully embarrasing if what you told them wasn't true. As is the case with most of the crap Christianity spews as incoruptible fact.
-
The historical methodology of the Jesus Seminar has been proven to be entirely biased and unfounded. Their approach and their conclusions are recognized by most scholars as suspect. The best resource for understanding this is "The Real Jesus," by Luke Timothy Johnson. He is not a flaming Christian, but an Ivy League Ph.D. historian who shows how the Jesus Seminar would be laughed out of any respectable History department. Not only do they not represent mainline Christianity, they do not represent mainline historical scholarship, period. Shoddy research=INACCURATE CONCLUSIONS.
All this to say that the proposed film would be a joke. It would be like making a movie about the life and career of George Washington with a script by some Mongolian sheep-herders who once read the story of the cherry tree. -
If you want to learn about the Jesus Seminar a good place to start is Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and Truth of the Traditional Gospels, which NEWSWEEK calls a "devastating critique" of revisionist "scholarship." I have a graduate degree in scripture studies and I know quite a bit about the methodology, biases, fallacies of Crossan & Co. at the Jesus Seminar. Typical example: JS scholars begin by supposing, not unreasonably, that if the gospels present Jesus saying something that seems to conflict with established Judeo-Christian thought, the saying must be authentic (since why would anyone put words in Jesus' mouth that conflict with their own ideas?) -- all well and good, but THEN they go on to argue "and therefore if the gospels present Jesus saying something consistent with established Judeo-Christian thought, why then, chances are it's an invention." Hmm, I don't suppose it's possible that Jesus' ideas would have something in common with Judeo-Christian thought because HE CAME OUT OF JEWISH CULTURE AND CHRISTIAN CULTURE WAS BASED ON WHAT HE HAD SAID? This is like saying that if American history books report the founding fathers saying things consistent with American ideology, the sayings must be made up. Maybe the American ideology was based on the founding fathers' ideas and that's why they're consistent??? The very fact that Verhoeven is involved in the JS itself discredits the JS' "scholarly" pretensions.
-
I don't see it as an act of desparation, because there would be so little mainstream interest in a film like this that it would do little to resurrect his career. I see it as way for Paul V. to feel superior--"Look everyone, I know who Jesus really is, and I'm making an IMPORTANT film." The only important films, though, are the ones that don't try to be important, IMHO.
-
Actually, unless he has an extra degree that has gone unmentioned in all the reputable sources I have seen so far, Verhoeven's doctorate is not in New Testament studies. According to W. Barnes Tatum's _Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First Hundred Years_ (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1997, pages 200-203), Verhoeven's Ph.D. was in mathematics; Douglas Todd's _Brave Souls: Writers and Artists Wrestle with God, Love, Death, and the Things That Matter_ (Toronto: Stoddart, 1996, pages 57-63) says the Ph.D. was in both mathematics and physics.
However, Verhoeven has definitely been interested in making a Jesus movie since the 1980s. According to Tatum, who is himself a member of the Jesus Seminar, Verhoeven first showed up at one of their meetings in 1988, and he brought a 17-page document entitled "Christ the Man: Backgrounds for an action-script" with him. He's been bringing documents to meetings ever since, but who knows if anything will come of it. If he hasn't got the financing lined up yet, I'm not holding my breath.
A few people here have already mentioned Luke Timothy Johnson's _The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels_ (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), which happens to mention Verhoeven's connection to the Jesus Seminar on pages 15-16. Johnson and Tatum cite a number of articles stretching back to 1988 that one could presumably look into, to chart the development of Verhoeven's thinking on this matter. I haven't looked them up for myself yet, though, so I can't vouch for them.
These include: _Newsweek_ (15 August 1988); _Washington Post_ (12 November 1988); Donnell Stoneman, "Paul Verhoeven: Film Maker", _[Greensboro, NC] News & Record_ (14 December 1989); Russell Shorto, "Cross Fire", _GQ_ (June 1994); and Charlotte Allen, "Away with the Manger", _Lingua Franca: The Review of Academic Life_ (February 1995).
Also, when _Entertainment Weekly_ did a cover story two years ago on how the success of _Titanic_ had made it easier to get expensive movies made, Verhoeven said, tongue-in-cheek I'm sure, "I've been thinking about doing the life of Jesus. Reconstruct Jerusalem in the first century. It shouldn't cost more than $100 million." See the original article at .
So there's really nothing new about this. As for who would play Jesus ... I interviewed a member of the Seminar five years ago, and at the time he said Verhoeven was looking at Daniel Day-Lewis. But I have no idea who Verhoeven would be looking at nowadays. Someone here suggested Joseph Fiennes, which I think would be an interesting choice -- hasn't he already played Jesus on stage, in Dennis Potter's _Son of Man_? Joseph's older brother Ralph, of course, has already provided the voice of Jesus for the animated film _The Miracle Maker_, coming to ABC this Easter, if I'm not mistaken. And I think he does a pretty good job. -
This project has been in development for quite few years, and to my knowledge has always been called "JESUS THE MAN." The word "Christ" comes from the Greek word for "Messiah," a specific figure foretold of throughout the Hebrew Bible. Biblical deconstructionists like Verhoeven are not interested in Jesus as the Messiah, mostly because they discount the miraculous out of hand; and the miracles of Jesus are part of him fulfilling the prophecies concerning the Messiah. If Verhoeven were to call Jesus of Nazareth "Jesus Christ" he would be acknowledging him as a revolutionary, transformative figure who demands loyalty. "Jesus Christ" will turn your world upside down (as he has with me and countless others). "Jesus the [Mere] Man" is a safe, religious/spiritual teacher who died 2000 years ago -- a cool dude to "relate to" or "be inspired by." By all indications, the latter is the character Verhoeven wants to put on film. But why anybody would want to see a movie with such a boring protagonist is beyond me.
While every Christian certainly believes that Jesus was a man, if you take away his divine nature, his story is ridiculous and unbelievable. This is the main problem I had with Scorsese's mostly-well-intentioned attempt at "humanizing" Jesus -- as a moviegoer, I kept asking "Why are all these people following this loser that Dafoe is playing, and why are the authorities bothering to crucify him?" On the other hand, if you look at Zeferelli's mini-series "JESUS OF NAZARETH", even though he probably over-emphasizes the divinity of Jesus, the story still makes SENSE dramatically. You watch it and you understand the reactions that Jesus gets and why he is crucified. -
Well, Verhoeven to me is sort of like a Stanley Kubrick in that most people either love or hate his films. I love all his movies except for Showgirls -- that was a piece of crap that I believe old Paul just made so he could add more money to his Starship Troopers budget. But I would have to agree that this is like Hitler making a film about the Holocaust. Either way, I'm sure it will bug the crap out of every person who sees it (and those who don't see it as well).
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts