Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Interfaith Group

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Meshuga

(6,182 posts)
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:14 PM Apr 2013

I Preferred the Book [View all]

Rabbi Mark Kaiserman's take on the History Channel's "The Bible" series.


I Preferred the Book

The Bible is inherently cinematic. it has the global story filled with dramatic tension, complicated personal lives, special effects, war, comedy, power, surprises, and much more. It is Game of Thrones with more violence and sex, but without Peter Dinklage.

So when The History Channel’s The Bible miniseries was announced, I was curious to see how a modern television version might put out a sweeping run of biblical stories. Along with millions of Americans, I watched the 10 hours of The Bible and I found those key elements – it was dramatic (the overbearing score reminded me of that), intense (the constant violence made sure I knew that), and passionate (all the shouting made sure I was aware they were playing IMPORTANT characters).

(...)

But while they attempted to make a family-friendly, marketable Bible for today, there were some areas of significant concern. And areas where I would have wished things were different.

TRUTH and ACCURACY

With a disclaimer at the beginning, the series plays a little fast and loose with the written Bible story. But who is to say what is accurate? Is the literal word? And even if it is, how does one represent conflicts and contradictions? It is a rewritten version for the purposes of condensed story telling. We do that when we tell any Bible story – leaving out sections, modifying for our audience. The teller tries to convey the “Truth” of the story without as much concern of the “truth”.

(...)

Sex and Violence

The Bible mini-series was made for the long-term market. It will be shown in Christian Sunday Schools across the country. Sex is a no-no in that setting. So Lot doesn’t sleep with his daughters. David’s cuts off the Philistines’ foreskins – but it is only alluded to those already in the know. Sex scenes are only hinted at, but never shown. In this way it is nothing like Game of Thrones.

But violence. Apparently violence is just fine anywhere. So this production amps up the violence. Every battle, stabbing, stoning, beating is emphasized. Extra conflicts and battles, including a gladiator fight, are introduced. One of the angels (perhaps intentionally the Asian one) does a double-bladed stabbing in fine action film formula. Just as I always imagined the angels. While not as gory as the Mel Gibson pseudo-horror flick The Passion of the Christ, it is plenty bloody.

Judaism

The Bible mini-series is about the Hebrews and the Israelites, but until the New Testament, it isn’t about the Jews. They may be Abraham’s or Moses’ people, but they are not a religious people. When Isaac is born there is no discussion of circumcision (too sexual anyway). When he is almost sacrificed, the animal doesn’t even have horns to become a shofar or to be caught in the thicket (like the text clearly says). When the Passover story is told, every single ritual aspect is omitted. But whenever a “religious” (i.e. bad) Jew is shown in the New Testament section, he is always wearing a tallit. Apparently, Jews wore their tallit gadol (the one over shoulders) all the time in Jesus’ time.

Clearly some thought was put into the prayers and Hebrew said in the series. It isn’t gibberish. But L’cha Dodi in the morning before reading scripture? While one wouldn’t count on the Judaism to be very accurate (Keeping the Faith takes place in modern times and they made tons of errors), I don’t think the High Priest walking among dead bodies was a good choice. But some things I liked. Intentional or not, the Last Supper is clearly NOT a seder as they are happily munching on bread and there is no matzah in sight.

(...)

Race

Rarely are Biblical characters portrayed as shorter, dark-skinned Middle Eastern types in American and British films. It is no different here. But they aren’t blond and blue eyed either. The beards are dark even the skin isn’t swarthy. Jesus, however, looks like a movie star at all times – even when bloody and beaten – especially around the average looks of the “Jews”.
But the racial issues is noteworthy because in contract to the “white” actors in all the leads, several roles were cast otherwise:

The Angels – Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel are White, Black, and Asian.

(...)



Satan – Much has been made how the actor playing Satan looked like Barack Obama. You be the judge from this picture. Let’s accept Downey and Burnett’s claim it is not true. But what is true is that the actor playing Satan is not dark skinned and was made more “black” for the role. So even if it isn’t anti-Obama, it is a bit racist.

A note on other casting. Saul should be very tall and handsome according to the text. David should be a red head. Saul wasn’t that good looking or charismatic. And in fact, Saul, David, and Jonathan in the series are all brunettes and all are 6’1”.

(...)

Read the book. Not the companion book, but the actual book.


Rabbi Mark Kaiserman is currently living in Southern California where he is the Interim Rabbi of Congregation B’nai Tzedek in Fountain Valley. This blog originally appeared on RaMaKBlog.

http://ravblog.ccarnet.org/2013/04/i-preferred-the-book/
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Interfaith Group»I Preferred the Book»Reply #0