Color of the Cross

I tried to see this film with high indulgence. And it has many good points, from the image of large family and the Pesah supper scenes to the racial perspective ( for the last, I ignored the difference between Hamitic and Semitic ). The only sin, in essence, is not inspired use of this point of view. The second big mistake - the dialogue , from fragmented message of Jesus to the innovations of scriptwriter. And , sure, the embarassing pieces of freedom of interpretation , from the presence of Saint Joseph to the relation between Saint Mary Magdalene and Judah or the attitudes against Romans. Sure, the image of Black Jesus , more than decent proposed by Jean Claude La Marre, is not wrong, but it impose a fair drive of it. Unfortunatelly, the color of skin becomes the only subject. But, sure, each film about The Savior is a personal testimony of director and his team. But it is fair to expect more than this supperficial aspect ruling a film about Him.

I truly feel bad for the cast/crew that was involved in making this picture. What could have been a wonderfully told legitimate story of Jesus's life turned out to be just a story of a black man. Due to poor writing/directing, the main focus of the movie was that the Romans were after a black Jew. The story of Jesus is just an afterthought. With things like Mary being turned away from the Inn because she was black, and lines by the centurion "you're not black enough" its not hard not to see how poorly this was put together. The acting wasn't too bad, but many of the accents were poor. It sounded like some of them were French and Scottish, lol. The outdoor sets looked like leftovers from a Xena shoot, but were believable. Some of the indoor sets looked like someone's house with sheets draped on the walls. Not professional at all. I can't recommend this to anyone.

Oh, and whats with the "black Jew" having what looked like an acid trip while praying in the garden. His eyes went all wild, he saw 3 moons in the sky, and started thrashing around throwing grass on himself. Bizarre.

The movie didn't move me as much as I had hoped it would. I was able to my hands on the novel version, written by Ayvee Verzonilla, and the book is absolute quality! Is the book available in stores nationwide, as well as screenings and specialty events or online? I'd like one signed by the author, Ayvee, as the one my mother received was signed by Jean Claude Lamarre... of all the nerve! I looked the author up online and she is gorgeous as well as multi-talented! She is a singer and an actress, in fact she's in one of Lamarre's upcoming Black Christian Movie releases, playing the role of Shaunice in the film Walk By Faith/Don't Touch if you ain't Prayed 2. I must admit I've downloaded some of her pictures and songs from the net. Looking forward to her next publication or music cd.

Happy Hunting, Danny

It seems the producers of this film thought they needed to alter the Bible in order to make a story that is anti-racist, and promotes racial harmony. Just a pity they couldn't have chosen a story that was actually true and in the Bible (ie., God's judgment of leprosy on Aaron and Miriam for racism towards Moses' black wife).

So was Jesus black, white, or something in between? Who knows, and who cares! - the Bible never tells us, and no early historical records describe him. Furthermore no painting were ever done of Jesus until about 400 years after his death and resurrection - so we may never know what Jesus looked like. All we know is that he was a Jew, who would have looked like Jews of the Middle-East (ie. Yemenite Jews).

The movie alters the reason for Jesus' death by crucifixion, not unlike a joke I have heard about Jesus ("he must have been black because he was lynched by a mob of white Romans"!).

The movie is just lies and propaganda from people who fantasize about Jesus being the race they want him to be.

I had never heard of this and its sequel before the proprietor/friend of the DVD store I frequent mentioned them to me; being a radical and potentially controversial take on Christ's passion and death (nothing less would do after Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE Christ {2004} I guess!), I opted to check them out over this Easter season.

However, I was not impressed: of course, the first two things that are immediately evident is that the protagonist's name has been given its 'correct' Jewish pronunciation of Yeshua (but, then, so did the notorious THE PASSOVER PLOT 30 years previously!) and that he is black (again, this was hardly new: BLACK Jesus {1968} and BROTHER JOHN {1971} – both of which I will be checking out presently – had depicted him as such too...though, admittedly, the events were usually approached in allegorical terms). Incidentally, this is the first time the actor playing Christ has also directed himself(!) – and still, one other novelty here is that Arimathea (pronounced here "Aramithea"!) has become the location where the narrative unfolds!

Anyway, the film presents the familiar story of intolerance, betrayal and sacrifice, with most of the famous characters intact and then some: in fact, here Mary and Joseph (Jesus' parents) are shown as having had other children as well, and they are all affected – in different ways – by his plight. Curiously enough, the film skimps entirely on Christ's trials – jumping from his arrest in Gethsemane (where Jesus' sudden and unwarranted over-emoting is quite jarring, by the way!) to the predictably bloody crucifixion on Golgotha: that said, the version I watched was about 20 minutes shorter than the official running-time of 108 (which, for all I know, may account for this 'missing' segment)!

The film's lack of a reputation suggests that it made no significant ripples when it emerged: the thoroughly amateurish production and deliberately realistic yet low-key nature may equally have had something to do with this.