Did James Caviezel actually get crucified in the movie "The Passion of the !


Question: The question sounds stupid but someone told me that he agreed to have everything actually done to him and i personally dont believe it but i want to know the truth.


Answers: The question sounds stupid but someone told me that he agreed to have everything actually done to him and i personally dont believe it but i want to know the truth.

well if you read the trivia on IMDB, we was on the cross for many, many hours. (no, not nailed) he was also struck by lightning (twice) while he was up there. He also dislocated his shoulder carrying the cross thru the town, and he was whipped.... once with the cat 'o nine tails and it tore his skin and he broke some ribs.... more than realistic enough for me....

No way! He certainly wasn't nailed to the cross. He was probably bound to the cross (temporarily, which could translate into hours). And with the aid of makeup and lots of fake blood, he appeared to be suffering as Christ did.
P.S.--It's not a stupid question since movies today can be very realistically portrayed on screen.

no of course not

Dear goodness, no.

Even if he agreed to it, the insurance company wouldn't have let him. They don't even like actors doing their own stunts in movies, much less getting crucified.

No, he did not. They did not whip him or hammer his hands/arms/feet with nails.

No, but he did get a cut on his side when they raised the spear, to put the spear in his side.

If he had, he would've died.

obviously he was not physically nailed to the cross but it is him on the cross they film. (the hands you see nailing him to the cross are actually mel gibson's)

what imdb website says:-
The figure of Christ during the crucifixion is actually James Caviezel, despite popular rumors - no animatronics were used. However, according to the movie's official website, the movie's make-up effects creator/producer Keith VanderLaan forged an articulated, rubber stand-in for Caviezel who could be suspended on the cross for certain wide shots to allow the actor some physical relief

of course not!

I doubt it, but it would have made the movie better if it was true.

no, it was just a movie



The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 enter-qa.com -   Contact us

Entertainment Categories