Last Temptation of Christ - Catholic Perspective

http://www.decentfilms.
com/articles/lasttemptation

The Last Temptation of Christ: An Essay in Film Criticism and Faith
By Steven D. Greydanus
Martin Scorseses controversial 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ is one of those
perilous movies, like Titanic or Dogma, that the critic reviews at his own risk: It is he
himself, not the film, that is really being judged. In one way, of course, this is quite
reasonable; the reader naturally wants to have a sense of who the critic is, and reviews of
controversial films can provide a convenient index of his approach and style.
However, when passions run high enough, inevitably some readers make a litmus-test out
of the critics conclusions, too often in the process ignoring the actual substance of the
review, the reasons given for those conclusions. In particular, a critic who faults a movie
like The Last Temptation of Christ can expect to be dismissed as a Fundamentalist and
accused of judging the film on doctrinaire grounds rather than approaching it aesthetically
and on its own terms; while a critic who defends it can expect to be dismissed as a
Modernist and accused of condoning blasphemy and heresy.
Why, then, would a critic such as myself, writing years after the fact, deliberately choose to
subject himself to such a litmus test? Why would I write about this film when I could just as
easily choose to write about some other?
For the same reason that a scientist who is also a believer is drawn to address apparent
conflicts between science and faith. The Last Temptation of Christ, an ambitious film from a
director of significant stature, based upon a serious novel by a talented writer, met with
widespread acclaim and praise among film critics, yet drew enormous negative attention in
many religious circles, often from people who hadnt seen the film and were not in a
position to frame their objections critically.
Neither side has much use for the others opinion. Yet I have one foot in each camp
indeed, both feet in both camps, since I write film criticism informed by faith, rather than
compartmentalizing or partitioning my beliefs when I review a film. In a case like this,
where critical thought and religious opinion seem irreconcilable, I feel it is necessary to
offer a response that is both critically responsible and spiritually sound if only to satisfy
myself (if no one else) that such a response is indeed possible; that critical perspective and
orthodox judgment are not somehow exclusive.
At the same time, I have no intention of trying to stake out some sort of middle ground or
happy compromise between the critics acclaim and the religionists censure. My own
finding is that one of the two sides is right, and the other is wrong. I will try to show in this
essay which side went wrong, and how, and to explain it in a way that should make sense
both to believers and to critics and film lovers, as well as those who, like myself, fall into
both categories.
Envisioning the humanity of Jesus
The film opens with a disclaimer stating that the film is "not based on the gospels," but
upon the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis (a moot point, since the novel itself is based, however
distantly, on the gospels). Kazantzakiss novel is a speculative exploration of the concept of
Christs dual nature, focusing particularly on his humanity.
Now, Christian theology teaches that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully divine;
and certainly there is nothing objectionable about trying to evoke or express in art the
humanity of Christ. A work of art, a film or novel or painting, that evokes the truth of
Christs humanity is a good and noble thing, even if it doesnt directly address the subject
of his divinity. A recognizably human portrait of Jesus for example, one that envisions
him being capable of suffering weakness, loneliness, fear, exhaustion; of becoming
exasperated with his disciples, or of having a good time at a wedding party all of this can
be quite valid and worthwhile.
Moreover, the mystery of Jesus dual nature is one that no Christian can claim to fully
understand or imagine. In particular the experience of being a mortal man who was also
God in the flesh is one we cannot begin to grasp. Unanswered questions exist that leave
room for a range of different ways of envisioning the person of Christ in drama and art.
For all these reasons, we must not be too quick to judge any particular portrait of Christ
merely because it challenges our expectations or makes us uncomfortable, or because it
doesnt immediately evoke his divinity. After all, Jesus himself often confounded the
expectations of his contemporaries, and didnt necessarily impress most of them as being
divine. Indeed, if any believer today were somehow able to see and hear him as his
contemporaries did, the experience might not immediately confirm his faith indeed, it
might even give him a moments pause.
On the other hand, while Christian belief doesnt tell us everything about what Jesus was
like, much less what it was like to be him, it does give us certain insights into what he
wasnt. We may be unable to fully apprehend human nature united to divinity, but we can
easily understand that certain things would be incompatible with this union. Christian belief
teaches that Jesus shared our humanity, but not our fallenness and fallibility. Not only did
he not sin, he didnt suffer from our concupiscent appetites, our disordered and inflamed
desires. He was tempted as we are he could feel hunger during a fast, or dread on the
eve of his passion but his will was not pulled to and fro by wayward passions. He may, in
his humanity, have had limited knowledge or insights, but he could not be deceived or
confused into believing or teaching anything contrary to divine truth. At no time did he
suffer doubts about his divine nature or messianic identity.
Imperfect art and the perfection of God
Does a dramatic portrayal of Christs humanity have to be perfectly compatible with every
article of faith about him in order to have any value? No, not necessarily. Even an imperfect
vision of Christ one that doesnt entirely correspond to known truths of faith, that
contains elements that are clearly erroneous could still be worthwhile and valuable, if it
remains, on the whole, generally evocative of important truths about Christ.
That doesnt seem like too much to ask or expect: That a work of art be, on the whole,
generally evocative of the truth about its subject; that it be reasonably true to that subject,
that it not turn the subject into something antithetical to itself. A movie about the man
Jesus may have value if is shows Jesus to be recognizably and authentically human, while
at least minimally leaving room for his divine nature, remaining at least compatible with
Christian belief in his deity in a word, while not turning him into an fallible, fallen man,
one who could not be God.
A Jesus who commits sins who even thinks he commits sins, who talks a great deal
about needing "forgiveness" and paying with his life for his own sins; a Jesus who himself
speaks blasphemy and idolatry, calling fear his "god" and talking about being motivated
more by fear than by love; who has an ambivalent at best relationship with the Father,
even trying to merit divine hatred so that God will leave him alone all of this is utterly
antithetical to Christian belief and sentiment. This is not merely focusing on Jesus
humanity, this is effectively contradicting his divinity.
But the Jesus of Last Temptation does all of the above things, and more. The film gives us
a human Jesus, but a Jesus of fallible, fallen humanity a Jesus who could not be God.
This is evident, not just in the sequences containing obvious blasphemy, such as the scene
where Jesus the carpenter explains that he makes crosses for the Romans and helps crucify
his fellow Jews so that God will hate him and leave him alone; or even in the scenes
depicting Jesus persistent doubts and confusion about the nature of his identity and
mission, or whether he is the Messiah at all; but everywhere you turn in the film. The fact
is, Willem Dafoes Jesus has hardly a scene hardly two lines of dialogue put together
in which the falseness of the character is not the dominant fact about him.
One scene that had religious critics up in arms depicts Jesus sitting all afternoon in a room
outside the bedroom of a prostitute (Mary Magdalene), where he can both see and hear her
servicing a long queue of customers. The movies defenders pointed out that nothing in the
scene indicates Jesus is supposed to be moved to lust by what he sees and hears, so why
couldnt a perfect man do what Jesus is represented as doing? Yet even putting aside the
question of lust (and of Jesus general state throughout the film of apparent obssession
with Mary Magdalene), there is still the matter of ordinary modesty; not to mention the
obligation to avoid situations that would reasonably give scandal (since Jesus appears to be
simply waiting his turn like Marys customers).
Again, in the gospels there is an episode in which a crowd of listeners report to Jesus that
his mother and brothers have come to see him, and Jesus responds to the crowd, "Who are
my mother and brothers? Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and
brother" (cf. Mk 3:31-35). The version of this episode in Last Temptation has Jesus saying
to his mother "I have no family," and turning his back on her as she breaks down in tears.
Is this compatible with basic honor for father and mother a virtue that Jesus himself
emphasized was neglected in his own culture (cf. Mk 7:10-13)?
Admittedly, these are small things compared to the sweeping falsifications of Jesus
perpetual loving union with the Father; yet emotionally these "small things" may have a
greater impact on the viewer because they strike at things that are closer to home: sexual
purity, honor for parents. None of us really knows what Jesus relationship with his Father
was really like; but we all understand that we ought to refrain from things like denying our
filial responsibilities to our parents, or witnessing other peoples carnal activities. The falsity
of the characterization of Jesus extends to such details as these, not just the big things.
Throw out the objectionable parts, and theres virtually nothing left.
Judas the hero; John the Pentecostal
Nor is it only the portrayal of Jesus himself that is antithetical to Christian thought. Virtually
every characterization, every aspect of the film is deliberately iconoclastic, self-consciously
contrary to traditional Christian understanding, calculated for shock value. First and
foremost is the reinterpretation of Judas Iscariot (Harvey Keitel) as a principled hero, a
man who ultimately "betrays" Jesus only because Jesus orders him to do so over Judas
own tortured objections. When faithful Judas demands to know whether if Jesus himself,
were he in Judas place, would be able to betray a beloved master, Jesus replies (in a
moment typical of the films sensibilities), "No, I couldnt. Thats why God gave me the
easier job [i.e., dying on the cross]."
Throughout the movie Judas acts almost as Jesus conscience. As the film opens we find
Judas patriotically upbraiding Jesus for collaborating with Rome by his cross-making. When
Jesus begins his ministry, Judas follows him conditionally, warning him that if he betrays
his mission Judas will kill him. Finally, in the climactic scene, it is a stern, prophetic Judas
(or a dream-representation of him) that recalls Jesus to the necessity of his dying on the
cross.
Once again, theres nothing wrong with trying to humanize Judas to an extent, or give him
understandable motivations. The filmmaker can even make us empathize with him to the
point of feeling that we too would be capable of doing what he did. But what he did, in the
end, has to be wrong; and Keitels Judas never manifests anything like corruption, self-
interest, or pettiness. Jesus is the main character and protagonist here, but a case could be
made that Judas is the films true hero, or at least its most idealized character.
Then theres John the Baptist (Andre Gregory), who is oddly much older than Jesus and
doesnt seem to know him, though they were cousins of some sort. Johns ministry in the
wilderness resembles a hysterical-ecstatic Pentecostal revival meeting, with John striding
maniacally about spouting dark Old Testament apocalyptic (nothing of his actual themes of
repentance or the kingdom of heaven), while people gibber and shake and inexplicably
stand around naked.
St. Peter is a minor character, but whenever he is onscreen he is invariably doing or saying
the wrong thing (as in fact the real Peter often did, but he also did profoundly right things
that never figure here), inviting Judas scorn. And, while there is a basis in tradition for
representing Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, theres no justification for Jesus apparent
obsession with her, or her attempted seduction of him.
The last temptation: Modernist theology
There is also a very significant appearance by St. Paul that occurs in a difficult, extended
dreamlike sequence at the end of the film often been described as a vision or dream
sequence. (What follows is spoiler intensive.) The sequence begins with Jesus on the cross
seemingly being approached by a young girl, who tells him that he has suffered enough;
that he has proven himself faithful, and doesnt actually have to die after all. (She makes
an interesting case for this, citing the precedent of Abraham being told at the last minute
not to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah.)
We then see this girl gently remove the nails transfixing Christ to the cross, tenderly kiss
his wounds, and take him down off the cross and through the midst of the crowd, who
seem unaware that anything has happened, that the cross is now empty. Jesus is led to a
house where Mary Magdalene waits to marry him. (Later in the dream-sequence, Mary
Magdalene dies, and the girl takes Jesus to wed another Mary [the sister of Martha],
cryptically telling him: "There is only one woman in the world, with different faces." Is this
possibly meant to imply, as some critical opinion suggests, that these "Marys" are both a
sort of surrogate perhaps for still another Mary, the mother of Jesus? Could there
perhaps be an Oedipal theme here?)
Much later in the time-frame of the dream sequence, an aged Judas appears to recall the
now-dying Jesus to his obligation to die on the cross; and Jesus responds by rejecting the
dream-world and crying out to God to allow him to return to the cross whereupon he
opens his eyes, finds himself crucified, and triumphantly shouts the famous last words.
(Incidentally, Im giving the movie the benefit of the doubt by regarding this whole episode
as a "dream sequence" and assuming that it all occurs in Jesus mind, while in fact his body
never actually leaves the cross. However, its entirely possible to suppose that Jesus really
is brought down from the cross, that all these events really do happen, and that when the
aged Jesus cries out to God, God literally sends him back in time to the moment that he
was taken down from the cross. In that case, all these objections become far more
troubling.)
It is during this dream-life that Jesus encounters the apostle Paul, whom he finds preaching
the gospel of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection, even though of course in this dream-world
those events never occurred.
When Jesus angrily contradicts Pauls claims, Paul initially maintains the truth of his
message; but before long he is essentially endorsing the notion of Modernist theologians
that the gospel message was essentially "invented" by Paul himself, and that the faith and
hope people draw from the idea of Christs resurrection is more important that the historical
truth. This, of course, flagrantly contradicts the real St. Pauls famous dictum: "If Christ is
not raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain If Christ has not been
raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins, [and] those who have fallen asleep
in Christ [i.e., who died as believers] have perished" (1 Cor. 15:16-18).
Although this strange episode occurs in what is ostensibly a dream sequence, Pauls
argument seems to represent Kazantzakiss (or Scorseses) idea of what could have or
would have happened if Jesus were not raised from the dead. Essentially they are
introducing the idea that "faith" is more important than Jesus resurrection. What is the
function of having Paul say these things, even in a dream sequence, other than simply
introducing these ideas into the film? If they merely wanted to show Paul preaching the
gospel in order to suggest the necessity of Jesus completing his mission, why not follow up
by having Jesus denial of Pauls message leave Paul shattered and despairing, or at least
flatly disbelieving Jesus claims?
The power of imagery
What about a notorious scene with Jesus and Mary Magdalene, now presumably (in the
dream continuity) married, making love? In principle, once you grant the premise of Jesus
being tempted with a vision of ordinary life after the crucifixion, a case can of course be
made that this sequence reasonably belongs to the logic of the scenario. Since they are
supposed to be married, it is all theoretically lawful; and the actual imagery is non-graphic.
Despite this, in practice I myself was deeply disturbed and repulsed by the sheer visual-
emotional impact of a close-up depiction of Jesus Christ passionately kissing a woman in
bed. Roger Ebert, in his review of Spike Lees Bamboozled, criticized that films use of
actors in blackface makeup even though the actors themselves were black and the
device was intended as a critique of racism arguing that the sheer racist association of
the image itself overwhelms the context and dramatic purpose. Watching this scene in Last
Temptation, I had a similar reaction: I was just blown away by the wrongness of the very
picture of Jesus kissing a woman.
That the picture was part of a "temptation" scene doesnt mend matters at all; the sheer
force of the image is greater than its context. Its like one person quoting another person
as having uttered a particularly graphic obscene remark that youd just as soon not have
heard: The person repeating the remark may not be endorsing what was said; but he still
put the image in your head. Scorsese might not have been endorsing the picture of Jesus
engaging in carnal activity, since it was part of the tempters scenario; but he still put the
picture on the screen.
Almost as disturbing to me, in retrospect, was the fact that this tempter, in the guise of a
young woman, is shown, seemingly, not only drawing the nails from Christs extremities,
but also tenderly kissing the sacred wounds wounds that are the object of such deep
devotion among Catholics. Essentially we have here a picture of Satan kissing the sacred
wounds. I could probably imagine an image more odious to Catholic sensibilities but if it
got put into a movie, Id rather not see it.
Message over medium
In short, my conclusion is that the religious critics who think Last Temptation a bad film are
correct. Does this mean that the fans and film critics who think it a creative masterpiece
are wrong? Ive made my case for the films spiritual bankruptcy, but what about its value
as art?
Its quite true that a film can be morally or spiritually objectionable and still have significant
artistic or entertainment value. Thats the whole point of my specialized ratings system. I
had grave moral objections to The Cell, American Beauty, and Being John Malkovich, but I
gave them all high marks for artistic/entertainment value. Whatever other faults these
movies may have, each of them is in its own way interesting to watch. Parts of them I
might even want to see again.
Yet, for me at least, The Last Temptation of Christ is a complete wash. Not because of a
directorial failure on Scorseses part, but simply because no director in the world could
possibly make this material into a film worth sitting through for its own sake.
Sometimes its possible to prescind from a movies offensive use of themes and appreciate
its achievements in spite of its moral failings. One can bracket ones objections to the
Marxist propaganda in The Battleship Potemkin, or the racist celebration of the original Ku
Klux Klan in D. W. Griffiths Birth of a Nation, and still value the striking imagery of the
famous Odessa Steps sequence from the former, or the groundbreaking editing in the
climactic chase scene of the latter.
But I for one dont see how its possible to bracket all the objections that must be raised to
all that is anti-Christian in Last Temptation, and still have anything worthwhile left over to
appreciate or enjoy. Past a certain point, objectionability obliterates all hope or desire of
approaching a work as art or entertainment. No level of production values or technically
proficient filmmaking could make it worthwhile to watch a movie that indulged in child
pornography, or that relentlessly celebrated the Holocaust, or that overtly romanticized the
degradation and abasement of women. Cross a certain line, and message overwhelms
medium, substance overwhelms style, what you have to say drowns out how you might be
saying it.
Last Temptation goes way over that line. Poisonous morally and spiritually, it is also
worthless as art or entertainment, at least on any theory of art as an object of appreciation.
As an artifact of technical achievement, it may be well made; but as a film, it is devoid of
redeeming merit.
I find myself reflecting on the significance of the fact that this film represents the
collaboration of a writer of Greek Orthodox heritage and a filmmaker of Italian Catholic
background. Only artists so steeped from childhood in the rich profundity of Christian
tradition could possibly create something so profoundly antithetical to that tradition, so
deeply heretical and blasphemous. It could never have been made by an ordinary
nonreligious or atheistic filmmaker, or even by a lapsed Protestant.
Tags: Anti-Catholic
RELATED CONTENT
Mail: Re: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
I know that your review of Scorseses Last Temptation of Christ is 7 years old, nonetheless
I have one piece of what I hope is perceived as constructive criticism. This review is not a
review of the film (i.e. screenplay, direction, actors portrayals, cinematography). It is, quite
frankly, a review of Kazantzakis book. You have reviewed and critiqued the main plot
points that were created by Kazantzakis almost 50 years ago. Reviewing a movie such as
this is like walking a tight rope to insure that you dont review the book. You never set foot
on the tight rope, though, and instead fell to the ground, into the trap of a book review.
What I was really hoping for was a film critique.
Thank you for listening. Please dont take this personally. You seem to be an otherwise
good reviewer as far as Christian Faith reviewers go.
Ive always been amazed at how much attention my Last Temptation essay has garnered,
considering I wrote it basically for myself, early in my career, as a test case of the kind of
writing I wanted to do. I never thought the film and the essay would continue to attract so
much attention.
FWIW, response to that essay has been more or less evenly split into the following types:
1. Your review completely misses the point of the film. Youre totally off the mark.
2. Your review says it perfectly. Thank you.
3. Ive never understood why Christians had a problem with this movie, but now it
makes sense.
The first type of reaction I take to heart, because I want to try to understand any film the
way its appreciators do, even if I ultimately wind up siding with the detractors. The second
reaction is always nice, of course, but its the third that has always been the most gratifying
to me, since it confirms that at least for some readers Ive been able to make another point
of view explicable to them, which is a big part of what reading and writing, as well as
cinema, is all about.
Your reaction is intriguing, in part, because it doesnt immediately seem to fit any of the
types. It might turn out to be a type-1 response, but I dont have enough information to
conclude that just yet.
Continue Reading This Item >
Mail: Re: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Im fascinated by your interpretation of The Last Temptation of Christ. Whilst recognising
the sometimes blasphemous nature of the film, I cant help but think you are somewhat
wrong about Judas.
The betrayal of Christ is a necessity and was known to Jesus in advance. Judas may have
been ostensibly motivated by money. However, his actions are crucial and therefore must
in some way have had the tacit approval of Christ.
The crucifixion was not possible without Judas and while it may have hurt Christ to be
betrayed, it was as I said necessary. Does that not leave you like me with some
doubt about Judas and his real motivations?
Im bemused and gratified by the interest in my Last Temptation essay thanks to Roger
Eberts attention. That essay came fairly early in my career, and was written primarily for
myself as an exercise in the approach to film writing that I wanted to take. Looking back,
there are a few things I would change, but I think the piece still basically sums up my take
on the film.
The question of Judass motivation, whether considered historically, narratively or
theologically, is admittedly a thorny one. Certainly thirty pieces of silver was not exactly a
fortune, so it seems unlikely that Judas was nothing more than an opportunist motivated by
greed. For that matter, Im sure greed-motivated opportunists had better career options in
first-century Israel than becoming itinerant disciples of homeless prophets.
The New Testament offers very little information about Judas Iscariot. The Gospels do tell
us that he approached the chief priests and asked what they would give him to betray
them, and the price of thirty pieces of silver (so Matthew tells us) is set beforehand. (This is
contradicted by the depiction in Zeffirellis Jesus of Nazareth, in which Judas never asks for
money and a fictional Zerah offers him the money only after the fact, as an afterthought.)
We also read that Judas felt remorse when he saw Jesus condemned, leading to his suicide.
Outside the passion narrative, Judas figures in only one story, the Johannine account in
which Judas criticizes Mary of Bethany for anointing Jesus feet with costly ointment, which
(Judas objected) could have been sold and the money given to the poor and the
evangelist adds that Judas real motivation was not that he cared about the poor, but that
he was a thief who held the disciples common money box and stole from it.
This is obviously not a flattering picture, but neither is it enough data to build up any sort
of psychological profile of Judas, or to say what he thought he was doing when he betrayed
Jesus. From a dramatic point of view, therefore, Im open to a wide range of speculative
possibilities. Interesting 20th-century takes on Judas include Taylor Caldwells I, Judas and
Dorothy Sayerss The Man Born to be King.
Continue Reading This Item >
Mail: Re: The Last Temptation of Christ: An Essay in Film Criticism and Faith
Ive just recently seen The Last Temptation of Christ for the first time, and, as a devout
atheist, can tell you that its the only bit of biblical fantasy Ive ever come across that
engenders a sense of plausibility. It accommodates human nature in all its facets. (And
keep in mind Jesus as half-human was also possessed of human nature.)
Your believer-based critique does what believer-based opinions always do: exceedingly
complicate matters in order to avoid facing the simple (usually most fascinating) realies.
For example, your assessment is tainted by your opening disclaimer that Jesus Christ was
fully human as well as fully divine. Thats the sort of absurdity that no rational person
could even at a stretch see as plausible. Its just not possible to be 200% of anything.
I think the story, with the elegance of simplicity, tells the story of a zealot (Judas) who
decides (or is sent) to manipulate a weak-willed, typically Jewish-mummys-boy neurotic,
and not real bright Jesus into becoming the easily-controlled figurehead for the long-
awaited Messiah whos supposed to lead the various zealots in overthrowing the Roman
oppressors. Hes the perfect target for such an ambition: thick, a traitor/crucifix-maker,
afraid of pain (recall the reaction when Judas threatens to knife him if he doesnt co-
operate), and gullible enough to come to believe that hell survive the experience because,
after all, hes the Messiah; Judas told him so. (Theres a delicious little delight in the
thought that the Romans would eventually kill their own crucifix maker in the cause of the
zealots.)
But wait! Theres more! In the best traditions of film-making, there needs to be a twist, a
logical proposal thats unexpected. And the final temptation scenes provide that in
droves. The dual-spirit of not only Jesus but all of humanity is described and employed
insomuch that the temptation-experience can be seen as both in the mind and in reality
at the same time.
And the climax is that Jesus redeemed himself in the eyes of the world, and Judas came
to believe his own propaganda, thus redeeming himself in the eyes of god! Ygotta love it!
One of the five (?) best movies Ive ever seen.
For what its worth, Im not sure you havent misunderstood my statement that Jesus is
fully human and fully divine. This thesis, which is simply historical Christian orthodoxy
confessed by countless Christians every week of the year, does not mean that Jesus is 200
percent of anything. Rather, it means that he possesses the fullness of divine nature and
also the fullness of human nature.
More precisely, the eternal Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, without in any way
diminishing his eternal divine nature, assumed to himself a complete human nature, uniting
two complete natures in one divine Being. To call him half God and half man is incorrect if
by this you mean that he combines partial traits of divinity and humanity into a single
hybrid nature.
Ironically, the most historically rigorous movie about Jesus may be an animated film with
puppets, The Miracle Maker. Thanks to expert advice from historians like N. T. Wright, the
filmmakers were able to situate what is known about Jesus in a plausible Hellenistic,
second-temple Jewish context under imperial Rome. For example, the depiction of Jesus
living in the tiny village of Nazareth but working as a handyman (tekton probably had a
broader meaning than carpenter) in nearby Sepphoris is historically reasonable; the
depiction of Jesus in Last Temptation making crosses for the Romans is merely a conceit.
Link To This Item >

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=645341

Feb 14, '12, 2:41 pm

paul11b
Junior Member

Join Date: October 21, 2010
Posts: 225
Religion: Roman Catholic

the last temptation of Christ

Has anyone seen a movie where William Dafoe plays Jesus called the last temptation of Christ? Is it
any good? I think I may have heard it's a bad movie but I don't know.
__________________
Being faithful to God demands a struggle. And it means close combat, man to man-the old man
against the man of God-in one small thing after another, without giving in.

-St. Josemaria Escriva

paul11b
View Public Profile
Find all posts by paul11b
#2
Feb 14, '12, 3:48 pm
Publisher
Senior Member

Join Date: January 31, 2007
Posts: 6,439
Religion: Quaker

Re: the last temptation of Christ

I've seen it several times....it''s..."different"....but on the whole I enjoyed it. I went to see it when it first
came out in the 80's....I was living in Huntsville AL at the time and had to drive to Atlanta GA as
Atlanta was the only city within driving distance in the South that was showing it.

I had to wait in line for a couple hours as the theater had to set up security measures. The day
before a "Christian" group had paint balled the screen to prevent it from being shown. We had to go
thru a 'pat-down' by police to insure no paint guns, knives, or spray paint made it into the theater by
"Christians" who were picketing outside the theater.....those of us in line was called vile names by
"Christians".....some of them were arrested as they pelted some in line with tomatos...it was exciting
to say the least.

The portrayal of Jesus is one of a very unsure man who slowly realized who he was. The movie also
capitalized on his relationship with Mary of Magdala....and in this particular portrayal she was
depicted as a prostitute....something which the Gospels never depict but was fostored by one of the
popes in the early centuries...don't remember which one.

The "last temptation" was very interesting.....he was tempted to "come down from the cross" and live
a life with Mary of Magdala.

I thouroughly enjoyed the movie....I tried reading the book but it was a very tedious read....but the
movie is worth watching if only to get another perspective of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Publisher
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Publisher
#3
Feb 14, '12, 4:41 pm

followingtheway
Regular Member

Join Date: May 30, 2011
Posts: 1,712
Religion: Catholic


Quote:
Originally Posted by paul11b
Has anyone seen a movie where William Dafoe plays Jesus called the last temptation of Christ? Is
it any good? I think I may have heard it's a bad movie but I don't know.
Well it's a controversial movie because

[*]It shows Jesus having sex with Mary Magdelene[*]Constructing crosses for the Romans[*]Kissing
other men on the lips[*]Jesus being tormented by the voice of God[/list]
Also because it shows Jesus using the name "Jehovah" for God (which wasn't offensive at all to me)
__________________
I am a proud young Hispanic Roman Catholic from NYC.

Are you a proud Hispanic Catholic too? Come join the group!

http://forums.catholic.com/group.php?groupid=1318

followingtheway
View Public Profile
Find all posts by followingtheway
#4
Feb 14, '12, 4:42 pm

Luigi Daniele
Senior Member

Join Date: March 17, 2007
Posts: 7,637


Complete carp. Avoid like the plague.
__________________

Totus Tuus
Cacciatore/Fungaiolo

Luigi Daniele
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Luigi Daniele
#5
Feb 14, '12, 4:52 pm

E_7
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior

Join Date: September 26, 2011
Posts: 798


Quote:
Has anyone seen a movie where William Dafoe plays Jesus called the last temptation of Christ?
nope
__________________

Please God, continue to bless our relationship, that we may bring each other closer to You
through Christ, our Lord, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

E_7
View Public Profile
Find all posts by E_7
#6
Feb 14, '12, 4:55 pm

agnes therese
Regular Member

Join Date: August 18, 2010
Posts: 2,694


It was much better than I expected, after all the fuss when it was first released. Just be aware that it
isn't everyone's cup of tea.
__________________
. . . the grace of God pursued me at every step . . .
St. Faustina, Diary, #38

agnes therese
View Public Profile
Find all posts by agnes therese
#7
Feb 14, '12, 4:58 pm

svid2
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior

Posts: 1,945


Not my cup of tea.
__________________
Because we are human,
we are not strong.
Because we are not strong,
we pray.
- St. Augustine of Hippo

svid2
View Public Profile
Find all posts by svid2
#8
Feb 14, '12, 5:10 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487
Religion: Catholic: sinner in need of salvation


Quote:
I have. I've also read the original novel by Nikos Kazantzakis (author of works such as The Odyssey:
A Modern Sequel, Zorba the Greek, The Greek Passion aka Christ Recrucified, and Captain
Michalis).

The rather highly-overrated (IMHO) novel is, frankly speaking, while having a rather interesting
premise, does tackle things in a way that many Christians would find problematic and controversial,
there's no denying that: it was after all the novel which caused Kazantzakis to be anathematized
from the Greek Orthodox Church in 1955.

From a literary POV, I think the novel is a somewhat average speculative fiction: not totally as bad as
some would like people to think, but not exactly the best either. I was more interested in Kazantzakis'
main premise and writing style than the plot itself. The old adage about authors' retellings of Jesus'
life coming to reflect more the authors than the Man Himself is true: Kazantzakis' Jesus is more of a
mirror reflection of Kazantzakis himself, who was himself a highly tortured and spiritually restless
man, than Jesus of Nazareth.

As for the (also over-rated) film 'adaptation' (I personally consider it more of a separate creature from
the novel), it's more of a combination of a little good and much bad and dull. If I can be frank, the film
literally just plodded along that I began to wonder what was it that caused all the controversy. Martin
Scorsese might be a famous director, but the film is just, bizarre. Like, more bizarre than the novel.
And Willem Dafoe does have a few bright moments, but on the whole I could not stand his spineless
and whiny Jesus: if the novel's Jesus is having an existential crisis, the film's Jesus comes off as
having mental illness. I guess some things are better left on paper.
__________________
Please pray for me. That's the least you could do.

patrick457
View Public Profile
Visit patrick457's homepage!
Find all posts by patrick457
#9
Feb 14, '12, 5:28 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


For the benefit of everyone, a snippet from the novel's prologue:
Every moment of Christs life is a conflict and a victory. He conquered the invincible enchantment of
simple human pleasures; he conquered temptations, continually transubstantiated flesh into spirit,
and ascended. Reaching the summit of Golgotha, he mounted the Cross.

But even there his struggle did not end. Temptationthe Last Temptationwas waiting for him upon
the Cross. Before the fainted eyes of the Crucified the spirit of the Evil One, in an instantaneous
flash, unfolded the deceptive vision of a calm and happy life. It seemed to Christ that he had taken
the smooth, easy road of men. He had married and fathered children. People loved and respected
him. Now, an old man, he sat on the threshold of his house and smiled with satisfaction as he
recalled the longings of his youth. How splendidly, how sensibly he had acted in choosing the road of
men! What insanity to have wanted to save the world! What joy to have escaped the privations, the
tortures, and the Cross!

This was the Last Temptation which came in the space of a lightning flash to trouble the Saviours
final moments.
But all at once Christ shook his head violently, opened his eyes, and saw. No, he was not a traitor,
glory be to God! He was not a deserter. He had accomplished the mission which the Lord had
entrusted to him. He had not married, had not lived a happy life. He had reached the summit of
sacrifice: he was nailed upon the Cross. Content, he closed his eyes. And then there was a great
triumphant cry: It is accomplished!
In other words: I have accomplished my duty, I am being crucified, I did not fall into temptation. ...

This book was written because I wanted to offer a supreme model to the man who struggles; I
wanted to show him that he must not fear pain, temptation or deathbecause all three can be
conquered, all three have already been conquered. Christ suffered pain, and since then pain has
been sanctified. Temptation fought until the very last moment to lead him astray, and Temptation
was defeated. Christ died on the Cross, and at that instant death was vanquished forever.
Every obstacle in his journey became a milestone, an occasion for further triumph. We have a model
in front of us now, a model who blazes our trail and gives us strength.
This book is not a biography; it is the confession of every man who struggles. In publishing it I have
fulfilled my duty, the duty of a person who struggled much, was much embittered in his life, and had
many hopes. I am certain that every free man who reads this book, so filled as it is with love, will
more than ever before, better than ever before, love Christ.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#10
Feb 15, '12, 4:04 am

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by followingtheway
Well it's a controversial movie because

[*]It shows Jesus having sex with Mary Magdelene[*]Constructing crosses for the
Romans[*]Kissing other men on the lips[*]Jesus being tormented by the voice of God[/list]
Also because it shows Jesus using the name "Jehovah" for God (which wasn't offensive at all to
me)
Men kissing each other is only controversial and prone to misinterpretation in our modern-day
culture, Besides AFAIR the only scene where this happens is during the betrayal of Jesus in
Gethsemane, and even then Judas is the one who initiates it. If that is problematic, I could name a
few other Jesus films which should be in problem as well. And "Jehovah", the novel (in the
translation) actually uses it quite a number of times, but this in itself of course isn't inoffensive.

As Jesus being tormented by the voice of God and making crosses for the Romans: this is part of the
work's theme, and yes, this is one of the more problematic (from an orthodox POV) parts. For
Kazantzakis, Jesus, being both God and man, would have had His humanity - weak as human
nature is - clash often with His divinity: a battle between desire ("what I want to do") and duty ("what I
must do"), between the willing spirit and the weak flesh.

Kazantzakis makes reference to the battle between flesh and spirit in the prologue:
THE DUAL SUBSTANCE of Christthe yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain to
God or, more exactly, to return to God and identify himself with himhas always been a deep
inscrutable mystery to me. This nostalgia for God, at once so mysterious and so real, has opened in
me large wounds and also large flowing springs.
My principal anguish and the source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the
incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh.
Within me are the dark immemorial forces of the Evil One, human and prehuman; within me too are
the luminous forces, human and pre-human, of Godand my soul is the arena where these two
armies have clashed and met.
The anguish has been intense. I loved my body and did not want it to perish; I loved my soul and did
not want it to decay. I have fought to reconcile these two primordial forces which are so contrary to
each other, to make them realize that they are not enemies but, rather, fellow workers, so that they
might rejoice in their harmonyand so that I might rejoice with them.

Every man partakes of the divine nature in both his spirit and his flesh. That is why the mystery of
Christ is not simply a mystery for a particular creed: it is universal. The struggle between God and
man breaks out in everyone, together with the longing for reconciliation. Most often this struggle is
unconscious and short-lived.
A weak soul does not have the endurance to resist the flesh for very long. It grows heavy, becomes
flesh itself, and the contest ends. But among responsible men, men who keep their eyes riveted day
and night upon the Supreme Duty, the conflict between flesh and spirit breaks out mercilessly and
may last until death.
The stronger the soul and the flesh, the more fruitful the struggle and the richer the final harmony.
God does not love weak souls and flabby flesh. The Spirit wants to have to wrestle with flesh which
is strong and full of resistance. It is a carnivorous bird which is incessantly hungry; it eats flesh and,
by assimilating it, makes it disappear.
Struggle between the flesh and the spirit, rebellion and resistance, reconciliation and submission,
and finallythe supreme purpose of the struggleunion with God: this was the ascent taken by
Christ, the ascent which he invites us to take as well, following in his bloody tracks.
This is the Supreme Duty of the man who strugglesto set out for the lofty peak which Christ, the
first-born son of salvation, attained. How can we begin?
If we are to be able to follow him we must have a profound knowledge of his conflict, we must relive
his anguish: his victory over the blossoming snares of the earth, his sacrifice of the great and small
joys of men and his ascent from sacrifice to sacrifice, exploit to exploit, to martyrdoms summit, the
Cross.
In the novel (and the film), Jesus is the Messiah and apparently knows what He is supposed to do,
but at first He wants to run away from His destiny: the novel pointedly mentions that fear is the only
demon left for Jesus to struggle with before His time is come. To this end, He tries to collaborate with
the Romans by making crosses for them, thinking that by doing so God would somehow leave Him
alone to lead a normal life.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#11
Feb 15, '12, 4:22 am

Paul theApostle
Regular Member

Posts: 1,787


From-
http://kirjasto.sci.fi/kazantza.htm

"The Last Temptation of Christ explored the theme of the battle between spirit and flesh. The book
was banned by Vatican in 1954 and in 1955 Kazantzakis was excommunicated from the Greek
Orthodox Church. The members of the Orthodox Church of America damned the work as extremely
indecent and atheistic, after admitting that they hadn't read it and had based their case on the
magazine articles. Kazantzakis presented Christ as an existential hero, a rebel against his divine
mission until he is awakened by Judas, whom he calls his brother. Judas tries to same in Jerusalem,
but his heroic struggle against God ends in failure."

Paul theApostle
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Paul theApostle
#12
Feb 15, '12, 4:45 am

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by Publisher
The portrayal of Jesus is one of a very unsure man who slowly realized who he was. The movie
also capitalized on his relationship with Mary of Magdala....and in this particular portrayal she was
depicted as a prostitute....something which the Gospels never depict but was fostored by one of
the popes in the early centuries...don't remember which one.
It was Pope St. Gregory the Great if I remember right. What is interesting is that Kazantzakis
chooses to use the conception of Mary of Magdala as a prostitute, something that is well-known in
Western Christianity but is mostly foreign to the East, where she is distinguished from Mary of
Bethany and the "sinful woman". And I won't exactly put it as Jesus being "a very unsure man who
slowly realized who he was," but Jesus being as a man who knows the path He must tread, but is
very unsure and afraid to do it.

Not to come off as lambasting the film further, but I think the film's greatest flaw is trying to adapt the
novel in the realistic, naturalistic manner that has become the vogue in recent Jesus films, where the
supernatural is kept at a minimum. The original novel is very much in the magic realism genre, in
which supernatural and fantastic elements blend in with the real world: otherworldly beings ranging
from Satan and various angels to the spirit of the river Jordan (who appears in a single scene; you
know, that old man who is usually portrayed in some Eastern icons of the baptism of Jesus) have as
'real' a presence as the human characters, for one.

There are also a number of conscious (anachronistic) references to both Jewish and Christian
tradition and spirituality, which heightens the feeling of having the 'real' and the 'fantastic' in the same
stream of thought more: going back to the baptism scene in the novel, Jesus addresses John as
"Forerunner," John baptizes Jesus in the Eastern baptismal formula ("The servant of God is
baptized..."), and as mentioned, the personification of the river Jordan appears at the moment of
baptism in the sight of everyone present. To this we could add the narration's description of the
proceedings as "a sacrament."

The film, in showing things naturalistically, cuts off most of these fantastic elements (and in a few
places, inserts some original scenes) while seeming to retain a few, albeit in a muted fashion. This
directorial choice made the finished product rather bizzare, in my humble opinion.
__________________

Last edited by patrick457; Feb 15, '12 at 4:56 am.

patrick457
View Public Profile
#13
Feb 15, '12, 7:30 am

Joe 5859
Forum Master

Join Date: February 1, 2007
Posts: 12,837
Religion: Catholic


It's funny, there are certain books, movies, songs, artists, etc. that perennially come up here on CAF,
even many years later.

Here is a commentary on it by Catholic film reviewer Steve Greydanus:

http://www.decentfilms.com/articles/lasttemptation
__________________
Joe (Average Joe Catholic)

Read through the Documents of Vatican II for the Year of Faith

The Catechesis of the Popes

Joe 5859
View Public Profile
Visit Joe 5859's homepage!
Find all posts by Joe 5859
#14
Feb 15, '12, 8:07 am

Carolus Martell
Regular Member

Join Date: April 23, 2011
Posts: 551
Religion: Catholic


I love that movie and have seen it about 20 times on VHS.

There was a big hullabaloo when it 1st came out...worth checking out. A different portrayal of Jesus
than we're use to but imo absolutely fascinating. Tremendous acting.
__________________
Fear God and dread naught.

Carolus Martell
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Carolus Martell
#15
Feb 15, '12, 8:31 am
Splagchnizomai
Junior Member

Posts: 961
Religion: Catholic


Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick457
I have. I've also read the original novel by Nikos Kazantzakis (author of works such as The
Odyssey: A Modern Sequel, Zorba the Greek, The Greek Passion aka Christ Recrucified, and
Captain Michalis).
It's been too long since I've seen the film to make any comments about it, and I haven't read any of
those works, but I am currently reading his Saint Francis, which I find rather well crafted.
__________________
Moved with pity (splagchnizomai), he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I
will; be clean." (Mk 1:41)

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=645341&page=2

Feb 15, '12, 10:36 am
Dandelion_Wine
Book Club Member

Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 2,291
Religion: Catholic


I remember when it came out (the movie) and there was a big hullabaloo about it. I didn't see it
because of that.

Then many moons later, I was at my buddy's hanging out and he told me it was his favorite movie.
Since he had it and I wasn't going to be contributing to anyone's pocketbook by watching it, I did.

Garbage. I wish I had the time back. The Passion of the Christ - now that could change one's life.
The Last Temptation of Christ? Eh.
__________________
"I think nighttime is dark so you can imagine your fears with less distraction." - Calvin

Dandelion_Wine
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Dandelion_Wine
#17
Feb 15, '12, 2:10 pm

paul11b
Junior Member

Posts: 225


how about Jesus of Nazareth? I've never seen that one either, is it good?
__________________
Being faithful to God demands a struggle. And it means close combat, man to man-the old man
against the man of God-in one small thing after another, without giving in.

-St. Josemaria Escriva

paul11b
View Public Profile
Find all posts by paul11b
#18
Feb 15, '12, 2:22 pm
Publisher
Senior Member

Posts: 6,439
Religion: Quaker


Quote:
Overdramitized but all in all enjoyable....with nothing to offend conservative Christian sensibilites I
would think.

"Jesus" and "Gospel of John" are both entertaining as well.....I saw "Jesus" in the '80's at Century
Theaters in San Jose.....it was playing across the street from "The Life of Brian"....

Publisher
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Publisher
#19
Feb 15, '12, 3:42 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe 5859
It's funny, there are certain books, movies, songs, artists, etc. that perennially come up here on
CAF, even many years later.
Which is perfectly normal.
Quote:
Here is a commentary on it by Catholic film reviewer Steve Greydanus:

http://www.decentfilms.com/articles/lasttemptation
A few things:
Quote:
One scene that had religious critics up in arms depicts Jesus sitting all afternoon in a room outside
the bedroom of a prostitute (Mary Magdalene), where he can both see and hear her servicing a
long queue of customers. The movies defenders pointed out that nothing in the scene indicates
Jesus is supposed to be moved to lust by what he sees and hears, so why couldnt a perfect man
do what Jesus is represented as doing? Yet even putting aside the question of lust (and of Jesus
general state throughout the film of apparent obssession with Mary Magdalene), there is still the
matter of ordinary modesty; not to mention the obligation to avoid situations that would reasonably
give scandal (since Jesus appears to be simply waiting his turn like Marys customers).
The better question is: why is Jesus in Magdalene's 'shop'?

In the novel, Jesus at this point has finally decided to go into the Essene monastery in the desert and
meet God there, where "[He] shall kill the flesh and turn it into spirit." He originally intended to avoid
the infamous hamlet of Magdala, but en route to the monastery, He just found Himself setting foot in
the town.
He marched and marched, and his mind wandered. He was running from Magdalene, the whore, to
God; from the cross to Paradise, from his mother and father to distant lands and seas, to myriad-
faced men, white, yellow and black. Although he had never crossed the boundaries of Israel, ever
since his early childhood he had shut his eyes within his fathers humble cottage and his mind, like a
trained hawk with golden hawk bells, had darted from land to land, ocean to ocean, screeching with
joy. It was not hunting anything, this hawk-mind of his; he had become oblivious of the body, he was
escaping the flesh, ascending to heavenand this was all he could possibly desire.
He marched and marched. The twisting path wound in and out through the vineyards, rose once
more, reached the olive groves. The son of Mary followed it as one follows running water or the sad,
monotonous chant of a camel driver. This whole journey seemed a dream to him. He scarcely
touched the earth; his feet trod his human seal, the heel and five toes, lightly into the soil. The olive
trees waved their laden branches and welcomed him. The grapes had begun to shine; the heavy
clusters hung down until they reached the ground. The girls who went by with their white kerchiefs
and firm, sunburned calves greeted him sweetly: Shalom! Peace!
Sometimes, when not a soul was visible on the path, he heard the heavy footsteps behind him again;
a bronze splendor flared up in the air and was then snuffed out, and the evil laughter exploded once
more over his head. But the son of Mary forced himself to be patient. He was approaching
deliverance; soon he would see the lake opposite him, and behind the blue waters, hanging like a
falcons nest between the red rocks, the monastery.
He followed the path, and his mind ran on, but suddenly he stopped, startled. There before him in a
sheltered hollow, spread out beneath the date palms, was Magdala. His mind turned back, turned
back, but his feet, against his will, began to lead him with sure steps to the perfumed hermitage of
his cousin Magdalene, to the house which was condemned to the fires of hell.
Thinking that it was God who is making Him go to Magdala (in order to beg forgiveness from Mary
before He retires into the desert), Jesus finally allows Himself to be led into town. He follows an
Indian nobleman to the courtyard of Mary's whorehouse.

The difference between film and novel is that in the latter, Jesus apparently cannot "both see and
hear [Mary] servicing a long queue of customers" (the book explicitly notes that the room is closed,
with only sounds from the bedroom being heard every now and then) nor does the narrative focus on
it. Rather, Kazantzakis focuses on the customers on the line, who are chatting and eating snacks to
pass the time, especially the Indian nobleman (who arrives at the conclusion that life is but a dream
and becoming enlightened, promptly leaves). Jesus is more anguished with having to put up with
these kinds of men.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#20
Feb 15, '12, 4:08 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


The young nobleman had lowered his heavy eyelids. His upper body swayed slowly back and forth
and his lips stirred as though he were saying his prayers. Already, before entering Paradise, he had
plunged into everlasting beatitude. He heard the cackling of the partridge, the tickling and the
creaking inside the bolted chamber, heard the old woman at the door load her grate with live crabs,
which then hopped onto the coals.
This is Paradise, he meditated, overcome with a great lassitude; this, the deep sleep we call life, the
sleep in which we dream of Paradise. There is no other Paradise. I can get up now and go, for I
require no further joy.
A huge, green-turbaned man in front of him pushed him with his knee and laughed. Prince of India,
what does your God have to say about all this?
The youth opened his eyes. All what? he asked.
Here, in front of you: men, women, crabs, love.
That everything is a dream.
Well, then, my brave ladstake care, interrupted the old man with the snowy beard, who was
telling his beads on a long amber chaplet. Take care not to wake up!

[...] The time went by. Now and then the slow, gentle clicking of the amber beads could be heard. All
eyes were pinned once more on the squat doorway. The old man was late, very late, in coming out.
The young Indian nobleman got up. The others turned with astonishment. Why had he got up?
Wasnt he going to speak? Was he about to leave? ... He was happy. His face was resplendent; a
gentle glow patched his cheeks. He wrapped the cashmere shawl tightly around him, put his hand to
his heart and lips, and took his leave. His shadow passed tranquilly over the threshold.
He woke up, said the youth with the golden rings about his ankles. He tried to laugh, but a strange
fear had suddenly overcome them all, and they began with anxious haste to discuss profit and loss,
and the prices current in the slave markets of Alexandria and Damascus. Soon, however, they
reverted to their barefaced talk of women and boys, and they stuck out their tongues and licked their
chops.
Lord, O Lord, the son of Mary murmured, where have you thrown me? Into what kind of yard? To
sit up with what kind of men! This, Lord, is the greatest degradation of all. Give me strength to
endure it!
Jesus eventually begins to wonder if the Indian was right - whether everything here is really just a
dream.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#21
Feb 15, '12, 4:32 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Again, in the gospels there is an episode in which a crowd of listeners report to Jesus that his
mother and brothers have come to see him, and Jesus responds to the crowd, "Who are my
mother and brothers? Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and brother" (cf. Mk
3:31-35). The version of this episode in Last Temptation has Jesus saying to his mother "I have no
family," and turning his back on her as she breaks down in tears. Is this compatible with basic
honor for father and mother a virtue that Jesus himself emphasized was neglected in his own
culture (cf. Mk 7:10-13)?
This is how the scene plays in the film. For the record, this scene occurs in Nazareth, where Jesus'
listeners have grown hostile and are driving Him out of town.
Mary comes out of the crowd near him and grabs Jesus' arm.

MARY: Son. Please. Come back with me.
JESUS: Who are you woman?
MARY: You know who I am. Don't you recognize me? I'm your mother.
JESUS: I have no mother. I have no family. Only my father who's in heaven. Get away from me.

He shakes off her arm. She trips, Jesus keeps walking, followed by the disciples. Peter and a
WOMAN help Mary to her feet. Peter walks on as Mary and the woman turn back to town.

WOMAN: Mary... why are you crying? Didn't you see them?
MARY: See what?
WOMAN: When he spoke to you, thousands of blue wings, behind him, I swear to you Mary, there
were armies of angels.
MARY: I didn't see anything. What good are angels to me? I wanted children and grand-children
behind him, not angels.
To be honest, the book isn't any better:
A woman flew out from a narrow street. A purple kerchief was wrapped tightly around her face,
covering all but half of her mouth and her large black eyes, which were submerged in tears.
For Gods sake, dont kill him! she cried in her high voice.
Mary, his mother! people murmured.
But how could the old men pity the mother at this point: they had become rabid. Death! Death! they
howled. Hes come to awaken the people, to incite a rebellion, to divide our goods among the
barefooted rabble. Death!
The opponents had now come to grips. Josephs two sons rolled on the ground, howling. Jacob had
seized a stone and cracked open their heads. Judas stood with drawn dagger in front of Jesus,
allowing no one to approach. Philip remembered his sheep. Unable to restrain himself any longer, he
blindly swung his staff at his opponents heads.
In Gods name, Marys voice was again heard, hes sick! Hes gone out of his senses. Have pity on
him!
But her cry was drowned in the uproar. Judas had now seized the strongest of the stalwarts and was
stepping on him, his knife at his throat. But Jesus arrived in time to pull back the redbeards arm.
Judas, my brother, he cried, no blood! no blood!
What, thenwater? shouted the redbeard, enraged. Have you forgotten that you hold an ax? The
hour has come!
Even Peter had grown ferocious, incited by the blows he received. He grasped a huge heavy stone
and fell upon the old men.
Mary entered the very center of the brawl and approached her son. She took his hand. My child,
she said, what has happened to you? How did you descend to this? Return home to wash, change
your clothes and put on your sandals. Youve made yourself all dirty, my son.
I have no home, he said. I have no mother. Who are you?
The mother began to weep. Digging her nails into her cheeks, she spoke no more.
Peter slung his stone. It crushed the foot of the old man with the double hump. The victim bellowed
with pain and hobbled away, going through the alleyways toward the rabbis house. But at that
moment the rabbi appeared, panting. He had heard the uproar and had jumped up from his table,
where with face buried in the Holy Scriptures he had been toiling to extract Gods will from the words
and syllables. But when he heard the tumult he took up his crosier and ran to see what was
happening. He had encountered several of the wounded along the way and learned everything. He
now pushed aside the crowd and reached the son of Mary.
What is all this, Jesus? he said severely. Is this you, the bearer of love? Is this the kind of love you
bring? Arent you ashamed?
He turned to the crowd. My children, return to your homes. This is my nephew. Hes sick,
unfortunate man; hes been sick for years. Do not bear any malice against him for what he has said,
but forgive him. It is not he who speaks, but someone else who uses his mouth.
God! Jesus exclaimed.
You keep quiet, the rabbi snapped, and he touched him reprovingly with his crosier.
He turned once more to the crowd. Leave him alone, my children. Bear no grudge against him, for
he knows not what he says. Allrich and poorwe are all seeds of Abraham. Do not quarrel among
yourselves. Its noontime; return to your homes. I shall cure this unfortunate man.
He turned to Mary. Mary, go home. Well come presently.
The mother threw a final glance at her son, a glance of great longing, as though she were saying
goodbye to him forever. She sighed, bit her kerchief, and disappeared into the narrow lanes.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#22
Feb 15, '12, 4:53 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Further on:
Quote:
Nor is it only the portrayal of Jesus himself that is antithetical to Christian thought. Virtually every
characterization, every aspect of the film is deliberately iconoclastic, self-consciously contrary to
traditional Christian understanding, calculated for shock value. First and foremost is the
reinterpretation of Judas Iscariot (Harvey Keitel) as a principled hero, a man who ultimately
"betrays" Jesus only because Jesus orders him to do so over Judas own tortured objections.
When faithful Judas demands to know whether if Jesus himself, were he in Judas place, would be
able to betray a beloved master, Jesus replies (in a moment typical of the films sensibilities), "No,
I couldnt. Thats why God gave me the easier job [i.e., dying on the cross]."

Throughout the movie Judas acts almost as Jesus conscience. As the film opens we find Judas
patriotically upbraiding Jesus for collaborating with Rome by his cross-making. When Jesus
begins his ministry, Judas follows him conditionally, warning him that if he betrays his mission
Judas will kill him. Finally, in the climactic scene, it is a stern, prophetic Judas (or a dream-
representation of him) that recalls Jesus to the necessity of his dying on the cross.

Once again, theres nothing wrong with trying to humanize Judas to an extent, or give him
understandable motivations. The filmmaker can even make us empathize with him to the point of
feeling that we too would be capable of doing what he did. But what he did, in the end, has to be
wrong; and Keitels Judas never manifests anything like corruption, self-interest, or pettiness.
Jesus is the main character and protagonist here, but a case could be made that Judas is the
films true hero, or at least its most idealized character.
Again, what we see in the film is a typical case of adaptation distillation. In another thread I noted a
review of the film (part of the book Scandalizing Jesus? by Darren J. N. Middleton), which pits it
against the novel. Middleton observes that Kazantzakis' Judas, while basically the "thoroughgoing
Zealot" who tries to rally Jesus to His cause time and again, is most of the time a mere part of the
background as Jesus relates to the others. Scorsese, however, dramatically reduces the other
disciples "to an amorphous mass of weak and largely inconsequential men" (he never even devotes
a lot of screentime to the other disciples, in comparison to the original novel where they occupy a
major bulk of the plot), thereby beefing up Judas. Scorsese's Judas has thus become a larger-than-
life figure, and by supplanting the Gospel's and Kazantzakis' image of Peter as leader and John as
the beloved disciple, becomes Jesus' most trusted confidant and intimate friend - Willem Defoe's
Jesus is dependent-submissive only to Harvey Keitel's Judas, sometimes in an even sexually
ambiguous manner. Scorsese's Judas is dominant: Keitel's physique, strong voice, and tough-guy
New York accent "easily overpowers a rather wimpy-looking Defoe."

It is true that out of all the disciples, Judas is one of the first characters apart from Jesus Himself to
know who He really is (the novel begins with Jesus dreaming of a band of Zealots led by Judas
searching for "the One" who will save Israel). However, Judas' recognition of Jesus' true identity is
somewhat offset by his own personal expectations: he expects Jesus, in true Zealot fashion, to be a
Messiah of the sword, one who will crush all the oppressors of Israel by force of arms. This explains
why Judas very enthusiastically follows Jesus when He begins to preach "the ax," and why he
becomes hesitant to follow Jesus' orders to betray Him to the authorities later. Judas had no trust in
death that he could not even think of Jesus the Messiah dying.
__________________

Last edited by patrick457; Feb 15, '12 at 5:13 pm.

patrick457
View Public Profile
#23
Feb 15, '12, 5:10 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


We can see this crucial difference in how book and movie treat a single scene.
Judas, Jesus answered after a deep silence, I am now going to confide a terrible secret to you.
Judas bowed his red-haired head and waited with gaping mouth. You are the strongest of all the
companions. Only you, I think, will be able to bear it. I have said nothing to the others, nor will I. They
have no endurance.
Judas blushed with pleasure. Thank you for trusting me, Rabbi, he said. Speak. Youll see: I wont
make you ashamed of me.
Judas, do you know why I left my beloved Galilee and came to Jerusalem?
Yes, Judas answered. Because it is here that what is bound to happen must happen.
Thats right; the Lords flames will start from here. I can no longer sleep. I wake with a start in the
middle of the night and look at the sky. Hasnt it opened yet? Arent the flames flowing down?
Daylight comes and I run to the Temple, speak, threaten, point to the sky, command, beseech,
invoke the fire to descend. But my voice is always lost. The heavens remain closed, mute and
tranquil above me. And then suddenly one day ...
His voice broke. Judas leaned on top of him in order to hear but could detect only stifled breathing
and the rattling of Jesus teeth.
Go on! Go on! Judas gasped.
Jesus caught his breath and continued. One day as I was lying all alone on the top of Golgotha, the
prophet Isaiah rose up in my mindno, no, not in my mind: I saw his entire body in front of me on
the rocks of Golgotha, and he was holding a goatskin sewn up and inflated, and it looked just like the
black he-goat I met in the desert. There were letters on the hide. Read! he commanded, stretching
out the goatskin in the air in front of me. But as I heard the voice, prophet and goat disappeared and
only the letters remainedin the air, black with red capitals.
Jesus lifted his eyes into the light. He had turned pale. He squeezed Judass arm and clung to him.
There they are! he whispered, terrified. Theyve filled the air!
Read! said Judas, who was also trembling.
Panting, Jesus began hoarsely to spell out the words. The letters were like living beasts: he hunted
them and they resisted. Continually wiping away his sweat, he read: He has borne our faults; he
was wounded for our transgressions; our iniquities bruised him. He was afflicted, yet he opened not
his mouth. Despised and rejected by all, he went forward without resisting, like a lamb that is led to
the slaughter.
Jesus spoke no more. He had turned deathly pale.
I dont understand, said Judas, standing still and shifting the pebbles with his big toe. Who is the
lamb being led to slaughter? Who is going to die?
Judas, Jesus slowly answered, Judas, brother, I am the one who is going to die.
You? said Judas, recoiling. Then arent you the Messiah?
I am.
I dont understand! Judas repeated, and he lacerated his toe on the stones.
Dont shout, Judas. This is the way. For the world to be saved, I, of my own will, must die. At first I
didnt understand it myself. God sent me signs in vain: sometimes visions in the air, sometimes
dreams in my sleep; or the goats carcass in the desert with all the sins of the people around its
neck. And since the day I quit my mothers house, a shadow has followed behind me like a dog or at
times has run in front to show me the road. What road? The Cross!
Jesus threw a lingering glance around him. Behind him was Jerusalem, a mountain of brilliantly white
skulls; in front of him, rocks and a few silver-leafed olive trees and black cedars. The sun, filled with
blood, had begun to set.
Judas was uprooting hairs from his beard and tossing them away. He had expected a different
Messiah, a Messiah with a sword, a Messiah at whose cry all the generations of the dead would fly
out of their tombs in the valley of Joshaphat and mix with the living. The horses and camels of the
Jews would be resuscitated at the same time, and allinfantry and cavalrywould flow forth to
slaughter the Romans. And the Messiah would sit on the throne of David with the Universe as a
cushion under his feet, for him to step on. This, this was the Messiah Judas Iscariot had expected.
And now ...
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#24
Feb 15, '12, 5:11 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


The movie treats this scene in this wise:
Jesus: You are the strongest, aren't you? Of all my friends, you're the strongest.
...Judas, my brother, l've something to tell you. I have a terrible secret from God. You know why I
came to Jerusalem?
Judas: Yes. This is where the revolution is going to begin.
Jesus: Last night Isaiah came to me. (flashes back) He had a prophecy; I saw it written. It said: "He
has borne our faults, he was wounded for our transgressions, yet he opened not his mouth.
Despised and rejected by all, he went forward without resisting, like a lamb led to the slaughter. "
Judas: ...I don't understand. (smiles at Jesus)
Jesus: Judas, I am the lamb. I'm the one who's going to die.
Judas: Die? You mean you're not the Messiah?
Jesus: I am.
Judas: That can't be. If you're the Messiah, why do you have to die?
Jesus: Listen. At first, I didn't understand---
Judas: No, you, listen! Every day you have a different plan! First it's love, then it's the ax, and now
you have to die. What good could that do?
Jesus: I can't help it. God only talks to me a little at a time. He tells me as much as I need to know.
Judas: We need you alive!
Jesus: Now I finally understand, All my life I've been followed, by voices, by footsteps, by shadows.
And do you know what the shadow is? The cross! I have to die on the cross and I have to die
willingly.
The removal of these traits, as well as the pushing of the other disciples in the background, made
film Judas the straight man, an idealized hero (as Mr. Greydanus calls him), who seem to refuse to
hand Jesus over simply because it conflicts with his sense of justice.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#25
Feb 15, '12, 5:15 pm
Mickey
Forum Elder

Join Date: December 27, 2004
Posts: 15,878
Religion: The Holy Orthodox Church


Quote:
Has anyone seen a movie where William Dafoe plays Jesus called the last temptation of Christ?
Blasphemous garbage.

Mickey
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Mickey
#26
Feb 15, '12, 5:23 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by Publisher
Overdramitized but all in all enjoyable....with nothing to offend conservative Christian sensibilites I
would think.
The conception of Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth is a story in itself as well.

Pope Paul VI was having an audience with British media mogul Sir Lew Grade to congratulate him
on his TV series Moses the Lawgiver (1974) - Jesus of Nazareth's forgotten elder brother - which
Grade co-produced with Italy's main TV channel RAI. The pope expressed his wish at the end of
their meeting that Grade should do the life of Jesus next. Grade (who, for the record, was a Russian
Jew by birth, born on December 25! ) thought it an interesting prospect and agreed. Of course he
needed to have his wife remind him of it, but a fortnight after the meeting the head of RAI asked him
what they should next do together. Grade then replied without hesitation that they were going to do
'Jesus of Nazareth'.

Franco Zeffirelli was slated as the director, and was given orders to make the film as such that it
does not offend anyone, though that did not prevent the program from coming under criticism from
some circles when it was first released: some Fundamentalists led by Bob Jones III (of Bob Jones
University), who had not seen the film, immediately denounced it as blasphemous, all because
Zeffirelli had told an interviewer from Modern Screen that the film would portray Jesus as "an
ordinary mangentle, fragile, simple". Jones apparently leapt to the conclusion that the portrayal
would deny the divinity of Jesus. As a result, about 18,000 letters of complaint were sent to General
Motors, which had provided $3 million of the film's cost. Sacrificing its investment, GM backed out of
its sponsorship.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#27
Feb 15, '12, 5:55 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


To continue:
Quote:
Then theres John the Baptist (Andre Gregory), who is oddly much older than Jesus and doesnt
seem to know him, though they were cousins of some sort. Johns ministry in the wilderness
resembles a hysterical-ecstatic Pentecostal revival meeting, with John striding maniacally about
spouting dark Old Testament apocalyptic (nothing of his actual themes of repentance or the
kingdom of heaven), while people gibber and shake and inexplicably stand around naked.
This is really the part of the film which I did not understand: the naked people who hysterically wave
their heads or are having epileptic seizures while John is preaching. Needless to say, this was an
element which was invented by the filmmakers.

But it is true that John in the novel and film preaches about divine justice filled with fire and
brimstone, what the work calls "the ax." This is part of Kazantzakis' reorganization of Jesus' ministry
into three parts: he has Him first talking of God's mercy and love, then upon meeting with John the
Forerunner and being tempted in the desert (which here is placed well quite after Jesus begins
formally preaching in public) He is handed "the ax" and thus focuses on divine justice and judgment,
and then upon arriving at Jerusalem His goal is now to sacrifice Himself by dying on the cross.
The heat was roaring and the south wind which blew from the Dead Sea carried a heavy stench of
rotting carcasses. Jesus now began to hear a wild, hoarse voice. Now and then he was able to
distinguish a few words: Fire ... ax ... barren tree ... and then, louder: Repent! Repent! All at once
a large multitude burst into shouts and wailing. Jesus went forward slowly, craftily, as though
approaching the cave of a wild beast. He pushed aside the reeds: the noise increased. Suddenly he
bit his lips to prevent himself from screamingfor there he was, standing on his reed-like legs upon
a rock which rose above the waters of the Jordan. Was this a man, a locust, the angel of Hunger, or
the archangel of Revenge? Wave after wave of bellowing men broke upon the rocksEthiopians
with painted fingernails and eyelashes, Chaldeans with thick brass rings in their noses, Israelites with
long greasy sideburns.
Frothing at the mouth, the south wind shaking him like a reed, the Baptist was shouting, Repent!
Repent! The day of the Lord has come! Roll on the ground, bite the dust, howl! The Lord of Hosts
has said: On this day I shall command the sun to set at noon; I shall crush the horns of the new
moon and spill darkness over heaven and earth. I shall reverse your laughter, turn it into tears, and
your songs into lamentation. I shall blow, and all your fineryhands, feet, noses, ears, hairwill fall
to the ground.
Judas strode forward and took Jesus by the arm. Do you hear? Do you hear? Look! thats how the
Messiah speaks! He is the Messiah!
No, Judas, my brother, Jesus answered; he who holds the ax and opens the way for the Messiah
speaks in that way, but the Messiah does not. He bent down, broke off a sharp green leaf and
passed it between his teeth.
He who opens the way is the Messiah, the redbeard growled. He pushed Jesus in order to make
him emerge from the reeds and show himself.
Move ahead; let him see you, he ordered. He will judge.
"Who is oddly much older than Jesus and doesnt seem to know him." Yes, there is no explicit
mention of Jesus' and John's degree of relation in the book or the film, though if we go by the book, it
would be more correct to say that John is uncertain whether Jesus is really the promised One. And
for the record, there is nothing in the book to imply John's age, only that he was wizened, having
"reed-like legs," a "fiery head," and a "gnarled neck."
The Baptists back was turned. He felt the vehement stare ransacking his entire body, grew angry,
swung completely around and half closed his two round, hawk-like eyes in order to see better. Who
was this silent, motionless young man dressed all in white and staring at him? Somewhere,
sometime, he had seen him. Where? When? He struggled in agony to remember. Could it have been
in a dream? He often dreamed about men dressed similarly all in white. They never talked to him but
simply stared and waved their hands as if greeting him or saying goodbye. Then the cock of the
dawn would crow and they would turn into light and disappear.
Suddenly the Baptist, still looking at him, cried out. He remembered: one day at exactly noon he had
lain down on the bank of the river and taken out the Prophet Isaiah, written on a goatskin. All at once
stones, water, people, reeds and river vanished; the air filled with fires, trumpets and wings, the
words of the prophet opened like doors, and the Messiah stepped forth. He remembered that he was
dressed all in white, thin, gnawed by the sun, barefooted and, like this man, he held a green leaf
between his teeth!
The ascetics eyes filled with joy and fear. He tumbled down from his rock and approached,
stretching forth his gnarled neck.
Who are you? Who? he asked, his terrible voice trembling.
Dont you know me? said Jesus, advancing one more step. His own voice was trembling: he knew
that his fate depended on the Baptists reply.
Its him, him, the Baptist was thinking. His heart thumped furiously and he could not, dared not,
decide. Once more he stretched forward his neck: Who are you? he asked again.
Havent you read the Scriptures? Jesus answered in a voice sweet yet complaining, as though he
were scolding him. Havent you read the prophets? What does Isaiah say? Forerunner, dont you
remember?
Is it you, you? whispered the ascetic. He put his hands on Jesus shoulders and examined his
eyes.
(Minor trivia: the film's dialogue at this point makes it appear that Jesus is the one who sees the
dream of a man in white, who in the film is apparently John.)
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#28
Feb 15, '12, 6:11 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


And now for the film version:
John: (shouting loudly amidst loud music and sounds of wailing) "Behold! I will raise up evil against
you out of your own house, and I will take your wives, before your eyes and give them to your
neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of the sun.
"You may listen and listen again, but you will never understand. You may look, but you will never
know. These people's wits are dulled. Their ears are deafened and their eyes blinded, so they
cannot see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, so that they may turn and be healed.
"The Lord of Hosts says: 'On this day I shall make the sun to set at noon...'"
Judas (while John is speaking): He sounds like the Messiah.
Jesus: No.
John (cont.): "...I will crush the horns of the new moon, and I will spill darkness over the world. I will
reverse your laughter, turn it into tears..."
Judas: Go in front. Let him see you.
John (cont.): "...fall to the ground. Listen, it is the thunder of many peoples..."

Jesus walks slowly toward the Baptist, who has his back turned to Him.

Jesus (voiceover, while John continues to shout): Even from behind, I knew I had seen him
before. Where? Was it a dream? Yes...it was. But in the dream, he was dressed in white.

John: "...You will have a smell of decay, and branding, instead of beauty. Your men shall fall by the
sword, and your women shall sit on the ground, stripped bare--" (suddently turns to Jesus) Who are
you?
Jesus: Do you recognize me?
John: (pauses) Who are you?
Jesus: Do you know the Prophets? What does Isaiah say?
John: He says, "Prepare the way of the Lord." Are you telling me that's you?
Jesus: I don't know, tell me.
John: (looks around; the loud music and the wailing is muted, leaving only the sound of the water,
but the people still dance, wave their heads and have epileptic seizures as usual) Why are you here?
Jesus: To be baptized.
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#29
Feb 16, '12, 3:44 am

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Again, what we see in the film is a typical case of adaptation distillation. In another thread I noted
a review of the film (part of the book Scandalizing Jesus? by Darren J. N. Middleton), which pits it
against the novel. Middleton observes that Kazantzakis' Judas, while basically the "thoroughgoing
Zealot" who tries to rally Jesus to His cause time and again, is most of the time a mere part of the
background as Jesus relates to the others.
Whoops, a little authorial misattribution there. The book is edited by Darren J.N. Middleton, but the
particular article (Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ: A Critical Reassessment of Its
Sources, Its Theological Problems, and Its Impact on the Public) is by Fr. Lloyd Baugh, S.J. Here is
the exact quote about the disciples (pp. 177-178):
Kazantzakis devotes a major part of his narrative to Jesus' disciples, much amplifying the individual
and varied vocation narratives in the Gospels, carefully developing the personalities of each of them
and representing how Jesus relates to them individually with care and respect. In the extended
vocation narratives, there is much rich dialogue, very human but also pointing to God. The disciples
form a community and learn from Jesus the Master. For example, in one memorable scene
Kazantzakis has the disciples recall Jesus' baptism and speculate about the possibility of his being
the Messiah, and he has Peter identify the descending dove as the Holy Spirit. Later, Jesus
commissions the disciples to preach the good news, and when they return, Jesus welcomes and
reassures them. [footnote 22: Nikos Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ, trans. Peter Bien (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1960), 287, 348, 360-61.]
Scorsese radically shifts Jesus' relationship with his disciples. First of all, Jesus does not call the
disciples individually by name. On the shore of a lake, Jesus, flanked by Judas, who, in a bizarre
reversal of the biblical protocol, has already chosen him, stares intensely at the sons of Zebedee as
they clean their nets. They immediately leave everything and follow him. This group vocation by
hypnosis is humanly and theologically unacceptable. Then, as Jesus and the first disciples walk
across the countryside, Scorsese, clearly wanting to telescope time, edits in a series of lap dissolves
to demonstrate the power of Jesus to attract followers. Scorsese might have better saved time
elsewhere. The result of his lap dissolves is to shift the critical biblical representation of the call to
discipleship into evangelization by magic and cinematic effects. Here there is no question of personal
call and response, no question of human liberty, and certainly no question of grace. Then for the
entire film, Scorsese's disciples"small-minded, spineless men,...insubstantial" [footnote 23: Connelly,
Scorsese: An Analysis, 130.]remain an almost indistinct mass, with apparently little contact among
themselves and no significant contact with Jesus. The interior conflict that Scorsese gives Jesus is
"a solitary struggle that never goes beyond self-scrutiny, not a communal experience to be shared."
[footnote 24: Jonathan Rosenbaum, "Raging Messiah: The Last Temptation of Christ," Sight and Sound 57, no. 4 (Autumn 1958 [sic;
should be 1988]): 282.]
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#30
Feb 16, '12, 4:07 am

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
If you're asking my personal opinion, yes Jesus of Nazareth is one good Jesus film out there. I gotta
warn you that it's very long though: in its full version, it has a runtime of a little over six hours. (It was
originally broadcast as two 180-minute episodes.)
Some viewers find Robert Powell's rather stiffly ultra-divine, non-blinking blue-eyed Jesus to be a bit
distracting, but the other characters I feel are well-acted, and the attention to detail is very good.

As mentioned earlier, there was this little incident with Bob Jones before it was even broadcast, but it
AFAIK soon became one of the most popular Jesus films there are, to the point that Robert Powell's
face has become for many people the definitive face of Jesus.

__________________


Feb 17, '12, 7:08 pm

anp1215
Regular Member

Posts: 3,730


Quote:
If you're asking my personal opinion, yes Jesus of Nazareth is one good Jesus film out there. I
gotta warn you that it's very long though: in its full version, it has a runtime of a little over six hours.
(It was originally broadcast as two 180-minute episodes.)
Some viewers find Robert Powell's rather stiffly ultra-divine, non-blinking blue-eyed Jesus to be a
bit distracting, but the other characters I feel are well-acted, and the attention to detail is very
good.

As mentioned earlier, there was this little incident with Bob Jones before it was even broadcast,
but it AFAIK soon became one of the most popular Jesus films there are, to the point that Robert
Powell's face has become for many people the definitive face of Jesus.

My favorite Jesus

As for Willem Dafoe's Jesus...well, let's just say he's the complete opposite of Robert Powell's in
every way.

I've seen The Last Temptation of Christ a few times, and I have always liked it. I saw it before I was a
practicing Christian, so maybe that's why it didn't offend me? But it could have been because

SPOILER ALERT

You find out that the scenes toward the end didn't really happen at all. The film was exploring the
"what ifs"....what if Christ had given in to the temptation on the cross?

I think it bothered me more that both Jesus and Judas had red hair...
__________________

Viva il Papa! Long live Pope Francis!

anp1215
View Public Profile
Find all posts by anp1215
#32
Feb 17, '12, 7:34 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by anp1215
My favorite Jesus

As for Willem Dafoe's Jesus...well, let's just say he's the complete opposite of Robert Powell's in
every way.

I've seen The Last Temptation of Christ a few times, and I have always liked it. I saw it before I
was a practicing Christian, so maybe that's why it didn't offend me? But it could have been
because

SPOILER ALERT

You find out that the scenes toward the end didn't really happen at all. The film was exploring the
"what ifs"....what if Christ had given in to the temptation on the cross?

I think it bothered me more that both Jesus and Judas had red hair...
This is another crucial difference between book and movie: the book is more explicit in implying that
the 'last temptation' was just a split-second illusion, while the film notably makes it more ambiguous.

For instance, Kazantzakis himself points out that the last temptation was a mere illusion both in the
prologue (as quoted above) and in the final paragraph of the novel. Within the story itself, Satan in
the desert explicitly promises to meet with Jesus "this Passover", and Jesus clearly blacks out while
shouting "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" in mid-sentence; not to mention the temptation sequence in the
novel is much more fantastic and surreal, which involves among other things Jesus transforming into
Lazarus and Pontius Pilate being crucified!

As for Judas the redbeard, it's another one of the book's little references to Christian tradition and
folklore: there was in fact a medieval legend that says Judas was red-haired. (Red hair had a
negative connotation in medieval Europe: redheads were seen as morally degenerate, and red hair
and green eyes were thought to be the sign of a witch, a werewolf or a vampire. Add to this the fact
that red hair was also once considered a stereotypical Jewish trait.)
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#33
Feb 17, '12, 7:42 pm

anp1215
Regular Member

Posts: 3,730


Quote:
This is another crucial difference between book and movie: the book is more explicit in implying
that the 'last temptation' was just a split-second illusion, while the film notably makes it more
ambiguous.

For instance, Kazantzakis himself points out that the last temptation was a mere illusion both in
the prologue (as quoted above) and in the final paragraph of the novel. Within the story itself,
Satan in the desert explicitly promises to meet with Jesus "this Passover", and Jesus clearly
blacks out while shouting "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani" in mid-sentence; not to mention the
temptation sequence in the novel is much more fantastic and surreal, which involves among other
things Jesus transforming into Lazarus and Pontius Pilate being crucified!

As for Judas the redbeard, it's another one of the book's little references to Christian tradition and
folklore: there was in fact a medieval legend that says Judas was red-haired. (Red hair had a
negative connotation in medieval Europe: redheads were seen as morally degenerate, and red
hair and green eyes were thought to be the sign of a witch, a werewolf or a vampire. Add to this
the fact that red hair was also once considered a stereotypical Jewish trait.)
hmm interesting.
__________________

Viva il Papa! Long live Pope Francis!

anp1215
View Public Profile
Find all posts by anp1215
#34
Feb 17, '12, 9:49 pm
VeritasLuxMea
Regular Member

Join Date: May 17, 2011
Posts: 3,325
Religion: Catholic


One thing I will say about it, if I recall correctly it did a great job of portraying Jesus as 100% human.

Most movies portray Jesus as, "Hey, look at me, I'm basically God, if God looked like a dude."

I often wonder if I'm the only one to notice this... I don't feel that any of the other movies there portray
Jesus as human at all... (granted, the suffering aspects but that's it.)

It's like the only time Jesus was human was when the Cross came into the picture... what the heck?

VeritasLuxMea
View Public Profile
Find all posts by VeritasLuxMea
#35
Feb 17, '12, 10:25 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea
One thing I will say about it, if I recall correctly it did a great job of portraying Jesus as 100%
human.

Most movies portray Jesus as, "Hey, look at me, I'm basically God, if God looked like a dude."

I often wonder if I'm the only one to notice this... I don't feel that any of the other movies there
portray Jesus as human at all... (granted, the suffering aspects but that's it.)

It's like the only time Jesus was human was when the Cross came into the picture... what the
heck?
And even then you barely see any real suffering on Jesus' part. Sure there might be the token wound
or bruise, but in many of these films you don't get too much of an impression that crucifixion is a
horrible way to die.

(For the record, the passion scene is one of the few parts I liked in the movie; yes, it kind of dragged
a bit, but the naturalist approach by Scorsese works well here IMHO, giving it a sort of harsh and
gritty realism I find lacking in many other Jesus films. I kind of wish Scorsese had just directed a
'normal' Jesus movie - which apparently was his original dream)

How to successfully portray the dual nature of Christ is something that has stumped many
filmmakers. Early attempts chose to emphasize Jesus as God: at its extreme it gave us the stoic,
robotic Jesus who has a limited set of emotions and who for some reason tends to speak in slow,
sonorous Elizabethan English (even if the other characters have more modern dialogue). More
recent productions tend to emphasize the humanity of the Savior: taken to the extreme though it
results in either a mentally disturbed Jesus (as in this movie) or a perpetually-grinning 'buddy Christ'
who always tries to do something 'fun' even at the point of being crass (a number of Jesus films
made in the 1990s fall into this).
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#36
Feb 17, '12, 10:51 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by anp1215
hmm interesting.
One addition in the film that irked me the most was the one in the end, where the aged and dying
Jesus crawls out of His home into the streets of besieged Jerusalem and beseeches God in a prayer
of repentance to receive Him back: "I want to be the Messiah!" Kazantzakis' Jesus meanwhile just
regains consciousness as soon as the ruse is revealed, and, comforted by the knowledge that
everything beforehand was just an illusory dream sent by Satan and that He did not fall into sin, that
He was doing what He must, shouts His last words in triumph.

As Mr. Greydanus points out, given the ambiguity of the last temptation in the film, you can either
interpret the scene as Jesus waking up from a nightmarish hallucination (as in the novel), or, in a
more theologically-problematic interpretation, Jesus really coming down from the cross, falling into
temptation, and later being sent back in time by God to resume what He should have done in the first
place as a response to His prayer. IMHO, the prayer scene deepened the ambiguity further.

Another 'what the heck?' scene for me is where Jesus apologizes to Mary for "being a bad son" right
before being crucified. Where did that come from?
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#37
Feb 17, '12, 11:40 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


A little something less serious: a question for those who watched the movie. Who here has found it
hard to suspend disbelief upon seeing David Bowie as Pontius Pilate?
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#38
Feb 18, '12, 6:34 am
Tenofovir
Regular Member

Posts: 2,100
Religion: Catholic


Quote:
A little something less serious: a question for those who watched the movie. Who here has found
it hard to suspend disbelief upon seeing David Bowie as Pontius Pilate?
Off topic but a little to do with the point above, do try to check out the Russian version of "Master and
Margarita". The pontius pilate there is much better.

Tenofovir
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Tenofovir
#39
Feb 18, '12, 6:36 am
Tenofovir
Regular Member

Posts: 2,100
Religion: Catholic


What do you guys think of Pier Paolo Pasolini's Jesus in The Gospel According to St Matthew?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058715/

Tenofovir
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Tenofovir
#40
Feb 18, '12, 3:42 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenofovir
What do you guys think of Pier Paolo Pasolini's Jesus in The Gospel According to St Matthew?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058715/
Poet-turned-film director Pasolini is a rather infamous figure: he was a Marxist, an atheist and an
outspoken homosexual. And he has made some rather controversial films, both before and after
filming this one.

But if you ask me, Il Vangelo secondo Matteo is definitely a masterpiece. Pasolini uses only the
Gospel itself as his screenplay without any editorial varnish (to the point that viewers unfamiliar with
the story might get lost). Some might pick nits on the cheap-looking and very anachronistic costumes
(the director deliberately chose NOT to be 'historically accurate', wanting to approach the Gospel in
his own terms) - worlds away from the epics Hollywood was producing at the time - but ironically this
is in my opinion what makes the film more 'real' than others, along with the decision to shoot the film
in black-and-white and to use a cast of non-actors, most of whom have never acted before or since,
in true Italian neorealist tradition.

I actually like Pasolini's Jesus. Like a revolutionary He is very passionate, pungent, zealous - literally
'on fire', far removed from the 'meek and mild' Christ of holy cards. Take for example its version of
the the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the seven Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees
(Matthew 23:1-39).
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#41
Feb 18, '12, 7:01 pm
spatafizzle
New Member

Posts: 11
Religion: Catholic


Quote:
Men kissing each other is only controversial and prone to misinterpretation in our modern-day
culture, Besides AFAIR the only scene where this happens is during the betrayal of Jesus in
Gethsemane, and even then Judas is the one who initiates it. If that is problematic, I could name a
few other Jesus films which should be in problem as well. And "Jehovah", the novel (in the
translation) actually uses it quite a number of times, but this in itself of course isn't inoffensive.

As Jesus being tormented by the voice of God and making crosses for the Romans: this is part of
the work's theme, and yes, this is one of the more problematic (from an orthodox POV) parts. For
Kazantzakis, Jesus, being both God and man, would have had His humanity - weak as human
nature is - clash often with His divinity: a battle between desire ("what I want to do") and duty
("what I must do"), between the willing spirit and the weak flesh.

Kazantzakis makes reference to the battle between flesh and spirit in the prologue:
THE DUAL SUBSTANCE of Christthe yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain to
God or, more exactly, to return to God and identify himself with himhas always been a deep
inscrutable mystery to me. This nostalgia for God, at once so mysterious and so real, has opened
in me large wounds and also large flowing springs.
My principal anguish and the source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been
the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh.
Within me are the dark immemorial forces of the Evil One, human and prehuman; within me too
are the luminous forces, human and pre-human, of Godand my soul is the arena where these
two armies have clashed and met.
The anguish has been intense. I loved my body and did not want it to perish; I loved my soul and
did not want it to decay. I have fought to reconcile these two primordial forces which are so
contrary to each other, to make them realize that they are not enemies but, rather, fellow workers,
so that they might rejoice in their harmonyand so that I might rejoice with them.

Every man partakes of the divine nature in both his spirit and his flesh. That is why the mystery of
Christ is not simply a mystery for a particular creed: it is universal. The struggle between God and
man breaks out in everyone, together with the longing for reconciliation. Most often this struggle is
unconscious and short-lived.
A weak soul does not have the endurance to resist the flesh for very long. It grows heavy,
becomes flesh itself, and the contest ends. But among responsible men, men who keep their eyes
riveted day and night upon the Supreme Duty, the conflict between flesh and spirit breaks out
mercilessly and may last until death.
The stronger the soul and the flesh, the more fruitful the struggle and the richer the final harmony.
God does not love weak souls and flabby flesh. The Spirit wants to have to wrestle with flesh
which is strong and full of resistance. It is a carnivorous bird which is incessantly hungry; it eats
flesh and, by assimilating it, makes it disappear.
Struggle between the flesh and the spirit, rebellion and resistance, reconciliation and submission,
and finallythe supreme purpose of the struggleunion with God: this was the ascent taken by
Christ, the ascent which he invites us to take as well, following in his bloody tracks.
This is the Supreme Duty of the man who strugglesto set out for the lofty peak which Christ, the
first-born son of salvation, attained. How can we begin?
If we are to be able to follow him we must have a profound knowledge of his conflict, we must
relive his anguish: his victory over the blossoming snares of the earth, his sacrifice of the great
and small joys of men and his ascent from sacrifice to sacrifice, exploit to exploit, to martyrdoms
summit, the Cross.
In the novel (and the film), Jesus is the Messiah and apparently knows what He is supposed to do,
but at first He wants to run away from His destiny: the novel pointedly mentions that fear is the
only demon left for Jesus to struggle with before His time is come. To this end, He tries to
collaborate with the Romans by making crosses for them, thinking that by doing so God would
somehow leave Him alone to lead a normal life.
I notice you didn't mention the whole "sex with Mary Magdalene" thing...

Awful, blasphemous movie.

spatafizzle
View Public Profile
Find all posts by spatafizzle
#42
Feb 18, '12, 7:06 pm
spatafizzle
New Member Posts: 11
Religion: Catholic


Quote:
It's an awful, blasphemous film. A desecration of the gospels. Avoid it.

spatafizzle
View Public Profile
Find all posts by spatafizzle
#43
Feb 18, '12, 7:20 pm
Raskolnikov
Regular Member

Join Date: December 4, 2010
Posts: 1,877
Religion: Catholic


I saw it. I recall thinking it was pretty strange. Yes, strange would be the word I would use to describe
it.

In some ways, "Jesus of Nazareth" is in my mind the definitive film about Jesus, and most other
depictions don't seem to live up to it, if only because when I see that Robert Powell isn't Jesus, it
feels like when I watched the first James Bond movie with Daniel Craig. My whole life, Pierce
Brosnan was Bond. Craig just struck me as an imposter. Daniel Craig's James Bond has grown on
me however. Willem Dafoe has not.

Raskolnikov
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Raskolnikov
#44
Feb 18, '12, 11:09 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by spatafizzle
I notice you didn't mention the whole "sex with Mary Magdalene" thing...

Awful, blasphemous movie.
And now I shall.

I agree that the whole sex scene in the film is just in bad taste.

What Kazantzakis implies indirectly in about a sentence, Scorsese drags out into about somewhere
between two to three minutes. Can I have brain bleach?
__________________

patrick457
View Public Profile
#45
Feb 18, '12, 11:19 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by Raskolnikov
I saw it. I recall thinking it was pretty strange. Yes, strange would be the word I would use to
describe it.
Yep. There's this (original to the film) scene where Jesus digs into His chest and takes still-beating
His heart out a la the Sacred Heart. That's probably one of the most bizarre scenes in the film in my
idea, right up there with the epileptic Pentecostal disciples of John the Baptist and Jesus being
crowded by a group of demoniacs like a bunch of zombies in a video game.
__________________


Feb 29, '12, 11:41 am
nordskoven
Account Under Review

Join Date: July 7, 2004
Posts: 1,890
Religion: Catholic


Gnostics is as Gnostics does. Gnosticism is a Babylonian Mystery Religion. Mystery Babylon, the
Harlot, is a religio-socio-economic system. Babylonian Mystery Religions, including Gnosticism,
assert all that is contrary to what God has, through the ages and from the first, revealed about His
nature and His will. The contravention parallels Lucifer's in the Garden of Eden. Disobey God, be
gods yourselves. Thus Hinduism and Mormonism share a primal belief that they shall become gods--
Mormons saying this on another planet, goddess wives and god husbands--not "Ye shall become as
gods," i.e., judging angels and men.

Gnosticism has been wildly profitable, with the New York Times Best Seller List having been topped
by Gnostic offerings for decades. Channel "Jesus" and hit a publishing home-run. Recycle Gnostic
"gospels" and retire comfortably. Novelize Gnosticism and sell the movie rights. All Gnosticism is
anti-Jewish, replacing the Chosen People with diverse groups; or demeaning Jews as cobbling up
something like the Passover Plot. Jewish groups have recognized this, and stood with Christians to
protest "The Last Temptation of Christ" movie. May all souls cultivate an appetite for truth, and not
"ear-tickling" Gnosticism. "Babylon has fallen!" Even so, come Lord Jesus. The real One.

nordskoven
View Public Profile
Find all posts by nordskoven
#47
Feb 29, '12, 6:53 pm

patrick457
Veteran Member

Posts: 11,487


Quote:
Originally Posted by nordskoven
Gnostics is as Gnostics does. Gnosticism is a Babylonian Mystery Religion. Mystery Babylon, the
Harlot, is a religio-socio-economic system. Babylonian Mystery Religions, including Gnosticism,
assert all that is contrary to what God has, through the ages and from the first, revealed about His
nature and His will. The contravention parallels Lucifer's in the Garden of Eden. Disobey God, be
gods yourselves. Thus Hinduism and Mormonism share a primal belief that they shall become
gods--Mormons saying this on another planet, goddess wives and god husbands--not "Ye shall
become as gods," i.e., judging angels and men.

Gnosticism has been wildly profitable, with the New York Times Best Seller List having been
topped by Gnostic offerings for decades. Channel "Jesus" and hit a publishing home-run. Recycle
Gnostic "gospels" and retire comfortably. Novelize Gnosticism and sell the movie rights. All
Gnosticism is anti-Jewish, replacing the Chosen People with diverse groups; or demeaning Jews
as cobbling up something like the Passover Plot. Jewish groups have recognized this, and stood
with Christians to protest "The Last Temptation of Christ" movie. May all souls cultivate an
appetite for truth, and not "ear-tickling" Gnosticism. "Babylon has fallen!" Even so, come Lord
Jesus. The real One.
I won't say that The Last Temptation is gnostic; I would say though that it is existentialist.
__________________

Last Temptation of Christ - Catholic Perspective

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Last Temptation of Christ - Catholic Perspective

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

http://www.decentfilms.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi