Great Films: "The Last Temptation of Christ"

scottcsmith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-01-04 03:05 PM
Original message

Great Films: "The Last Temptation of Christ"

Edited on Thu Apr-01-04 03:22 PM by scottcsmith

Martin Scorsese's controversial adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis' novel raised the ire of many Christian groups when it was released in 1988. The film was attacked for being blasphemous, and lines of picketers were not uncommon. As is the case with most of these sorts of protests, many who attacked the film didn't bother to see it. Which is a shame, because they missed a truly moving "what if" look at the life of Jesus.

Evangelical Christians have embraced Mel Gibson's The Passion for its "accuracy" in depicting the last 12 hours of Christ's' life. But it's not accurate. It's really Mel Gibson's vision, not the vision of the writers of the Gospels. In that regard The Passion is no different than The Last Temptation of Christ: both tell the story of Jesus Christ from very different points of view.

While Gibson's film treats Jesus as little more than a human flesh bag to be beaten, spat on, flayed and tortured, witnessed by mobs of crazed Jews, Scorsese approaches Jesus from a different angle: how can a man be both a man and God? How would a person deal with the fact that they were God?

Willem Dafoe's Jesus starts out as pretty weak, a man who is haunted by voices in his head. Gradually Jesus comes to understand his role in the larger scheme of things, and knows he has to die to save humanity.

The film isn't without its flaws. Casting Harvey Keitel as Judas was a huge mistake. He sounds too much like a man from Brooklyn. Harry Dean Stanton, as the apostle Paul, also sounds too modern for the role.

Dafoe delivers an extraordinary performance. He really brings Jesus to life. In doing so his performance drew me into the movie and connected me emotionally with the events. When I saw The Passion I was not at all affected emotionally. Dafoe's performance moved me to tears on several occasions.

The scene between Jesus and Pontius Pilate, as Pilate discusses Jesus' fate, seems, to me, a more accurate portrayal of what Pilate was probably like. In The Passion he's a man swayed by a screaming crowd of Jews to kill Jesus. In The Last Temptation of Christ there isn't a screaming crowd of Jews. It's just Pilate and Jesus. And Pilate's decision to crucify Christ is based on the fact that Pilate felt Christ would lead an uprising of Jews against the Roman government. Again, that's a more historically accurate interpretation of Pilate and his reason for executing Jesus.

The segment of the film that most felt was blasphemous is a vision Christ has while he's dying on the cross. Satan visits him, in the guise of a girl who claims to be the guardian angel sent by God to stop the execution. Jesus comes down off the cross, gets married and has children. He grows old. As he approaches death, he realizes that he made a horrible mistake in not accepting his destiny. When the little girl is revealed to be Satan, Jesus accepts his fate. The movie ends with Christ back on the cross, a smile on his face, finally accepting his divinity and knowing his sacrifice would serve a greater good.

Compare all of this to Gibson's film, which is an almost non-stop orgy of violence and gore. Gibson's Jesus has no identity; it's impossible to connect with him on an emotional basis as the film reveals almost nothing about the man or his teachings. And it horrifies me to no end that entire families are attending Gibson's film. Can you imagine the parents of a traumatized eight-year-old after seeing The Passion? How do you explain to a young mind why their beloved Jesus was tortured to death? I don't know.

The Last Temptation of Christ is a wonderful, powerful movie.