The Last Temptation of Christ

[TallahasseeGrannie]

I posted this in another quieter forum and it was like fishing in swimming pool. Nada.

Anybody willing to discuss this old flick with me?

I finally watched the DVD last night. (probably the last person in the world to see it.) I found the crucifixion scene actually more harrowing than Mel Gibson's version.

I am a bit confused at all the hoo-haa about it, as it tells you right off that it is fiction, and not taken from the gospels.

Obviously, Jesus had to give up everything, including a family.

Some things that struck me was that Paul was portrayed as basically a jerk. His line "Jesus, I am glad I met you; now I can forget about you." was very sobering.

I also found it mildly amusing that this is one "Jesus movie" with virtually no English accents (except for
David Bowie.) The cast all sounded like they were from Brooklyn or Chicago.

It's interesting to me that Judas was portrayed as he appears to be (haven't read it) in the Gospel of Judas, and the concept of Christ being taken off the Cross is part of the DaVinci Code myth.

I liked it. Food for thought.

[xchrom]

1. i loved that they had american accents.

i will say this -- the recent uproar over thinking about the christ in different scenarios is not new.

what is new is teh juxtaposition of a post wwII world and teh knowledge that has come and looking at teh christ.

we are not the same people we were a hundred or even 75 years ago.

and the last temptation shows that juxtaposition quite brilliantly.

the authors commentary on paul was quite brilliant -- but i'm not a fan of paul's at all.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Great movie all the way around - scripting, cinematography,

directing, the whole shebang.

Also a great story - I really liked it, and it has given me much food for thought for years, ever since it came out. And I remember all the brouhaha when it came out, too. Insane!

I don't know why people get so fucking bent out of shape if they feel their faith is being "maligned". Fuckwads. The conservative, fundy and Catholic assholes who protested Last Temptation and are now protesting the DaVinci Code; and the liberal assholes who protested The Passion of the Christ... and of course, the majority of those assholes never saw any of the movies that they protested. Dipshits.

For God's sake people, grow up.

I just don't know what to say beyond that.

One thing I loved about Last Temptation is that Jesus tells Judas that because Judas loves him so much, he has to be the one to betray Jesus. Great stuff to think about! And also the temptation itself - incredibly done, well thought, and I think totally plausible. Not in the Gospels, no; but also not not in the Gospels. Who knows? I don't. But it's fun to think about - especially if we believe (at least I do, as a Christian) in the full humanity of Jesus, then yeah, sexual temptation, marital temptation, etc. must all have been there. Hell, there's a good bet that, if he was fully human, he actually HAD sex. Might even have had gay sex. If Jesus was God on earth, to experience all things and all suffering that humans go through, I would think sex would have to have been part of it.

It's funny how so many of the assholes who go apeshit over anything "non-Gospel" about Jesus don't seem to mind the people who make Jesus out to be the warrior, fighter, strongman, etc., but go apeshit if anyone suggests that he had sex, or might even have seen a naked woman or touched a breast, even his mother's when he was a baby.

Why do people go so apeshit about the possible sexuality of Jesus? Why are so many people so fucking obsessed with sex as bad, anyway?

God, I hate this country and my fellow Christians sometimes.

[Warpy]

3. The novel was by Kazantzakis and is well worth reading

I never saw the flick, although the parad of grim faced protestors thumbing their beads and making me think whatever was inside the theater had to be better than whatever was in their church had me tempted.

The book is wonderful. I was afraid the movie would be a letdown.

[Xeric]

4. I remember seeing this when it came out

at a theater in Chicago. There was a pretty big crowd outside protesting. I asked a few if they had seen it or read the book. Not one answered yes. Some seemed to be working themselves up into a state of religious ecstasy, others just seemed to be there because they were angry. Lots of yelling and veiled threats at those lined up to go see it.
I felt it was a good effort by Scorsese. I certainly didn't see it as some work of blasphemy, but then I'm not a Christian.
Certainly it didn't make Paul out to be a sympathetic character. And from what I've read of early Christianity Paul was somewhat controversial, hence the various letters telling the Churches to "don't listen to them, listen to me". In essence he co-opted Christianity.
I also really liked the sound track by Peter Gabriel.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Speaking of religious ecstasy

the scenes with John the Baptist were rather interesting. I wonder whether or not that level of ecstasy was part of his ministry?

I also wondered how authentic the music was. I mean, how do we know what that music sounded like, I wonder? Any music historians out there? It sounded very African to me.

[saltpoint]

10. Two good points. On the ecstacy, I wonder if Jesus headed out to

the desert caves to hang out with the Essenes FOR the ecstacy that the synagogues back in town weren't offering.

There's a decided preference on Jesus' part for the individualized spiritual experience as opposed to showing up in your fancy duds every week at an establishmentarian venue.

On the music. It could have been African, maybe north African along the coast of the Mediterranean. Not sure. Scorsese is something of an amateur music expert, so he likely had some serious input into that soundtrack. It would be interesting to know what his thoughts were.

[Desertrose]

14. Didn't Peter Gabriel do the music?

I really loved the score....but then I like Peter Gabriel and the middle eastern influence was probably closer to what was the actual music of the time...I think...

Saw it when it first came out & then a few years later, so its been awhile since I've seen it & heard the music. Hmm...used to have the soundtrack somewhere (think my daughter may have snagged it...)

If you can get past the non-ethnic Jesus stuff...story was interesting...definitely not the King James version which made for a nice change IMO.

[saltpoint]

15. I think that's right. Not sure if he was the only one or not.

[uppityperson]

21. Peter Gabriel did the music, based on traditional local music

There are 2 albums out, the passion of christ (peter gabriel) and music for the passion (local musicians)

[uppityperson]

6. It never made sense to me, think they didn't actually watch it

Jesus is tempted, finally says no. This is what he was "supposed" to do, to be able to pass up these tempations. I think those who protested didn't (many of them) actually see the picture, know what it was about except that it showed Jesus being tempted (with a wife, a family, to be just a man) which was bad.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. In a way

it was kind of like a Star Trek plot!

TG

[uppityperson]

20. yeah, one of those inside out movies

you don't know what is happening until the end. If you walked out in disgust (omg, Jesus having sex!) you wouldn't see that it was shwoing that although he was tempted, he didn't give in.

[papau]

7. An Envisioning of the humanity of Jesus that sometimes works, indeed

often works better, IMHO, then the Gibson S&M "Passion" - As praise that is rather very thin gruel indeed.

And that is the last good thing I'd say about the film. It is fiction and says it is fiction, but it is a simple minded grade school fart joke at the beliefs of Christians - harmless but not a good movie, again IMO. The writing is as if an outline of shock value ideas to traditional Christian understanding were listed out and then the director filled in. It is a Porky's coming of age movie that somehow got awards. But while Porky's had a bit of entertainment for the teen value, this has value only if you like seeing folks having sex with a whore as Jesus waits his turn, or if you like shock value that uses a very deep knowledge of Roman and Greek Catholic thought.

In the Judas Gospel, Judas was just a good guy, a helper of Jesus, and better than the other helpers of Jesus. Here he is almost the conscience of a fallible, fallen man, who likes sin - a bit contrary to the idea of Jesus as fully God at the same time as fully human.

Indeed it tries to sell the atheist idea that Christ’s resurrection is more important that the historical truth, via Paul's dialog -which contradicts St. Paul’s "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 have perished" (1 Cor. 15:16-18). So all those early believers were not believers - they just wanted to sell an idea for the betterment of society. It has Paul initially maintaining the truth of his message - but after a while more or less endorsing the notion of "Modernist theologians"/atheists that the gospel message was essentially "invented" by Paul himself, and that the faith and hope people draw from the idea of Christ’s resurrection is more important that the historical truth.

If you are into Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, with Jesus appearing to be waiting his turn, with a bit of background sex, this is a winner for you, Or if you resist the idea, that Jesus emphasized, of giving honor to your father and mother — a virtue that Jesus thought his society needed more of (cf. Mk 7:10-13), then you will like the rewrite of the scene where folks tell 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 scene as rewritten for the movie has Jesus saying to his mother "I have no family," and turning his back on her as she breaks down in tears.

WOW - But they said it was fiction. I guess being fully human means being fully tempted, needing a whore every now and then, and giving the finger to your Mom when a statement is not phrased in a manner you want it to be phrased.

It is not a bad movie. Good Production values. And again I thought it did a fair job of showing the humanity of Jesus in some scenes. But overall it was a nothing movie - a waste of time and money since I am too old for poorly done analogs of coming of age movie's fart jokes.

At least that is my opinion.

:-)

[xchrom]

9. if the christ isn't fully human -- then what's the point?

why would god bother?

the old testament is really capped off -- if you read it closely -- that god is a learning god -- i mean why would a perfect god admit to a mistake vis a vie the folood{just as an example?}

christianity has gotten OBSESSED with the divinity of christ -- a perfect being that doesn't make sense.

it seals the faith in stone -- and it will never be able to hold against the march of time.

[papau]

24. True - the interpretation of fully human does not include being a sinner

god does not admit to a mistake in the flood - there is an evaluation of where free will has taken the crowd - and a decision for a restart. Of course the flood is both real history - seems there was a very rapid - over hours/days - flooding of the Black Sea when the rising of the Med breached the natural dam that was between the Black sea and the Med, and it is also of course allegorical.

To be fully human does not require you to break commandments that you had said were important to you and society - you being Jesus of course.

[xchrom]

30. ''being a sinner'' would be in the eye of the beholder.

i.e. doesn't christ lay hands on a leper?

an absolute no-no.

no equivocating on that.

[papau]

31. He redefines sin and summarizes the law as love your God and love your

neighbor. Indeed he goes away from the letter of the law concept in doing so.

[saltpoint]

11. Maybe I hold film-makers generally and Scorcese particularly too

high on the cultural scale, but I am having a great deal of difficulty seeing someone telling Martin Scorcese to his face that one of his most carefully crafted films is "a fart joke."

I try to error on the side of talent, and the people who made this film collectively have a hell of a lot more of it than I'll ever have, and I'm very appreciative of what they accomplish as I sit and watch it from my theater seat.

[papau]

25. They certainly had and have more creative talent than I have-but the scale

is determined by other creations by talented creative people.

The character should not feel false to the viewer - Defoe's creation, to me, feels unreal/false/like Defoe does not really believe in the character's responses/actions -although despite this Defoe's acting was excellent.

By the way, outside of the film, I agree with you about Paul modifying- for the worse - Jesus' teachings.

But the question was I thought: Is there any need to ignore what Paul is recorded as saying, and to create Paul in the image that affirms atheist conspiracy theories. I do not think so.

To use and emphasize what will shock so as to entertain, to me, can be represented as a "fart joke". I did not see the art or the concept of being true to the book or even the concept of being true to the characters in the screen play as needing the "shock" points.

[saltpoint]

28. Defoe is one actor in an ensemble, but I think he conveys the

tormented and frustrated awareness of a tormented and frustrated man.

If Defoe is not our very finest actor, he is far from our least talented or least persuasive. PLATOON was a high point -- I bolt with the majority on Oliver Stone -- and as for pure psychopathological thrills, I thought Defoe scored big as Green Goblin in SPIDERMAN I.

There isn't a urtext to follow on Jesus of Galilee as there is with Freud or Socrates or Hitler, so actors have a freer range of expression (probably within the director's boundaries).

I think A.N. Wilson gets Paul better than anybody. He gives him the broadest consideration and asks for a re-interpretation of the conventional take. Part of the study are startling. If you have read it, I'd be curious to know your thoughts.

Casting Harry Dean Stanton was, in my opinion, one of the ballsiest things I've ever seen come out of Hollywood. The studio execs must have been stupefied when Scorcese insisted that Stanton play that role. I expect that some of them remain to this day in an asylum outside Beverly Hills, gnawing on the furniture in the lobby in a slobbering, incoherent kind of dull rage.

[papau]

32. LOL - excellent comments - I have not read A. N. Wilson's Paul, but

Amazon has it on "free read" sort of via the The Amazon Online Reader. I did not know this sales concept existed, but I like it.

But it makes making the excuse "don't have time to get it" a little harder to sell.

Now I have to read the except they have made available at the very least. :-)

I agree with all of your movie and actor evaluations - Defoe just had a hard time selling me - and I am sure it was more because of my not buying the underlying concept and not wanting to be sold than anything else.

[saltpoint]

33. Good luck on the on-line book hunt & we'll cross paths again

a little later on and swap notes.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. I appreciate your point of view

One good thing, it has made me think all day.

[papau]

26. Thanks TG - I am into not getting into anyones face over religion or lack

of religion or spiritual feeling.

Just my pet peeve - and this film hit that hot button that I have.

:-)

[saltpoint]

8. It's one of my favorite novels & films, TG. Just splendid work.

Of all Scorcese's films, even though many are outstanding, I thought he hit his stride here in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

Harry Dean Stanton is always appealing, I think. But here he is just beyond all expectation.

Yes -- Paul is shown as a jerk and an opportunistic bottom-line guy, not at all an attractive portrait, and -- please forgive me here -- exactly as I picture him. In my view Paul ruins the New Testament. He almost single-handedly removes the mystery and variousness from the ministry of Jesus and converts it with those letters to dogma. It makes me puke, and I thought the portrait of him in this film was spot-on.

I think many agnostics come away from this film MORE disposed to the ministry of Jesus than before. Not the divinity, but the tenets of the message itself. Love others, accept others' differences, seek to accomplish good, rise up against bad, include everybody, and appreciate even the smallest beautiful things.

A great book, a great film. You are on the trail of a masterwork, TG.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. I have never cared for Paul much

either, although I give him his props for spreading the faith. I was taken aback at how negatively they portrayed him. They kind of covered both sides of the coin with that part of the plot. Keeps the modernists happy with the concept of "the bottom line" as you phrase it, but then he gets back on the cross and keeps the faithful smiling.

[saltpoint]

29. You hit on it with a clear bingo there -- there's this almost

instinctive reaction to take Jesus' side against Paul after that film.

It's not anywhere near a good-guy/bad-guy deal. It's something more sublte and i think it's the director working with the actors.

Not sure. But it's there, and I think you hit it spot-on.

[wysi]

12. An interesting film

I was an assistant manager at the Copley Square Theater in Boston when the movie came out. We had a press screening one afternoon, which I attended (it was my day off). There was an armed guard at the door because of the threats we had been getting. For weeks prior we had letters arriving asking us (or warning us) not to show the film. No one was aware that we were screening it that day, but we had to be careful. The cinema was full for the press screening, which was in itself quite unusual.

I remember being quite intrigued by the film, intrigued enough to see it twice, and to read the book by Kazantakis. It certainly made me think a lot more about the faith I had abandoned, more than I had when I was actually a practicing Catholic. In particular, it was interesting to comtemplate the idea of Jesus' humanity, and the things that he would have had to do (and go through) in completing his journey.

[Rowdyboy]

13. I loved the movie....people who never saw it over-reacted like crazy

I thought it was a fascinating interpretation and found nothing to be offended by (then again, movies very rarely offend me, except by excessive farting, vomiting or masturbation references).

I have read "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" and would highly recommend it, if you're interested in the subject. Its another contemporary text with for very different approaches than those of 4 gospels.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375501568/104-3281893-3774316?v=glance&n=283155

From Amazon.com
Shortly after Elaine Pagels’ two-and-half-year-old son was diagnosed with a rare lung disease, the religion professor found herself drawn to a Christian church again for the first time in many years. In Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas Pagels, best know for her National Book Award-winning The Gnostic Gospels, wrestles with her own faith as she struggles to understand when--and why--Christianity became associated almost exclusively with the ideas codified in the fourth-century Nicene Creed and in the canonical texts of the New Testament. In her exploration, she uncovers the richness and diversity of Christian philosophy that has only become available since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts.

At the center of Beyond Belief is what Pagels identifies as a textual battle between The Gospel of Thomas (rediscovered in Egypt in 1945) and The Gospel of John. While these gospels have many superficial similarities, Pagels demonstrates that John, unlike Thomas, declares that Jesus is equivalent to "God the Father" as identified in the Old Testament. Thomas, in contrast, shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but, rather, is a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels then shows how the Gospel of John was used by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon and others to define orthodoxy during the second and third centuries. The secret teachings were literally driven underground, disappearing until the Twentieth Century. As Pagels argues this process "not only impoverished the churches that remained but also impoverished those expelled."

Beyond Belief offers a profound framework with which to examine Christian history and contemporary Christian faith, and Pagels renders her scholarship in a highly readable narrative. The one deficiency in Pagels’ examination of Thomas, if there is one, is that she never fully returns in the end to her own struggles with religion that so poignantly open the book. How has the mysticism of the Gnostic Gospels affected her? While she hints that she and others have found new pathways to faith through Thomas, the impact of Pagels’ work on contemporary Christianity may not be understood for years to come. --Patrick O’Kelley

[truthpusher]

16. I thought the moment when Jesus died...

was one of the best things that Scorcese has ever done...

[The Blue Flower]

22. If you liked the film...

..do yourself a favor and read the book. It is a beautiful work that captures the depth of need of everyday people for spiritual food. And of the human struggle of a man who thought he might also be divine. I think Scorsese used Brooklyn accents for the apostles to get the idea across that these were everyday people.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. I have just ordered it at the library online.

[papau]

27. I think you will enjoy the book - it is complicated - hard to know through

whose eyes you are seeing at times, and dream vs realty is also there. I thought it was an excellent book. Thought provoking.

Unlike in the movie, I did not feel like there was an over emphasis on sex - on what's the status past present and future of the Lord's maidenhead (which is not to say the book avoids the subject). It was much better than both the "Passion" movie script and its own movie script.

I'll be curious to see your review, and whether or not you thought that God would be tempted by the idea of giving up divinity in order to be human with a human family.

[Finder]

34. One of my favorites. n/t