Please respond to this week's film with as much passion and as much detail as you can.
I really look forward to reading what you write!
13 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Matt Fagerholm
Right from the opening titles of The Last Temptation of Christ, Scorsese is visualizing the inner conflict within Jesus. The tangled thorns set against a strikingly red background seem to represent how Christ’s divinity and humanity are inextricably bound. Early in the film, Jesus is seen writhing on the ground as if He is literally being torn apart by the warring impulses within. This is quite different from the “holy card” Jesus so often represented in cinema, the kind that seemed to maintain a quiet righteous assurance as He was being led to His death. “If Jesus was really like this,” the director asks in Scorsese on Scorsese, “why didn’t everybody listen to Him?” As played by Willem Dafoe in a flat-out extraordinary performance, Jesus could easily be mistaken for a madman, with His wild eyes shifting between modes of love, anger and fear. The spiritual issues He struggles with throughout the film mirror those of every religious mortal who dared to question their faith. When Jesus finally comes around to uttering the infamous affirmation, “It is accomplished,” the line means more than nearly all the dialogue in any other biblical film ever made.
This is the best live-action Bible-based film I’ve ever seen (the best animated one would be The Prince of Egypt). As a once-practicing Catholic, I find it so exhilarating to see a film that is actually actively thinking about religion, and not just going through the hollow motions of empty ritual (like last year’s atrocious The Nativity Story). The ridiculous accusations shot at this film by the church (such as “the most satanic movie ever made” and “it will destroy Christianity”) are all the more laughable since the accusers never saw the film (and probably never will). I find it ironic that Mel Gibson’s box-office phenomenon The Passion of the Christ was openly embraced by the church, especially since the film exploited its biblical material by shifting the focus from passionate faith to masochistic violence. Only in Passion’s first scene does Gibson allow Jesus to express any semblance of doubt or humanity. He accepts His divine fate all too soon, and eventually becomes—in the words of Columbia professor Ron Falzone—“nothing more than a slab of meat in a butcher shop that is in need of tenderizing.” Not so in Last Temptation, where Jesus is actively questioning His purpose and nature all the way until the final line of dialogue. I personally found the film moving beyond words.
The unforgettable shot depicting Jesus carrying the cross in slow motion down a crowded street resembles a moving painting similar to the art referenced in our handout (particularly Giotto di Bondone’s The Betrayal of Christ). The film’s controversial final segment, depicting His psychological temptation by the devil, was reminiscent of the structures of two great stories. One is Ambrose Bierce’s short story “An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge,” in which an innocent man accused of treason hallucinates about escaping to his wife just before being hung. The other is Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, which has a final section so similar that it could be played on a double bill with Last Temptation. Capra’s main character, George Bailey, is contemplating suicide when he is visited by an angel who promises to grant him a wish. When George wishes he was never born, the angel presents him with a vision of the world in which he never existed. This nightmarish portrait of life in disarray resembles the vision the satanic “angel” grants Jesus in Last Temptation. These visions demonstrate to both main characters how their reluctance to meet their intended fates would have dire consequences for the world. George must live for his family and community, and Jesus must die for the community of man. It’s a wonderful death, indeed.
Just joking. I just find that I need a bit of comedy after something as profound and heavy as The Last Temptation of Christ. This was the first religious based film that I have ever seen that is actively interpreting the life story of Jesus ultimately turning it into a work of art rather than a visual telling of the Gospel. I believe the reason why so many steer clear from religious themed films is because they typically are dead interpretations of the story. Nothing new is being presented. Over and over again the stories are recycled in divergent mediums until the audience shuns away. I understand that in religion, especially anything pertaining to the life of Jesus, is a dangerous subject to tackle. So many around the world have their own vision of who their make is, and anyone who challenges that vision are looked down upon. The paradox with religious entertainment is that no one wants to have their deeply held beliefs to be challenged, yet no one person has the exact same interpretation of Jesus, God, or any other Defined Being. Scorsese had to fight for years to get his personal vision of Jesus on the screen and even after he did, many threats and criticism fell upon the film. But what people didn’t understand was that Scorsese’s film wasn’t meant to be an accurate account of the events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion, it was a subjective interpretation of the man who was Jesus.This film reveled Scorsese actively perusing his faith. It was Scorsese translating the bible into a visual language in the effort to better understand the man who was Jesus. This film is not a film I could sit and watch over and over, but then again it is not my exact interpretation of who Jesus was. If I was to make a film about the man, it would undoubtedly be different. There is nothing wrong with that though, because Scorsese perspective is not my own. I greatly admire his courage to undertake such a project and to still be able to personalize a man that to many around the world, is God himself.
This film was extremely hard for me to watch. I was born and raised Catholic and Jesus Christ was never looked down upon or thought to be a just like one of us. I understand that Scorsese always wants to be as personal as possible, but why did he have to use Jesus Christ as a medium, for what I thought to be total and utter self-advertising. This to me is the worst sin possible; to express Jesus as nothing more than one of us, to show him purposely sinning, having sex, and mostly not wanting to be our savior! I can see why people did not want this film to be made. Jesus Christ, to many people, is the only reason for living. One feels comfort that he died for our sins and if we follow his commandments, we will soon live with him in heaven for eternity. If people took this film literally and this is what religions preached to be correct, there would be anarchy and chaos! For the people who are not religious then I completely understand why they would like this movie. Aesthetically speaking, it has a lot of great things working for it, as do all of Scorsese’s projects. As for the people who call themselves religious, I can not understand how they can say they like the movie. This film mocks are very existence. It degrades the one we call our God. I could not just sit back and enjoy this film like I do with the rest of his films. He stepped over the line. How dare he represent the purest thing in my world as an antagonist. Scorsese at one point wanted to be a priest. Obviously, this is the very reason God thought he’d do a shitty job and made him a filmmaker. Scorsese should stick with his mafia New Yorker Mean Streets type films. Scorsese a man, who has been married more times than a whore on All My Children, has no right trying to tell the story of Jesus Christ! This film does not deserve anymore of my thoughts. Well, off to the nearest church to ask for forgiveness for spending time on writing about this so called film!
Twelve years. Twelve years of religion classes. Twelve years of Stations of the Cross. Twelve years of Christmas Mass. Twelve years of Thanksgiving food drives. Twelve years of Catholic school. Parents had two options when deciding where to send their soon to be 1st graders. You spend the extra money and send your kid to a catholic school where they could get a decent education, you send them to the local school precincts which were absolutely horrible, or completely packed up and moved out a town to a better school district. Not having enough money for the latter option, my parents sent me off with Jesus and a math book for twelve years where we studied Jesus and his church in every media form that ever mentioned him…and do you know how many times my teachers, over a twelve year span ever mentioned Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ? Take a guess…………………………………..Zero.
They never brought it up. But my classmates did. Once. The following story is true, happened to me in my junior year. I believe this story has relevance to the story Scorsese was trying to tell, the message a group of juniors in high school received, and all the ho-rah surrounding this film. A classmate in my junior year brought up the film to my religion teacher that semester when we were talking about film and book adaptations from the bible. The teacher was talking about some of the films about Jesus, the nativity, the gospel, Moses, etc. and most of the time, no one saw any of these films. Really, like most days for us in religion class, it was a pretty boring day. Whatever the squirrel was doing in the ground outside the window was more interesting. This was until my friend Jim raises his hand, and says, “What about the Scorsese movie?”
Now, I’d never seen it, yet a few kids in the class had seen it. So all of us who haven’t seen it go, “What’s it about?”…and they go… “Man it’s dripped out! The whole movie’s about the devil trying to trick Jesus into not going into the sacrifice. The devil poses as an angel and tells him he doesn’t have to die. Then Jesus ends up raising a family out in the country and pretty much just lives it up!” I’m laughing now because I could barely believe there was a movie out like this. He continues, along with the other classmates who saw it about the general plot synopsis of the film, and we listen. I remember the conversation very clearly now.
The teacher, a small frail yet energetic man in his mid-fifties just let us go back and forth about it for two minutes until we asked him what he thought about the film. His answer was something like this. “The Scorsese movie is a very interesting film, yet it’s not based upon what we’re talking about.” The students respond. “Well aren’t we talking about stuff they made out of stories from the bible?” “Yes.” “Well, isn’t this story from the bible?” “Yes and no. It’s based upon a book, a work of fiction, from a man who had a different interpretation of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. The other films we just discussed are based upon the events of the gospels.” My buddy Jim, with a hair up his ass, continues. “But aren’t the gospels four different interpretations about Jesus Christ?” The teacher responds. “Yes Jim.” He particularly throws in Jim’s first name name, signaling to him if Jim continues going in the direction he’s about to go in, he’s also prepared to go to war about it. Those who’ve seen the film are already at Jim’s side. The rest of us who ain’t seen it are finished daydreaming about the grey squirrel and where he’s storing his nuts out the window, and we’re on the sidelines to one of the most ridiculous conversations (and when it comes to Catholic school and religion more in particularly, there’s many.)
They argue about the devil and the temptations in the desert. They argue about why people find it absurd Jesus would have even thought about coming down from the cross. They argue about Judas role in the film. They argue about the entire narrative that is The Last Temptation of Christ as the rest of us listen on for the A half an hour goes by and we get to the hottest part of the conversation. They, now we as the rest of us begin jumping in the argument, argue the point that the bible itself is a man made work of fiction just as The Last Temptation of Christ, the book and film, are works of fiction based off of two man’s interpretations of the events and the man that was Jesus Christ.
Then that’s when we get to where the teacher was trying to direct our focus for the last eighteen hundred seconds. Scorsese’s interpretation of Jesus Christ. He starts arguing about Scorsese’s interpretation of the “more human” Jesus Christ failed to accurately portray all facets of Jesus Christ, and that if the human side of Jesus Christ is going to be further explored that all aspects of Jesus Christ, the spiritual along with the human should be explored within a film. He arrives at his main point that the Jesus Christ the church teaches and conveys to the public, is not the Jesus Scorsese conveys to the public. That’s when I and a few others hop in.
“Yeah, but the gospels are four different interpretations of Jesus too. This is just another guys interpretation too.” Then another student else hops in with the weirdest yet somewhat relavent statement I ever heard. He goes.
“Yeah, it’s kind a like Superman.” We all look at him and start laughing our asses off. He laughs too, and continues. “Yeah, but I bet if you get everyone if the world to describe who Superman is, and what he’s about, you’d get a million different accounts about who he is. The hero, alien, the immigrant, the man, etc.” I’m still laughing at the image of Jesus Christ with a red cape and giant “J” on his chest, but the more the students start talking about it, it makes sense in its own twisted way. Even the teacher agrees, and states which is the biggest problem with The Last Temptation of Christ, and Christianity in general. Everyone’s got a different interpretation of Jesus Christ. Scorsese’s is one of the furthest that many identify with, yet it’s his interpretation of what Jesus was like. We all have different interpretations of Jesus, we find others who have similar interpretations of Jesus, form churches, worship him, and afterwards argue with others who have conflicting interpretations of Jesus Christ.
The final point the students made in the end of class though is the story of the film. Jesus beats the devil and his last temptation! Jesus wins by a knockout in the ninth! Yet, people are so wrapped up with the many different interpretations in the film that the overall story of the film is lost.
After finally watching the film six years later, I completely understand what my classmates were fully arguing about. Yeah, Jesus wigged out a lot. Judas wasn’t as weak. The apostles weren’t as strong. The devil was, well… he was still the devil. Yet, I set all of this aside and still connected with the story the title of the film implies is going to be. Jesus conquering the devil and completing the work God has set out for his son.
I know I reacted this way since I read so much, and knew a lot of what was going on behind the scenes and in the scenes of the film. Yet I have one last thing to look at and just simply think about. Look at the story being told in this film, because it’s a good one. There is a simple yet powerful feat performed in this film and it’s not talked as much as it should be. A man, a simple and confused man, not the mystical son of God, but a MAN defeats the DEVIL, and in doing so opens the gates of heaven for all of us. The opening the gates part of heaven part is according to scripture. Scripture based on fiction. Based on an unknown man’s interpretation of what would become scripture. I wonder who it would be easier for to hang nailed on that cross all day and say no that last temptation: a confused and struggling man, or a man who decisively knows he’s the son of god. Think about it. Cause this is what I interpreted Scorsese is trying to tell us. Then remember this is all according to a film. A film based off a book. According to a man’s fictionalized interpretation of scriptures. Scriptures that were based in fiction. Based on another man’s interpretation of what would become scripture. Based on fiction. Etc. etc. etc. Okay! Enough for today! I’m done!
The Last Temptation of Christ Christianity abound! Martin Scorsese takes a new look at the scriptures and I have to admit, after 11 years of Catholic Education I prefer this vision of the bible much more than any other way it was presented to me in those 11 years. One of main things I enjoyed about this fresh glimpse into the words of the bible was the idea of making Jesus the son of man first rather than the Son of God. By doing this, Scorsese presents to us an approachable Jesus who we can even relate to in the beginning as he struggles with his identity. It makes the words of the bible more personal rather than just focusing on this larger than life God on Earth whom we are kept at a distance from. This more personal approach indeed makes the stories more digestible and instead of seeing a flawless being we see every flaw and understand the sacrifice and hardships. I cannot say that I was profoundly moved or had any kind of spiritual awaking but I will say that I appreciated what Scorsese did and did beautifully. Another thing I really appreciated about this film, which I am starting to appreciate in almost all of Scorsese’s films, is the blurring of the line between the real and the fantastical. Granted, here we are dealing with the Son of God so the line is ambiguous as is, however, Scorsese does an amazing job dividing, as I stated before, the Son of man and the Son of God with this line. One example of this is when Jesus removes his heart in a scene representative of the image of Jesus and the Sacred Heart. By the time this, as well as the other fantastical miracles happen in the story, we have already seen much of Jesus’ struggle as human versus God so it makes the miracles even more astounding as the line is blurred and they are presented to us onscreen. As far as all the controversy is concerned I think it is just another matter of people being way to uptight. It seems like this is happening more and more and it is quite sad. You would think that as time progressed we would learn from each other and be able to understand different points of view without picking up a flaming torch, but instead sometimes society works backwards. Lighten up, loosen up, live your life among others. What fun is life if everyone agrees with you anyways?
I suppose it was expected for a man with so much religious imagery to at long last present his interpretation of the bible. I could go into every reason why I don't enjoy religious films, to analyze a religious film for it's technique is to ignore the elephant in the room.
When I watch a film on such a massive topic, I find myself almost laughing at the irony of its attempted release into theatres. A church is a theatre for a becon of god to relay his message to those who choose to listen. The numerous interpretation of the text that is preached is what has led to the numerous denominations of christianity. For Scorsese to create a movie that dissects THE BIBLE in his own vision is to essentially create a denomination of his own. Is there anything more egotistical than making your own sect of a religion. Maybe this is the pessimist in me, but I do believe you go into film with an agenda in mind, and a point you are trying to prove. When someone as big as Scorsese sits in the directors chair and applies his style to every frame of the film he isn't trying to "just tell a story." Rather, he is trying to tell his story, his version, of a story that has been read and told by more people than any other story, and by people far more pivotal than Martin Scorsese. This is something difficult to get over for me, religion has always been behind some of the worlds most important art, and I understand infusing your beliefs with the stories you tell, but I don't believe in attempts to retell the stories, or trying to push them into the face of people whohave lived with those stories in the backgrounds of their lives.
As a technical film, it's great, I love the modernizing of the dialogue, making it seem more staged. The camera work is beautiful, and the performance of Dafoe is as good as anything I've seen. But why am I watching this film, I really just don't care what people who have lived materialistic lives have to say about their interpretations of the bible.
Peter Gabriel's score for The Last Temptation of Christ is beautiful music. In this film the story of Jesus actually seems appealing and plausible. This coming from someone who quit Sunday school at seven years old. Willem Defoe is awesome. Barbara Hershey is like the most beautiful woman in the world. And I'm so glad Harvey Keitel played Judas. But I got nothin' right now. Last Temptation is amazing. P.S. it's too bad the film offends christians. Oh well.
Passion and detail, I’m not sure. I think the best I can muster is an overwhelming shoulder shrug. I actually sometimes wonder if a movie is worse when someone doesn’t have much of an opinion about it. But then I remember how much I hate, say, most Renee Zellwhatever movies, and I figure “Last Temptation” is at least as good as those.
In large part, my unaffected nature stems from my lack of a stance on Jesus. I’m sure he had a lot of good ideas on how people should live, and it sucks that he got so much shit kicked out of him, but, from my perspective, it’s not like Jesus was the end-all, be-all of people trying to make a difference only to be tortured. I’ve read more Old Testament than New Testament, anyway.
Also, those research dudes are figuring more and more all the time that spirituality is linked to a part of the brain that people either have or don’t. I most definitely do not. I’m not supernaturally touched by an Arab Jew, the bastard child of a teenage mother, getting nailed to a chunk of wood. It’ll make my stomach churn, because it is a disgusting and painful way to die, and I really hope it isn’t to be the end of my existence, but there’s nothing else really going on in my head, or, thank fuck, anywhere else in my body, when I see this story told and retold.
I do appreciate that “Last Temptation” is not a strict retelling. Yeah, it took brass to make the movie, but it took a lot to write the book, too. The story reminded me of the wack double-standard of religion and of the catch-22 Christianity set up for itself. When some dude shows up today and says he thinks he’s the son of God and also a manifestation of God on earth, how do people react? The dude’s usually a nutjob. Messiahs sound crazy. Really crazy. They question the institution, and, based on the thousands of Christians I knew back in Texas, questioning the institution is so totally not cool. Jesus isn’t going to come back to earth, see millions of people wearing the instrument that killed him around their necks, and say something everyone wants to hear. Scorsese caught flack for the same basic principle when he made this story accessible to an enormous audience.
But, honestly, what the fuck is a strict retelling, anyway? Sticking to scientific fact, or sticking to gospel? You can’t do either without pissing people off. I think it’s insane Mel Gibson ran into issues making “Passion.” Since when has beating up Jews been unpopular? The real bottom line for a lot of people is that they can’t laugh at or question the shit they’re most serious about.
I laughed at “Last Temptation” sometimes. Harvey Keitel as Judas. Willem Defoe seeing manifestations of Satan. I’m sorry, but I really can’t take any of this shit seriously. Only Joe Pesci would’ve made a funnier Judas. It’s like the film is a parody of itself. Really serious religious movie, done by people you’re used to seeing blow shit up.
I absolutely love the Peter Gabriel soundtrack, though. I bought the album when I was a kid, having not seen the movie. Now, I can’t decide if the music salvages some potentially silly shots of people trying to look serious by making them pass as beautiful imagery, or if it works against the movie, setting serious sounds to a laughable film, the juxtaposition creating an awkward bit of humor.
But, in the end, I’ve no idea what I can tell you about “Last Temptation.” It’s a movie that made me go “eh." When I don't connect to the characters or story of a movie, it's hard for me to give meaning to much else.
So, the main question I’ve been asked about this movie is did I like it? I actually have no answer to that question. I can’t say that I hated it. I know what movies I hate felt like. I can’t say that I liked it either, because it doesn’t feel like that either. I’m kind of just stuck. I have no idea how I feel about this movie. It was fun, with the whole journey thing and the idea was interesting, but that’s all I can really say.
I liked the soundtrack. It was perfect for the movie. Everything flowed really well and gave more feeling to the scene and what was going on in the scene. Beyond that, I don’t know what else to say.
I’m a catholic. I wasn’t offended by this movie. It said that it was fiction and that it was based on a book not the bible. People can be really stupid sometimes. This guy puts effort into a movie. All he wanted to do was show his movie and people have to go out and protest it. That’s so lame. As I was reading that in the Scorsese on Scorsese book in the end, I couldn’t help but be angry. It sounded like all these people were just protesting to give themselves more attention. They hadn’t even seen the movie yet and they were already protesting it. How is that even possible? Now, if he had said, this is what I think happened, I think that Jesus did all this and had a friend named Judas who had a New York accent I might be a little pissed off. Mainly because I’m pretty sure it isn’t accurate. I wasn’t there, but I feel confident that wasn’t the case back then.
Overall, I really don’t have many feelings towards this movie in any way. It feels like I just watched it and afterwards I thought to my self, I wonder what we are watching next week. I really didn’t hate it, I just want to make that clear. I really just have no feelings towards the movie what so ever, which is kind of a good thing. I have never felt that way about a movie before. It was able to evoke a new emotion on me. I guess that’s a good thing.
Politics and religion seem to have a difficult time when brought to the movie theaters. I was able to check out Robert Redford’s new film “Lions for Lambs” last week and while I believe that the content or the message resonates with the majority of its viewers, I still don’t agree that those types of films belong into the movie theater. Not to say that I don’t want to be bothered with major issues of our time, but putting celebrity actors together on the screen depicted on gorgeous super sharp and grainy 35mm film with such adorable lighting and sound effects that remind us of the last Michael Bay film, blurs the border between fantastic fiction and serious harsh truth. Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” differs the “average” perception of Jesus of Nazareth and depicts him as an approachable and benevolent yet maniacal fellow with deciding issues. He does not know what is going on, he struggles, does mistakes until he understands. Right? Does he? I’m a little unclear about the end of the story and a second viewing would indeed help. This film is just not doing it for me. It is not. Now I was brought up catholic, catholic in the broadest sense. My grandmother was the only one who made sure that I was praying to God, going to church more than once a year and all those things. The rest of my family had a different relationship to God, and I sensed it without talking about it. My dad used to be an altar boy and after he witnessed strange things “behind the curtain” he formed his own opinion about church and what we human beings are doing in relationship to God. Now I do like Scorsese’s or Nikos Kazantzakis' approach and the humanizing of Jesus and showing him as a regular guy who was meant to do something greater than being a carpenter. It is the fact that I see Willem Dafoe and Harvey Keitel within a story that has been told now over 2000 years and I’m sorry but I don’t want to see Willem Dafoe as Jesus. And that’s again to back up my aforementioned point that religion is difficult within the movie world. Willem Dafoe was not as big back in 1988 but unfortunately he has made a lot of pictures after “The Last Temptation of Christ” and is probably still making them today. And again unfortunately I saw him also in “Spiderman” as the green goblin and I did not like him in this role. I’m biased but that happens in motion pictures. I also felt that Scorsese tried to force his story-telling style onto this one without thinking twice of the outcome. Now I know that they were attempting a more contemporary approach with a script that would sound more relatable but all these changes blur the reality of Jesus’ life as he lived it. I don’t want to see a version that is easier to understand and I don’t want to see recognizable actors “playing” the roles of people we only heard about from the bible. It’s not working and I didn’t like the film.
I was put off by this film. I think I was put off because I personally really didn’t see any emotional investment spent on Scorsese’s part. I felt like it was just another story of Christ’s life Hollywooded up. I am very half and half with this film. After the movie was over I had no reaction to it at all. I wasn’t positive on why that was. I think I have an understanding of what I thought about it a week later. I like and dislike some of the choices Scorsese made while making the film. I am very half and half.
I like the contemporary approach. Jesus was made into a real person. Dafoe did a great job playing such a distinguished role. He made Jesus human. He wasn’t an enlightened man of god that so many other adaptations make him to be. This was a great choice on Scorsese’s part. I’m not sure if Scorsese could have made as an effective film if he didn’t make it in a contemporary style.
I am Catholic. I know the story of Jesus’ life. I knew this wasn’t based off the Gospel, so I went into it with an open mind. I was surprised at how much it really wasn’t changed. This is what I would prefer a film be like. I just don’t think it captured Jesus’ full intent. He states that he is going to die on the cross. That is all. He doesn’t give reason that I picked up on. It seems like he kind of suffers because he is supposed to rather than because he wants to. The real message of the story doesn’t come through clearly in Scorsese’s film.
I was put off by the angel rescuing Christ. Jesus growing old and not really being the son of God, I thought, was really interesting. He marries and has a lot of kids. He lives the life he has always wanted. Then I realized that this is the last temptation. When he decides that dying on the cross is his responsibility and he wake up from this dream he realizes that he is ready. That last shot with that music was great. I just thought that Scorsese didn’t make the underlying purpose strong enough. He dies on the cross because he has to. I guess I can accept that.
I really loved this movie a lot. For me, it's the only film I've ever seen that's really captured how I feel about Christ and God and the bible.
It seems like so many people are so closed-minded in todays society, christians fighting christians: they all believe in God and that Jesus died for their sins, but they argue over the pettiest things, they can't accept anything unless it's in the bible. Since I was a kid, I've always been a big fan of JC, but I think he had to have sinned at least once in his life. What I love about this film is that He's a huge sinner, he's not godly in the same way that he's been portrayed for the last 2000 years. He's a human being like all the rest of us. I still think he died on the cross for all humanity and I think he rose from the grave 3 days later. I just can't believe how many christians had such a problem with a film that portrayed Jesus as a divine human and not as a godly spirit in a man's body.
So many christians are just so unwilling to open their mind, what they have isn't even faith, because they base so much of what they believe in the bible, which they view as fact. So if the bible doesn't say it, it must not be true. I hate that kind of thinking and it's what I love about the movie.
If I were just a regular christian, I'd say it's just a movie and never think about it again. But if I'm willing to go with Scorsese on this and accept that Jesus was a human, well holy shit, look at the message I can take from that. If Jesus was a human, well that'd make it a whole lot harder for him to die for every human, to grasp the idea that he was God, to perform miracles, and to stand up to people who weren't preaching what he was: love for all.
If He's just a god then I'd expect him to be able to go through with everything, he's God. But if he's a man who's willing to go through all of that and he's willing to question things he knows are wrong, well that's amazing. He's a human, going through all of that. Since I too am a human and know what pain and confusion can be like, I can actually start to sympathize with him. Not only does this type of thinking make any film about Jesus a lot more intersting to watch, but it makes his message even stronger. If a mere man was willing to go through all that for us, I think that our society can afford to lighten up a bit.
And the fact that PASSION OF THE CHRIST was embraced with such open arms from someone who would make the film not about any kind of message Jesus had, such as love your enemies, he gives us this bloody depiction of what he went through. He went through a lot of pain, I got it, but why, was it a lot of pain for him, how did he feel, what was going on with his disciples?
If our society would embrace Scorsese's film, maybe we wouldn't be invading all these countries, maybe people wouldn't murder each other during instances of road rage. It's really sad how fucking stupid our society can be, to the point where we'd take a figure such as Jesus, and instead of commending the film that humanizes him and spreads his message of love, not war, we'd rather see him getting torturued for 2 hours and think that were all good christians while the world falls apart around us.
I really loved this movie a lot. For me, it's the only film I've ever seen that's really captured how I feel about Christ and God and the bible.
It seems like so many people are so closed-minded in todays society, christians fighting christians: they all believe in God and that Jesus died for their sins, but they argue over the pettiest things, they can't accept anything unless it's in the bible. Since I was a kid, I've always been a big fan of JC, but I think he had to have sinned at least once in his life. What I love about this film is that He's a huge sinner, he's not godly in the same way that he's been portrayed for the last 2000 years. He's a human being like all the rest of us. I still think he died on the cross for all humanity and I think he rose from the grave 3 days later. I just can't believe how many christians had such a problem with a film that portrayed Jesus as a divine human and not as a godly spirit in a man's body.
So many christians are just so unwilling to open their mind, what they have isn't even faith, because they base so much of what they believe in the bible, which they view as fact. So if the bible doesn't say it, it must not be true. I hate that kind of thinking and it's what I love about the movie.
If I were just a regular christian, I'd say it's just a movie and never think about it again. But if I'm willing to go with Scorsese on this and accept that Jesus was a human, well holy shit, look at the message I can take from that. If Jesus was a human, well that'd make it a whole lot harder for him to die for every human, to grasp the idea that he was God, to perform miracles, and to stand up to people who weren't preaching what he was: love for all.
If He's just a god then I'd expect him to be able to go through with everything, he's God. But if he's a man who's willing to go through all of that and he's willing to question things he knows are wrong, well that's amazing. He's a human, going through all of that. Since I too am a human and know what pain and confusion can be like, I can actually start to sympathize with him. Not only does this type of thinking make any film about Jesus a lot more intersting to watch, but it makes his message even stronger. If a mere man was willing to go through all that for us, I think that our society can afford to lighten up a bit.
And the fact that PASSION OF THE CHRIST was embraced with such open arms from someone who would make the film not about any kind of message Jesus had, such as love your enemies, he gives us this bloody depiction of what he went through. He went through a lot of pain, I got it, but why, was it a lot of pain for him, how did he feel, what was going on with his disciples?
If our society would embrace Scorsese's film, maybe we wouldn't be invading all these countries, maybe people wouldn't murder each other during instances of road rage. It's really sad how fucking stupid our society can be, to the point where we'd take a figure such as Jesus, and instead of commending the film that humanizes him and spreads his message of love, not war, we'd rather see him getting torturued for 2 hours and think that were all good christians while the world falls apart around us.
Please respond to this week's film with as much passion and as much detail as you can.
13 comments:
Matt Fagerholm
Right from the opening titles of The Last Temptation of Christ, Scorsese is visualizing the inner conflict within Jesus. The tangled thorns set against a strikingly red background seem to represent how Christ’s divinity and humanity are inextricably bound. Early in the film, Jesus is seen writhing on the ground as if He is literally being torn apart by the warring impulses within. This is quite different from the “holy card” Jesus so often represented in cinema, the kind that seemed to maintain a quiet righteous assurance as He was being led to His death. “If Jesus was really like this,” the director asks in Scorsese on Scorsese, “why didn’t everybody listen to Him?” As played by Willem Dafoe in a flat-out extraordinary performance, Jesus could easily be mistaken for a madman, with His wild eyes shifting between modes of love, anger and fear. The spiritual issues He struggles with throughout the film mirror those of every religious mortal who dared to question their faith. When Jesus finally comes around to uttering the infamous affirmation, “It is accomplished,” the line means more than nearly all the dialogue in any other biblical film ever made.
This is the best live-action Bible-based film I’ve ever seen (the best animated one would be The Prince of Egypt). As a once-practicing Catholic, I find it so exhilarating to see a film that is actually actively thinking about religion, and not just going through the hollow motions of empty ritual (like last year’s atrocious The Nativity Story). The ridiculous accusations shot at this film by the church (such as “the most satanic movie ever made” and “it will destroy Christianity”) are all the more laughable since the accusers never saw the film (and probably never will). I find it ironic that Mel Gibson’s box-office phenomenon The Passion of the Christ was openly embraced by the church, especially since the film exploited its biblical material by shifting the focus from passionate faith to masochistic violence. Only in Passion’s first scene does Gibson allow Jesus to express any semblance of doubt or humanity. He accepts His divine fate all too soon, and eventually becomes—in the words of Columbia professor Ron Falzone—“nothing more than a slab of meat in a butcher shop that is in need of tenderizing.” Not so in Last Temptation, where Jesus is actively questioning His purpose and nature all the way until the final line of dialogue. I personally found the film moving beyond words.
The unforgettable shot depicting Jesus carrying the cross in slow motion down a crowded street resembles a moving painting similar to the art referenced in our handout (particularly Giotto di Bondone’s The Betrayal of Christ). The film’s controversial final segment, depicting His psychological temptation by the devil, was reminiscent of the structures of two great stories. One is Ambrose Bierce’s short story “An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge,” in which an innocent man accused of treason hallucinates about escaping to his wife just before being hung. The other is Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, which has a final section so similar that it could be played on a double bill with Last Temptation. Capra’s main character, George Bailey, is contemplating suicide when he is visited by an angel who promises to grant him a wish. When George wishes he was never born, the angel presents him with a vision of the world in which he never existed. This nightmarish portrait of life in disarray resembles the vision the satanic “angel” grants Jesus in Last Temptation. These visions demonstrate to both main characters how their reluctance to meet their intended fates would have dire consequences for the world. George must live for his family and community, and Jesus must die for the community of man. It’s a wonderful death, indeed.
I CAN’T BELIEVE HE DIES IN THE END!
Just joking. I just find that I need a bit of comedy after something as profound and heavy as The Last Temptation of Christ. This was the first religious based film that I have ever seen that is actively interpreting the life story of Jesus ultimately turning it into a work of art rather than a visual telling of the Gospel.
I believe the reason why so many steer clear from religious themed films is because they typically are dead interpretations of the story. Nothing new is being presented. Over and over again the stories are recycled in divergent mediums until the audience shuns away.
I understand that in religion, especially anything pertaining to the life of Jesus, is a dangerous subject to tackle. So many around the world have their own vision of who their make is, and anyone who challenges that vision are looked down upon. The paradox with religious entertainment is that no one wants to have their deeply held beliefs to be challenged, yet no one person has the exact same interpretation of Jesus, God, or any other Defined Being.
Scorsese had to fight for years to get his personal vision of Jesus on the screen and even after he did, many threats and criticism fell upon the film. But what people didn’t understand was that Scorsese’s film wasn’t meant to be an accurate account of the events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion, it was a subjective interpretation of the man who was Jesus.This film reveled Scorsese actively perusing his faith. It was Scorsese translating the bible into a visual language in the effort to better understand the man who was Jesus.
This film is not a film I could sit and watch over and over, but then again it is not my exact interpretation of who Jesus was. If I was to make a film about the man, it would undoubtedly be different. There is nothing wrong with that though, because Scorsese perspective is not my own. I greatly admire his courage to undertake such a project and to still be able to personalize a man that to many around the world, is God himself.
This film was extremely hard for me to watch. I was born and raised Catholic and Jesus Christ was never looked down upon or thought to be a just like one of us. I understand that Scorsese always wants to be as personal as possible, but why did he have to use Jesus Christ as a medium, for what I thought to be total and utter self-advertising.
This to me is the worst sin possible; to express Jesus as nothing more than one of us, to show him purposely sinning, having sex, and mostly not wanting to be our savior! I can see why people did not want this film to be made.
Jesus Christ, to many people, is the only reason for living. One feels comfort that he died for our sins and if we follow his commandments, we will soon live with him in heaven for eternity. If people took this film literally and this is what religions preached to be correct, there would be anarchy and chaos!
For the people who are not religious then I completely understand why they would like this movie. Aesthetically speaking, it has a lot of great things working for it, as do all of Scorsese’s projects.
As for the people who call themselves religious, I can not understand how they can say they like the movie. This film mocks are very existence. It degrades the one we call our God. I could not just sit back and enjoy this film like I do with the rest of his films. He stepped over the line. How dare he represent the purest thing in my world as an antagonist.
Scorsese at one point wanted to be a priest. Obviously, this is the very reason God thought he’d do a shitty job and made him a filmmaker. Scorsese should stick with his mafia New Yorker Mean Streets type films. Scorsese a man, who has been married more times than a whore on All My Children, has no right trying to tell the story of Jesus Christ!
This film does not deserve anymore of my thoughts. Well, off to the nearest church to ask for forgiveness for spending time on writing about this so called film!
Twelve years. Twelve years of religion classes. Twelve years of Stations of the Cross. Twelve years of Christmas Mass. Twelve years of Thanksgiving food drives. Twelve years of Catholic school. Parents had two options when deciding where to send their soon to be 1st graders. You spend the extra money and send your kid to a catholic school where they could get a decent education, you send them to the local school precincts which were absolutely horrible, or completely packed up and moved out a town to a better school district. Not having enough money for the latter option, my parents sent me off with Jesus and a math book for twelve years where we studied Jesus and his church in every media form that ever mentioned him…and do you know how many times my teachers, over a twelve year span ever mentioned Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ? Take a guess…………………………………..Zero.
They never brought it up. But my classmates did. Once. The following story is true, happened to me in my junior year. I believe this story has relevance to the story Scorsese was trying to tell, the message a group of juniors in high school received, and all the ho-rah surrounding this film.
A classmate in my junior year brought up the film to my religion teacher that semester when we were talking about film and book adaptations from the bible. The teacher was talking about some of the films about Jesus, the nativity, the gospel, Moses, etc. and most of the time, no one saw any of these films. Really, like most days for us in religion class, it was a pretty boring day. Whatever the squirrel was doing in the ground outside the window was more interesting. This was until my friend Jim raises his hand, and says, “What about the Scorsese movie?”
Now, I’d never seen it, yet a few kids in the class had seen it. So all of us who haven’t seen it go, “What’s it about?”…and they go…
“Man it’s dripped out! The whole movie’s about the devil trying to trick Jesus into not going into the sacrifice. The devil poses as an angel and tells him he doesn’t have to die. Then Jesus ends up raising a family out in the country and pretty much just lives it up!” I’m laughing now because I could barely believe there was a movie out like this. He continues, along with the other classmates who saw it about the general plot synopsis of the film, and we listen. I remember the conversation very clearly now.
The teacher, a small frail yet energetic man in his mid-fifties just let us go back and forth about it for two minutes until we asked him what he thought about the film. His answer was something like this.
“The Scorsese movie is a very interesting film, yet it’s not based upon what we’re talking about.” The students respond.
“Well aren’t we talking about stuff they made out of stories from the bible?”
“Yes.”
“Well, isn’t this story from the bible?”
“Yes and no. It’s based upon a book, a work of fiction, from a man who had a different interpretation of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. The other films we just discussed are based upon the events of the gospels.” My buddy Jim, with a hair up his ass, continues.
“But aren’t the gospels four different interpretations about Jesus Christ?” The teacher responds.
“Yes Jim.” He particularly throws in Jim’s first name name, signaling to him if Jim continues going in the direction he’s about to go in, he’s also prepared to go to war about it. Those who’ve seen the film are already at Jim’s side. The rest of us who ain’t seen it are finished daydreaming about the grey squirrel and where he’s storing his nuts out the window, and we’re on the sidelines to one of the most ridiculous conversations (and when it comes to Catholic school and religion more in particularly, there’s many.)
They argue about the devil and the temptations in the desert. They argue about why people find it absurd Jesus would have even thought about coming down from the cross. They argue about Judas role in the film. They argue about the entire narrative that is The Last Temptation of Christ as the rest of us listen on for the
A half an hour goes by and we get to the hottest part of the conversation. They, now we as the rest of us begin jumping in the argument, argue the point that the bible itself is a man made work of fiction just as The Last Temptation of Christ, the book and film, are works of fiction based off of two man’s interpretations of the events and the man that was Jesus Christ.
Then that’s when we get to where the teacher was trying to direct our focus for the last eighteen hundred seconds. Scorsese’s interpretation of Jesus Christ. He starts arguing about Scorsese’s interpretation of the “more human” Jesus Christ failed to accurately portray all facets of Jesus Christ, and that if the human side of Jesus Christ is going to be further explored that all aspects of Jesus Christ, the spiritual along with the human should be explored within a film. He arrives at his main point that the Jesus Christ the church teaches and conveys to the public, is not the Jesus Scorsese conveys to the public. That’s when I and a few others hop in.
“Yeah, but the gospels are four different interpretations of Jesus too. This is just another guys interpretation too.” Then another student else hops in with the weirdest yet somewhat relavent statement I ever heard. He goes.
“Yeah, it’s kind a like Superman.” We all look at him and start laughing our asses off. He laughs too, and continues.
“Yeah, but I bet if you get everyone if the world to describe who Superman is, and what he’s about, you’d get a million different accounts about who he is. The hero, alien, the immigrant, the man, etc.” I’m still laughing at the image of Jesus Christ with a red cape and giant “J” on his chest, but the more the students start talking about it, it makes sense in its own twisted way. Even the teacher agrees, and states which is the biggest problem with The Last Temptation of Christ, and Christianity in general. Everyone’s got a different interpretation of Jesus Christ. Scorsese’s is one of the furthest that many identify with, yet it’s his interpretation of what Jesus was like. We all have different interpretations of Jesus, we find others who have similar interpretations of Jesus, form churches, worship him, and afterwards argue with others who have conflicting interpretations of Jesus Christ.
The final point the students made in the end of class though is the story of the film. Jesus beats the devil and his last temptation! Jesus wins by a knockout in the ninth! Yet, people are so wrapped up with the many different interpretations in the film that the overall story of the film is lost.
After finally watching the film six years later, I completely understand what my classmates were fully arguing about. Yeah, Jesus wigged out a lot. Judas wasn’t as weak. The apostles weren’t as strong. The devil was, well… he was still the devil. Yet, I set all of this aside and still connected with the story the title of the film implies is going to be. Jesus conquering the devil and completing the work God has set out for his son.
I know I reacted this way since I read so much, and knew a lot of what was going on behind the scenes and in the scenes of the film. Yet I have one last thing to look at and just simply think about. Look at the story being told in this film, because it’s a good one. There is a simple yet powerful feat performed in this film and it’s not talked as much as it should be. A man, a simple and confused man, not the mystical son of God, but a MAN defeats the DEVIL, and in doing so opens the gates of heaven for all of us. The opening the gates part of heaven part is according to scripture. Scripture based on fiction. Based on an unknown man’s interpretation of what would become scripture. I wonder who it would be easier for to hang nailed on that cross all day and say no that last temptation: a confused and struggling man, or a man who decisively knows he’s the son of god. Think about it. Cause this is what I interpreted Scorsese is trying to tell us. Then remember this is all according to a film. A film based off a book. According to a man’s fictionalized interpretation of scriptures. Scriptures that were based in fiction. Based on another man’s interpretation of what would become scripture. Based on fiction. Etc. etc. etc. Okay! Enough for today! I’m done!
The Last Temptation of Christ
Christianity abound! Martin Scorsese takes a new look at the scriptures and I have to admit, after 11 years of Catholic Education I prefer this vision of the bible much more than any other way it was presented to me in those 11 years. One of main things I enjoyed about this fresh glimpse into the words of the bible was the idea of making Jesus the son of man first rather than the Son of God. By doing this, Scorsese presents to us an approachable Jesus who we can even relate to in the beginning as he struggles with his identity. It makes the words of the bible more personal rather than just focusing on this larger than life God on Earth whom we are kept at a distance from. This more personal approach indeed makes the stories more digestible and instead of seeing a flawless being we see every flaw and understand the sacrifice and hardships. I cannot say that I was profoundly moved or had any kind of spiritual awaking but I will say that I appreciated what Scorsese did and did beautifully.
Another thing I really appreciated about this film, which I am starting to appreciate in almost all of Scorsese’s films, is the blurring of the line between the real and the fantastical. Granted, here we are dealing with the Son of God so the line is ambiguous as is, however, Scorsese does an amazing job dividing, as I stated before, the Son of man and the Son of God with this line. One example of this is when Jesus removes his heart in a scene representative of the image of Jesus and the Sacred Heart. By the time this, as well as the other fantastical miracles happen in the story, we have already seen much of Jesus’ struggle as human versus God so it makes the miracles even more astounding as the line is blurred and they are presented to us onscreen.
As far as all the controversy is concerned I think it is just another matter of people being way to uptight. It seems like this is happening more and more and it is quite sad. You would think that as time progressed we would learn from each other and be able to understand different points of view without picking up a flaming torch, but instead sometimes society works backwards. Lighten up, loosen up, live your life among others. What fun is life if everyone agrees with you anyways?
I suppose it was expected for a man with so much religious imagery to at long last present his interpretation of the bible. I could go into every reason why I don't enjoy religious films, to analyze a religious film for it's technique is to ignore the elephant in the room.
When I watch a film on such a massive topic, I find myself almost laughing at the irony of its attempted release into theatres. A church is a theatre for a becon of god to relay his message to those who choose to listen. The numerous interpretation of the text that is preached is what has led to the numerous denominations of christianity. For Scorsese to create a movie that dissects THE BIBLE in his own vision is to essentially create a denomination of his own. Is there anything more egotistical than making your own sect of a religion. Maybe this is the pessimist in me, but I do believe you go into film with an agenda in mind, and a point you are trying to prove. When someone as big as Scorsese sits in the directors chair and applies his style to every frame of the film he isn't trying to "just tell a story." Rather, he is trying to tell his story, his version, of a story that has been read and told by more people than any other story, and by people far more pivotal than Martin Scorsese. This is something difficult to get over for me, religion has always been behind some of the worlds most important art, and I understand infusing your beliefs with the stories you tell, but I don't believe in attempts to retell the stories, or trying to push them into the face of people whohave lived with those stories in the backgrounds of their lives.
As a technical film, it's great, I love the modernizing of the dialogue, making it seem more staged. The camera work is beautiful, and the performance of Dafoe is as good as anything I've seen. But why am I watching this film, I really just don't care what people who have lived materialistic lives have to say about their interpretations of the bible.
Peter Gabriel's score for The Last Temptation of Christ is beautiful music.
In this film the story of Jesus actually seems appealing and plausible. This coming from someone who quit Sunday school at seven years old.
Willem Defoe is awesome. Barbara Hershey is like the most beautiful woman in the world. And I'm so glad Harvey Keitel played Judas.
But I got nothin' right now. Last Temptation is amazing.
P.S. it's too bad the film offends christians. Oh well.
Passion and detail, I’m not sure. I think the best I can muster is an overwhelming shoulder shrug. I actually sometimes wonder if a movie is worse when someone doesn’t have much of an opinion about it. But then I remember how much I hate, say, most Renee Zellwhatever movies, and I figure “Last Temptation” is at least as good as those.
In large part, my unaffected nature stems from my lack of a stance on Jesus. I’m sure he had a lot of good ideas on how people should live, and it sucks that he got so much shit kicked out of him, but, from my perspective, it’s not like Jesus was the end-all, be-all of people trying to make a difference only to be tortured. I’ve read more Old Testament than New Testament, anyway.
Also, those research dudes are figuring more and more all the time that spirituality is linked to a part of the brain that people either have or don’t. I most definitely do not. I’m not supernaturally touched by an Arab Jew, the bastard child of a teenage mother, getting nailed to a chunk of wood. It’ll make my stomach churn, because it is a disgusting and painful way to die, and I really hope it isn’t to be the end of my existence, but there’s nothing else really going on in my head, or, thank fuck, anywhere else in my body, when I see this story told and retold.
I do appreciate that “Last Temptation” is not a strict retelling. Yeah, it took brass to make the movie, but it took a lot to write the book, too. The story reminded me of the wack double-standard of religion and of the catch-22 Christianity set up for itself. When some dude shows up today and says he thinks he’s the son of God and also a manifestation of God on earth, how do people react? The dude’s usually a nutjob. Messiahs sound crazy. Really crazy. They question the institution, and, based on the thousands of Christians I knew back in Texas, questioning the institution is so totally not cool. Jesus isn’t going to come back to earth, see millions of people wearing the instrument that killed him around their necks, and say something everyone wants to hear. Scorsese caught flack for the same basic principle when he made this story accessible to an enormous audience.
But, honestly, what the fuck is a strict retelling, anyway? Sticking to scientific fact, or sticking to gospel? You can’t do either without pissing people off. I think it’s insane Mel Gibson ran into issues making “Passion.” Since when has beating up Jews been unpopular? The real bottom line for a lot of people is that they can’t laugh at or question the shit they’re most serious about.
I laughed at “Last Temptation” sometimes. Harvey Keitel as Judas. Willem Defoe seeing manifestations of Satan. I’m sorry, but I really can’t take any of this shit seriously. Only Joe Pesci would’ve made a funnier Judas. It’s like the film is a parody of itself. Really serious religious movie, done by people you’re used to seeing blow shit up.
I absolutely love the Peter Gabriel soundtrack, though. I bought the album when I was a kid, having not seen the movie. Now, I can’t decide if the music salvages some potentially silly shots of people trying to look serious by making them pass as beautiful imagery, or if it works against the movie, setting serious sounds to a laughable film, the juxtaposition creating an awkward bit of humor.
But, in the end, I’ve no idea what I can tell you about “Last Temptation.” It’s a movie that made me go “eh." When I don't connect to the characters or story of a movie, it's hard for me to give meaning to much else.
The Last Temptation of Christ - Personal Response
So, the main question I’ve been asked about this movie is did I like it? I actually have no answer to that question. I can’t say that I hated it. I know what movies I hate felt like. I can’t say that I liked it either, because it doesn’t feel like that either. I’m kind of just stuck. I have no idea how I feel about this movie. It was fun, with the whole journey thing and the idea was interesting, but that’s all I can really say.
I liked the soundtrack. It was perfect for the movie. Everything flowed really well and gave more feeling to the scene and what was going on in the scene. Beyond that, I don’t know what else to say.
I’m a catholic. I wasn’t offended by this movie. It said that it was fiction and that it was based on a book not the bible. People can be really stupid sometimes. This guy puts effort into a movie. All he wanted to do was show his movie and people have to go out and protest it. That’s so lame. As I was reading that in the Scorsese on Scorsese book in the end, I couldn’t help but be angry. It sounded like all these people were just protesting to give themselves more attention. They hadn’t even seen the movie yet and they were already protesting it. How is that even possible? Now, if he had said, this is what I think happened, I think that Jesus did all this and had a friend named Judas who had a New York accent I might be a little pissed off. Mainly because I’m pretty sure it isn’t accurate. I wasn’t there, but I feel confident that wasn’t the case back then.
Overall, I really don’t have many feelings towards this movie in any way. It feels like I just watched it and afterwards I thought to my self, I wonder what we are watching next week. I really didn’t hate it, I just want to make that clear. I really just have no feelings towards the movie what so ever, which is kind of a good thing. I have never felt that way about a movie before. It was able to evoke a new emotion on me. I guess that’s a good thing.
Politics and religion seem to have a difficult time when brought to the movie theaters. I was able to check out Robert Redford’s new film “Lions for Lambs” last week and while I believe that the content or the message resonates with the majority of its viewers, I still don’t agree that those types of films belong into the movie theater. Not to say that I don’t want to be bothered with major issues of our time, but putting celebrity actors together on the screen depicted on gorgeous super sharp and grainy 35mm film with such adorable lighting and sound effects that remind us of the last Michael Bay film, blurs the border between fantastic fiction and serious harsh truth.
Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” differs the “average” perception of Jesus of Nazareth and depicts him as an approachable and benevolent yet maniacal fellow with deciding issues. He does not know what is going on, he struggles, does mistakes until he understands. Right? Does he? I’m a little unclear about the end of the story and a second viewing would indeed help.
This film is just not doing it for me. It is not. Now I was brought up catholic, catholic in the broadest sense. My grandmother was the only one who made sure that I was praying to God, going to church more than once a year and all those things. The rest of my family had a different relationship to God, and I sensed it without talking about it. My dad used to be an altar boy and after he witnessed strange things “behind the curtain” he formed his own opinion about church and what we human beings are doing in relationship to God.
Now I do like Scorsese’s or Nikos Kazantzakis' approach and the humanizing of Jesus and showing him as a regular guy who was meant to do something greater than being a carpenter. It is the fact that I see Willem Dafoe and Harvey Keitel within a story that has been told now over 2000 years and I’m sorry but I don’t want to see Willem Dafoe as Jesus. And that’s again to back up my aforementioned point that religion is difficult within the movie world. Willem Dafoe was not as big back in 1988 but unfortunately he has made a lot of pictures after “The Last Temptation of Christ” and is probably still making them today. And again unfortunately I saw him also in “Spiderman” as the green goblin and I did not like him in this role. I’m biased but that happens in motion pictures.
I also felt that Scorsese tried to force his story-telling style onto this one without thinking twice of the outcome. Now I know that they were attempting a more contemporary approach with a script that would sound more relatable but all these changes blur the reality of Jesus’ life as he lived it. I don’t want to see a version that is easier to understand and I don’t want to see recognizable actors “playing” the roles of people we only heard about from the bible. It’s not working and I didn’t like the film.
I was put off by this film. I think I was put off because I personally really didn’t see any emotional investment spent on Scorsese’s part. I felt like it was just another story of Christ’s life Hollywooded up. I am very half and half with this film. After the movie was over I had no reaction to it at all. I wasn’t positive on why that was. I think I have an understanding of what I thought about it a week later. I like and dislike some of the choices Scorsese made while making the film. I am very half and half.
I like the contemporary approach. Jesus was made into a real person. Dafoe did a great job playing such a distinguished role. He made Jesus human. He wasn’t an enlightened man of god that so many other adaptations make him to be. This was a great choice on Scorsese’s part. I’m not sure if Scorsese could have made as an effective film if he didn’t make it in a contemporary style.
I am Catholic. I know the story of Jesus’ life. I knew this wasn’t based off the Gospel, so I went into it with an open mind. I was surprised at how much it really wasn’t changed. This is what I would prefer a film be like. I just don’t think it captured Jesus’ full intent. He states that he is going to die on the cross. That is all. He doesn’t give reason that I picked up on. It seems like he kind of suffers because he is supposed to rather than because he wants to. The real message of the story doesn’t come through clearly in Scorsese’s film.
I was put off by the angel rescuing Christ. Jesus growing old and not really being the son of God, I thought, was really interesting. He marries and has a lot of kids. He lives the life he has always wanted. Then I realized that this is the last temptation. When he decides that dying on the cross is his responsibility and he wake up from this dream he realizes that he is ready. That last shot with that music was great. I just thought that Scorsese didn’t make the underlying purpose strong enough. He dies on the cross because he has to. I guess I can accept that.
I really loved this movie a lot. For me, it's the only film I've ever seen that's really captured how I feel about Christ and God and the bible.
It seems like so many people are so closed-minded in todays society, christians fighting christians: they all believe in God and that Jesus died for their sins, but they argue over the pettiest things, they can't accept anything unless it's in the bible. Since I was a kid, I've always been a big fan of JC, but I think he had to have sinned at least once in his life. What I love about this film is that He's a huge sinner, he's not godly in the same way that he's been portrayed for the last 2000 years. He's a human being like all the rest of us. I still think he died on the cross for all humanity and I think he rose from the grave 3 days later. I just can't believe how many christians had such a problem with a film that portrayed Jesus as a divine human and not as a godly spirit in a man's body.
So many christians are just so unwilling to open their mind, what they have isn't even faith, because they base so much of what they believe in the bible, which they view as fact. So if the bible doesn't say it, it must not be true. I hate that kind of thinking and it's what I love about the movie.
If I were just a regular christian, I'd say it's just a movie and never think about it again. But if I'm willing to go with Scorsese on this and accept that Jesus was a human, well holy shit, look at the message I can take from that. If Jesus was a human, well that'd make it a whole lot harder for him to die for every human, to grasp the idea that he was God, to perform miracles, and to stand up to people who weren't preaching what he was: love for all.
If He's just a god then I'd expect him to be able to go through with everything, he's God. But if he's a man who's willing to go through all of that and he's willing to question things he knows are wrong, well that's amazing. He's a human, going through all of that. Since I too am a human and know what pain and confusion can be like, I can actually start to sympathize with him. Not only does this type of thinking make any film about Jesus a lot more intersting to watch, but it makes his message even stronger. If a mere man was willing to go through all that for us, I think that our society can afford to lighten up a bit.
And the fact that PASSION OF THE CHRIST was embraced with such open arms from someone who would make the film not about any kind of message Jesus had, such as love your enemies, he gives us this bloody depiction of what he went through. He went through a lot of pain, I got it, but why, was it a lot of pain for him, how did he feel, what was going on with his disciples?
If our society would embrace Scorsese's film, maybe we wouldn't be invading all these countries, maybe people wouldn't murder each other during instances of road rage. It's really sad how fucking stupid our society can be, to the point where we'd take a figure such as Jesus, and instead of commending the film that humanizes him and spreads his message of love, not war, we'd rather see him getting torturued for 2 hours and think that were all good christians while the world falls apart around us.
I really loved this movie a lot. For me, it's the only film I've ever seen that's really captured how I feel about Christ and God and the bible.
It seems like so many people are so closed-minded in todays society, christians fighting christians: they all believe in God and that Jesus died for their sins, but they argue over the pettiest things, they can't accept anything unless it's in the bible. Since I was a kid, I've always been a big fan of JC, but I think he had to have sinned at least once in his life. What I love about this film is that He's a huge sinner, he's not godly in the same way that he's been portrayed for the last 2000 years. He's a human being like all the rest of us. I still think he died on the cross for all humanity and I think he rose from the grave 3 days later. I just can't believe how many christians had such a problem with a film that portrayed Jesus as a divine human and not as a godly spirit in a man's body.
So many christians are just so unwilling to open their mind, what they have isn't even faith, because they base so much of what they believe in the bible, which they view as fact. So if the bible doesn't say it, it must not be true. I hate that kind of thinking and it's what I love about the movie.
If I were just a regular christian, I'd say it's just a movie and never think about it again. But if I'm willing to go with Scorsese on this and accept that Jesus was a human, well holy shit, look at the message I can take from that. If Jesus was a human, well that'd make it a whole lot harder for him to die for every human, to grasp the idea that he was God, to perform miracles, and to stand up to people who weren't preaching what he was: love for all.
If He's just a god then I'd expect him to be able to go through with everything, he's God. But if he's a man who's willing to go through all of that and he's willing to question things he knows are wrong, well that's amazing. He's a human, going through all of that. Since I too am a human and know what pain and confusion can be like, I can actually start to sympathize with him. Not only does this type of thinking make any film about Jesus a lot more intersting to watch, but it makes his message even stronger. If a mere man was willing to go through all that for us, I think that our society can afford to lighten up a bit.
And the fact that PASSION OF THE CHRIST was embraced with such open arms from someone who would make the film not about any kind of message Jesus had, such as love your enemies, he gives us this bloody depiction of what he went through. He went through a lot of pain, I got it, but why, was it a lot of pain for him, how did he feel, what was going on with his disciples?
If our society would embrace Scorsese's film, maybe we wouldn't be invading all these countries, maybe people wouldn't murder each other during instances of road rage. It's really sad how fucking stupid our society can be, to the point where we'd take a figure such as Jesus, and instead of commending the film that humanizes him and spreads his message of love, not war, we'd rather see him getting torturued for 2 hours and think that were all good christians while the world falls apart around us.
Post a Comment