Last Temtation of Christ -- unboxed spoilers

Cafe Society
1

I don’t want to turn this into a Passion Vs. Last Temptation deathmatch like over at IMDB and I want to preface my post with a few things and then open the floor for debate.

First, I really like Martin Scorsese and this is the only film by him that I don’t care for.

Second, I don’t care to discuss the theology of the movie, that isn’t where my objections lie. Whether Jesus was an Essene, or could or could not be tempted by mortal desire is unimportant in the context of discussing this film as a film.

Having said that, here are my objections to the movie:

First of all, this movie lists about without much direction until they finally take him away to be crucified (and given how terribly boring most of it was, I was inclined to think they did the right thing).

Second, Casting of Willem Defoe and Harvey Keitel who are good in a particular way, but the casting of them in this film was almost as bad as the casting of John Wayne as the Centurion in “Greatest Story Ever Told”

Most of the actors had a very contained level of emotion and in spite of “God attacking Jesus’ brain like a clawed bird” Defoe seemed more lost, indecisive, and just plain confused about who his character was supposed to be or not be for that matter. He lacked continuity.

The Zealots put a hit out on Lazarus – and it played that way.

Two words: “Dialogue Coach” everybody tended to sound like they were from New York.

Unintentionally funny stuff: Peter Gabriel – who I admire – had this really great pimitive rock-style riff as Jesus gathered his followers. Jesus would be walking toward the camera with a few followers, then a few more would appear walking with him in a slight fade in, and again and again. Perhaps it wasn’t such a cliche thing at the time, but it certainly hasn’t worn well with time. I title this segment: “Jesus gathers his Posse”.

Thomas, on the road to Jerusalem, talking about crucifixtion: (The actor played Ira, Cybill’s second husband on “Cybill” and is currently on some show about a lawyer who is forced to do social work) “I don’t want to be crucified. Have you seen anybody who been crucified after two days?! They don’t have any eyes. The crows come and suck out their eyeballs.” (paraphrase – but be sure to read it with a heavy NY accent and slightly 'Woody Alleneseque" delivery.

The whole thing was just long and pointless, until finally they take him away and he suffered the last temtation – then it finally seemed to have a direction, and wasn’t bad – though the confrontation with Peter was pretty funny. “I’ll resurrect you if I have to!”

On the plus side, Barbara Hershey was just fantastic looking as Mary the Magdalene, though she had almost nothing to do. Plus, the sequence where Jesus sits waiting for her to finish her days business – watching her screw man after man – and her subsequent hinting that his rejection of her as a lover is why she became a prostitute was kind of odd. Frankly, as portrayed in this film, he wasn’t much of catch even AFTER he became the Messiah or at least a martyred prophet.

That’s my observation, and again, don’t attack it theologically, that isn’t the point, and don’t try to compare it to Passion of the Christ as they are vastly different types of movies.

My big question is: What was Martin thinking?

2

Gee, I feel quite the opposite. This is one of my favorite “Jesus” movies ever made, focusing on his humanity (I’m one of those heretics who think that divinity was foisted on him afterwards by people who grossly misunderstood his message). And while Scorsese was somewhat bound by the novel he was adapting, I don’t recall any Biblical passage making Mary Magdalene out to be a prostitute at all, much less one as dripping with semen as Barbara Hershey was in this film.

The only part where Scorsese really lost me was where he showed Christ fighting ninjas in the Jerusalem Temple.

3

As I said before, this is neither here nor there. I actually don’t have a problem with the story, I just think this is a film that Scorsese failed to make work.

Oh, yes, she was a prostitute and this move took pains to show you what kind of life she led or would have led as a prostitute of the time. Scorsese did some fairly serious research. In fact, I think he was more successful in recreating the look of the times than anything else in this film. He certainly failed to engender any sympathy for anyone in it [Except Jesus at the last]. Also, while it was protested heavily at the time, I thought it NEVER disputed the divinity of Jesus. This is why Satan took such a particular interest in Him and He [Jesus] was able to actually perform miracles.

What you talkin’ about Willis?

4

Accuracy in Scripture Memo:

[ul][li]The only time prostitutes is mentioned in the Gopels is as a group. There is never any mention of a particular prostitute, much less one that has a name. [/li]
[li]The only adultress in the Gospels is the unnamed one in John’s Gospel who was about to be stoned if not for Jesus’ intervention. (Jn 8)[/li]
[li]An unnamed woman known for being a sinner (the sin goes unidentified … for all we know she was a cook in a Roman’s household, which would qualify as sin for the Jews) weeps at Jesus’ feet and dries off the tears with her hair. Then she puts perfume on the feet. (Lk 7:38)[/li]
[li]Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus) anoints Jesus’ feet with oil and rubs it in with her hair. (Jn 12:13)[/ul][/li]
Historically, one can see why, even though it would be wrong, to conflate all these texts into a woman called Mary who wept at and anointed Jesus’ feet because she was a notorious sinner who was either an adultress or a prostitute. But no modern biblical scholar would say that’s even remotely possible. Mary of Bethany was a distinct entity from any unamed woman. Mary of Bethany is portrayed as a faithful disciple of Jesus.

But, where does Mary Madgalene (Mary from Magdala) fit with any of the above women? She doesn’t. Mary Magdalene is also a distinct entity. Each Gospel writer mentions her by name. They know her and wouldn’t refer to her without mentioning her name. So she can’t be any of the anonymous woman of ill repute, nor can she be Mary of Bethany.

The only background we have of Mary Magdalene, beside being from Magdala is that she was exorcised of seven demons [Lk 8:2]. All cases of demonic possession in the Gospels either made one raving mad, severely disabled, or susceptible to seizures… it does not make one a super tramp whore. And she was part of the company of woman disciples who followed Jesus around and supported his ministry. All four Gospel place her at the empty tomb in the resurrection narratives.

Any sort of special closeness that Mary Magdalene had with Jesus is portrayed at the resurrection where she goes to hold him (wouldn’t you embrace a friend you thought was dead but is alive?) Jesus tells her don’t cling to him. Not much of a smoldering romance novel, is it? The ‘beloved discipled,’ a male, is portrayed as being closer to Jesus than that.

Peace.

5

Thanks for the scholarship – I apparently have misread something or just gotten facts screwed around about Mary Magdalene. I remember the demon possession now that you’ve stated it. So, there is no basis for Mary as a prostitute in the scriptures – okay. My mistake. Sorry.

It doesn’t make this a better movie though.

6

Amen. Thank you moriah. Mary Magdalene gets such a bad rap, in this movie and most of pop culture, that she doesn’t deserve; and she gets credit for things that are pure speculation. You didn’t even get into the “Magdalene and Jesus were secretly lovers/married” nonsense.

Mary should be honored as one of Jesus’ most faithful disciples, who stayed with him after most of the others - including almost all the men – had fled. But we don’t know much more about her than that (and the demon thing).

7

I never saw The Last Temptation of Christ, but I often wondered where the “Mary Magdalene as prostitute” thing came from, since I could never find any reference to that in the Bible. There are a bunch of women named Mary, but it seems to me as though someone took all the Marys and lumped them together with various unnamed females mentioned and came up with this composite character.

8

I think you nailed it dd, it was long and dull with no narrative flow or pacing. The accents were awful. The temptation scene was the only bit that seemed like a real movie to me and it didn’t make any sense.

9

I just saw this for the second time recently, and I have to agree that it was pretty incoherent. I usually like Dafoe, too. Now I need to re-read the book to see if it made any more sense. Kazantzakis is a difficult author to put on screen, but still…

Life, I think there were some 2nd-century apocrypha that made the identification. But it probably came about like you said, by conflating the various women characters in the Gospels.

10

I absolutely loved “Last Temptation.” The accents didn’t bother me any more than they do in any other historical epic. With certain actors, you just take the accent you’re given and roll with it. As an example, I was grateful that Sean Connery did not try to affect a Russian accent in “Hunt for Red October,” and I wish that Kevin Costner hadn’t tried to do an English accent for “Robin Hood.” The accents didn’t bother me because I have no idea what ancient Israelites sounded like.

I also thought Defoe’s “lack of focus” was precisely the point. Jesus of “Last Temptation” is a transitional character - is he a prophet, the Messiah, a revolutionary, or a lunatic? He doesn’t know himself and is trying to cope as best he can with bewildering and incomprehensible information, and responsibilities that keep getting foisted on him to his mother, to his followers, to his people, to the world. Ultimately, it’s because greatness is such a burden that the temptation of normality so appealing. And Defoe, IMHO, captures that quite well.

11

jeevmon beat me to it. That was one of the major points of the movie. It was about Jesus figuring out how to deal with what he had. He was unfocused, confused, and reluctant at times. Always questioning, with conflicting motivations.

I agree. It was like Jesus from Brooklyn.

I kind of liked that aspect of it, though, because his teachings came across more matter-of-fact and sensible than like other Jesus movies where the spectacle runs roughshod over the things he has to say.

12

It took a few viewings for me to appreciate this movie. It wasn’t until I was reading a book talking about how people often struggle with what God tells them to do and I viewed the movie at the same time that I really came to appreciate it. I looked at the Jesus character not as the Son of God, but as a human who is struggling with the mission God has given him. From that perspective, I thought this film was a great movie that conveyed some significant theological truths.

A few years ago I heard Scorsese talk about the movie. He acknowledged that it isn’t the movie he wanted to make. He said that he wanted to spend another couple weeks editing it, but the studio wanted to get the movie out earlier in order to head off some of the controversy. He figures he could have found about a half-hour to cut if he could have taken the time he wanted.

He also explained the accent thing. It’s intentional that all the actors talk like New Yorkers. He was trying to make them appear as just regular guys, which is what they were in Biblical times. He wasn’t going to have them all talk with a Jewish accent or subtitle the movie, so he made them talk like blue collar New Yorkers, hoping the audience would make the connection. This is also why the other groups in the film have their particular accents. If I recall correctly, the Romans all have British accents because he felt that accent had the connotations of empire. It’s debatable if he made the right choices with the accents, but he did it deliberately and with good reason.

13

What exactly was “the temptation”? What was that all about? And did Scorsese’s Jesus succumb to it?

14

The last temptation was to live a normal life instead of becoming the messiah, which he actually ends up doing anyway. So, he got to bake his cake and eat it too! That’s the only part of the movie I’m kind of “huh” about. Yes, he was tempted and succumbed but everything ended the same way.

15

Actually, I thought the point was that Jesus didn’t succumb to the temptation – he just imagines what might happen if he did, and then decides to resist Satan anyway. The movie ends with him dying on the cross because he overcame Satan’s final attempt to talk him out of redeeming mankind. I really liked that part of the movie, but the rest of it was, IMO, pretty awful.

16

First, one can always bake a cake and then eat it. However, one can not eat the cake and still have it (after eating it all up). And so, the correct phrase you were looking for is, “So, he got to eat his cake and have it, too.”

Secondly, he didn’t eat his cake and have it, too. The scenes in the movie where he’s living out a normal life are just a vision from Satan to entice him to get off the cross before he dies and saves everyone.

Since I’m a Nueyawker, I didn’t find the accent troubling. I really liked Defoe’s delivery of the Sermon on the Mount as if Jesus was spontaneously coming up with these ideas and proclaiming it out loud. It was the most realistic portrayal of how it might have been delivered (as opposed to the way most actors deliver it, like it was memorized before hand and now delivered in ‘announcer voice’).

Also, I enjoyed Jesus dancing and laughing and having a good time at the Wedding at Cana. In the horrid TV movie, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus sits in a corner with a dour look and unblinkingly staring at the festivities… creepy.

Peace.

“And you, who do you say that I am?”

“You’re the man who never blinks. Cut it out, Jesus, you’re giving us the willies.”

17

I really liked the book and the movie of Last Temptation. A recovering Christian, I have always retained a benevolent and sympathetic image of Jesus; he was, after all, only human, and the pain of his last few hours must have led to at least one moment of regret and enraged betrayal. After all, my most vivid memory of Easter mass (which I have not attended in lo these past 2 decades) is when Jesus cries out “Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani!”

That’s what Scorsese was getting at when he made this movie–Jesus was a human being, so how could he not, in his moment of greatest agony, wish for a different life? So as his life flashes before his eyes, Jesus gets to see what he missed, that road not taken. By going through a lifetime in one moment, his final doubts are allayed; he didn’t have to fail God and humanity in order to find out that he made the right choice. A beautiful and brilliant idea, IMO. Plus, Bowie as Pilate was very cool.

Renob, thanks for the info about the NY accents. I had always assumed that Scorsese was trying to depict a regular guy type thing, and it adds a Scorsese touch to the proceedings. It didn’t bother me at all; in fact, as a New Yorker, it had exactly the desired effect.

Last Temptation is on Bravo this Saturday at 8. Too bad I won’t be able to see it again…

18

Are there any clues that those scenes are just a vision? The two times I’ve seen the movie, in my eyes he actually succumbs to Satan’s temptation. Are you sure you’re not making an interpretation based on The Bible?

19

The fact that, IIRC, he dies at the end on the cross? He recognizes that beautiful child as Satan and rejects the vision, snapping back to where he was, crucified and dying. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

20

Well, I mostly liked it for all of the HARD CORE NUDITY!!! But anyway…

My favorite scene comes during Jesus’s “vision”, when Jesus runs into the Apostle Paul preaching the words and deeds and resurrection of The Messiah. Jesus confronts him and says, “What are you talking about? I was never crucified – I’m right here!” Paul gives him a look-over and says, “Good, because now that I met you, I can forget all about you,” and then launches into a lengthy explanation about how he created the “Truth” out of thin air, because it was what people wanted to hear.

I loved that exchange because it describes exactly how religions are formed, and why they exist at all. Plus (from a Fundie point of view) it’s FAR more blasphemous than anything the protestors were complaining about! I always get a chuckle thinking about the Fundies, who of course never bothered to watch the movie, complaining about Jesus having sex with Mary and all that, completely oblivious to that little bombshell of a speech, where the most revered person in the New Testament (after Christ himself) proudly states that his religion is all a bunch of horseshit.

Plus, I think Scorsese’s portrayal of Jesus is far more compelling than the traditional version – if Jesus is/was The Supreme Being, all-powerful and immortal, then spending a few decades on earth and a few days being tortured and murdered doesn’t sound like much of a trick. If I were God, I could endure that standing on my head, hopping on one foot, and singing “Tie Me Kangaroo Down”. As for nitpicks like Mary M. = prostitute, I don’t mind since the whole story is (IMO) fiction, and fictional works are always subject to interpretation. (Kinda like the Elves at Helm’s Deep, which I had no problem with, either.)

And Peter Gabriel’s score was brilliant, too.