The Last Temptation of Christ --why was it ever controversial?

Great Debates
1

So, I watched the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” the other night. I rather enjoyed it, thought-provoking and touching on lots of levels.

I have vague memories of there being a great hue and outcry and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments when it was theatrically released. At that time, I paid absolutely zero attention–the film was rather outside the range of the kind of entertainment Drastic ver. 1988 had the remotest interest in. I simply gathered that many Christians were deeply angered and so forth about the way in which Jesus was portrayed, and then forgot about it.

So I’ve been studying those memories, both while the film was progressing, and afterwards…and I am at a total loss as to why anyone would think it blasphemous. Then again, I’m not Christian myself, so perhaps I’m missing something.

So why was there brouhaha? Why calls for boycotts, demonstrations, pulpit-pounding, and other assorted free publicity? My own theory as to the rationale, were it fully explicated, would belong in the Pit–let’s just say it involves some rather denigrating views on the general intelligence levels of anyone being offended at the film.

Was it simply that it portrayed him as troubled? Often frightened and downright anguished by what he was faced with? Rather…human in fact? I sort of thought that that was supposed to have been part of what made the whole Messiah gig such a special deal–that he was just as much man as divine.

I’m not sure if there’s even a debate in here–the only mentions of the film I’ve seen on a couple searches are pretty much my take on it. Simple befuddlement as to why the hubbub that was, bub. I just don’t see what there was in the depiction to inspire rage, even among those with a faith investment in the myth/fable/Good News.

2

I couldn’t figure it out either, Drastic, although I have a dim recollection that most of the outcry was due to Jesus having sex, even if it was in a ‘dream sequence’ (I don’t know what else to call that bit). Why people were up in arms about a might-have-been is beyond me.

3

I think probably a lot of fundamentalists heard stories about it, and protested it without ever seeing it.

Obviously it doesn’t take much to offend some fundamentalists, in this case I think it’s simply the fact that the movie chooses to portray the human side of Jesus explicitly. From this page:

The idea that Jesus was fully human, despite being one of the defining principles of Christianity, apparently makes some fundamentalists cringe, particularly when related to such things as sexuality.

4

Seems it was a case of a very small section of rabid fundamentalists creating a Tempest in a teapot.

Searching for “blasphemy” and “Last Temptation of Christ” on Google, I found some christian message boards that were threshing it out. The concensus seems to be that it was a fine film, with a few comments from people who have clearly not seen it, like “THIS MOVIE PORTRAYS JESUS AS A HOMOSEXUAL!”
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/last_temptation.htm

The objection does seem to be based on admitting that Jesus was tempted. I guess that makes the New Testament blasphemous, too…

5

In the early years of Christianity, there were some people who maintained that Christ merely took human form, but never really had human desires. This belief that denied the humanity of Christ was eventually classified as the Docetist heresy. This has been a heresy in the Christian Church for more than a millenium and a half. Thus, the people who got so upset at the notion that Christ had human desires are really heretics–I’ll bring the stake, could someone else fetch the lighter fluid?

6

I think that it was because he was depicted as actually thinking long and hard about Satan’s temptation at the cross, in vivid and explicit detail, before ultimately rejecting it.

As for me, I don’t really care about how Satan is portrayed by some Christians. He is supposed to be the ultimate nemesis, the Lord of Darkness, yet there seems to be a lack of subtlety in how he is portrayed, especially in the three temptations of Jesus after his 40-day fast. TLTOC depicted a really tough temptation, as I would envision Satan to be.

7

I tried to watch it to see what all the fuss was about, but I fell asleep half way through it. It needed a car chase or something. I didn’t find it that contriversial or anything, just lame. I think the space ship thing from life of brian would have really made it a bit more watchable.

8

Two cents from a Catholic:

“The Last TEmptation of Christ” was not, in my opinion, a blasphemous or anti-Christian. A bad movie, certainly. An incredibly boring movie, you bet! A movie with the most ridiculous casting since “The GReatest Story Ever Told,” definitely. But not blasphemous.

Now, it’s important to note that the film, like Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel, was explicitly fictional! Neither Scorsese nor Kazantzakis ever claimed that they were presenting a literal account of the life of Jesus.

Kazantzakis was a man who was constantly torn between the strict, ascetic Christianity he was raised with and the pleasures of the flesh. He was trying to work out his own problems by imagining Jesus as a weak man like himself. To use an analogy, Peter Shaffer certainly desn’t believe that Antonio Salieri murdered Mozart- rather, he used an age-old rumor as a way of meditating on his own, personal issues (“how do I, a successful, acclaimed artist know if I’m REALLY any good?”).

I think it’s legitimate to envision Jesus as a man struggling with fear and doubt. I only wish that a better film had been made of Kazantzakis’ interesting premise (and flawed novel).

I should note, in partial defense of the fundamentalists, that rumors first arose while I was in high school that a pornographer was planning a feature length film portraying Jesus as a gay lecher. WAS there ever such a filmmaker, and was such a film ever REALLY in thenworks? Who knows! I suspect not. ALl we DO know is that such a film was never really made. Still, the rumor has persisted to this very day, just as I STILL regularly see petitions defending the Apollo astronauts against Madeleine Murray O’Hair! (I FIRST saw such petitions when I was in grade school).

For Pete’s sake, the old bat is dead! Leave her her in peace! Enough with the petitions!

Fact remains, once a rumor is out there, there’s no stopping it. My HUNCH (and it’s only a hunch) is that a LOT of the people who were most outraged about “The Last Temptation of Christ” were people who’d heard those old rumors about a gay-Jesus-porn-movie, and were convinced that this was it.

9

I just watched this last night (for the 1st time) and wouldn’t trash it quite as thoroughly as astorian. The Peter Gabriel soundtrack was cool. I also enjoyed the way Judas was portrayed as a ‘political’ rebel.

Actually, the only thing that nagged at the back of my mind was “Where are they getting all the trees for these crosses?”

I’m a big fan of Kazanzakis, and I would advise taking astorian’s mini-biography with a grain of salt, too. Otherwise, 3/5 stars.

10

I recall a friend’s sister, who belonged to a family who went to church three times a week, telling me that the movie was supposed to depict Jesus having sex with his mother. She hadn’t seen it at the time, so this was apparently one of the rumors about the movie.

11

Before I saw the movie Crash, I believed it was about people having sex with the dead bodies of accident victims.
You should never believe everything you hear about a movie before you watch it. If the movie has anything to do with sex, religion, or politics, don’t believe anything you hear about it before you watch it.

12

IANAC and IACNAF (I am certainly not a fundamentalist); but I found the film annoying and insulting to Jesus of Nazareth, who was depicted as being dumb as a box of rocks and with no clue as to what he was doing or why other than “it’s my role”.

Of course, the overly literal-minded presentation of Satan and his temptations was awfully silly too.

13

Why restrain yourself? The Last Temptation of Christ got fragged because there are some religious fundamentalists who get their panties all bunched up if their religious icon is shown in anything other than a flawless, perfect light. Never mind that the movie was (ultimately) just someone’s opinion and was not any sort of new religious direction from the Pope/priest/head rabbi/whoever – it didn’t depict Christ perfectly, ergo it was blasphemy, ergo there had to be a religious crusade. I would draw an analogy between the protesters and the popular depiction of Christ as a shepherd, but I’m sure you can draw that just fine by yourself. :slight_smile:

Actually seeing the movie would require thinking about it. And if there’s one thing that religion teaches people, it’s that thinking is bad – just shaddup, accept what the leaders tell you, and toss more money into the collection plate.

For additional laughs, go look up some news archives about the similar protests over Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Here we’re talking about a movie that was (a) clearly a comedy and (b) had nothing to do with Christ himself, but the fundamentalists were bored that week and decided to get outdoors or something…

14

And that is what many people felt. Whether they saw the movie or not was not important to them; any insult to their god might be blasphemous and should not be shown to anyone. Sort of Pascal’s wager in reverse.

No theaters in a 50-mile radius from me exhibited it at the time it was released. One theater owner said he had been asked not to by friends & neighbors who supposedly suggested they wouldn’t patronize the theater anymore if he showed it. And it’s a small town.

“Quivering with courage,” as Walt Kelly so eloquently put it, the film was dropped from the exhibition list.

15

This is, like, the third time I’ve seen this today in GD. Did I wake up in an alternate universe, as a poster on the SWMB (Sweeping Generalizations Message Board)?

Please, rjung, if you would, describe for us all the long history Judaism has of discouraging thinking and attempting to bilk money from its adherents. For followup, please do the same for the Jesuits.

16

The movie is anything BUT blasphemous.

If you read the scriptures, the whole point to Jesus coming to Earth was to live as a man, feeling all the same temptations, fears, insecurities, pain, etc. After all, if he was just a God in man’s clothing it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice, would it? And the whole point was that Jesus had to sacrifice his life.

So the movie that portrays him as actually being tempted by all kinds of pleasures by refusing to be sacrificed, yet choosing the sacrifice anyway, makes him heroic. If you ask me, that’s a pretty positive view of the man.

17

I too saw the coming when it came out and wasn’t really 100% why the fundies were opposed to this movie. Sure, he is not portrayed as a “G-d”, but neither is this portrayal a blatant sacrilegious portrait. As a matter of fact, I think there are a lot of Catholic images from Scocerse’s background that appear in this movie that would make any Catholic proud (i.e., the scene of the lamb and the lion, the Sacred Heart scene, etc). Of course, having Harvey Keitel as an ancient Hebrew villager is kind of screwed up (the accent I mean).

XicanoreX

18

A, dang! reply button! I meant to say, “I too saw the movie when it came out . .”, not that I particularly saw the Second Comming of Jesus that year and he went back after what he saw being done in his name. :wink:

XicanoreX

19

Well, mostly because Christian-needling is all too easy, and my religious outlook is no longer shoulder-chip based. I also thought perhaps there was actually some obscure but deep theological reason behind the original controversy, other than offended parties simply having box elder bugs living in their heads.

I’ve got to say, though, that the bugs are looking more and more likely.

20

Did you check the sign on your reality before waking up this morning? :slight_smile: If not, then blame it as leftover crankiness from a weekend spent hauling furniture from one house to another.

I don’t know of any church/temple/synagogue/whatever that encourages active discussion of the nonexistence of God, do you? Or, if you want to tie it in to the OP, tell me why most of the folks who were condemning The Last Temptation of Christ didn’t bother to see the movie for themselves and formed their own opinions – as opposed to being told, “We must protest this blasphemous film!” and showing up bright-and-early the next morning without question…