The Last Temptation of Christ

[ST88]

This movie is still being banned in several countries, including Chile and Bulgaria -- presumably because it depicts Christ as having all-too-human traits. There are several other deviations from Scripture as I am familiar with it.

Judas is portrayed as the most loyal apostle -- Christ asks him to fetch the Roman guards for his execution because he knows he's supposed to die on the cross. Saul/Paul is portrayed as a manic man of fervor who thinks nothing of fabricating a story for the sake of perpetuating his religious thought. There are also many references to Magdelene's eroticism and Jesus' response to it. Jesus himself is portrayed as a crossmaker and later as someone who has constant doubts about what he is doing, but does things anyway based on his faith.

I found the expressionist interpretations to be interesting, and I liked the movie a lot, though Jesus comes across as kind of a directionless dilettante. Still, the story says just about the same things that the Gospels do, but through a more humanist filter. At the beginning of the movie is a quote from the author of the original novel that is something to the effect of reconciling the human aspect of Jesus with the supernatural aspect. I'm curious as to everyone's reaction to this movie, both as a movie and as a message in one direction or another.

[Dilettante]

My opinion of the movie is that it is hopelessly bad (Scorsese should stick to mafia movies), yet worth watching because it provides material for debates and discussion. I don't think it is faithful to any of the Gospels at all, and it's every bit as sensationalistic as Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". I coincide totally with Martin Gardner's review which appeared in the Time-News of Hendersonville, NC, on October 30, 1988, and which was reprinted in his 1992 book "On the Wild Side". Here are some fragments of that review:

[...]The movie was more boring than we expected. The Moroccan scenery was superb, but the dialogue was banal, the acting mediocre, and the story devoid of theological ideas above the level of a sermon by Oral Roberts. There were the familiar frontal nude scenes, the wigglings of the sex act, extreme violence accompanied by blood spattering--all the ingredients that movie moguls find so essential in dragging viewers away from the boob tube. Jesus came through as a tormented, guilt-ridden psychotic who suffered from seizures and paranoid delusions both visual and auditory--a '60s hippie with a Messiah complex.
The movie offends everybody. Conservative Christians and fundamentalists are rightly furious over its blasphemies and bizarre departures from the Gospels. Liberal Christians and non-Christians are equally miffed by the miracles. Thank goodness the virgin birth is not depicted. (Paul mentions it briefly in the film despite a total silence about it in his New Testament letters.)[...] After the wine-to-water bit, Jesus grins like Dan Quayle (whom he somewhat resembles) after delivering a one-line zinger.
The most outrageous miracle is Jesus reaching into his chest and pulling out his heart. It looks exactly like a videotape of a Philippine psychic surgeon extracting a bloody tumor from a patient's belly without slicing the skin. Blood is everywhere in the film. It flows in the streets from slaughtered lambs, it gushes out of an apple (from the forbidden tree?) when Jesus bites it. The wine of the last supper--women are present to placate Christian feminists--turns to actual blood.
[...]
The picture is monumental in absurdities. How could Jesus have cast out demons, given eyes to the sightless, restored a severed ear, raised a man from the dead, and still have doubts about his divinity? And why would anyone take seriously the preaching of a man so devoid of charisma that the best he can do is mumble pantheistic platitudes such as "Everything is a part of God"? Jimmy Swaggart could have preached rings around him. My vote for the script's most vapid line is Jesus, on his way to Calvary, telling his mother, "I'm sorry I was such a bad son."
It is hard to believe that Martin Scorsese had much in mind beyond yielding to the temptation of making a picture that he hoped would arouse enough rage to generate enormous publicity, create a blockbuster, maybe even win some prizes. He insists that for decades he has agonized over what to make of his Catholic upbringing. But it seems to me the agony has stimulated minimal study and thought. "I am a devout Catholic," he said in an interview (Commonweal, Sept. 9). "Maybe I'm not a good catholic, maybe I'm not even a practicing Catholic." This strikes me as like a man who lives a few blocks from his old mother but has not seen or telephoned her in thirty years. Nevertheless, he would like to read to you a lengthy ode he has just written to express his great and abiding love for her.
Like the forgettable novel on which it is based, Scorsese's picture is all shlock, sham, and scam. It is worth seeing for its unintended sarcasm and laughs. If it prods some tepid Christians into asking themselves, perhaps for the first time, exacty what they believe about Jesus, it may even do some good. MARTIN GARDNER, The Last Temptation of Christ, On The Wild Side,pp. 127-129, Prometheus Books, New York 1992

P.S. : My favorite Jesus movie is Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il Vangelo Seccondo Mattei" (The Gospel According to Mathew). You can't beat the J.S. Bach soundtrack. Passolini was a Marxist homosexual Christian. Go figure.

[ST88]

The picture is monumental in absurdities. How could Jesus have cast out demons, given eyes to the sightless, restored a severed ear, raised a man from the dead, and still have doubts about his divinity?

This is inaccurate. In the movie, Jesus did not question the divinity with which he was bestowed. He questioned his worthiness for it.

And why would anyone take seriously the preaching of a man so devoid of charisma that the best he can do is mumble pantheistic platitudes such as "Everything is a part of God"? Jimmy Swaggart could have preached rings around him. My vote for the script's most vapid line is Jesus, on his way to Calvary, telling his mother, "I'm sorry I was such a bad son."

I don't know what movie you were watching, but in my opinion Willem Dafoe is a very engaging character. And what is the Bible but platitudes? Isn't that where we get platitudes from? Granted the script could use a little help, but the purpose of the movie was not to portray the gospels on screen (as the convenient note at the beginning of the movie lets us know), it was to portray Jesus as a human being. He constantly doubts himself, he leaves his followers open to persecution, he BEGS God to let him out of his responsibility, and he actually falls victim to the Last Temptation because it panders to his humanity.

It is hard to believe that Martin Scorsese had much in mind beyond yielding to the temptation of making a picture that he hoped would arouse enough rage to generate enormous publicity, create a blockbuster, maybe even win some prizes. He insists that for decades he has agonized over what to make of his Catholic upbringing. But it seems to me the agony has stimulated minimal study and thought.

This strikes me as disingenuous. In "Kundun" -- a better Scorsese movie, in my opinion -- you can see the parallels in how the mystical is treated alongside the humanity. Scorsese isn't interested in questions of Christianity, barely interested in spirituality at all. Just like his Mafia films aren't really about the Mafia, they're about the humanity of the individuals and how they become expressed in different environments.

I think Jesus-as-human scares people. In this context, Jesus himself didn't know who he was really supposed to be until he was baptized (a missed opportunity of the movie, I think). And after the baptism, whether or not that was the catalyst, he was still a human. He drinks. He dances. It's not too farfetched to imagine that Jesus felt and experienced other human things.

[Dilettante]

It's been a few years since I watched the movie, so I'll try to find a copy and watch it again. But as I recall, Scorsese's Jesus was indeed too human and not very divine. If Jesus was supposed to be fully human but also fully divine, it would have made no sense for him to doubt his worthiness. Isn't God supposed to be the supreme being par excellence? Can a perfect being have doubts?

I'm sure we have been reading the same Bible, one which contains perhaps a few platitudes, but also a great deal of poetry, beautiful myths, arresting imagery, some R-rated sex and violence stories, and even some downright offensive material--at least from the point of view of a 21st century western European reader. So the Bible isn't all platitudes, like Hamlet isn't all platitudes, despite the fact that many clichés originated in its pages.

I agree however, that it's not far-fetched to imagine that Jesus behaved like a normal human being on many occasions. After all he is supposed to have been 100% human and 100% divine at the same time (not 50-50).
What's far-fetched is to imagine that Jesus didn't know who he was or that he had doubts about his divine nature. Of course he could simply have been mistaken about who he was, but if the gospels are accurate it's clear that he firmly believed he was the Messiah.

[Vladd44]

If you cant find the movie, I have it in 3 600 meg files. Shouldnt be a problem getting a few people to seed it for me, so you would be able to get it pretty quickly.

And if its a size isse, I can fool around with reencoding the audio (If i recall the audio may be uncompressed), they could have done a good job with 1/3 the size.

[Dilettante]

Thanks Vladd44. If I can't find it I'll let you know. I'm going to spend the day at a larger city tomorrow and I'll check the video stores there.

[Quarkhead]

In his own words:

This was the Last Temptation which came in the space of a lightning flash to trouble the Savior's last moments.

But all at once Christ shook his head violently, opened his eyes, and saw. No, he was not a traitor, glory be to God! He was not a deserter. He had accomplished the mission which the Lord had entrusted in him. He had not married, had not lived a happy life. He had reached the summit of sacrifice: he was nailed upon the Cross.

Content, he closed his eyes. And then there was a great triumphant cry: It is accomplished!

In other words: I have accomplished my duty, I am being crucified. I did not fall into temptation...

This book was not written because I wanted to offer a supreme model to the man who struggles; I wanted to show him that he must not fear pain, temptation or death - because all three can be conquered, all three have already been conquered. Christ suffered pain, and since then pain has been sanctified. Temptation fought until the very last moment to lead him astray, and Temptation was defeated. Christ died on the Cross, and at that instant death was vanquished forever.

Every obstacle in his journey became a milestone, an occasion for further triumph. We have a model in front of us now, a model who blazes our trail and gives us strength.


This book is not a biography; it is the confession of every man who struggles. In publishing it I have fulfilled my duty, the duty of a person who struggled much, was much embittered in his life, and had many hopes. I am certain that every free man who reads this book, so filled as it is with love, will more than ever before, better than ever before, love Christ.
N. KAZANTZAKIS
The Last Temptation of Christ

The story is not MEANT to be Biblically accurate. It is a parable of suffering, about the meaning of Christ's sacrifice. The novel is much better than the movie (of course), but even so, it would take an idiot to see this story as anti-Christian in any way.

Kazantzakis proposes: what would Christ's ultimate temptation be? Not power, but normalcy; lifting the burden, taking the cup from his hands, saying "it's ok - you don't have to drink it." In the story and in the movie, Christ ultimately rejects this temptation.

[Dilettante]

Thanks, Quarkhead. A priest friend has just loaned me a copy of the movie and I was able to watch the first half after the kids had gone to sleep (I think it's too violent for them). I got a different impression this time: I'm beginning to think that the movie is not about Jesus at all, but about the eternal struggle between the body and the spirit, as dualists would put it.

[AlAyeti]

I won't see the movie but I think that some Christian scholars should have at least thanked Hollywood for agreeing that Jesus was the Messiah.

Anti-Christian and unimagineably insulting though it is, there is no other person in history that will ever be the Messiah.

Bingo! Should have been the shouts of the protesters back in the day.

[ST88]

I won't see the movie but I think that some Christian scholars should have at least thanked Hollywood for agreeing that Jesus was the Messiah.

Not to sound contrary, but why would you not wish to see the movie for yourself and form your own opinion?