Movie: The last temptation of Christ?

[patrick457]

Someone let me borrow this movie, it is by Martin Scorsese, Im just wondering if its any good and/or if its accurate. Thanks!

It ain’t accurate to the gospels (but then again, the film is honest enough to admit that), it ain’t accurate to the novel, and it ain’t accurate to actual history or local culture either.

(Nitpicker’s rant following; anyone who can’t stand someone nitpicking better skip this section)

Seriously, Scorsese gave the film a ‘Middle Eastern’ feel by making the Jews Arabs (they’re both Semitic peoples, but they don’t have the exact same culture either then or now). For example, the women have tattoos (even though Judaism forbids them), and what we hear in the background is actually Arabic (Egyptian / Moroccan) music.

Heck, one critic (Fr. Lloyd Baugh, S.J.) even pointed out that the music that plays during the Last Supper scene is actually a rendition of the shahada (“There is no god but God (Allah); Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”)! Fr. Baugh says: “This quite incredible juxtaposition, a classic postmodern pastiche, one of many in the film, is totally inappropriate, if not downright offensive and blasphemous, both to Christians and Muslims.”

And to be honest (I’m rewatching scenes from the film as I’m typing this), it sometimes just feels too ‘American’*, if you get what I mean. There’s Harvey Keitel’s Judas. He looks authentic, but his Brooklyn accent sort of prevents suspension of disbelief. And Willem Defoe’s Jesus … well, I don’t mean this in a racist way, but he’s too American, too ‘white’. The fact that they used local (Moroccan) extras just made him stand out more. (Then again I could lobby the same criticism against some recent Jesus films.)

• Seriously, I think one could transpose the story and the characters in modern-day America and it wouldn’t feel too out-of-place. Seriously, all that’s missing are Robert de Niro (Scorsese actually wanted him to play Jesus, but he refused), some mafiosi, and the occasional f-words. (But then again, it would turn into something like Mean Streets 2. ) In fact, I think America is even more fitting a setting than 1st-century Palestine.

And finally, what the heck is up with the statue of Caesar and dogs in the Temple grounds licking the blood of the sacrifices? That’s the most historically-inaccurate element of the film, I think. Two unclean things right within the precincts of the sanctuary. IRL Palestinian Jews in the 1st century were very iconoclastic that they did not tolerate the depiction of any living thing and even threatened to revolt when faced with the threat of ‘graven images’. In fact, just a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion, the Jews went up in arms Caligula’s attempt to erect a statue of himself-as-Jupiter within the Temple of Jerusalem.

 

[Maxirad]

CAF members should read this review of the movie in question.

 

[Mark121359]

CAF members should read this review of the movie in question.

Yes! The National Conference of Catholic Bishops at the time gave the film a rating of “O” or “morally offensive,” and said it was unsuitable for all ages. It’s no wonder why Mother Teresa, Mother Angelica and many bishops were so adamant in their condemnation of this reprehensible film, and urged Catholics not to view it.

Peace, Mark

 

[Maxirad]

Yes! The National Conference of Catholic Bishops at the time gave the film a rating of “O” or “morally offensive,” and said it was unsuitable for all ages. It’s no wonder why Mother Teresa, Mother Angelica and many bishops were so adamant in their condemnation of this reprehensible film, and urged Catholics not to view it.

Mark121359, did Mother Angelica (God rest her soul, BTW) blast the movie on EWTN? CAF members might want to check this review out.

 

[tomarin]

Yes! The National Conference of Catholic Bishops at the time gave the film a rating of “O” or “morally offensive,” and said it was unsuitable for all ages. It’s no wonder why Mother Teresa, Mother Angelica and many bishops were so adamant in their condemnation of this reprehensible film, and urged Catholics not to view it.

Peace, Mark

I’ve always wondered, was that because of the controversial ‘dream-sequence’ at the tail end of the movie where Jesus imagines himself leading a conjugal life with Mary Magdalene, or is there more to the offense given by the movie? In other words, if the dream sequence had been cut from the film would it have provoked the same level of outrage, or any level of outrage?

 

[Mark121359]

Mark121359, did Mother Angelica (God rest her soul, BTW) blast the movie on EWTN? CAF members might want to check this review out.

Yes, according to Raymond Arroyo she did. In fact, it was fairly recently that I watched one of her “Classic” shows in which she railed against this film. Of course this particular show was from the early 90’s, a couple of years after the film was released. But you could tell that this still pained her.

• “I mourn the spiritual death of apathetic Christians and Catholics…who stand by and watch the Lord Jesus Christ maligned, blasphemed and made to seem a fool. This movie is the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that’s ever been perpetrated in this world. This is a holocaust movie that has the power to destroy souls eternally. I don’t want to see innocent people lose their souls because some people don’t care.”
  ~Mother Angelica~*

Here’s a newspaper article shortly after the film’s release that covers these comments from Mother Angelica and also those from Mother Teresa.

Peace, Mark

 

[Mark121359]

I’ve always wondered, was that because of the controversial ‘dream-sequence’ at the tail end of the movie where Jesus imagines himself leading a conjugal life with Mary Magdalene, or is there more to the offense given by the movie? In other words, if the dream sequence had been cut from the film would it have provoked the same level of outrage, or any level of outrage?

There’s a lot more. The “dream sequence” was just part of it, albeit a big part of it. Read the link Maxirad provided in post # 21. That’s a good review of the film.

Peace, Mark

 

[patrick457]

CAF members should read this review of the movie in question.

Very good you brought this up!

I’d like to use this to highlight certain differences between the book and the film.

One scene that had religious critics up in arms depicts Jesus sitting all afternoon in a room outside the bedroom of a prostitute (Mary Magdalene), where he can both see and hear her servicing a long queue of customers. The movie’s defenders pointed out that nothing in the scene indicates Jesus is supposed to be moved to lust by what he sees and hears, so why couldn’t a perfect man do what Jesus is represented as doing? Yet even putting aside the question of lust (and of Jesus’ general state throughout the film of apparent obssession with Mary Magdalene), there is still the matter of ordinary modesty; not to mention the obligation to avoid situations that would reasonably give scandal (since Jesus appears to be simply waiting his turn like Mary’s customers).

This is generally the problem of the film. Yes, the book does have a similar scene, but there the focus is not on Mary Magdalene providing her ‘services’, but on the customers at the courtyard - wealthy merchants and noblemen from far and wide - eating snacks and chatting with each other while waiting for their turn:

Soon the green door with the two intertwined snakes came into view. An old crone sat outside on a stool. She had a grate filled with burning coals and was broiling crabs. Next to this were roasted pumpkin seeds and, in two deep wooden plates, chick-pea meatballs which she sold smothered in pepper.

(…) Four merchants, lined up one behind the other, sat cross-legged on the ground of the courtyard: two old men with painted eye lashes and nails, two young men with black beards and mustaches. They all had their eyes riveted on the tiny, squat door of Mary’s chamber. It was closed. Now and then a shout issued from inside, or laughter, or the sound of someone being tickled, or the creaking of the bed—and the worshipers immediately broke off the chattering they had begun and, gasping for breath, shifted their positions.

(…) The worshipers were munching dates which they took from their girdles, or biting nutmeg seeds to sweeten their breath. They had engaged each other in conversation in order to pass the time.

In fact, focus is given on an Indian nobleman who Jesus followed to the whore-house, who somehow arrives at the conclusion that life is but a dream and becoming enlightened, promptly leaves. (I’m thinking this is Kazantzakis’ nod to Buddhism, which he was interested in.)

The young nobleman had lowered his heavy eyelids. His upper body swayed slowly back and forth and his lips stirred as though he were saying his prayers. Already, before entering Paradise, he had plunged into everlasting beatitude. He heard the cackling of the partridge, the tickling and the creaking inside the bolted chamber, heard the old woman at the door load her grate with live crabs, which then hopped onto the coals.
This is Paradise, he meditated, overcome with a great lassitude; this, the deep sleep we call life, the sleep in which we dream of Paradise. There is no other Paradise. I can get up now and go, for I require no further joy.
A huge, green-turbaned man in front of him pushed him with his knee and laughed. “Prince of India, what does your God have to say about all this?”
The youth opened his eyes. “All what?” he asked.
“Here, in front of you: men, women, crabs, love.”
“That everything is a dream.”
“Well, then, my brave lads—take care,” interrupted the old man with the snowy beard, who was telling his beads on a long amber chaplet. “Take care not to wake up!”

…] The young Indian nobleman got up. The others turned with astonishment. Why had he got up? Wasn’t he going to speak? Was he about to leave? … He was happy. His face was resplendent; a gentle glow patched his cheeks. He wrapped the cashmere shawl tightly around him, put his hand to his heart and lips, and took his leave. His shadow passed tranquilly over the threshold.

“He woke up,” said the youth with the golden rings about his ankles. He tried to laugh, but a strange fear had suddenly overcome them all, and they began with anxious haste to discuss profit and loss, and the prices current in the slave markets of Alexandria and Damascus. Soon, however, they reverted to their barefaced talk of women and boys, and they stuck out their tongues and licked their chops.

Just to provide the context: Jesus at this point has finally decided to go into the Essene monastery in the desert and meet God there, where “[He] shall kill the flesh and turn it into spirit,” but en route to the monastery, He finds Himself setting foot in the town - where Mary Magdalene, daughter of the village rabbi of Nazareth, is, and tries to ask for her forgiveness for jilting her a long time ago. (Mary M. in the novel became a prostitute to sort of get over the trauma of Jesus dumping her.)

 

[patrick457]

Again, from Mr. Greydanus’ review:

Again, in the gospels there is an episode in which a crowd of listeners report to Jesus that his mother and brothers have come to see him, and Jesus responds to the crowd, “Who are my mother and brothers? Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and brother” (cf. Mk 3:31-35). The version of this episode in Last Temptation has Jesus saying to his mother “I have no family,” and turning his back on her as she breaks down in tears. Is this compatible with basic honor for father and mother — a virtue that Jesus himself emphasized was neglected in his own culture (cf. Mk 7:10-13)?

This scene also plays out in the book. Granted, this is Kazantzakis’ adaptation of Mark 3:20-21, 31-35 and parallels.

Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” …] And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Actually, there are two instances in the book where Jesus refuses to recognize His mother (one is just after He had preached the beatitudes, the other is when He was violently rejected in Nazareth): the film version is a combination of the two.

Mary got up from the rocks where she had thrown herself. Wiping her eyes, she went forward with unsteady steps in order to fetch her son and bring him home. The unfortunate woman had been frightened both by the love which the poor had shown him and by the threats hurled at him by the rich village elder.
“I implore you in God’s name not to listen to him,” she said now to one, now to another as she went by. “He’s ill … ill … ill. …”
Trembling, she approached her son. He now stood with crossed hands, gazing out over the lake. “Come, my child,” she said to him tenderly, “come, let’s go home together. …”
He heard the voice, turned and looked at her with surprise. He seemed to be asking who she was.
“Come, my child,” Mary repeated, clasping him around the waist. “Why do you look at me like that? Don’t you know me? I am your mother. Come, your brothers are waiting for you in Nazareth, and your old father. …”
The son shook his head. “What mother,” he said calmly, “what brothers? My mother and brothers are here.”
Holding out his hand, he indicated the ragamuffins and their wives, and redhaired Judas, who stood mutely in front of the pine tree and looked at him with rage.
“And my father—” he raised his finger toward heaven—“my father is God.”
The eyes of this luckless victim of God’s thunderbolt began to flow with tears. “Is there any mother in the whole world more miserable than I?” she said. “I had one son, one, and now …”

===

Mary entered the very center of the brawl and approached her son. She took his hand. “My child,” she said, “what has happened to you? How did you descend to this? Return home to wash, change your clothes and put on your sandals. You’ve made yourself all dirty, my son.”
“I have no home,” he said. “I have no mother. Who are you?”
The mother began to weep. Digging her nails into her cheeks, she spoke no more.

(If there’s any theological problem with the book version, it’s that Mary is depicted in a rather un-positive way, as a mother who wishes for her Son to live a normal human life and does not want God’s will for Jesus - which arguably goes contrary to the fiat she said to the angel Gabriel. In other words, Mary here becomes one of the figures who tempt Jesus - even if unwittingly - into choosing the ‘flesh’ and the things of this world over the ‘spirit’ and God.)

Where the book and film seriously differ is how this tension is resolved. Just before Jesus is crucified in the book, He sees His mother and this happens:

… And while he sat and waited, crumbling a small clod of earth between his fingers, he felt someone standing before him, looking at him. Raising his head calmly, without haste, he saw and recognized her.
“Welcome, faithful fellow voyager,” he murmured. “Here the journey ends. What you wanted has been accomplished; what I wanted has also been accomplished. All my life I toiled to turn the Curse into a blessing. I’ve done it, and we are friends now. Farewell, Mother!” He waved his hand languidly at the savage shade.

This recontextualizes Jesus’ refusal to recognize His family on both occasions: He did it because He had to during the course of His ministry, when familial ties threaten to become an obstacle in His ascent towards God. (You might say that Kazantzakis’ Jesus simply followed the saying “Whoever starts to plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God” and “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”) But because Jesus is now but one step close into winning the battle over the ‘flesh’, there is no longer anything preventing Him from acknowledging His mother.

But in the film, guess what Jesus says. “Mother, I’m sorry for being a bad son.” It recontextualizes Jesus’ earlier actions in the opposite direction. Was Jesus apologizing for His refusal to recognize His mother in the film? This Jesus is too weak to win His battle.

And this is the problem of the Jesus of the movie essentially: He’s weak through and through. He needs crutches to get by; He never develops like His book counterpart does.

 

[patrick457]

Nor is it only the portrayal of Jesus himself that is antithetical to Christian thought. Virtually every characterization, every aspect of the film is deliberately iconoclastic, self-consciously contrary to traditional Christian understanding, calculated for shock value. First and foremost is the reinterpretation of Judas Iscariot (Harvey Keitel) as a principled hero, a man who ultimately “betrays” Jesus only because Jesus orders him to do so over Judas’ own tortured objections. When faithful Judas demands to know whether if Jesus himself, were he in Judas’ place, would be able to betray a beloved master, Jesus replies (in a moment typical of the film’s sensibilities), “No, I couldn’t. That’s why God gave me the easier job *.”

Throughout the movie Judas acts almost as Jesus’ conscience. As the film opens we find Judas patriotically upbraiding Jesus for collaborating with Rome by his cross-making. When Jesus begins his ministry, Judas follows him conditionally, warning him that if he betrays his mission Judas will kill him. Finally, in the climactic scene, it is a stern, prophetic Judas (or a dream-representation of him) that recalls Jesus to the necessity of his dying on the cross.

Once again, there’s nothing wrong with trying to humanize Judas to an extent, or give him understandable motivations. The filmmaker can even make us empathize with him to the point of feeling that we too would be capable of doing what he did. But what he did, in the end, has to be wrong; and Keitel’s Judas never manifests anything like corruption, self-interest, or pettiness. Jesus is the main character and protagonist here, but a case could be made that Judas is the film’s true hero, or at least its most idealized character.*

This is what I was saying when I said that Scorsese turned The Last Temptation into a “buddy movie” a la Mean Streets. It’s not coincidental that the ‘responsible’ half of the duo in both films are Harvey Keitel.

You’ve two close friends, who’s the yin-yang polar opposite of each other. You’ve got the neurotic, passive, lean, ‘clean’ Jesus of Willem DeFoe, and on the other hand you’ve got the aggressive, active, short, stocky and rugged Judas of Harvey Keitel. Keitel’s Judas is pretty much the dominant force of the duo, while DeFoe’s Jesus is the submissive one; movie Judas keeps paddling the weak and indecisive Jesus to do ‘the right thing’. In effect, Judas in the movie becomes the actual hero of the piece, the one that compelled the protagonist to do things when the latter was too much of a wimp to even make an actual choice.

http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads/2012/03/11/temptation-of-christ-3.png

What we see in the film is actually a case of adaptation distillation. Kazantzakis’ Judas, while basically the “thoroughgoing Zealot” who tries to rally Jesus to His cause time and again, is most of the time a mere part of the background as Jesus relates to the other eleven disciples and to other people. He is really only an important figure at the beginning of the novel and midway through it.

Scorsese, however, dramatically reduces the Eleven (according to the words of one reviewer) “to an amorphous mass of weak and largely inconsequential men” (he never even devotes a lot of screentime to the other disciples, in comparison to the original novel where they occupy a major bulk of the plot), thereby beefing up Judas. Scorsese’s Judas has thus become a larger-than-life figure, and by supplanting the Gospel’s and Kazantzakis’ image of Peter as leader and John as the beloved disciple, becomes Jesus’ most trusted confidant and intimate friend.

If anything, the book’s Judas is not a hero per se but Jesus’ dark side of sorts. While it is true that out of all the disciples, Judas is one of the first characters apart from Jesus Himself to know who He really is (the novel begins with Jesus dreaming of a band of Zealots led by Judas searching for “the One” who will save Israel), Judas’ recognition of Jesus’ true identity is somewhat offset by his own personal expectations: he expects Jesus, in true Zealot fashion, to be a Messiah of the sword, one who will crush all the oppressors of Israel by force of arms.

The Judas of the novel fits in with Kazantzakis’ negative stereotype of the Jews as a people generally fixated on judgment and revenge, unable to comprehend Jesus’ initial message of love and forgiveness. This explains why Judas could not stand Jesus’ talk of loving one’s enemies, why he becomes an enthusiastic follower of Jesus when He begins to preach “the ax,” and why he becomes hesitant to follow Jesus’ orders to betray Him to the authorities later.

The book’s Judas is hesitant to do what Jesus tells Him not because he is “a principled hero” as in the film, but because he could not imagine that Jesus the messiah, who in his mind was supposed to be a military conqueror, must die on a cross. He had no trust in death. He would rather that Jesus just go on preaching “the ax.” He sees Jesus as the new John the Baptist - who in the novel is a fire-and-brimstone preacher (cf. Matthew 3:7-11).

He had expected a different Messiah, a Messiah with a sword, a Messiah at whose cry all the generations of the dead would fly out of their tombs in the valley of Joshaphat and mix with the living. The horses and camels of the Jews would be resuscitated at the same time, and all—infantry and cavalry—would flow forth to slaughter the Romans. And the Messiah would sit on the throne of David with the Universe as a cushion under his feet, for him to step on. This, this was the Messiah Judas Iscariot had expected.

 

[patrick457]

Then there’s John the Baptist (Andre Gregory), who is oddly much older than Jesus and doesn’t seem to know him, though they were cousins of some sort. John’s ministry in the wilderness resembles a hysterical-ecstatic Pentecostal revival meeting, with John striding maniacally about spouting dark Old Testament apocalyptic (nothing of his actual themes of repentance or the kingdom of heaven), while people gibber and shake and inexplicably stand around naked.

I don’t know where Scorsese got the epileptic, half-naked people from.

The heat was roaring and the south wind which blew from the Dead Sea carried a heavy stench of rotting carcasses. Jesus now began to hear a wild, hoarse voice. Now and then he was able to distinguish a few words: “Fire … ax … barren tree …” and then, louder: “Repent! Repent!” All at once a large multitude burst into shouts and wailing. Jesus went forward slowly, craftily, as though approaching the cave of a wild beast. He pushed aside the reeds: the noise increased. Suddenly he bit his lips to prevent himself from screaming—for there he was, standing on his reed-like legs upon a rock which rose above the waters of the Jordan. Was this a man, a locust, the angel of Hunger, or the archangel of Revenge? Wave after wave of bellowing men broke upon the rocks—Ethiopians with painted fingernails and eyelashes, Chaldeans with thick brass rings in their noses, Israelites with long greasy sideburns.
Frothing at the mouth, the south wind shaking him like a reed, the Baptist was shouting, “Repent! Repent! The day of the Lord has come! Roll on the ground, bite the dust, howl! The Lord of Hosts has said: ‘On this day I shall command the sun to set at noon; I shall crush the horns of the new moon and spill darkness over heaven and earth. I shall reverse your laughter, turn it into tears, and your songs into lamentation. I shall blow, and all your finery—hands, feet, noses, ears, hair—will fall to the ground.’ ”

The portrayal of John the Baptist as a grim preacher of apocalyptic vengeance is something that Kazantzakis cribbed out of .Vie de Jesus Albert Schweitzer (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) summarizes Renan’s view of John’s and Jesus’ relationship:

Jesus had been living in Galilee before He came to the Baptist; when He heard of the latter’s success He went to him with His little company of followers. They were both young, and Jesus became the imitator of the Baptist. Fortunately the latter soon disappeared from the scene, for his influence on Jesus was in some respects injurious. The Galilaean teacher was on the verge of losing the sunny religion which He had learned from His only teacher, the glorious natural scenery which surrounded His home, and of becoming a gloomy Jewish fanatic. But this influence fell away from Him again; when He returned to Galilee He became Himself once more. The only thing which He had gained from John was some knowledge of the art of preaching.

Kazantzakis is sort of influenced by Renan’s idea that something of John the Baptist seems to have rubbed off on Jesus; it is precisely after meeting John the Baptist, being tempted in the desert, and learning of John’s death afterwards that Jesus feels God calling Him to be more aggressive and preach “the ax,” to complement His initial message of love with hard justice and judgment. (One critic in fact suggsts that this aggressive “son of David” mode of Jesus was Kazantzakis’ answer to Friedrich Nietzsche’s - who he at first admired but eventually rejected as being too dark and destructive - claim that unconditional, altruistic love was Jesus’ greatest message but also His greatest weakness.)

St. Peter is a minor character, but whenever he is onscreen he is invariably doing or saying the wrong thing (as in fact the real Peter often did, but he also did profoundly right things that never figure here), inviting Judas’ scorn.

Peter’s an earthy character. He has another nickname, “Windmill,” which he claims he received because “I say frankly whatever comes into my head, whether good or bad. My mind goes round and round, and I go round and round with it.” Which is pretty much his character summary: he speaks his mind, he’s rather impulsive. He doesn’t have a very good relationship with Judas. Unlike the film, he has more of a role in the book.

 

[patrick457]

What follows is essentially the ‘last temptation’ scene. Mr. Greydanus:

The sequence begins with Jesus on the cross seemingly being approached by a young girl, who tells him that he has suffered enough; that he has proven himself faithful, and doesn’t actually have to die after all. (She makes an interesting case for this, citing the precedent of Abraham being told at the last minute not to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah.)

We then see this girl gently remove the nails transfixing Christ to the cross, tenderly kiss his wounds, and take him down off the cross and through the midst of the crowd, who seem unaware that anything has happened, that the cross is now empty.

As I mentioned earlier, the difference between the book and the film is that the film alters the ‘last temptation’ sequence in order to make it more ambiguous. The book gives spoilers to the reader from the very beginning that the ‘last temptation’ was not real, that it was just an illusion, a lie sent by Satan to trick Jesus.

This is from the very prologue of the book:

Every moment of Christ’s life is a conflict and a victory. He conquered the invincible enchantment of simple human pleasures; he conquered temptations, continually transubstantiated flesh into spirit, and ascended. Reaching the summit of Golgotha, he mounted the Cross.
But even there his struggle did not end. Temptation—the Last Temptation—was waiting for him upon the Cross. Before the fainted eyes of the Crucified the spirit of the Evil One, in an instantaneous flash, unfolded the deceptive vision of a calm and happy life. It seemed to Christ that he had taken the smooth, easy road of men. He had married and fathered children. People loved and respected him. Now, an old man, he sat on the threshold of his house and smiled with satisfaction as he recalled the longings of his youth. How splendidly, how sensibly he had acted in choosing the road of men! What insanity to have wanted to save the world! What joy to have escaped the privations, the tortures, and the Cross!
This was the Last Temptation which came in the space of a lightning flash to trouble the Saviour’s final 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 to 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. …

So what happens in the book is this:

As the darkness descends upon the earth and the crowd gathered at Golgotha are thrown into a frenzy, the crucified Jesus is about to shout out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” but He passes out mid-sentence. He wakes up to find Himself - no longer crucified - in an idyllic garden, where an angel with green wings (when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, one of the forms Satan took was “an archangel with the half moon suspended from his neck and a joyous star between his eyebrows” with “green wings”), who claims to be His guardian angel, greets Him and tells Him that God sent Him to reprieve Jesus from His life of misery and abandonment, and that His crucifixion was actually a dream.

The angel divined this and inclined smilingly to the man’s desire. “God sent me to bring sweetness to your lips. Men have given you much bitterness to drink; the heavens have done the same. You have suffered and struggled. In your whole life you have seen not one day of gladness. Your mother, brothers, disciples; the poor, the maimed, the oppressed—all, all abandoned you in the last terrible moment. You remained upon a rock in the darkness, completely alone and undefended. And then God the Father took pity on you. ‘Hey, there, why are you sitting?’ he called to me. ‘Aren’t you his guardian angel? Well, go down and save him. I don’t want him to be crucified. Enough’s enough!’
“ ‘Lord of hosts,’ I answered him, trembling, ‘didn’t you send him to earth to be crucified in order to save mankind? That’s why I sit here undisturbed: I thought that such was your will.’
“ ‘Let him be crucified in a dream,’ God answered; ‘let him taste the same fear, the same pain.’ ”

Jesus is led to a house where Mary Magdalene waits to marry him.

The book’s version is much more unreal at this point: an entire caravan of kings and nobles descend to the garden where Jesus was to attend His wedding ceremony with Mary Magdalene. You just know that everything has got to be not real because “the angel had vanished into the air. Behind them, the great royal cortege of lords, ladies, kings, white horses and white lilies had also vanished.”

As for the infamous sex scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the book doesn’t even dwell on that directly. Seriously, it’s over within the space of a single paragraph, and within that single paragraph, all but one sentence describes something else that happens in the surroundings.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene have some talk about what to name their newly-conceived son (ironically, Jesus suggests the name “Paraclete, the Comforter” for the son that He will have with Magdalene). Jesus falls asleep while Mary hears a voice (God) who greets her as the “Great Martyr” and tells her that the time has come for her to die. Just then Caiaphas’ servants, headed by Saul (Paul), appear out of nowhere and stone Mary to death. (The movie oversimplifies things here: Mary just drops dead after a flash of light.)

 

[patrick457]

Later in the dream-sequence, Mary Magdalene dies, and the girl takes Jesus to wed another Mary [the sister of Martha], cryptically telling him: “There is only one woman in the world, with different faces.”

The book’s angel tells Jesus nonchalantly that Mary M. is dead, and that God killed her (“The All-Holy threw an arrow, pierced her at the highest peak of her happiness, and now she remains above, immortal.”) It is at this point that the ‘angel’ tells Jesus his “one woman in the world with different faces” schtick - to get Jesus’ mind off the Magdalene, to convince Him that it’s all just the same woman anyway.

So Jesus marries Mary of Bethany and Martha, vows to take their deceased brother Lazarus’ place as the man of the house, and is Himself - in another of the dream world’s surreal sequences - transformed into Lazarus. As ‘Master Lazarus’, Jesus lives a mundane, uneventful life with His two wives and His many children. His green-winged ‘angel’, meanwhile, takes the form of an Ethiopian servant to keep close watch on Him. (I guess that’s why they changed it to a white girl in the movie: having a black servant boy play Satan in disguise is just racist by modern standards.)

At this point, however, this fantasy world starts to crumble with ominous premonitions.

(1) Mary keeps dreaming of a seraph who tells her that all this (their married life in Bethany) is a dream, “lies created by the Tempter to deceive us.”

(2) An old friend, the foul-mouthed innkeeper Simon of Cyrene (a character cut out of the movie) visits Jesus’/Lazarus’ house and tells Him that Pilate became a wreck and was one day, found inexplicably crucified.

“They found him yesterday, at dawn—crucified. It seems his mind began to totter. He couldn’t sleep. He would get out of bed, find a basin and wash his hands all night long, shouting, ‘I wash and rinse my hands; I am innocent!’ But the blood remained on his hands, and he would get more water and wash them again. Then he would go out and roam Golgotha. He could find no rest. Every night he ordered his two faithful Negro slaves to beat him with his own whip. He gathered thorns, made them into a crown, pushed it onto his head, and the blood flowed. …] Afterward he fell to drink and went the rounds of the taverns. He came to mine too, drank, became a cock and a pig. His wife got disgusted and abandoned him. Then orders came from Rome to dismiss him. …] To make a long story short, yesterday at dawn your friend Pilate was found at the top of Golgotha, crucified!”

(3) Finally, the now-converted Saul/Paul winds up to Bethany, preaching his message of the crucified and resurrected Jesus (which obviously did not happen in this world).

All the while His black servant keeps reassuring Him that everything is fine and that His mind is just ‘wavering’.

When Jesus angrily contradicts Paul’s claims, Paul initially maintains the truth of his message; but before long he is essentially endorsing the notion of Modernist theologians that the gospel message was essentially “invented” by Paul himself, and that the faith and hope people draw from the idea of Christ’s resurrection is more important that the historical truth. …]

What is the function of having Paul say these things, even in a dream sequence, other than simply introducing these ideas into the film? If they merely wanted to show Paul preaching the gospel in order to suggest the necessity of Jesus completing his mission, why not follow up by having Jesus’ denial of Paul’s message leave Paul shattered and despairing, or at least flatly disbelieving Jesus’ claims?

There is a function in the book for this sequence: it is a kind of signal sent by God to remind Jesus that what He is seeing is not real, to remind Him of His real mission. The fact that it occurs after the other two omens - the seraph in Mary’s dream and Simon of Cyrene - lends weight to the idea that this is a divine-sent sign, the third of the triptych. Especially since in the book’s ending, the crucified Jesus premonizes that “His disciples were alive and thriving. They had gone over sea and land and were proclaiming the Good News. Everything had turned out as it should, glory be to God!”

On another level, this scene could serve as Kazantzakis’ attempt to struggle with modern scholarship about the historical Jesus and Christian origins: the idea that some modern scholars have that St. Paul is actually the inventor or the founder of Christianity.

In fact, there is something of Nietzsche in Paul in this sequence: Nietzsche criticized Paul harshly for corrupting Jesus’ legacy, even saying that “he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred” and calling him “bringer of bad tidings.” As a long-time admirer of Nietzsche, Kazantzakis sorts of struggles with him within The Last Temptation, showing influence from his philosophy in places or rejecting it outright in others. (Another influence for Kazantzakis was French philosopher Henri Bergson: he tried to synthesize the two.)

 

[patrick457]

Much later in the time-frame of the dream sequence, an aged Judas appears to recall the now-dying Jesus to his obligation to die on the cross; and Jesus responds by rejecting the dream-world and crying out to God to allow him to return to the cross — whereupon he opens his eyes, finds himself crucified, and triumphantly shouts the famous last words.

This is the greatest sin the film adaptation has committed, in my opinion. It tacks a prayer of forgiveness on Jesus’ lips, where He calls Himself a “selfish, unfaithful son,” begs God to forgive Him and to send Him back on the cross.

Abba, father, will you still listen to me? Are you still there? Will you listen to a selfish, unfaithful son? I fought you when you called. I resisted. I thought I knew more. I didn’t want to be your son. Can you forgive me? I didn’t fight hard enough. I want to take your hand; I want to save my fellow men. Father, take me back. Make a feast. Welcome me home. I want to be your son. I want to pay the price. I want to be crucified and rise again. I want to be the Messiah!

This runs counter to the scenario of the book, where the narration is at pains to emphasize that the ‘last temptation’ was a mere lie of Satan (as the seraph told Mary of Bethany in the dream world). It did not happen. Obviously, Jesus doesn’t pray any prayer of repentance here, as He never fell - He knows He did not fall.

Suddenly he remembered where he was, who he was and why he felt pain. A wild, indomitable joy took possession of him. No, no, he was not a coward, a deserter, a traitor. No, he was nailed to the cross. He had stood his ground honorably to the very end; he had kept his word. The moment he cried ELI ELI and fainted, Temptation had captured him for a split second and led him astray. The joys, marriages and children were lies; the decrepit, degraded old men who shouted coward, deserter, traitor at him were lies. All—all were illusions sent by the Devil. His disciples were alive and thriving. They had gone over sea and land and were proclaiming the Good News. Everything had turned out as it should, glory be to God!
He uttered a triumphant cry: IT IS ACCOMPLISHED!
And it was as though he had said: Everything has begun.

Kazantzakis here takes a page from Carl Jung. Jung said of dreams: “on this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive, who is not only the passive victim of his affects but also singularly incapable of moral judgment.” Jesus was incapable of exhibiting moral judgment in this fantasy world, but He is not culpable, because He is in a dream.

Backtracking a bit, in both the book and the film, it is Judas who finally shatters the illusion with the strong insults traditionally applied to Judas himself: “Coward! Deserter! Traitor!” This bookends the novel, which begins with Jesus’ dream of a man with a red beard (Judas) accompanied by a group of midgets each carrying an instrument of Jesus’ eventual passion (the cross, the crown of thorns, nails). In both dreams, Jesus sees the figure of Judas. In the first dream, Jesus has a premonition of His death; in the second, Jesus is told to resume that death.

Arguably, since this is all a hallucination, this Judas must be a manifestation of Jesus’ subconscious. But why Judas?

First, because Judas is the active character. The book’s Jesus is passive and vulnerable up to at least until midway through the story (by contrast, as mentioned earlier the film’s Jesus is passive up to the end); in these cases, it is Judas who prods Jesus to action.

While it was Judas’ aggressiveness and confidence that made Jesus insecure and weak (Kazantzakis has Judas and Jesus also be childhood friends; one day while they were playing together young Judas pushed and thrashed Jesus down - Jesus eventually developed a Judas-phobia and never went out to play ever since), it is precisely also that which eventually forces Jesus to look within Himself and confront His inner demons, making Him becoming more aware of His own self.

Judas in the novel is Jesus’ alter ego, His ‘dark side’, His psyche seen from another angle: a representation of the darkness, the hatred and the violence within the heart of man. Which is pretty much what Judas is: a personification of unbridled rage. If Jesus is too spiritual, Judas is too material. It is this side that Jesus had to confront and then assimilate if He was to go further in His spiritual ascent. In the words of one author, “What this aspect of Jesus’ characterization indicates is that Kazantzakis believes a healthy, balanced life is found wherever and whenever someone has learned to countenance the opposites in his or her character.”

And that’s why Judas is the final figure Jesus sees. ‘Judas’ appears before Jesus because Judas’ materiality is paradoxically necessary if Jesus is to be elevated to non-materiality. The ‘last temptation’ in a way is like a ladder: first Jesus is involved with carnal love (Mary Magdalene), then He moves into domesticity (Mary and Martha), then He moves into a concern for moral principles (Simon of Cyrene, Paul), and finally advances (Judas) to a spiritual love in which He yearns to embrace the invisible (God). In Platonic terms, first there’s total flesh, then there’s a combination of flesh and spirit, then there’s a preponderance of spirit, and finally there’s total spirit.

(It’s all somewhat Freudian and Jungian, yes. Jung, Nietzsche, Freud, Bergson - Kazantzakis is really post-modernist, isn’t he? )

 

[patrick457]

I keep mentioning that Ernest Renan’s 1863 work Vie de Jésus was a main source for Kazantzakis’ novel. (Kazantzakis copied passages from the book in the notebook he was using for this novel. Kazantzakis, who was born Greek Orthodox, was already haunted by the figure of Jesus for quite a long while, but his reading of Renan seems to be what actually pushed him to write a novel about Him.)

Kazantzakis seems to have gotten the whole idea of the ‘last temptation’ from this passage in Renan:

The sky was dark; and the earth, as in all the environs of Jerusalem, dry and gloomy. For a moment, according to certain narratives, his heart failed him; a cloud hid from him the face of his Father; he endured an agony of despair a thousand times more acute than all his torture. He saw only the ingratitude of men; he perhaps repented suffering for a vile race, and exclaimed: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” But his Divine instinct still prevailed. In the degree that the life of the body became extinguished, his soul became clear, and returned by degrees to its celestial origin. He regained the idea of his mission; he saw in his death the salvation of the world; he lost sight of the hideous spectacle spread at his feet, and, profoundly united to his Father, he began upon the gibbet the Divine life which he was to live in the heart of humanity throughout infinite ages.

His characterization of Jesus meanwhile was derived from this passage:

All the narratives agree in relating that before his arrest he underwent a short experience of doubt and trouble; a kind of anticipated agony. …] Human nature asserted itself for a time. Perhaps he began to hesitate about his work. Terror and doubt took possession of him, and threw him into a state of exhaustion worse than death. He who has sacrificed his repose and the legitimate rewards of life to a great idea always experiences a feeling of revulsion when the image of death presents itself to him for the first time, and seeks to persuade him that all has been in vain. Perhaps some of those touching reminiscences which the strongest souls preserve, and which at times pierce like a sword, came upon him at this moment.

Did he remember the clear fountains of Galilee where he was wont to refresh himself; the vine and the fig-tree under which he had reposed, and the young maidens who, perhaps, would have consented to love him? Did he curse the hard destiny which had denied him the joys conceded to all others? Did he regret his too lofty nature, and, victim of his greatness, did he mourn that he had not remained a simple artisan of Nazareth? We know not.

Kazantzakis in fact copied this passage in his notebook (as per his habit, he copied it in a mixture of languages he knew), omitting Renan’s cautious ‘perhaps’ and turning the questions into affirmatives. And that’s essentially where he got the Jesus who wished He was ‘normal’ from.

Renan’s shadow haunts the novel, from minor details like the description of St. Paul’s appearance as a hunchback with crooked legs (from Renan’s Les Apôtres - which Kazantzakis also read), the depiction of Jesus’ family - including Mary - as being unable to understand Jesus’ mission and his treatment of the Zealots, to elements like the psychosomatic basis of Jesus’ miracles (Renan was a skeptic and declared miracles to be “always implies gullibility and deception;” while Kazantzakis does follow his rationalistic explanations of Jesus’ miracles up to a certain point, he does portray one miracle - the raising of Lazarus - as really happening. But then again, that’s what the novel essentially is - it’s a combination of the naturalistic and the supernatural/fantastic).

 

[patrick457]

I posted a bunch of posts here that got deleted - perhaps for the better. I’ll try to summarize my main points without spamming the thread again. (To the mods: I’m very sorry.)

(1) The way the movie handled the eponymous ‘last temptation’ sequence is very problematic. Whereas the book makes it clear repeatedly that the ‘last temptation’ was not real, that it was merely a kind of hallucination or dream sent by Satan, the movie chooses to depict it in a more ambiguous way and in fact, adds elements that could be construed as Jesus really falling prey to sin. (The novel’s main premise is that Jesus never succumbed to this ‘last temptation’, that He never sinned; that is why He’s a role model for all humanity to follow.)

(2) I felt that Martin Scorsese sort of turned The Last Temptation into a ‘buddy movie’ along the lines of, say, Mean Streets. His beefing-up of Judas to be the ‘straight guy’ (something Steven Greydanus points out in the review) is a sort of side-effect of this. (It’s not coincidental that Harvey Keitel plays the responsible half of the duo in both films; in fact, Martin Scorsese originally wanted Robert de Niro to play Jesus. )

(3) The novel is essentially a combination of The Life of Jesus by 19th-century French scholar Ernest Renan (which was essentially Kazantzakis’ main source) combined with Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson and Carl Jung, along with occasional references to stuff like later Christian theology and legend and Kazantzakis’ native Crete. Essentially, The Last Temptation is a postmodern work.

Actually, come to think of it, what makes the film problematic is not just its original source (which is already quite unorthodox and theologically faulty to begin with), it’s the way it changed the original source.

And to add something to my past posts:

Scorsese however shot the film in the ‘naturalistic’, purely ‘historically-accurate’ way that’s currently in vogue among recent biblical films (a la Jesus of Nazareth) where anything that reeks of the otherworldly or supernatural is either cut out entirely or depicted in a muted kind of way. I think that sort of robbed something from the spirit of the book.

I just learned that the anachronisms and the poetic fantasy-like elements of the book were actually conscious on the part of Kazantzakis: he intended them to stand side-by-side with, to intrude to, the more naturalistic elements. So, arguably Scorsese just violated the author’s intent by shooting the film in a 100% naturalistic way and cutting the poetic elements out.

• Kazantzakis seems to have this semi-gnostic mentality that physical things are bad - or at least base and depraved - and that only the spiritual is good. One must shun physical matter and the earth and ascend to higher, spiritual thingsd. In fact, Jesus here seems to undergo a journey of ‘dematerialization’, where He eventually forsakes the ‘flesh’ and embraces - becomes - the ‘spirit’. It’s very telling that Satan’s ‘last temptation’ is for Jesus to live a mundane, peaceful, earth-bound life.

Upon learning that Nietzsche was an influence to Kazantzakis (Kazantzakis admired him - - but eventually came to reject aspects of his philosophy), this dualism now sort of makes sense, at least to me. The dualistic ‘flesh’ vs. ‘spirit’ worldview might be Kazantzakis’ reaction against Nietzsche’s rejection of dualism. That might be why he seems to go overboard (sound borderline-gnostic) in places: he almost swings far to the opposite direction.

 

[Monica4316]

This movie sounds terrible. I’ve never watched it and now never will.

Our problem is not having a physical nature or humanity, it is concupiscence. Our Lord did not ever have that. His human nature is perfect. I think that’s a very serious theological problem and insult to Our Lord.

Something may have nice music, nice cinematography, etc, but if it’s blasphemous or heretical I don’t think we should watch it. It’s like not minding sin just because it’s presented in a nice way.

 

[randomuser]

Yes! The National Conference of Catholic Bishops at the time gave the film a rating of “O” or “morally offensive,” and said it was unsuitable for all ages.

Is that the same USCCB that originally gave the pro-homosexual “Brokeback Mountain” an “L” rating?
seattlecatholic.com/m051219.html

By UCSSB criteria, a celebration of homosexuality is less offensive than “The Last Temptation of Christ”? Really?

 

[patrick457]

This movie sounds terrible. I’ve never watched it and now never will.

Our problem is not having a physical nature or humanity, it is concupiscence. Our Lord did not ever have that. His human nature is perfect. I think that’s a very serious theological problem and insult to Our Lord.

Something may have nice music, nice cinematography, etc, but if it’s blasphemous or heretical I don’t think we should watch it. It’s like not minding sin just because it’s presented in a nice way.

Actually, concupiscence

Though yeah, you bring up a good point here. One key theological problem with Kazantzakis’ portrait of Jesus is his depiction of Jesus’ divine and human natures clashing with each other. At first, it’s almost as if Jesus’ divine side / God is forcing, dragging Him to take the higher road, even though His human side doesn’t really want to and just wants to be a normal guy like everybody else. (He gets better though.) In other words, it’s almost as if there is little harmony between the two natures.

This is because, as mentioned earlier, Kazantzakis ties in the idea of Jesus’ two natures with a belief in the ‘flesh’ and the ‘spirit’ cohabiting in the inner psyche of every human being and fighting each other. (If you want to go Freudian, it’s the id vs. the superego).

And, I would slightly disagree with you about not watching the movie (or maybe even reading the book). It might be heavily problematic, but at the same time, I strongly think we need to have a knowledge - even if just a little - of what we’re dealing with; knowing is half the battle after all. Honestly, I thought that too many people who were against TLT did not even watch the movie or even read the novel. I’ll be willing to bet a portion of them do not even know who Nikos Kazantzakis actually was or even read another work of his, much less know his philosophy. They just know it’s bad, but they have no clear idea why it is bad or any real first-hand knowledge about it. They’re fighting against something that they don’t even know.

I liked this approach I’ve heard this one college (Calvin College, coincidentally the alma mater of screenwriter Paul Schrader) did. The college opened a seminar where they actually watched the film first and then opened a panel afterwards where they discussed the film’s pros and cons, enabling the audience to understand what exactly was wrong with it and at the same time, what artistic strengths it might have.

I actually thought that this was probably one of the best ways to handle difficult material such as this movie. They ‘engaged’ it, ‘evaluated’ it, and in turn ‘ennobled’ the audience by giving them some knowledge on this issue. This is IMHO much better than the other reactions like simply picketing in front of movie theaters or ramming a school bus into one.

Of course I’m not saying you or anyone else should watch the movie (or read the novel) if you’re going to critique it, just that it’s much beneficial to have some background knowledge.

 

[patrick457]

I’ve always wondered, was that because of the controversial ‘dream-sequence’ at the tail end of the movie where Jesus imagines himself leading a conjugal life with Mary Magdalene, or is there more to the offense given by the movie? In other words, if the dream sequence had been cut from the film would it have provoked the same level of outrage, or any level of outrage?

I just have to add this comment.

It is actually important for Kazantzakis’ story and premise that the ‘last temptation’ be just a dream. I know I keep dissing the movie just about every other post , but this is actually a, if not the, major failure IMHO of Scorsese’s film adaptation that I should point out: its decision to make ambiguous whether the ‘last temptation’ was real or fantasy.

Kazantzakis essentially sides with the idea that one is not morally responsible for one’s actions inside a dream or a hallucination. (As Carl Jung said: “On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive, who is not only the passive victim of his affects but also singularly incapable of moral judgment.”) That’s why he could say that Jesus did not sin, did not fall into temptation: because everything that happened (His marriage to Mary Magdalene, His marrying Mary and Martha after Mary M. is killed, His assuming Lazarus’ identity and living a ‘normal’ life in Bethany) happened within a dream - a dream sent by Satan.

That’s why the book ends in this way:

He tried with all his might to discover where he was, who he was and why he felt pain. He wanted to complete his cry, to shout LAMA SABACTHANI. … He attempted to move his lips but could not. He grew dizzy and was ready to faint. He seemed to be hurling downward and perishing.
But suddenly, while he was falling and perishing, someone down on the ground must have pitied him, for a reed was held out in front of him, and he felt a sponge soaked in vinegar rest against his lips and nostrils. He breathed in deeply the bitter smell, revived, swelled his breast, looked at the heavens and uttered a heart-rending cry: LAMA SABACTHANI!
Then he immediately inclined his head, exhausted.
He felt terrible pains in his hands, feet and heart. His sight cleared, he saw the crown of thorns, the blood, the cross. Two golden earrings and two rows of sharp, brilliantly white teeth flashed in the darkened sun. He heard a cool, mocking laugh, and rings and teeth vanished. Jesus remained hanging in the air, alone.
His head quivered. Suddenly he remembered where he was, who he was and why he felt pain. A wild, indomitable joy took possession of him. No, no, he was not a coward, a deserter, a traitor. No, he was nailed to the cross. He had stood his ground honorably to the very end; he had kept his word. The moment he cried ELI ELI and fainted, Temptation had captured him for a split second and led him astray. The joys, marriages and children were lies; the decrepit, degraded old men who shouted coward, deserter, traitor at him were lies. All—all were illusions sent by the Devil. His disciples were alive and thriving. They had gone over sea and land and were proclaiming the Good News. Everything had turned out as it should, glory be to God!

The film, however, removes or tones down any overt indication that the ‘last temptation’ was anything but real. In so doing, it actually introduces the disturbing possibility that the film’s Jesus did reject His mission and succumb to temptation unlike His book counterpart, because one can no longer invoke the dream card. This Jesus could be read as being morally culpable for His actions. As Steven Greydanus points out in his review:

(Incidentally, I’m giving the movie the benefit of the doubt by regarding this whole episode as a “dream sequence” and assuming that it all occurs in Jesus’ mind, while in fact his body never actually leaves the cross. However, it’s entirely possible to suppose that Jesus really is brought down from the cross, that all these events really do happen, and that when the aged Jesus cries out to God, God literally sends him back in time to the moment that he was taken down from the cross. In that case, all these objections become far more troubling.)