I saw this film many years ago in a theatre in suburban Chicago. I went with a small group of friends and we decided on going to the late showing to avoid the possible protesters. We were right, there were two people there holding forlorn looking little signs warning me about something or other.
Upon seeing the film, I concluded that the protests were much ado about nothing, and that if anything Scorsese appreciated the buzz the protests generated since this film was not all that great on its own merits.
Peter Gabriel's score was tremendous. It conveyed an authentic feel as the scenes unfolded without the music being so intrusive as to become a distraction. As another commenter noted, the sound track may have been the best single feature of the film.
Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Christ was quite engaging as well. It was understanding and captured the essence of the struggle that the novelist, Nikos Kazantzakis, and Scorsese were trying to capture. Although it doesn't get a lot of attention from present-day theologians, the possibility of internal struggles between the human and divine sides of Jesus Christ was a topic debated vigorously, often bitterly, in the early existence of the Christian faith. Dafoe deftly captures the idea of an internal struggle -- sometimes confident, sometimes terrified, the human Jesus portrayed by Dafoe wrestles endlessly with who and what he is.
Finally, I think Scorsese's portrayals of the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness are quite creative and extremely well done. The idea that Satan appeared to Jesus in attractive forms makes considerably more logical sense than do the traditional portrayals of a hoofed and horned Satan skulking in the background whispering temptations to Jesus.
Otherwise, the film was not wildly impressive. Harvey Keitel could have lost the Bozo fright wig he wore to make his character more credible. Harry Dean Stanton as Saul, after conversion the Apostle Paul, gave a decent enough performance, but the words he was given to say in the script were generally ludicrous. The notion that Paul didn't need the living Jesus, but relied on the dead Christ, is an important piece of theological and church history, but it came off too satirical to make the point. As it was, the portrayal of Judas as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and as the most worthy of the disciples, was predictable, even trite. The other male disciples mainly wander through the film in search of a clue.
The controversial scenes, of course, were those which constituted the last temptation of Christ. Appearing as a beautiful child, Satan (with an English accent), offers to Jesus a chance to be a regular Joe. Marry Mary and then when she gets knocked off by the Romans, marry her sister. After all, "there's only one woman in the world." Therein lies a problem with this film. There is more than one woman in the world, but there was only one woman in this film, and her name was seductress. With the exception of the little English devil-girl, all the women in this film seemed to have getting laid by Jesus as their primary purpose in life. That portrayal of women is not one of Scorsese's finer moments.
Frankly, it seemed to me that if Christians were going to get upset by anything in this film relating to sexuality, it would have been the scene early in the film where Jesus sits by and watches and waits while Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, services her clientele. That scene caused one of the little group I was with to exit the theatre and wait for us in the car.
This film is not for the theological faint of heart. If you are open to the idea of a graphic depiction of one of the great controversies of ancient Christianity, then go for it. If it bothers you to think through the metaphysical and practical implications of a man being both human (frail, limited) and God (omnipotent, eternal) then this film is not for you.
Upon seeing the film, I concluded that the protests were much ado about nothing, and that if anything Scorsese appreciated the buzz the protests generated since this film was not all that great on its own merits.
Peter Gabriel's score was tremendous. It conveyed an authentic feel as the scenes unfolded without the music being so intrusive as to become a distraction. As another commenter noted, the sound track may have been the best single feature of the film.
Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Christ was quite engaging as well. It was understanding and captured the essence of the struggle that the novelist, Nikos Kazantzakis, and Scorsese were trying to capture. Although it doesn't get a lot of attention from present-day theologians, the possibility of internal struggles between the human and divine sides of Jesus Christ was a topic debated vigorously, often bitterly, in the early existence of the Christian faith. Dafoe deftly captures the idea of an internal struggle -- sometimes confident, sometimes terrified, the human Jesus portrayed by Dafoe wrestles endlessly with who and what he is.
Finally, I think Scorsese's portrayals of the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness are quite creative and extremely well done. The idea that Satan appeared to Jesus in attractive forms makes considerably more logical sense than do the traditional portrayals of a hoofed and horned Satan skulking in the background whispering temptations to Jesus.
Otherwise, the film was not wildly impressive. Harvey Keitel could have lost the Bozo fright wig he wore to make his character more credible. Harry Dean Stanton as Saul, after conversion the Apostle Paul, gave a decent enough performance, but the words he was given to say in the script were generally ludicrous. The notion that Paul didn't need the living Jesus, but relied on the dead Christ, is an important piece of theological and church history, but it came off too satirical to make the point. As it was, the portrayal of Judas as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and as the most worthy of the disciples, was predictable, even trite. The other male disciples mainly wander through the film in search of a clue.
The controversial scenes, of course, were those which constituted the last temptation of Christ. Appearing as a beautiful child, Satan (with an English accent), offers to Jesus a chance to be a regular Joe. Marry Mary and then when she gets knocked off by the Romans, marry her sister. After all, "there's only one woman in the world." Therein lies a problem with this film. There is more than one woman in the world, but there was only one woman in this film, and her name was seductress. With the exception of the little English devil-girl, all the women in this film seemed to have getting laid by Jesus as their primary purpose in life. That portrayal of women is not one of Scorsese's finer moments.
Frankly, it seemed to me that if Christians were going to get upset by anything in this film relating to sexuality, it would have been the scene early in the film where Jesus sits by and watches and waits while Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, services her clientele. That scene caused one of the little group I was with to exit the theatre and wait for us in the car.
This film is not for the theological faint of heart. If you are open to the idea of a graphic depiction of one of the great controversies of ancient Christianity, then go for it. If it bothers you to think through the metaphysical and practical implications of a man being both human (frail, limited) and God (omnipotent, eternal) then this film is not for you.
