1988 in Film Review: The Last Temptation of Christ

“For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” – Hebrews 2:16-17 (NIV)

Who is Jesus of Nazareth?

Martin Scorsese’s 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ gets at the various ways this question was posed and answered in 1^st century Israel. In that way, it is a fascinating picture into the doubts and dreams, fascinations and fears of the people who were around Jesus in that day.

But we still ask that question today. How we answer it has drastic implications for our lives. In that way, the film is a deeply flawed, if not well-intentioned, work of art.

Before becoming, arguably, the greatest director of his time, Scorsese studied to become a priest. His entire career is peppered with spiritual references. Even in films that do not, on the surface, seem to wrestle with spiritual matters, notions of good and evil and the struggle of humanity seem to always carry with them forms of cinematic prayer.

Rewind – 2007 in Film: No Country for Old Men

Scorsese brings that same care and attention to detail in this film. Upon its release, it was shunned in religious circles for being outright blasphemous. Before even seeing the film, many groups called for it to be banned. This was successful in some cities, and Blockbuster Video even declined to carry the film in its stores in 1989. While critical reception was more accepting (Scorsese was nominated for Best Director at that year’s Academy Award ceremony), it was far from exultant. The film was caught up in its own whirlwind of 1^st Amendment rights and religious outcry.

In my estimation, one’s view of the film will largely come down to how one receives its very first moments. Title cards tell us that the film is an adaptation of the Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name. We are told that the film “is not based on the Gospels, but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.”

If one believes that this disclaimer gives the film free reign to explore the story of Christ in any fashion necessary, then the film is a masterpiece. If, like myself, one believes that you cannot separate out the story of Christ as portrayed in the Gospels in this fashion, then a range of beliefs come into view. On the far end, one might see the film as being utter blasphemy, devoid of any redeeming quality. While I do understand how my Christian brothers and sisters could come to this conclusion, I would not be in that camp. I think this is a work of ambition that misses its mark. It is a flawed work of art made by someone with great reverence for the story at hand.

The Angel of Death: Revisiting Martin Scorsese’s Bringing Out The Dead

When dealing with art, there is never one right reaction to a film. We are always going to view works of art through our own prism of experiences. The additional layer of religious importance surely increases the vigor with which viewers will hold opinions on this film. But even the Apostle Paul (one who looms large over the ending of this film) tells us in 1 Corinthians 10 that the freedom offered through Christ will give believers a range of options for how to live. He speaks of eating and drinking – a controversial topic for those of his day. I do not think I am stretching the truth to say that the same principle applies to engagement with art in our day.

If a person feels they cannot, in good conscience, engage with this film, I understand. However, as Paul writes about those who choose not to eat certain foods in his day, I don’t think those who choose not to engage with this film have the right to ridicule those who do. That, to me, seemed to be the issue with the reaction upon the film’s release. Many rejected it sight unseen and went the additional step of trying to make sure others could not see it.

I began this review with a Bible verse, one that surely gets at the crux of what Scorsese is attempting here. A key Christian belief is that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Elsewhere, the Bible says in Hebrews 4:15 that Christ was “tempted in every way, just as we are – yet he did not sin.”

Festival de Cannes Review: The Tree of Life (2011)

How is that possible? How can one experience the fullness of human frailty and suffering and yet remain perfect? As a human myself, I think it is more than acceptable to throw up one’s hands and say – “I don’t know.” And yet, I also believe it is true. That is part of having faith. 

This film has its focus on the human part. What would it be like for Christ to be tempted in every way as we have been? What would it be like for him to experience that tension? The film is fully committed to this work, and for that I do think it deserves commendation. Scorsese certainly commits to the work, but even more so I think does lead actor Willem Dafoe. This seems to have been an impossible task for an actor, and yet he gives a fascinating performance. His work was my favorite aspect of the film.

While I am on the topic of aspects of the film that succeed, I must also commend the score from Peter Gabriel. It weaves in and out of the film’s narrative with cues that are, at some points, very much in line with the setting and visuals we see on screen. At other key moments, however, the music stands outside the visuals and seems out of place. In these moments it helps underscore the narrative importance of what we see. 

While Christ was fully human, He remained fully God too. He was perfect in every way, which made Him the perfect sacrifice. Most of my issues with the film come from moments where, even if the story does not cross a line outright, it strays too close to portraying Christ as imperfect.

Filmotomy Podcast Episode 35: Celebrating 100 Years of Ingmar Bergman

One such example is an early scene where Jesus is shown with Mary Magdelene – one of the most important female figures in all of Scripture. She followed Christ and was the first to see Him after His resurrection. Her past was also one of sin, and the film gives a truthful depiction of this. Does it also erroneously depict Christ in sin? I would answer no, due to one shot in particular. We see other men in a room watching Magdelene lustfully while the camera shows Jesus closing his eyes. Still, the scene did not sit right with me. In attempting to portray the humanity of Christ and the tension he must have felt between that humanity and his deity, I think the film is simply too enamored with the humanity.

This is surely due mostly to the film’s script, written by the great Paul Schrader. Schrader wrote other Scorsese classics like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull (the script for Raging Bull was also co-written by Mardik Martin). In those films, the focus on human characters gave those scripts the opportunity to wrestle with human questions. They are two of the greatest scripts ever written. But, again, this film is not only dealing with humanity. It is also dealing with the nature of God. As such, while I applaud the film’s ambition, I cannot deny that it misses its mark.

Is the film blasphemous, though? Again, I can understand Christians who will answer that question in the affirmative. For myself, I find it to be no less blasphemous than pictures or figurines that depict Christ as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white man. We have always made works of art that portray Christ in a way meant to help us internalize His story. Yet, we must always keep in mind that humans are made in the image of God, not the other way around.

Religion in Film: Finding Truth in Comedy/The Life of Brian, 1979

The film is at its best when it is wrestling with the people around Jesus. I’ve always felt that we don’t consider enough the doubt that must have gone through the mind of those who were following Jesus. With the help of hindsight, we always read ourselves into the story of the Bible in the most flattering light possible. Of course, we would have followed Christ with no worries or thoughts of turning back! But the truth is surely more nuanced. 

Those who followed Christ were asked to give up everything. They were confused by many of the things He said. They worried and doubted. They fell asleep at the worst possible moments. They were human. They even, in the case of Peter, turned away when things got difficult. The powers of that day saw Jesus as a revolutionary force. Many of his followers hoped for a forceful revolution too. When Jesus did not lead an uprising against Rome, they would have doubted. These are all fascinating questions for us to consider today as we seek to answer the question with which I began this review.

Scenes depicting the disciples and their humanity are the best in the film. In this way, I think they can be seen as a first draft of sorts for the film I deem to be Scorsese’s greatest achievement – 2016’s Silence. It was after seeing The Last Temptation of Christ that an Episcopalian bishop gave Scorsese a copy of the Shusaku Endo novel that he would later adapt into the 2016 film. Scorsese has said himself that these films are connected and that he made Silence “to get to know Jesus better.” As a viewer, I felt that Silence was much more successful in that pursuit than Last Temptation.

Filmotomy’s Best Films of the Decade – Aaron Charles’ List

Silence gets at many of the same questions but does so using human characters to get at them. The Judas storyline of Last Temptation can be seen beautifully mirrored in the story of Kichijiro in Silence. The tension experienced by Jesus in Last Temptation has many mirrors in the story of Father Rodrigues in Silence. In fact, one of the greatest single shots in Silence shows Father Rodrigues looking into a pool of water and seeing the face of Christ. It is a picture of Rodrigues’ pride, which is a major theme in that film. But, again, Silence succeeds in those pursuits because it is dealing with human characters. While Last Temptation valiantly attempts to consider the human nature of Jesus, it loses sight of the fact that he remained the Son of God.

What to say of the film’s closing? I think the way in which one receives the opening of the film will decide how one receives the end. I found it to be a fascinating consideration of the fact that Jesus chose to forsake a normal life. The Bible tells us that He was tempted in the desert by Satan with power and achievement. But – here again – the way the film handles its material is ever so slightly off. The Bible says that Jesus depended on the Word of His Father in these moments, not His own will. As such, the film’s narrative can never quite live up to its grand ambition.

Who is Jesus of Nazareth? That is a question that all of us must answer for ourselves. This film makes a valiant attempt in helping us better understand how we answer that question, but it does not fully succeed in its pursuit.