The TV-movie Jesus starring Jeremy Sisto definitely gives him an emotional life, internal and otherwise; it begins with Jesus having bad dreams of people committing atrocities in his name, and later on there's a scene where he begs God to raise his (step-? adoptive?) father, Joseph, from the dead. It's interesting, actually, how the Jeremy Sisto movie touches on a number of the same points that the Scorsese movie did (a sex scene between Mary Magdalene and one of her clients, a romantic interest for Jesus in one of Lazarus' sisters, etc.), yet it did so in a way that was just palatable enough to the evangelical mainstream that it could be promoted in their magazines, etc.
Interestingly this film does kinda imply that Jesus sinned. Prior to his baptism John tells him that he needs to be baptised and repent for his sins, and Jesus acts as if it's fair enough. Actually I'm kind of on the fence on that one too, but certainly I remember many people being outraged by the programme because of that scene.
True, the original force of "son of God," even in reference to Jesus during his lifetime, was probably more or less "son of David" or "Messiah." Theologically, that in itself is interesting from a Christian perspective, because it suggests that God's Triune nature, his eternal Fatherhood and Sonship, can be seen in his relationship with his chosen ones on earth, anticipating his plan for the eternal Son. In any case, in view of the total message of Mark's Gospel, I think it's reasonable to suppose that Mark's first readers would have understood "Son of God" in a more elevated sense.
Yeah I did an essay way back about how the usage seems to move fairly rapidly from "son of God" to "Son of God" to "God, the Son".
: More pertinent is that Christ deals with demons with an authority that is astonishing.
That's true, and it's certainly to a greater extent than the disciples do, but nevertheless, the disciples do also cast out demons.
Interestingly, the film does show Jesus doing this, and it's one of his more authoritative/divine moments.
: I don't see any reason to think that Scorsese specifically means viewers to
: watch his Last Temptation in light of Kazantzakis's book.
Well nor do I.
: Certainly he expects many viewers to compare/contrast what he's done with what Kazantzakis did.
: But this is not essential to watching or critiquing Last Temptation.
Well again I agree. But this is different to the case that you and Ryan are making which is that the book has no value in interpreting the film.
: Ryan is right that the film stands alone.
I don't think any work of art, at least in the late 20th or 21st century truly stands alone. (The difference between the cultural impacts of the source works for LoB and LT may vary, but not to the extent that knowledge of one is a vital interpretative tool, whereas knowledge of the other is completely invalid).
: It may be interesting to note that Kazantzakis has done something that Shrader and Scorsese haven't done.
: But which is more relevant, that Kazantzakis did it, or that Shrader and Scorsese left it out?
It depends. It's a long book. Even a long movie isn't going to be able to catch most of it. So S&S focus on the bits that most interest them. That's different from them omitting something because they disagree with it.
In this case I think the idea is trimmed down, but still present. So it's OK to look at that in the context of the more expanded work.
Put it the other way around. If S&S had omitted this aspect because they disagreed with it then why don't they do more to make that clear in the film? Why not add something that makes it very clear that they disagree with Kantzakis in this case?