MattPage wrote:
: : I regret to say I don't quite see this. His ultimate act of "courage" -- begging God to let him go back on the cross -- is something he does out of despair, when he's already on his deathbed and convinced that his life has been a waste; it is also done in response to a final burst of hectoring from Judas and the realization that the little girl has been lying to him all this time. It still feels like he's REACTING to a bunch of bad emotions at that point in the story, rather than summoning the will to do what's right no matter what the cost, etc.
:
: I'm surprised by this, given how familiar I am with your thoughts on this film. Do you not consider the final sequence to be only a temptation then (as in do you think that Jesus actually comes off the cross and then goes back in time?) . . .
Whether it's a dream or an alternate timeline, I do think that Jesus, at that point in the story, reacts as though he has actually EXPERIENCED the events that transpire as part of that final temptation. Judas comes along and says, "That girl is actually the devil!" He does not come along and say, "Everything here is just an illusion! Yes, including me! (And why the devil would include as part of the illusion a guy like me who SPOILS the illusion, I don't know! But he did, so here I am!)" So Jesus does not react as though the previous 40 years didn't happen; he reacts as though they were a mistake and he wants to undo them (kind of like how Superman begs his father to undo his de-Kryptonization in Superman II).
But it's been a few years since I last watched the film, and I might be misremembering the gist of that scene somewhat.
: Jesus has already acted with courage in getting himself arrested . . .
Yeah, I may be giving short shrift to earlier acts of courage within the movie. But I do think the note on which a movie ends is significant, and often more significant than any of the notes that comes before (though not necessarily more significant than the cumulative effect of all the notes that came before).
SDG wrote:
: Ryan is right that the film stands alone. 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?
Depends on the nature of the discussion, I'd say.
I think it is significant, for example, that Scorsese (and his writers, including but not limited to Schrader) practically reduce the nature of Christ's "battle with the flesh" to questions of sexuality (and domesticity, yes, but still with sexuality at the core of Jesus' domestic life). Kazantzakis' book is saturated with sexuality too (to the point where he describes a rainfall by saying that "the male waters poured out of the skies with a roar and the earth opened its thighs and giggled"), but he also makes a point of including food and wine in his list of hedonistic pleasures. The film, on the other hand, is basically just about the sex.
I am also reminded of the debates over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and the alleged anti-Semitism therein. One of the most important points that anybody made, I think, was in an essay by Mark Goodacre, who noted that the visions of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich, on which much of the film is based, depict Simon of Cyrene as a "pagan" who protests against the abuse of Jesus at the hands of the Jews, whereas Gibson clearly identifies Simon of Cyrene as a Jew who is briefly exposed to the anti-Semitism of the pagan Romans. You don't need to know Emmerich's visions in order to appreciate the way Gibson depicts the anti-Semitic Romans, but I think our appreciation of this depiction is deepened when we see how Gibson actually turns his source material's anti-Semitism on its head. It becomes less easy to depict Gibson himself as a raging anti-Semite, an unfortunate drunken rant notwithstanding.
1
The Last Temptation of Christ
Started by
Darryl A. Armstrong
, Jul 12 2003 03:56 PM
202 replies to this topic
#141
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 19 March 2010 - 11:40 AM
#142
Persona
-
- Member
- 7,352 posts
You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.
Posted 20 March 2010 - 09:30 PM
It is both heresy and blasphemy by admission of the makers in the commentaries. I guess that makes it "absolute." But it's a work of art, too, one which causes you to think and compare, and be on guard, and thank God for the way he made the events themselves come and save you.
My major stance hasn't really changed. I had an open mind -- I thought my stance was going to change, but it hasn't, not for the most part. There were parts that were hard to watch. That can sometimes be a mark of a good film. Here I think it is.
Outside of the quote SDG offered (EDIT: which now that I look back is actually about blasphemy and I'm getting the two confused), which is somewhat the same as on the commentary, I still can't find heresy by this definition. The Roman crosses Jesus is building in the beginning put him the closest to actual sin. But they don't necessarily put him there. He was a wood worker, it was a job. A dirty job, yes -- kind of like a Jew collecting taxes. Later he says that he is a liar and believes he has sinned, but again, this is more about reading between the lines than it is something that's really taken place. When did he lie? Can't find it. Did he struggle? Yes. In his mind and in his thought life concerning thinking he was God? Yes. Could that actually have made him feel like he was having delusions of grandeur, lying to himself? Yes.
He struggles to find God's calling, he gets baptized, he finds God's calling and defeats temptation in the desert, he decides that he is not insane, that he really is the Messiah, and sets about trying to find the right path the Messiah should take. He interrupts the religious events, turns the water into wine, performs miracles, raises Lazarus from the dead... He is caught, he is silent before Pilate, he is beaten, whipped, crucified, he wears a crown of thorns, he carries his own cross, he bleeds for all mankind and dies.
So is it only the language that is heresy (or the dream/alternate reality/last temptation, but I'll get to that in a second), the things that were said or not said, that they weren't word for word lined up with what you find in the Gospel? Because I don't think that's an accurate way to read this film. In reading TLTOC, I think you compare the spoken word to the words in the Bible and read between the lines. That's not heresy. That is a character study. And when your character claims to be fully human and fully God -- and is right about that claim -- the lines are going to be messy. They'll blur. The film blurs many of the known Gospel moments in a wonderful way, begging you to psychologically read between the lines, but all the major parts are still there.
I'm not saying, "Show it to the kids! It's the greatest Jesus film." No, I still think The Miracle Maker is the best Jesus film I've seen. But I am saying that from an artist to one who is willing to read into the psychological nature of the story, I still don't see what all the fuss is about.
These are boxes that need to be opened. Even in the Gospels it talks about Jesus not being able to be contained in all the library books in the world. This is simply an alternative way to look at how awesome his crucifixion really was.
The film, and the commentaries and all the dialogue here at the boards, really makes me want to read the Kanzantzakis novel. But I can barely keep up with the thread, probably much less a 506 page book.
I still disagree with this idea that a fictional work, a work that explicitly says "This is not historical or even a representation of our truth" can be heretical. Heresy itself seems to me like an outdated concept where Biblical proof is proven by interpretation, but heresy in fiction is just plain ridiculous.
I don't think this is for us to say. He's certainly respectful of the story in his comments on the commentary. And I know that the commentary was made quite a few years ago, but he admits his Roman Catholic background there.
Disagree. His life hasn't been a waste. He's got two women and a beautiful family that he obviously loves dearly. The reason he goes back to the cross is that he finally comes to terms with his destiny. He knows that the world needs a savior, and at this point they're going to get one whether it is real or not (Paul's strange words seem to suggest this). Yeah, he's tricked and he knows it, but he's not in despair at all. He can still choose to die like a man. But I think he does, at this point, choose to do "what's right no matter what the cost," to even more severe degree on him than before. Having the knowledge of a fully lived life, he becomes the Prodigal Son and takes the cost of the cross on him. The knowledge of the life fully lived makes his choice all the more greater.
It does occur to me that if Satan would have kept his mouth shut, even after Judas showed who he was, that it would have been easier for Jesus to die a normal man's death.
This thought occurred to me quite a few times during the dream/alternate timeline/last temptation (the latter term of which I prefer). My thought is that it is indeed a temptation, and as in all temptations from the dark side, there is also the Godly nature that interferes with it, the nature that wants you to fight off the temptation. In this particular case, the death of Magdalene, the appearance of Saul/Paul, and later the appearance of the disciples and Judas, and Judas's speech and the unveiling of the curtain as to who the little girl really is, are like the fight in the cosmos between God and the Devil, both sides tearing different points into the story to guide Jesus in the direction they want. Or something like that.
Disagree. The sexual and domestic temptations of Jesus were certainly prevalent, but so was Christ's struggle in the concept of his divinity and how that is played out, whether out of love vs. the axe, freedom of the Jews from Roman occupation, the dismantling of Rome and his admission to Pilate that his unseen Kingdom is greater than Imperial force, how to deal with Law, the religious keepers of the Law in the Temple, Roman idols and money changers there, etc. All of this showed his struggle in the flesh as to how to handle this role as the Messiah.
That is pretty much how I saw it this time.
My major stance hasn't really changed. I had an open mind -- I thought my stance was going to change, but it hasn't, not for the most part. There were parts that were hard to watch. That can sometimes be a mark of a good film. Here I think it is.
Ryan H., on 16 March 2010 - 08:11 PM, said:
Heresy suggests a distortion of some key, foundational theological precept, something that needs to be in place or else everything else falls apart.
Outside of the quote SDG offered (EDIT: which now that I look back is actually about blasphemy and I'm getting the two confused), which is somewhat the same as on the commentary, I still can't find heresy by this definition. The Roman crosses Jesus is building in the beginning put him the closest to actual sin. But they don't necessarily put him there. He was a wood worker, it was a job. A dirty job, yes -- kind of like a Jew collecting taxes. Later he says that he is a liar and believes he has sinned, but again, this is more about reading between the lines than it is something that's really taken place. When did he lie? Can't find it. Did he struggle? Yes. In his mind and in his thought life concerning thinking he was God? Yes. Could that actually have made him feel like he was having delusions of grandeur, lying to himself? Yes.
He struggles to find God's calling, he gets baptized, he finds God's calling and defeats temptation in the desert, he decides that he is not insane, that he really is the Messiah, and sets about trying to find the right path the Messiah should take. He interrupts the religious events, turns the water into wine, performs miracles, raises Lazarus from the dead... He is caught, he is silent before Pilate, he is beaten, whipped, crucified, he wears a crown of thorns, he carries his own cross, he bleeds for all mankind and dies.
So is it only the language that is heresy (or the dream/alternate reality/last temptation, but I'll get to that in a second), the things that were said or not said, that they weren't word for word lined up with what you find in the Gospel? Because I don't think that's an accurate way to read this film. In reading TLTOC, I think you compare the spoken word to the words in the Bible and read between the lines. That's not heresy. That is a character study. And when your character claims to be fully human and fully God -- and is right about that claim -- the lines are going to be messy. They'll blur. The film blurs many of the known Gospel moments in a wonderful way, begging you to psychologically read between the lines, but all the major parts are still there.
I'm not saying, "Show it to the kids! It's the greatest Jesus film." No, I still think The Miracle Maker is the best Jesus film I've seen. But I am saying that from an artist to one who is willing to read into the psychological nature of the story, I still don't see what all the fuss is about.
These are boxes that need to be opened. Even in the Gospels it talks about Jesus not being able to be contained in all the library books in the world. This is simply an alternative way to look at how awesome his crucifixion really was.
The film, and the commentaries and all the dialogue here at the boards, really makes me want to read the Kanzantzakis novel. But I can barely keep up with the thread, probably much less a 506 page book.
I still disagree with this idea that a fictional work, a work that explicitly says "This is not historical or even a representation of our truth" can be heretical. Heresy itself seems to me like an outdated concept where Biblical proof is proven by interpretation, but heresy in fiction is just plain ridiculous.
Ryan H., on 16 March 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:
but Scorsese isn't at all Christian.
Peter T Chattaway, on 19 March 2010 - 02:00 AM, said:
Whew, I've finally caught up on this thread.
MattPage wrote:
: And ultimately I do think he finds the courage he needs at all the right stages.
I regret to say I don't quite see this. His ultimate act of "courage" -- begging God to let him go back on the cross -- is something he does out of despair, when he's already on his deathbed and convinced that his life has been a waste; it is also done in response to a final burst of hectoring from Judas and the realization that the little girl has been lying to him all this time. It still feels like he's REACTING to a bunch of bad emotions at that point in the story, rather than summoning the will to do what's right no matter what the cost, etc.
MattPage wrote:
: And ultimately I do think he finds the courage he needs at all the right stages.
I regret to say I don't quite see this. His ultimate act of "courage" -- begging God to let him go back on the cross -- is something he does out of despair, when he's already on his deathbed and convinced that his life has been a waste; it is also done in response to a final burst of hectoring from Judas and the realization that the little girl has been lying to him all this time. It still feels like he's REACTING to a bunch of bad emotions at that point in the story, rather than summoning the will to do what's right no matter what the cost, etc.
Disagree. His life hasn't been a waste. He's got two women and a beautiful family that he obviously loves dearly. The reason he goes back to the cross is that he finally comes to terms with his destiny. He knows that the world needs a savior, and at this point they're going to get one whether it is real or not (Paul's strange words seem to suggest this). Yeah, he's tricked and he knows it, but he's not in despair at all. He can still choose to die like a man. But I think he does, at this point, choose to do "what's right no matter what the cost," to even more severe degree on him than before. Having the knowledge of a fully lived life, he becomes the Prodigal Son and takes the cost of the cross on him. The knowledge of the life fully lived makes his choice all the more greater.
It does occur to me that if Satan would have kept his mouth shut, even after Judas showed who he was, that it would have been easier for Jesus to die a normal man's death.
Peter T Chattaway, on 19 March 2010 - 11:40 AM, said:
(And why the devil would include as part of the illusion a guy like me who SPOILS the illusion, I don't know!)
This thought occurred to me quite a few times during the dream/alternate timeline/last temptation (the latter term of which I prefer). My thought is that it is indeed a temptation, and as in all temptations from the dark side, there is also the Godly nature that interferes with it, the nature that wants you to fight off the temptation. In this particular case, the death of Magdalene, the appearance of Saul/Paul, and later the appearance of the disciples and Judas, and Judas's speech and the unveiling of the curtain as to who the little girl really is, are like the fight in the cosmos between God and the Devil, both sides tearing different points into the story to guide Jesus in the direction they want. Or something like that.
Peter T Chattaway, on 19 March 2010 - 11:40 AM, said:
I think it is significant, for example, that Scorsese (and his writers, including but not limited to Schrader) practically reduce the nature of Christ's "battle with the flesh" to questions of sexuality (and domesticity, yes, but still with sexuality at the core of Jesus' domestic life). Kazantzakis' book is saturated with sexuality too (to the point where he describes a rainfall by saying that "the male waters poured out of the skies with a roar and the earth opened its thighs and giggled"), but he also makes a point of including food and wine in his list of hedonistic pleasures. The film, on the other hand, is basically just about the sex.
Disagree. The sexual and domestic temptations of Jesus were certainly prevalent, but so was Christ's struggle in the concept of his divinity and how that is played out, whether out of love vs. the axe, freedom of the Jews from Roman occupation, the dismantling of Rome and his admission to Pilate that his unseen Kingdom is greater than Imperial force, how to deal with Law, the religious keepers of the Law in the Temple, Roman idols and money changers there, etc. All of this showed his struggle in the flesh as to how to handle this role as the Messiah.
MattPage, on 19 March 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:
...but, I don't think the question of whether Jesus sinned or not is handled that competently in the film. I see various pieces of evidence on both sides of the question, but my feeling is that the film suggests Jesus is wrong to think he has sinned...
That is pretty much how I saw it this time.
Edited by Persona, 20 March 2010 - 10:02 PM.
#143
Persona
-
- Member
- 7,352 posts
You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.
Posted 20 March 2010 - 09:43 PM
Ryan H., on 20 March 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:
Persona, on 20 March 2010 - 09:30 PM, said:
No, I still think The Miracle Maker is the best Jesus film I've seen.
Don't forget -- I hate cartoons.
#144
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM
Persona wrote:
: But it's a work of art, too, one which causes you to think and compare, and be on guard, and thank God for the way he made the events themselves come and save you.
A work of art, yes. Makes me thankful for the way the events saved me, no. There is nothing in the film that leads me to think that Jesus has "saved" anyone. Especially if the film is suggesting that the so-called battle between flesh and spirit in Jesus' life is just an analogue for the same battle in all our lives.
Oh, sure, people like Judas SAY Jesus has to die in order to fulfill some sort of purpose along those lines, but that's just dialogue. The film never makes me FEEL that Jesus has saved anyone. I mean, what would he have saved us TO? In his own life, he exhibits no particular kind of holiness. And in his death, there is no resurrection.
So what, exactly, is the "salvation" on offer here?
: He was a wood worker, it was a job.
Well, yeah, but you do get to choose your clients. (See that conversation about the workers killed on the Death Star in Kevin Smith's Clerks.)
: So is it only the language that is heresy . . . the things that were said or not said, that they weren't word for word lined up with what you find in the Gospel?
I don't think anyone is claiming that a movie is "heresy" simply because the dialogue doesn't "line up word for word" with what is in the gospels.
: Even in the Gospels it talks about Jesus not being able to be contained in all the library books in the world.
Well, technically, John's gospel "supposes" that the world isn't big enough for all the books it would take to report what Jesus DID, which is almost certainly conscious hyperbole on John's part. But anyhoo.
: The film, and the commentaries and all the dialogue here at the boards, really makes me want to read the Kanzantzakis novel.
It's an interesting read, for sure, and it's got a lot of stuff that isn't in the film.
For example, it incorporates some of the earliest church traditions about Mary and Joseph, so that it is not merely Jesus who endures a battle between the flesh and the spirit, but Mary, too. (If memory serves, the Mary of the book mourns the fact that she never got to have sex with her husband.) This is a far cry from the film, where Mary seems as bewildered as anyone else as to why Jesus is acting so strange.
For another, when Jesus resurrects Lazarus, it turns out that Lazarus' body is still just as decomposed as it was BEFORE he was resurrected -- so when Paul kills Lazarus, he does not merely stab him (as he does in the movie); instead, if memory serves, Lazarus' body is twisted and turned like a wet rag or something. It's pretty weird.
For another, it is Paul who kills Mary Magdalene, not God. And Paul Schrader is on record to the effect that this is how his screenplay killed Mary Magdalene, too -- but apparently Scorsese felt it wouldn't be right to show a pregnant woman getting stabbed, so he re-wrote that bit.
If memory serves, of course; I haven't had time to double-check my books etc.
: Heresy itself seems to me like an outdated concept . . .
Eh? So the Christian faith can mean anything to anyone and it's all good? Nothing is ever beyond the pale?
: . . . where Biblical proof is proven by interpretation, but heresy in fiction is just plain ridiculous.
Um, but fiction, especially of this sort, IS interpretation. You want blurry lines? This is one of them.
: Disagree. His life hasn't been a waste. He's got two women and a beautiful family that he obviously loves dearly.
Well, sure. But compared to the destiny that Judas is slapping him in the face with ...
: The knowledge of the life fully lived makes his choice all the more greater.
Well, that may depend on whether you think he is denying himself the live fully lived or whether you think that he gets to have it both ways, both living the life fully lived AND dying on the cross.
: My thought is that it is indeed a temptation, and as in all temptations from the dark side, there is also the Godly nature that interferes with it, the nature that wants you to fight off the temptation.
Yes, this possibility had occurred to me too. It's rather Gnostic, in a way, this idea that someone can spend most of his life within an alternate reality, only to have God worming his way into the alternate reality to subvert it from within.
: In this particular case . . . the appearance of Saul/Paul . . . are like the fight in the cosmos between God and the Devil, both sides tearing different points into the story to guide Jesus in the direction they want. Or something like that.
Whoa. You really see the appearance of Paul in that light? You think GOD is speaking through Paul in that scene?
: But it's a work of art, too, one which causes you to think and compare, and be on guard, and thank God for the way he made the events themselves come and save you.
A work of art, yes. Makes me thankful for the way the events saved me, no. There is nothing in the film that leads me to think that Jesus has "saved" anyone. Especially if the film is suggesting that the so-called battle between flesh and spirit in Jesus' life is just an analogue for the same battle in all our lives.
Oh, sure, people like Judas SAY Jesus has to die in order to fulfill some sort of purpose along those lines, but that's just dialogue. The film never makes me FEEL that Jesus has saved anyone. I mean, what would he have saved us TO? In his own life, he exhibits no particular kind of holiness. And in his death, there is no resurrection.
So what, exactly, is the "salvation" on offer here?
: He was a wood worker, it was a job.
Well, yeah, but you do get to choose your clients. (See that conversation about the workers killed on the Death Star in Kevin Smith's Clerks.)
: So is it only the language that is heresy . . . the things that were said or not said, that they weren't word for word lined up with what you find in the Gospel?
I don't think anyone is claiming that a movie is "heresy" simply because the dialogue doesn't "line up word for word" with what is in the gospels.
: Even in the Gospels it talks about Jesus not being able to be contained in all the library books in the world.
Well, technically, John's gospel "supposes" that the world isn't big enough for all the books it would take to report what Jesus DID, which is almost certainly conscious hyperbole on John's part. But anyhoo.
: The film, and the commentaries and all the dialogue here at the boards, really makes me want to read the Kanzantzakis novel.
It's an interesting read, for sure, and it's got a lot of stuff that isn't in the film.
For example, it incorporates some of the earliest church traditions about Mary and Joseph, so that it is not merely Jesus who endures a battle between the flesh and the spirit, but Mary, too. (If memory serves, the Mary of the book mourns the fact that she never got to have sex with her husband.) This is a far cry from the film, where Mary seems as bewildered as anyone else as to why Jesus is acting so strange.
For another, when Jesus resurrects Lazarus, it turns out that Lazarus' body is still just as decomposed as it was BEFORE he was resurrected -- so when Paul kills Lazarus, he does not merely stab him (as he does in the movie); instead, if memory serves, Lazarus' body is twisted and turned like a wet rag or something. It's pretty weird.
For another, it is Paul who kills Mary Magdalene, not God. And Paul Schrader is on record to the effect that this is how his screenplay killed Mary Magdalene, too -- but apparently Scorsese felt it wouldn't be right to show a pregnant woman getting stabbed, so he re-wrote that bit.
If memory serves, of course; I haven't had time to double-check my books etc.
: Heresy itself seems to me like an outdated concept . . .
Eh? So the Christian faith can mean anything to anyone and it's all good? Nothing is ever beyond the pale?
: . . . where Biblical proof is proven by interpretation, but heresy in fiction is just plain ridiculous.
Um, but fiction, especially of this sort, IS interpretation. You want blurry lines? This is one of them.
: Disagree. His life hasn't been a waste. He's got two women and a beautiful family that he obviously loves dearly.
Well, sure. But compared to the destiny that Judas is slapping him in the face with ...
: The knowledge of the life fully lived makes his choice all the more greater.
Well, that may depend on whether you think he is denying himself the live fully lived or whether you think that he gets to have it both ways, both living the life fully lived AND dying on the cross.
: My thought is that it is indeed a temptation, and as in all temptations from the dark side, there is also the Godly nature that interferes with it, the nature that wants you to fight off the temptation.
Yes, this possibility had occurred to me too. It's rather Gnostic, in a way, this idea that someone can spend most of his life within an alternate reality, only to have God worming his way into the alternate reality to subvert it from within.
: In this particular case . . . the appearance of Saul/Paul . . . are like the fight in the cosmos between God and the Devil, both sides tearing different points into the story to guide Jesus in the direction they want. Or something like that.
Whoa. You really see the appearance of Paul in that light? You think GOD is speaking through Paul in that scene?
#145
Persona
-
- Member
- 7,352 posts
You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.
Posted 24 March 2010 - 04:20 PM
Peter T Chattaway, on 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:
Persona wrote:
: But it's a work of art, too, one which causes you to think and compare, and be on guard, and thank God for the way he made the events themselves come and save you.
A work of art, yes. Makes me thankful for the way the events saved me, no. There is nothing in the film that leads me to think that Jesus has "saved" anyone.
: But it's a work of art, too, one which causes you to think and compare, and be on guard, and thank God for the way he made the events themselves come and save you.
A work of art, yes. Makes me thankful for the way the events saved me, no. There is nothing in the film that leads me to think that Jesus has "saved" anyone.
"But it's a work of art, too, one which caused me to think and compare, and be on guard, and thank God for the way he made the events themselves come and save me."
In thinking and comparing reality as I understand it to the fictional representation in the film itself, it really did make me thankful for reality.
Peter T Chattaway, on 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:
: He was a wood worker, it was a job.
Well, yeah, but you do get to choose your clients. (See that conversation about the workers killed on the Death Star in Kevin Smith's Clerks.)
Well, yeah, but you do get to choose your clients. (See that conversation about the workers killed on the Death Star in Kevin Smith's Clerks.)
Peter T Chattaway, on 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:
It's an interesting read, for sure, and it's got a lot of stuff that isn't in the film... The Mary of the book mourns the fact that she never got to have sex with her husband.)
Peter T Chattaway, on 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:
: Heresy itself seems to me like an outdated concept . . .
Eh? So the Christian faith can mean anything to anyone and it's all good? Nothing is ever beyond the pale?
Eh? So the Christian faith can mean anything to anyone and it's all good? Nothing is ever beyond the pale?
Peter T Chattaway, on 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:
: The knowledge of the life fully lived makes his choice all the more greater.
Well, that may depend on whether you think he is denying himself the live fully lived or whether you think that he gets to have it both ways, both living the life fully lived AND dying on the cross.
Well, that may depend on whether you think he is denying himself the live fully lived or whether you think that he gets to have it both ways, both living the life fully lived AND dying on the cross.
Peter T Chattaway, on 24 March 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:
: In this particular case . . . the appearance of Saul/Paul . . . are like the fight in the cosmos between God and the Devil, both sides tearing different points into the story to guide Jesus in the direction they want. Or something like that.
Whoa. You really see the appearance of Paul in that light? You think GOD is speaking through Paul in that scene?
Whoa. You really see the appearance of Paul in that light? You think GOD is speaking through Paul in that scene?
Edited by Persona, 24 March 2010 - 04:25 PM.
#146
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 02 April 2010 - 07:20 PM
The House Next Door's latest dialogue between Ed Howard and Jason Bellamy is all about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. Two excerpts:
: Under occupation we can't know that he had this choice.
Actually, occupation or no, we don't know that Jesus was a "wood worker" of any sort, really. The historical Jesus, I mean; obviously the fictitious Jesus is a "wood worker" within the context of this film, and I don't think the film ever suggests that he didn't have a CHOICE when it came to working with the Romans. But historically, all we can say -- based on a single verse in Mark's gospel -- is that Jesus was a tekton, which may have signified his profession but also quite possibly signified where Jesus was on the social ladder of his day (i.e. near the bottom; it indicates that he was a non-farmer, a landless peasant, lower than other peasants, etc.).
So it's not quite as simple as saying "it was his job." The word "job" may, indeed, be somewhat misleading here.
: : The Mary of the book mourns the fact that she never got to have sex with her husband.
:
: This, I do not believe anyway.
But it's still a part of the novel, which the movie may or may not be ignoring. So if we're talking about the fiction and not about history, then it still has some relevance to the discussion even if you don't believe that this particular thing is an historical fact.
: My basic understanding of contemporary heresy is a lot of scholars sitting around writing books and pointing fingers.
Heh. Suffice it to say that my understanding is a little more ancient: orthodox bishops punching people (as St. Nicholas is said to have done to Arius) and heretics dying of sudden, seemingly miraculous afflictions (as Arius is said to have done shortly before Constantine would have forced the orthodox bishops to reinstate Arius). Nothing terribly musty there.
: I'm not a Christian relativist as mush as one who admires a narrative theology. Bullet points and lists of the fundamentals of the faith no longer hold ground in my book.
Not even when it comes to choosing a narrative? Is there no table of contents in your Bible?
: : Well, that may depend on whether you think he is denying himself the live fully lived or whether you think that he gets to have it both ways, both living the life fully lived AND dying on the cross.
:
: It is a temptation. The "last temptation".
That phrase might have meaning in the bigger scheme of things, but is that how Jesus EXPERIENCES the final half-hour of the movie?
: Yeah, I think at that point God is showing him, as he did with Jonah or Abraham or David or countless others before him, that his will is going to be accomplished.
Wow. And you think God is showing him that by saying it ultimately won't matter whether it really happened or not, only that people will THINK it happened?
EH: . . . When he does return to the cross at the finale, he has really earned the beatific, enraptured smile on his face as he triumphantly exclaims, "It is accomplished!" Gibson has stated that he wanted The Passion to remind people of how great Jesus' sacrifice was, but it's the final moments of Last Temptation that make me feel that most powerfully. All Gibson can offer as evidence of Jesus' sacrifice is the physical torment he endured; Scorsese and Kazantzakis make Jesus' sacrifice far more profound than mere corporeal suffering. They also make it more joyful, which is appropriate. If Jesus died to save the world, to cleanse the sins of humans, then why is Gibson's film so dour, so completely lacking in the holy joy that washes across Dafoe's face when he finally accepts his fate?
JB: . . . Because, truly, what is his sacrifice worth if he is without earthly desires? The more Jesus wants something that he could only have as man (and rarely does one hear about spirits knocking boots in the afterlife), the more honorable his sacrifice becomes. The traditional way to dramatize Jesus' temptation is to suggest that he's turning down material wealth and/or some kind of leadership role in Satan's army. But is that really more attractive than ascending to Heaven to judge the living and the dead while seated at the right hand of the Father? Kind of a lateral move, if you ask me. Scorsese's film ignores temptations of power and tries to consider what human life could offer that heavenly life couldn't. Sexual and romantic intimacy—those very human and sometimes sinful urges—would seem to be high up on that list, would they not? So, yes, what Jesus accomplishes in Gibson's film is little more than the Timex test: he takes a licking and keeps on ticking. In Scorsese's film, however, when Jesus says "It is accomplished," he has really considered his options, allowed himself to contemplate the life he could have had. Thus, he's really been tempted. His sacrifice is of more than just his body.
: Under occupation we can't know that he had this choice.
Actually, occupation or no, we don't know that Jesus was a "wood worker" of any sort, really. The historical Jesus, I mean; obviously the fictitious Jesus is a "wood worker" within the context of this film, and I don't think the film ever suggests that he didn't have a CHOICE when it came to working with the Romans. But historically, all we can say -- based on a single verse in Mark's gospel -- is that Jesus was a tekton, which may have signified his profession but also quite possibly signified where Jesus was on the social ladder of his day (i.e. near the bottom; it indicates that he was a non-farmer, a landless peasant, lower than other peasants, etc.).
So it's not quite as simple as saying "it was his job." The word "job" may, indeed, be somewhat misleading here.
: : The Mary of the book mourns the fact that she never got to have sex with her husband.
:
: This, I do not believe anyway.
But it's still a part of the novel, which the movie may or may not be ignoring. So if we're talking about the fiction and not about history, then it still has some relevance to the discussion even if you don't believe that this particular thing is an historical fact.
: My basic understanding of contemporary heresy is a lot of scholars sitting around writing books and pointing fingers.
Heh. Suffice it to say that my understanding is a little more ancient: orthodox bishops punching people (as St. Nicholas is said to have done to Arius) and heretics dying of sudden, seemingly miraculous afflictions (as Arius is said to have done shortly before Constantine would have forced the orthodox bishops to reinstate Arius). Nothing terribly musty there.
: I'm not a Christian relativist as mush as one who admires a narrative theology. Bullet points and lists of the fundamentals of the faith no longer hold ground in my book.
Not even when it comes to choosing a narrative? Is there no table of contents in your Bible?
: : Well, that may depend on whether you think he is denying himself the live fully lived or whether you think that he gets to have it both ways, both living the life fully lived AND dying on the cross.
:
: It is a temptation. The "last temptation".
That phrase might have meaning in the bigger scheme of things, but is that how Jesus EXPERIENCES the final half-hour of the movie?
: Yeah, I think at that point God is showing him, as he did with Jonah or Abraham or David or countless others before him, that his will is going to be accomplished.
Wow. And you think God is showing him that by saying it ultimately won't matter whether it really happened or not, only that people will THINK it happened?
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 02 April 2010 - 07:27 PM.
#147
Fred K
-
- Member
- 34 posts
Free Man
Posted 02 April 2010 - 08:38 PM
Peter T Chattaway, on 02 April 2010 - 07:20 PM, said:
:
: It is a temptation. The "last temptation".
That phrase might have meaning in the bigger scheme of things, but is that how Jesus EXPERIENCES the final half-hour of the movie?
: It is a temptation. The "last temptation".
That phrase might have meaning in the bigger scheme of things, but is that how Jesus EXPERIENCES the final half-hour of the movie?
I just returned from walking the way of the cross. Interestingly enough, it didn't draw on TLTOC or TPOTC but on the Gospel of Luke, poetry of Charles Peguy and Paul Claudel, reflections by Luigi Giussani, and traditional songs. It was a very human meditation which took a Marian perspective. I could hardly imagine a station where Jesus dreams of a bourgeoisie existence. I'm all for the dynamic of desire but Jesus was no teenager who could imagine nothing beyond "two cats in the yard" etc. Even the Biblical temptations at the beginning of Jesus's ministry were grander than this one. It occurs to me that the Old English Dream of the Rood has a certain value as a last temptation of a disciple - the disciple who kills everybody and saves Jesus... Now, THAT I would pay to see in the theater, or maybe a graphic novel!
#148
SDG
-
- Moderator
- 8,196 posts
Catholic deflector shield
Posted 02 April 2010 - 08:46 PM
Peter T Chattaway, on 02 April 2010 - 07:20 PM, said:
: : The Mary of the book mourns the fact that she never got to have sex with her husband.
:
: This, I do not believe anyway.
:
: This, I do not believe anyway.
#149
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 02 April 2010 - 08:58 PM
#150
M. Leary
-
- Member
- 5,259 posts
Member
Posted 02 April 2010 - 09:23 PM
Peter T Chattaway, on 02 April 2010 - 07:20 PM, said:
But historically, all we can say -- based on a single verse in Mark's gospel -- is that Jesus was a tekton, which may have signified his profession but also quite possibly signified where Jesus was on the social ladder of his day (i.e. near the bottom; it indicates that he was a non-farmer, a landless peasant, lower than other peasants, etc.).
My boss was a Jewish carpenter. Actually, he was a Mennonite. But, I digress.
The carpenter tradition is thick enough to be a keeper. "tekton" is generic enough to encompass a number of professions. But the Lord Jesus Christ spent most of his time on earth behind an awl and chisel running lap joints. References could ensue.
#151
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 02 April 2010 - 09:27 PM
Seriously, though, it's interesting how the film tweaks the novel in this regard. To quote that essay I wrote:
Kazantzakis also gives sex a significant role in the Jewish hope for their nation -- though here, sexual pleasure is subordinated to a sense of religious and political duty. The soul of Israel becomes a nightingale that calls to the single women of Israel and asks why they have not mated and borne children to ensure the survival of their nation. The novel also underscores the role that sexual intercourse might play in bringing about the Messiah. The abbot at the monastery visited by Jesus tells the other monks, "That is why the Scriptures call him the Son of man! Why do you think thousands of Israel's men and women have coupled, generation after generation? To rub their backsides and titillate their groins? No! All those thousands and thousands of kisses were needed to produce the Messiah!" Similarly, when Jesus attends the wedding in Cana, the possibility is raised that "the two bodies which would couple that night might engender the Messiah."
[footnote 31] Kazantzakis, p. 221 (ch. 15, the 3rd page out of 16). Ironically, however, the novel affirms that Jesus has already been born -- of a virgin. Contrast that with Scorsese's film, which gives one the impression that the doctrine of the virginal conception is one of the "lies" invented by Paul -- even though it never appears in any of Paul's writings.
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 02 April 2010 - 09:30 PM.
#152
M. Leary
-
- Member
- 5,259 posts
Member
Posted 02 April 2010 - 09:35 PM
Peter T Chattaway, on 02 April 2010 - 09:27 PM, said:
Seriously, though, it's interesting how the film tweaks the novel in this regard. To quote that essay I wrote:
[indent=1]Kazantzakis also gives sex a significant role in the Jewish hope for their nation -- though here, sexual pleasure is subordinated to a sense of religious and political duty.
[indent=1]Kazantzakis also gives sex a significant role in the Jewish hope for their nation -- though here, sexual pleasure is subordinated to a sense of religious and political duty.
I am not sure what you are responding to, but this is some darn profound stuff here, PTC. Bravo.
One issue I take with the Wendell Berry spin on Jesus-as-carpenter is the way it de-sexualizes his humanity, and subsumes it in a specific stereotype of male pragmatism. Jesus wasn't a gardener, or a trim carpenter. He was a sacrifice. A self-consciously Isaianic sacrifice.
Edited by M. Leary, 02 April 2010 - 09:41 PM.
#153
J.A.A. Purves
-
- Member
- 2,341 posts
Chestertonian, Rabelaisian, Christian
Posted 02 April 2010 - 11:12 PM
Whoa, I didn’t really notice until now but pages 1-3 ½ is the old discussion (2003-2009) that I appreciated back when I read it.
While pages 3 ½ - 9 on this thread are all March 2010.
I've got some catching up reading to do before I dare say anything.
While pages 3 ½ - 9 on this thread are all March 2010.
I've got some catching up reading to do before I dare say anything.
#154
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 03 April 2010 - 01:31 AM
M. Leary wrote:
: I am not sure what you are responding to, but this is some darn profound stuff here, PTC. Bravo.
Thanks. I was just following on the discussion of Mary's ever-virginity, which is actually built into Kazantzakis's novel despite all of the other skeptical and/or subversive elements there.
I can't recall whether Kazantzakis spells this out explicitly, but presumably his Jesus does not believe he is divine merely because he hears voices, but because there is evidence of his supernatural origins within his own family, via the manner in which he was conceived and born (and via the manner in which his putative father, Joseph, was immobilized by some supernatural event or other; sorry, I'm hazy on the details).
Scorsese's Jesus, on the other hand, seems to have nothing to go on except for the fact that he's hearing voices. (Yes, there are miracles later on, after he accepts some aspects of his divine mission... but not at first, at least not that I can recall.)
Thus, as many people have noted, Scorsese presents a more "human" Jesus, etc. etc. etc. -- and one whose objections to Paul's teachings dovetail nicely with the more liberal theologies out there -- but Kazantzakis's novel was a fair bit more complex than that.
And for all the "sexism" that many people have noted in both the novel and the film, I do find it interesting that Kazantzakis explores Mary's "human" side (i.e. her reluctance to place her spiritual calling above the desires of her flesh) just as he does Jesus's.
: I am not sure what you are responding to, but this is some darn profound stuff here, PTC. Bravo.
Thanks. I was just following on the discussion of Mary's ever-virginity, which is actually built into Kazantzakis's novel despite all of the other skeptical and/or subversive elements there.
I can't recall whether Kazantzakis spells this out explicitly, but presumably his Jesus does not believe he is divine merely because he hears voices, but because there is evidence of his supernatural origins within his own family, via the manner in which he was conceived and born (and via the manner in which his putative father, Joseph, was immobilized by some supernatural event or other; sorry, I'm hazy on the details).
Scorsese's Jesus, on the other hand, seems to have nothing to go on except for the fact that he's hearing voices. (Yes, there are miracles later on, after he accepts some aspects of his divine mission... but not at first, at least not that I can recall.)
Thus, as many people have noted, Scorsese presents a more "human" Jesus, etc. etc. etc. -- and one whose objections to Paul's teachings dovetail nicely with the more liberal theologies out there -- but Kazantzakis's novel was a fair bit more complex than that.
And for all the "sexism" that many people have noted in both the novel and the film, I do find it interesting that Kazantzakis explores Mary's "human" side (i.e. her reluctance to place her spiritual calling above the desires of her flesh) just as he does Jesus's.
#155
J.A.A. Purves
-
- Member
- 2,341 posts
Chestertonian, Rabelaisian, Christian
Posted 12 May 2010 - 05:20 PM
It took a while, but I finally digested this discussion (very good discussion btw) and then watched The Last Temptation for the first time and ... I was disappointed and unimpressed.
My Notes -
1 - Lack of Reverence
If there's one thing this film gets wrong more than anything else, it takes away any reverence for Jesus. He's just another man who has sins, is a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward who says things like "I am afraid of everything. I don't ever tell the truth" and "Lucifer's inside me."
This is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible or of Christianity. It is a fictional Christ based on the ideas of heretics who were kicked out of the early church. Persona has objected to calling art "heresy." Let's just say that, boiled down, art can be used to portray ideas, even heretical ones. Denying the deity of Christ is not Christianity. Denying the immediate deity of a Jesus who had to get rid of his sins, doubts, fears, and fallen human nature in order to grow slowly into his deity, yadda, yadda, yadda ... is not Christianity. For me personally, the biggest thing this all does is destroy any reverence for Christ as Lord, Creator, King, Savior and God. Calling something heresy does not necessarily equal an exhibition in pride or arrogance. (See Germanus.)
2 - Encouraging Theological Error
Art or not, claims to be fictional or not, stories affect people in powerful ways. Stories promote certain ideas in very convincing and visual ways. Dan Brown says his books are only fictional. Dan Brown also helps promote the acceptance of historical and theological bilge in the minds of people who are exposed to his stories. A fictional story about a Jesus who sinned, was weak (human), and who was not God like he claimed to be in the gospels - is, simply put, a fictional story that promotes error about Christ.
Darrel Mason said he personally, like Kazantzakis, resonates much more with the human Christ than the divine one. Well, so does every ... human being. But this isn't an excuse to select only those parts of Jesus that you like. I seem to remember Ricky Bobby resonating with the baby Christ best. Funny? Yes. Theologically problematic? Yes. To be taken seriously like this film intends to be taken? No.
3 - I Won't Deny That This Film May Have Been Useful for Some
Another point of orthodox Christianity is that the Spirit can use anything He pleases to help nonbelievers to start thinking about him. This film could be used by God to eventually turn nonbelievers into believers. So with The Da Vinci Code. So with Mormonism. So with the "Piss Christ." Who knows what thoughts or discussions the subject of Christ will stir once brought up?
4 - The Film Is Not Something to Get Offended At
Last Temptation doesn't make me angry. I wasn't offended when I saw it. I don't particularly care that some nonbelievers happened to make a theologically poor, albeit fictional, portrayal of the life of Christ. It just doesn't work for me on the same level that a expressly fictional story about a homosexual David and Jonathan wouldn't work for me. It's just in poor taste. Christians shouldn't have protested or been angry about this film (in fact, most of the anger seemed to be directed at the one and one half second Christ-in-bed-with-a-woman dream sequence). But Christians should be bothered by the script writer. When he throws lots of tiny little things in the script about Jesus calling himself a sinner, Lazarus' dim view of life in heaven, Gnostic overtones about the difference between the material and spiritual or the Apostle Paul inventing the virgin birth ... he is slowly putting together and hinting at a specific idea contrary to the elementary truths of Christianity.
5 - Misc.
Saying the film has worth by contrasting it's fiction with the reality of the true Jesus is ... well, about as useless as saying a film that portrayed Abraham Lincoln as an evil tyrant had worth because we could compare it with the real Abraham Lincoln.
Playing with the idea that the Apostle Paul didn't give a damn whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is playing dangerously. A brief glance at I Corinthians 15 would give you an idea of what Paul would have thought of this film.
I don't believe in this Christ, so what should the story help me? I don't believe a weak, passive, Jesus was always questioning and unsure of himself, his motives and his message. So why would I like a fictional story about a Jesus who was always questioning and unsure of himself, his motives and his message?
... and they criticized The Passion for short-shifting the Resurrection.
My favorite thing about this whole film is Robert De Niro turning down the part because no one would believe him while wearing a bed sheet.
Conclusion
The Last Temptation probably does more harm than good. Yes, it's fiction. But fictional stories have goals, affect how people think, and are used as a form of expression. In particular, a fictional story about Jesus is used as a means of expression ... of particular ideas. Many of the ideas expressed by this exercise in the art of film are ideas expressly contrary to basic Christianity and ideas that distort the real Jesus, who yes, really lived, really died, and really rose again.
Should Christians be offended by this film? No. Should Christians discourage the watching of this film? Probably yes.
My Notes -
1 - Lack of Reverence
If there's one thing this film gets wrong more than anything else, it takes away any reverence for Jesus. He's just another man who has sins, is a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward who says things like "I am afraid of everything. I don't ever tell the truth" and "Lucifer's inside me."
This is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible or of Christianity. It is a fictional Christ based on the ideas of heretics who were kicked out of the early church. Persona has objected to calling art "heresy." Let's just say that, boiled down, art can be used to portray ideas, even heretical ones. Denying the deity of Christ is not Christianity. Denying the immediate deity of a Jesus who had to get rid of his sins, doubts, fears, and fallen human nature in order to grow slowly into his deity, yadda, yadda, yadda ... is not Christianity. For me personally, the biggest thing this all does is destroy any reverence for Christ as Lord, Creator, King, Savior and God. Calling something heresy does not necessarily equal an exhibition in pride or arrogance. (See Germanus.)
2 - Encouraging Theological Error
Art or not, claims to be fictional or not, stories affect people in powerful ways. Stories promote certain ideas in very convincing and visual ways. Dan Brown says his books are only fictional. Dan Brown also helps promote the acceptance of historical and theological bilge in the minds of people who are exposed to his stories. A fictional story about a Jesus who sinned, was weak (human), and who was not God like he claimed to be in the gospels - is, simply put, a fictional story that promotes error about Christ.
Darrel Mason said he personally, like Kazantzakis, resonates much more with the human Christ than the divine one. Well, so does every ... human being. But this isn't an excuse to select only those parts of Jesus that you like. I seem to remember Ricky Bobby resonating with the baby Christ best. Funny? Yes. Theologically problematic? Yes. To be taken seriously like this film intends to be taken? No.
3 - I Won't Deny That This Film May Have Been Useful for Some
Another point of orthodox Christianity is that the Spirit can use anything He pleases to help nonbelievers to start thinking about him. This film could be used by God to eventually turn nonbelievers into believers. So with The Da Vinci Code. So with Mormonism. So with the "Piss Christ." Who knows what thoughts or discussions the subject of Christ will stir once brought up?
4 - The Film Is Not Something to Get Offended At
Last Temptation doesn't make me angry. I wasn't offended when I saw it. I don't particularly care that some nonbelievers happened to make a theologically poor, albeit fictional, portrayal of the life of Christ. It just doesn't work for me on the same level that a expressly fictional story about a homosexual David and Jonathan wouldn't work for me. It's just in poor taste. Christians shouldn't have protested or been angry about this film (in fact, most of the anger seemed to be directed at the one and one half second Christ-in-bed-with-a-woman dream sequence). But Christians should be bothered by the script writer. When he throws lots of tiny little things in the script about Jesus calling himself a sinner, Lazarus' dim view of life in heaven, Gnostic overtones about the difference between the material and spiritual or the Apostle Paul inventing the virgin birth ... he is slowly putting together and hinting at a specific idea contrary to the elementary truths of Christianity.
5 - Misc.
Saying the film has worth by contrasting it's fiction with the reality of the true Jesus is ... well, about as useless as saying a film that portrayed Abraham Lincoln as an evil tyrant had worth because we could compare it with the real Abraham Lincoln.
Playing with the idea that the Apostle Paul didn't give a damn whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is playing dangerously. A brief glance at I Corinthians 15 would give you an idea of what Paul would have thought of this film.
I don't believe in this Christ, so what should the story help me? I don't believe a weak, passive, Jesus was always questioning and unsure of himself, his motives and his message. So why would I like a fictional story about a Jesus who was always questioning and unsure of himself, his motives and his message?
... and they criticized The Passion for short-shifting the Resurrection.
My favorite thing about this whole film is Robert De Niro turning down the part because no one would believe him while wearing a bed sheet.
Conclusion
The Last Temptation probably does more harm than good. Yes, it's fiction. But fictional stories have goals, affect how people think, and are used as a form of expression. In particular, a fictional story about Jesus is used as a means of expression ... of particular ideas. Many of the ideas expressed by this exercise in the art of film are ideas expressly contrary to basic Christianity and ideas that distort the real Jesus, who yes, really lived, really died, and really rose again.
Should Christians be offended by this film? No. Should Christians discourage the watching of this film? Probably yes.
#156
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 16 May 2010 - 01:38 PM
Persiflage wrote:
: Saying the film has worth by contrasting it's fiction with the reality of the true Jesus is ... well, about as useless as saying a film that portrayed Abraham Lincoln as an evil tryant had worth because we could compare it with the real Abraham Lincoln.
That's a fascinating point of comparison, since the guy who directed this film went on to direct Gangs of New York, as well.
: Saying the film has worth by contrasting it's fiction with the reality of the true Jesus is ... well, about as useless as saying a film that portrayed Abraham Lincoln as an evil tryant had worth because we could compare it with the real Abraham Lincoln.
That's a fascinating point of comparison, since the guy who directed this film went on to direct Gangs of New York, as well.
#157
J.A.A. Purves
-
- Member
- 2,341 posts
Chestertonian, Rabelaisian, Christian
Posted 09 July 2010 - 05:13 PM
It's funny, but the discussion at the Manalive thread reminded me of this thread again.
It is one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity that morality comes from God. Thus, trying to defend the idea we don't need God in order to have morality; or that without God, we would still have right and wrong just fine, seems to be engaging oneself in denying one of the fundamental truths of Christianity.
While the point of the story Manalive is not that morality comes from God (it's more that the moral laws against murder, against theft, and against adultery are all set by God partly because they allow for the maximum love of life, maxiumum freedom of actually enjoying one's own property, and they make the ability to love possible), the point of The Last Temptation of Christ IS asking the viewer what things would have been like if Jesus was just man and not God.
The diety of Christ is one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity. Thus, trying to defend the idea that Christ didn't need his diety to be our Savior; or that without being God, Christ would still be a sympathetic, identifiable Savior that we could still learn good things from, seems to be rather disingenuously engaging in the act of denying one of the fundamental truths of Christianity.
Having doubts and asking questions (even if they are questions frowned upon in church) is one thing - a good and healthy thing. But denying the fundamental doctrines of Christianity is another thing altogether. I'll have to keep thinking about this. But it seems that the reason I deny the proposition that we don't need God to have morality is somehow the same reason that I'd deny that we wouldn't need Christ to be God in order to learn from his teachings.
It is one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity that morality comes from God. Thus, trying to defend the idea we don't need God in order to have morality; or that without God, we would still have right and wrong just fine, seems to be engaging oneself in denying one of the fundamental truths of Christianity.
While the point of the story Manalive is not that morality comes from God (it's more that the moral laws against murder, against theft, and against adultery are all set by God partly because they allow for the maximum love of life, maxiumum freedom of actually enjoying one's own property, and they make the ability to love possible), the point of The Last Temptation of Christ IS asking the viewer what things would have been like if Jesus was just man and not God.
The diety of Christ is one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity. Thus, trying to defend the idea that Christ didn't need his diety to be our Savior; or that without being God, Christ would still be a sympathetic, identifiable Savior that we could still learn good things from, seems to be rather disingenuously engaging in the act of denying one of the fundamental truths of Christianity.
Having doubts and asking questions (even if they are questions frowned upon in church) is one thing - a good and healthy thing. But denying the fundamental doctrines of Christianity is another thing altogether. I'll have to keep thinking about this. But it seems that the reason I deny the proposition that we don't need God to have morality is somehow the same reason that I'd deny that we wouldn't need Christ to be God in order to learn from his teachings.
#158
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 27,090 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 10 July 2010 - 01:32 AM
Persiflage wrote:
: . . . the point of The Last Temptation of Christ IS asking the viewer what things would have been like if Jesus was just man and not God.
Sorry, but as much as I disagree with the general thrust of The Last Temptation, I have to say that that sounds to me like a misrepresentation of what Kazantzakis and Scorsese were up to. The quote that begins both the book and the film says that Kazantzakis saw in Jesus a reflection of his own struggle between flesh and spirit, which in their minds seems to translate into a struggle between humanity and divinity. Yes, I think it is problematic to say that flesh is human and spirit is divine, but that's kind of beside the point (and in any case, it does kind of echo that bit in the New Testament where Paul contrasts "the works of the flesh" with "the fruits of the spirit"); the point here is that the duality of Jesus, however poorly conceived it may be, is absolutely central to what this story is about.
: . . . the point of The Last Temptation of Christ IS asking the viewer what things would have been like if Jesus was just man and not God.
Sorry, but as much as I disagree with the general thrust of The Last Temptation, I have to say that that sounds to me like a misrepresentation of what Kazantzakis and Scorsese were up to. The quote that begins both the book and the film says that Kazantzakis saw in Jesus a reflection of his own struggle between flesh and spirit, which in their minds seems to translate into a struggle between humanity and divinity. Yes, I think it is problematic to say that flesh is human and spirit is divine, but that's kind of beside the point (and in any case, it does kind of echo that bit in the New Testament where Paul contrasts "the works of the flesh" with "the fruits of the spirit"); the point here is that the duality of Jesus, however poorly conceived it may be, is absolutely central to what this story is about.
#160
J.A.A. Purves
-
- Member
- 2,341 posts
Chestertonian, Rabelaisian, Christian
Posted 19 July 2010 - 05:36 PM
Peter T Chattaway, on 10 July 2010 - 01:32 AM, said:
... the point here is that the duality of Jesus, however poorly conceived it may be, is absolutely central to what this story is about.
Quote
I don't know what God wants from me. All my life I've wanted to hear God's voice. I've dedicated my life to him. Sometimes ... I think I feel him, but I'm never really sure ... You think it's a blessing to know what God wants? I'll tell you what he wants. He wants to push me over! Can't he see what's inside of me? All my sins ... I'm a liar. A hypocrite. I'm afraid of everything. I don't tell the truth. I don't have the courage. When I see a woman, I blush and look away. I want her, but I don't take her, for God, and that makes me proud. Then my pride ruins Magdalene. I don't steal, I don't fight ... I don't kill. Not because I don't want to, but because I'm afraid. I want to rebel against you, against everything ... against God, but ... l'm afraid. You want to know who my mother and father are? You want to know who my God is? Fear. You look inside me and that's all you'll find.
On another more enjoyable note, I'm currently casually reading the works of William F. Buckley, Jr., and a week or so ago I discovered that Buckley flatly refused to watch this film. It was for one main reason, a political one - but, when you think about it, a theological one as well.
Buckley -
Quote
The episode comes to mind in the current tumult involving The Last Temptation of Christ. Like most Americans I am a Christian, and therefore believe that Jesus Christ was Incarnation - i.e., that he was at once man and God. For God, one exercises special reverence. We do not tell dirty jokes in church. And it is something of a dirty artistic joke to take such liberties as Martin Scorsese has taken in this movie. It tells us something about current perspectives that you could never get away with showing a fictional treatment of the life of Martin Luther King imputing to him the impurities, mutatis mutandis, imputed by Scorsese to Christ.
Now, it is entirely within the biblical tradition to understand that that part of Christ that was human flesh and blood suffered greatly during his ordeal on earth. Christ, the night before he died asked God the Father whether that cup might not be taken from him. That is, in contemplation of the horrors that lay ahead, he hoped finally, desperately, to be spared them. That illumination of the human side of the duality of Christ is inspiring to Christians, reminding them of the true suffering of their Savior.
But Scorsese helps himself to the remaking of Christ. He gives us a figure who, among other things, serves as a carpenter engaged in the making of crosses on which other dissenters from Roman law were crucified: the equivalent, two thousand years ago, of being the manufacturer of the gas pellets used to kill the Jews of Nazi Germany. On the cross, he gives us a Christ whose mind is distracted by lechery, fancying himself not the celibate of history, but the swinger in the arms of the prostitute Mary Magdalene. The blend of the ultimate atruist seeking in primal agony the fantasy of hot sex is something far from what a Senator Bilbo would have dared to do at the expense of Stepin Fetchit, bad-mouthing blacks in a smoker in the thirties, let alone on huge Hollywood screens with hawkers outside shilling for big juicy audiences to get a shot of impiety while protecting Artistic License ...
I shan't see Mr. Scorsese's film, any more than I would go see a movie featuring George Washington as a drug trafficker or St. Francis of Assisi as a slave trader. Mr. Scorsese has given the Christian community a little opportunity to show their loyalty to our God.
Now, it is entirely within the biblical tradition to understand that that part of Christ that was human flesh and blood suffered greatly during his ordeal on earth. Christ, the night before he died asked God the Father whether that cup might not be taken from him. That is, in contemplation of the horrors that lay ahead, he hoped finally, desperately, to be spared them. That illumination of the human side of the duality of Christ is inspiring to Christians, reminding them of the true suffering of their Savior.
But Scorsese helps himself to the remaking of Christ. He gives us a figure who, among other things, serves as a carpenter engaged in the making of crosses on which other dissenters from Roman law were crucified: the equivalent, two thousand years ago, of being the manufacturer of the gas pellets used to kill the Jews of Nazi Germany. On the cross, he gives us a Christ whose mind is distracted by lechery, fancying himself not the celibate of history, but the swinger in the arms of the prostitute Mary Magdalene. The blend of the ultimate atruist seeking in primal agony the fantasy of hot sex is something far from what a Senator Bilbo would have dared to do at the expense of Stepin Fetchit, bad-mouthing blacks in a smoker in the thirties, let alone on huge Hollywood screens with hawkers outside shilling for big juicy audiences to get a shot of impiety while protecting Artistic License ...
I shan't see Mr. Scorsese's film, any more than I would go see a movie featuring George Washington as a drug trafficker or St. Francis of Assisi as a slave trader. Mr. Scorsese has given the Christian community a little opportunity to show their loyalty to our God.
So, Buckley's primary objection to the film was upon discovering that Jesus the carpenter here was Jesus the manufacturer of crosses ... or, in other words, Jesus the Quisling. Enough of a reason for him to refuse watching the film as an act (or abstention) of loyalty.
Edited by J.A.A. Purves, 20 February 2013 - 01:33 AM.
