a movie made so powerful because you can see scorsese struggling to make it. i’ll write more about it tomorrow when its not one am. an incredible book too.
who can hate on a movie that has harvey keitel’s voice coming out of a lions mouth?
Back when this came out the only reason i went to see it was becouse here in Milwaukee it was being picketed. Masses of people tring to keep people out of the show house. Not only did I find the film fantastic but it really got me thinking about my feelings on my religon or non-religon.
It also was the first Criteion DVD i bought.
The film is not an interpretation of the New Testament. It is a film version of a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis.
It is a pretty lame film, all around. Good score, and David Bowie’s brief cameo as a rather bored Pontius Pilate are the film’s highlights.
The novel is far superior to the movie. I read this back in the early 1970s & it remains one of the five best novels
Yes, I know Scorcese had a struggle financially getting the movie made (it seems like the reaction against it started before it was even made), but that can’t excuse the dese-dem-and-dose Noo Yawkahs in the cast – it isn’t GOODFELLAS in togas – which constantly pulls one out of the movie. Scorcese really fell down on the casting; maybe he had to call on all his old cronies because they’d work cheap, but that doesn’t mean they were right for the roles.
As I recall the dialogue is often clunky, too.
The score is a beauty; happily it’s on CD (maybe OOP by now, though).
LAST TEMPTATION didn’t play any theaters remotely near me when it first came out, so I had to wait until the late 1990s when a nearby college ran it as part of an art series on censorship. I went witha co-worker who also had wanted to see it for some time. We were both disappointed. I turned to her afterwarda mnd asked, “Just how much slack are you supposed to cut a movie because its heart is in the right place?”
I do have the Criterion DVD, primarily bought to support their breavery in issuing it. I haven’t watched it.
I think it seems a bit stagey in places, and I have always found Keitel’s performance quite wooden. Some of the accents are awkward, but it’s still an amazing film. The final cruxifiction scenes are some of the most powerful and compelling in cinema, and I have always found that final shot where the film runs out really unsettling.
.
Eh…it’s great and historic and brilliant and all that…but it’s hard to watch it repeated times as the running time and pace tend to make me pass out. It’s a fantastic film however and the soundtrack is a standalone classic for your CD collections as well.
I loved all of the New York accents of ancient Judea. Plus, Barbara Hershey writhing naked on her bed was pretty hot.
Jeremy, I was thinking the same thing about the New York accents. Hilarious!
I figure if you’re going to do the movie in English you’re already straying from realism so Scorcese decided to just let the actors speak as they normally would and make a movie that was less focused on the time period and more on the significant events and how they might be relevant to people of today. It helped me see Jesus as less of a myth and more of a man…. once I got used to the accents, that is, which are a bit jarring for the first couple of scenes.
The accents are almost Brechtian. For me, I’ve always wondered why English accents are used for ancient historical costume dramas. It’s so arbitrary. Some of the movements of the actors too are almost more symbolic than realistic, this is probably Scorsese’s most artistic and most European film. And what could be more chilling than the little girl (Satan in disguise) saying, “One woman, many faces.”
I recommend listening to Scorcese’s audio commentray on the Criterion DVD, where he explains that the ‘street grammar’ that is used by Keitel etal. in the film would be a far more listenable (and realistic) option than the fake British accents we are so used to seeing in the Biblical epics (e.g. Ben-hur) the 50’-60’s. The Grammy-winning score is by one of my favorite musicians (and people) Peter Gabriel, who Scorcese liked/valued for his ability to blend ethereal melodies w/ ‘primal’ rhythmic patterns (Scorcese was impressed by PG’s 1982 ‘Birdy’ soundtrack.) Sure the film is slow-going (sorry there were no car crashes back then to keep us awake,) but yes, the story is based on Kanzanzakis’s excellent novel, and NOT on the Gospels. I loved the soundtrack first, as a 16 yr old, then bought the film on VHS soon thereafter. In 2003 I saw the CC DVD on a bookshelf at Borders and had to have it. One of my favorite, most watched films.
And, I also don’t understand why more ‘confessional-school’ Christians can’t ‘get with’ this film- it is quite deep, but many still don’t ‘get it’…
I think it’s a decent movie. They kind of over did the whole sexuality aspect of it, but the movie is still pretty good. LOOOVE the score! I’ve met a lot of Christians (being one myself) who have a SERIOUS issue with this movie. I’m like, “Guys, it’s a movie based on a novel! It’s not based on the BIBLE!” Some people blow my mind. I plan on adding it to my collection, but I HIGHLY advise borrowing it from somewhere first so you can see if it’s really your kind of movie.
I think it’s a decent movie. They kind of over did the whole sexuality aspect of it, but the movie is still pretty good. LOOOVE the score! I’ve met a lot of Christians (being one myself) who have a SERIOUS issue with this movie. I’m like, “Guys, it’s a movie based on a novel! It’s not based on the BIBLE!” Some people blow my mind. I plan on adding it to my collection, but I HIGHLY advise borrowing it from somewhere first so you can see if it’s really your kind of movie.
“I recommend listening to Scorcese’s audio commentray on the Criterion DVD, where he explains that the ‘street grammar’ that is used by Keitel etal. in the film would be a far more listenable (and realistic) option than the fake British accents we are so used to seeing in the Biblical epics (e.g. Ben-hur) the 50’-60’s.”
“The accents are almost Brechtian. For me, I’ve always wondered why English accents are used for ancient historical costume dramas. It’s so arbitrary.”
Contrast with the fucking Aramaic of Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Seriously, I do find Keitel’s portrayal pretty distancing in TEMPTATION, but you want to talk about real emotional alienation from the material?: a modern audience being forced to sit through a performance in a dead language. LAME!
>>“The accents are almost Brechtian. For me, I’ve always wondered why English accents are used for ancient historical costume dramas. It’s so arbitrary.”<,
Sorry, not Brechtian for me. For that kin of take on the story – and a successful one – try Passolini.
>>“Guys, it’s a movie based on a novel! It’s not based on the BIBLE!” <<
Well, that’s not going to change their opinion that it’s blasphemous.
Yet the idea that the Devil was still trying to temp Christ while he hung on the cross is one I’d think most Christians would embrace.
But even the novel is reviled.
-But even the novel is reviled.-
By people who haven’t read it, mostly.
“But even the novel is reviled.”
what is that?some kind of Christian comment?
i really wonder how many of you people here on this convo do know of the author of Last Temptation and the mastery of his writing technique….
very few i suppose….
I’ve posted some pictures taken of the 8.12.88 opening day protests against “Last Temptation of Christ” at the Ziegfeld Theatre in NYC.
http://www.wideanglecloseup.com/lasttemptation01.html
David Morgan
“Wide Angle/Closeup: Conversations With Filmmakers”
I loved it, and own a copy. The big flak was the claim that the film retold the story of Jesus and depicted him as being married with children, thus blaspheming the original story. The truth is that the film treated those events as Satan attempting to deceive Christ into coming down from the cross, thus negating his destiny.
SPOILER ALERT
At the film’s end, Christ is made aware of his folly and begs God to place him back on the cross, which is what happens. Events then take their destined course.
I see nothing blasphemous about this film. It is fiction and is not disrespectful of Christianity. A lot of people, as usual, got upset over what they thought the movie was about (without seeing it, of course) and made a big stink.
Yeah, I remember all that fuss. I was there at the Ziegfeld for the first screening on the first day, and it was very strange, there wasn’t anything going on in the street until after the first screening.
Amazing. I had no idea. I mean, I knew it was controversial, but these photos are GREAT and very eye-opening about the degree of opposition.
I reviewed it (positively) for the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner when it came out and as a result got a ton and a half of intensely anti-semitic hate mail — including numerous death threats.
My favorite was from Pat Boone.
I’d love to see Pat Boone’s letter. Yeah, I vaguely remember all the fuss when the movie came out but it was more in terms of bizarre antisemitic crap. How did they blame the film on the Jews again? Greek author of novel adapted by a Calvinist and directed by an Italian-American Catholic. They didn’t even cast a Jew as Christ (only as Judas).
The kind of outrage almost always comes from people who haven’t read the book/seen the film.
>>My favorite was from Pat Boone.<<
Wow.
>> The kind of outrage almost always comes from people who haven’t read the book/seen the film<<
God forbid they be informed about what they are protesting.
The book is one of the most beautiful I’ve ever read. The movie has its problems.
I hold both in very high regard, Harry. As you alluded to earlier, the book itself got the author excommunicated from the Greek Orthadox Church and was banned by the Catholic Church as well.
Dimitrius,
I’ve read Last Temptation, The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel, _Zorba the Greek, and Saint Francis. Will that satisfy your definition of being familiar with Kazantzakis? (along with Cavafy, he’s my favorite modern Greek writer).
I like that Spoiler Alert so much above, I’m adding my own.
SPOILER ALERT
He dies in the end.
(fade to white)
Jay Leighty
I thought it was a great film and a compassionate and thoughtful interpretation of the New Testament. I’ve never understood why it was widely bashed by many faithful who’d never seen it, while Passion of the Christ was widely praised by many before they’d seen it. I read that some Christian leaders have begun to appreciate the film over the years despite the initial backlash. I’m curious how believers and non-believers here feel about it? I only went back through about 10 previous posts pages. I’m assuming that if this has already been discussed, someone will post the old thread per usual.