USA, 1988
for Mel
I
"The dual substance of Christ - the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain to God or, more exactly, to return to God and identify himself with
him - has always been a deep and inscrutable mystery to me. This nostalgia for God, at once so mysterious and so real, has opened in me large wounds, and also large flowing springs. My principle anguish and the source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh. Within me are the dark immemorial forces of the Evil One, human and pre-human; within me too are the luminous forces, human and pre-human, of God - and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met."
- Nikos Kazantzakis
Critics and supporters alike describe "The Last Temptation of Christ" as a mediation on Christ's humanity. The film's detractors claim it focuses too exclusively on Christ's humanity, and even accuse the film of blasphemy. The film's advocates argue that such an exploration Christ's humanity is long overdue, and balances the fascination with his Divinity that has overwhelmed art and theology for centuries.
Both views fail to understand the film's true scope, which balances Christ's duality, rather than emphasize one side of it. If "The Last Temptation of Christ" gave us Christ simply as a man, it would not be so controversial. Nor would it be so revolutionary. This is a film about Jesus' dual nature. If you want to see "Christ as man," watch Pasolini's "Gospel According to Matthew." If you want to see "Christ as God," watch Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth." Contrary to conventional wisdom, "The Last Temptation of Christ" tries to balance Christ's humanity with Christ's divinity, which is why it's so offensive to so many people.
I usually prefer not to discuss controversy in film reviews - I believe that great films will outlive their controversy (e.g., "Citizen Kane"), while poor films will be remembered only for their controversy. However, I make exception for "The Last Temptation of Christ," perhaps the most controversial American film ever made. There's no way to talk about this movie without mentioning the controversy. Fundamentalist Christian groups were so unrelenting in their attacks on this film that Blockbuster Video still refuses to stock it. For a full year after its release, Martin Scorsese couldn't open his mail because of bomb threats. In France, right-wing groups made good on their threats, and actually bombed theaters that showed the film. The minor attacks on "The Passion of the Christ" pale in comparison to what this film received. Is "The Last Temptation of Christ" really that dangerous? One of the highlights of the Criterion DVD's audio commentary is when screenwriter Paul Schrader admits that the film is "probably blasphemous," but not for the reasons that caused controversy (i.e., the sex scene*). At times, "The Last Temptation of Christ" uses Jesus as a metaphor for humankind's inner struggles, and for that it might be genuinely blasphemous. This wouldn't be an issue if the film presented Jesus as simply a man; because it presents Jesus as God and man, its portrayal of Christ's struggles becomes even more radical. Schrader, a former Dutch Calvinist, recalls his religious tradition and its emphasis on intellectual debate. You can create a verbal argument that Christ struggled as a man, says Schrader, and nobody is upset; but the moment you create a visual argument, everything gets more serious. It would seem that Christians are more comfortable with Christ as an abstraction rather than Christ as a real person who lived, who was man and God at once.
"The Last Temptation of Christ" doesn't overemphasize Christ's humanity - it simply establishes his humanity as a force equal to his divinity. Furthermore, it has the audacity to show us his humanity interacting with his divinity in very practical ways. What would it feel like, physically, to be man and God? Did it give Christ a migraine? Was he able to separate between his "God-self" and his "human-self"? Or was it muddier than that? "The Last Temptation of Christ" does what no other Christ film has ever done - it tries to answer these questions.
Christian doctrine speaks of Christ's duality in very simple terms: the Nicene Creed states that he was God and man, and leaves it at that. The specifics of this difficult concept have been left to mystics and poets throughout the ages. Such a man was Nikos Kazantzakis, whose "Last Temptation of Christ" remains one of the most profound portraits of the Messiah ever produced.
Both the book and Scorsese's film present Christ's duality in a series of interactions. These interactions take the form of relationships in Christ's life. The film famously develops Jesus' relationship with Judas; it infamously develops his relationship to Magdalene. But the most profound of these relationships, and the most overlooked, is Christ's relationship to God.
II
There are three, maybe four, key relationships in "The Last Temptation of Christ: Christ and Judas, Christ and Magdalene, Christ and himself, and Christ and God. The last two relationships may actually be one, and the film doesn't attempt to explain the degrees of separation between "God the Father" and "God the Son." The mystery of Christ's duality is topic enough for one film.
The relationship between Jesus and Judas is the richest in the film. Judas is Christ's backbone, his strength, his human perspective, his best friend, his judge...everything but his betrayer. Kazantzakis and Scorsese both view Judas as a necessary step, an intrinsic part of Christ's ministry - a prong in the ladder to salvation. Without him, there is no betrayal and no crucifixion. Such a view isn't totally foreign to the Gospel accounts, which certainly villainize Judas (as do nearly all retellings of the Passion) but also underline the importance of Christ's sacrifice. With the recent accusations that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" advocates anti-Semitism, a whole slew of ministers, theologians, and thinkers (including Gibson himself) have reminded us that all humankind is responsible for Christ's death, not one group or one man. This view certainly lets Judas off the hook. "The Last Temptation" expands Judas' character even further. From the beginning, Judas is Christ's companion, his first disciple. When God gives Christ a new revelation, Judas is always the first to know. When Christ anguishes, he turns to Judas; when Christ is empowered, Judas is by his side. When Christ is told (in a dream) that he must be crucified, he tells Judas. When Christ is told that Judas must betray him, he tells Judas.
Judas doesn't want to betray his Master, but agrees to do so; unlike the other disciples, it is Judas who best understands Christ's mission. He is, in a sense, a facet of Christ's character...he is almost part of Christ. At the same time, he is brutally honest, and rebukes many of Christ's teachings - he is a zealot, and favors the axe over forgiveness. But when Christ struggles against the mission that God has given him, it is Judas who rebukes Christ's wavering. He is at once Christ's weakness and his conscience; in all things, he is Christ's humanity. Their friendship is a link, binding Christ's divinity to Judas' earthly roots. Because Christ is God, much of humanity seems alien to him - it is his love for Judas that brings him down to earth.
Christ's relationship with Magdalene is more complex, with fewer bases in Scripture. Through her, Scorsese touches the hidden portions of Christ's life, that period between his birth and his ministry. According to "The Last Temptation," Christ spent those years in Galilee, and was betrothed to Magdalene. But as he came to understand his own uniqueness and his mission, he broke the engagement. Agonized, Magdalene turned away from God and eventually became a prostitute.
In one scene, Christ is shown visiting Magdalene in her brothel. He watches her while she lies with many men of many nations (this, along with her tattoos, is an effective symbol of her worldliness). Christ doesn't watch lustfully or longingly, but with horror and sadness. His response to sin is anguish, and he confuses the anguish with guilt.
This may be the most sensitive aspect of the film. Could Christ be held responsible for driving Magdalene into worldliness and prostitution? I don't believe so, and nowhere does the film imply that he is guilty for her choices. Nevertheless, he feels unbearable guilt over something, and attributes this guilt to his relationship with Magdalene. But his feelings of guilt have nothing to do with Magdalene. They are a precursor of the weight he must bear, a shadow of the burden he'll carry to the cross: the sins of humankind.
This is another troubling aspect of the film: Christ often refers to "his sins," and seems anguished over past mistakes and transgressions. Is Scorsese implying that Christ has sinned, and needs God's forgiveness? No. Christ's emotional anguish is an attribute of his relationship with God, and not an indication of sin.
The relationship between God and Christ is the film's centerpiece, its main thesis. What do the Gospels say about this relationship? There are only a few instances where Christ speaks directly about his relationship to God - in John 5:19, he says, "The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." In John 8:28, he says, "I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me." In John 8:54, he says, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.'"
"The Last Temptation of Christ" takes these statements and expands them beautifully. Jesus only saw what the Father showed him, only said what the Father told him, and only did what the Father did. When did God reveal all this to him? Was he born with this knowledge? Probably not - the Gospels definitely demonstrate a relationship between Jesus and God, and like all relationships, it must have had a beginning, and it probably grew over time. Did God show Jesus different things and different times? If so, when did Jesus realize he was God? What was his reaction? In the film, Jesus' reaction to this knowledge is the reaction any pious Jew would have - he assumes that Lucifer is inside him, lying to him. He goes to the desert to repent.But in the desert, he learns that Lucifer isn't inside him. God has been speaking to him, and everything He says is true. But even then, Christ doesn't know everything. God gives Jesus only bits of information at a time, delivering His messages piecemeal. At first, He gives Jesus a message of love. Later the message grows harsher, as God reveals His Judgment. Later still, God gives Jesus the power to work miracles and heal the sick. Finally, God reveals to Jesus his true mission - the sacrifice on the cross. Jesus does not possess all this knowledge from the beginning of his ministry; God gives it to him as he needs it.
On the other hand, Scorsese's Christ possesses premonitions of his fate and purpose. When we first meet him, he is building crosses. This is an idea Kazantzakis seized upon - if Christ was a carpenter, perhaps he built crosses in his youth. His decision to build these crosses disgusts Judas, who struggles against the Roman occupation. Judas views Christ's crosses as collaboration with the Romans; for Jesus, they are an atonement. Atonement for sins? No - both Kazantzakis and Scorsese accept the doctrine that Christ was "without sin." Nevertheless, Christ confuses his inner anguish, his feelings of guilt, with the activity of sin. His own disgust for sin (because he is God) causes him to repel violently against these feelings. This is Christ's relationship to himself, which can be viewed as another aspect of his relationship with God. He is shown convulsing on the floor. He suffers from terrible headaches. He builds crosses, whips himself, fasts, prays, and struggles. The conflict between the humanity and the divinity is unresolved, and will remain unresolved until his ministry begins.
In his "Theologico-Political Treatise," the Jewish philosopher Spinoza describes Christ's relationship with God as "mind-to-mind." Just as Moses spoke with God face-to-face, so Christ (who was One with God) spoke with his Father mind-to-mind. "The Last Temptation" takes Spinoza's words to heart, debunking Bill O'Reilly's claim that "the wacky Greek novel" has no basis in any traditional thought. At the film's beginning, this relationship causes Christ excruciating mental pain, because he struggles against it. In the end, it is the link through which Christ receives his teachings, his power, and his mission.
III
What is the last temptation of Christ? Quite simply, it is the temptation to deny the cross. As the crowds jeered, "He saved others, but he cannot save himself," the last temptation beckons Christ to prove them wrong. But there's so much more to it than that. The last temptation is really the temptation to deny the New Covenant; it's the temptation to live a normal life, to have a family, to enjoy the richness of Jewish life.
The last temptation is certainly not an innovation of Kazantzakis or Scorsese. Dostoevsky describes it in "The Grand Inquisitor," in which a decrepit Catholic cardinal confronts the resurrected Jesus, and accuses him of heresy. The cardinal argues that Christ should have succumbed to the four major temptations - the three temptations in the desert and the last temptation at the cross. In many ways, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a response to Dostoevsky's cardinal, an argument against his corrupt views.
The last temptation highlights another of the film's major themes: Christ could have been his own worst enemy. Other films blame the Sanhedrin, or the Romans, or Judas, or Satan, any combination thereof, for Christ's death. Even if filmmakers like Gibson argue that we are all to blame, they're still creating "villains" for their narrative. "The Last Temptation" doesn't have any villains. The Sanhedrin makes few appearances; the Romans play little or no role in the film. The crucifixion is not something bad or bloody: it's the goal, the culmination of Christ's mission. Satan doesn't try to put Christ on the Cross...he tries to take Christ off the cross. He isn't happy to see Christ suffering; he'd rather see Christ living with Magdalene, enjoying the fullness of a typical Jewish life. He'd rather see Christ as a carpenter, a husband, a father, a sinner, a saint...anything but crucified. But even Satan cannot be the villain, for it's Christ who decides his own fate. His struggle against the cross - his desire for family and normality - is the true villain of the story. When the temptation occurs, Christ enters a hallucination guided by an innocent-looking angel with childish features. He sees his life unfold before him: he denies the cross, marries Magdalene, has children, loses Magdalene, mourns, marries again, has more children, and goes about his life. One day he meets a man named Paul who is preaching the Gospel - he tries to confront the man, and begins to realize the enormity of his mistake. Later he appears on his deathbed, and is confronted by the disciples - Judas appears and calls him a traitor for denying the cross and betraying humankind.
This revelation convinces him to stay on the cross, and the temptation ends. He utters the words "It is accomplished," and a slew of beautiful colors and lights flash across the screen, signifying the New Covenant and perhaps the Resurrection. Many Christians were upset that the film didn't portray the Resurrection, but no filmmaker has ever successfully portrayed the central event of Christianity well, and Scorsese was wise to fall back on mere suggestion.
"The Last Temptation of Christ" is among the most profound religious films ever made. If Fundamentalists failed to grasp all its nuances, you can hardly blame them - the film is full of deep, even dangerous ideas. Its complexity warrants intense discussion, and many Christians would be justified in rejecting the film outright. But close examination reveals little discrepancy between the film and the central teachings of the Gospels. And even where discrepancies may exist, no film warrants the sort of violence that was directed toward this film and its makers...especially from the very people who claim to represent Christ himself.
---
*Of the film's most notorious scene, Roger Ebert writes: "During the hallucination, there is a very brief moment when [Christ] is seen making love with Magdelene. This scene is shot with such restraint and tact that it does not qualify in any way as a 'sex scene,' but instead is simply an illustration of marriage and the creation of children. Those offended by the film object to the very notion that Jesus could have, or even imagine having, sexual intercourse. But of course Christianity teaches that the union of man and wife is one of the fundamental reasons God created human beings, and to imagine that the son of God, as a man, could not encompass such thoughts within his intelligence is itself a kind of insult."
For more on "The Last Temptation of Christ," read Roger Ebert's four-star review, and Hal Hinson's Washington Post review. If you're looking for a negative review, I recommend Steven Greydanus' decentfilms.com review. In an otherwise insightful and intelligent review, Mr. Greydanus makes the statement: "I find myself reflecting on the significance of the fact that this film represents the collaboration of a writer of Greek Orthodox heritage and a filmmaker of Italian Catholic background. Only artists so steeped from childhood in the rich profundity of Christian tradition could possibly create something so profoundly antithetical to that tradition, so deeply heretical and blasphemous. It could never have been made by an ordinary nonreligious or atheistic filmmaker, or even by a lapsed Protestant." Greydanus is one of the few Christian critics who bothered to see it, but I feel his comment overlooks an important aspect of the film's creation. The screenplay was written by a Dutch Calvinist, which refutes Greydanus' assertion that a "lapsed Protestant" could never have made this film. If Greydanus is merely saying that the film reflects a strong preversion of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, than his statement has merit. But if he means to imply that the film could never have been made by a Protestant, I think Shrader's central role is strongly overlooked.
