SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 6:25am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  The Last Temptation of Christ Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 3 Guests

 Pages: 1
Recommend Print
  Author    The Last Temptation of Christ  (currently 849 views)
James McClung
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 4:02pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
I've never associated Martin Scorsese with controversy. Not to say some of his films aren't hard hitting but Scorsese's never struck me as a director interested in controversial content, regardless of whether or not he has the chops for it. And despite his ability to stray off the beaten path with success, his status as a classic and time honored director and his massive influence has prevented me from seeing him as a director who works outside the box, even though he pretty much always has.

So it surprised me to find that not only was The Last Temptation of Christ a controversial film but one of the most controversial films of all time that not only shook the foundations of Hollywood and religious communities alike but also changed the way studios approached religious themed pictures. It's the reason why Mel Gibson had to finance The Passion of the Christ independently.

In hindsight, it kinda makes sense. If you make a film about Jesus, people will want to kill you. The only question is which people. I mean it's really touchy stuff regardless of your approach. The Last Temptation of Christ is living proof of that.

But why? Why was this film so controversial? Well, naturally Jesus having sex, for one thing. That's about as incendiary as it gets. But that's incidental. The controversy stems from one central concept: Jesus as a man.

That's what the film's about, in a nutshell. Jesus as a man. With fear, doubt, pride, jealousy and, yeah... lust. Among all the other things that come with being a human being.

SPOILER WARNING (I think it's difficult to talk about the film without giving the whole plot away so again)... SPOILER WARNING!!!

The film is essentially in two parts. The first two hours or so, which is the basic narrative of Jesus's adult life in this context. His relationship with God, his followers, Mary Magdalene, etc. all leading up to his crucifixion. Then a dream sequence on the cross in which Jesus imagines himself climbing off the cross and living the rest of his life as a married man, which is precisely the Last Temptation of Christ.

END SPOILERS.

I'll talk about the technical first. This is a very different film from Scorsese's other films. Probably the exact opposite of the film which came after it (Goodfellas). It's extremely minimalistic for starters. This is, in part, due to the film's budget which was considerably low for such an epic scope. Most of it takes place in the desert and none of the sets look grandiose. But there's also a noticeable lack of directorial flair on Scorsese's part. The film's essentially monochromatic (until the dream sequence) and free of editing tricks or immaculate shots. Totally "invisible filmmaking." At the same time, it's very trippy. Jesus hears voices. You don't hear them but you hear his reactions to them (in inner monologue), literally putting you in Jesus's head but omitting a significant element that makes the whole experience completely bewildering. There's also a lot of hallucinations like talking snakes, talking lions, talking fire, etc. Scorsese accentuates that with lighting and framing but it's still pretty transparent and bare bones.

Harvey Keitel plays Judas, a very complicated role, differing from Judas's usual portrayal as a villain. Here, he is portrayed as Jesus's most loyal and honest friend, even after his betrayal. Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey) plays a key role in the film as well. We see her as a full blown prostitute and temptation to Christ. Both actors are pretty strong but what else would you expect from Keitel? I'm new to Hershey but she was amazing in Black Swan and brought her A game to this as well.

But of course, if it weren't for the lead role, this would be a pointless film that just pissed off a lot of people for no reason. I suppose if you take offense to the film, it still is but from the point of view of someone who doesn't, I'd say its detractors might have a better claim to blasphemy if the lead actor was truly weak.

But he's not. This is without question the greatest performance of Willem Dafoe's career, an actor known for taking challenging roles and working with some of the most known, audacious, renowned and influential filmmakers in the biz from Sam Raimi to David Lynch. The very nature of the premise demands Dafoe give 100% to pretty much every basic human emotion and he does. He really does. I think he encompasses both the purity, leadership and divinity that the Bible says Jesus embodied as well as the weakness and humanity the novel the film is based upon suggests he could've. He definitely plays with the notion that Jesus was both all deity and all human.

I should note the novel is intended as complete fiction, BTW. The film even begins with a disclaimer.

I thought Dafoe's was strongest when he was forced to capture Jesus's fear when faced with the full brunt of what he's meant to do.

And with that, I'll segway into the film's most debatable aspects. Is it a good film? Umm... yeah. I think it's brilliant. I think the concept is, whether blasphemous or not, very powerful, as evidenced in the response of the public. I also think that it makes the film accessible to everyone. The Passion of the Christ was a film for Christians, no doubt about it. Practicing Christians, to be specific. And I have the utmost respect for Mel Gibson for going out and doing what he did, even though it wasn't for everyone. Scorsese, I found out, is also a practicing Christian who holds his spirituality in the greatest of importance. This is definitely a person film on his part as well, I think more so than any other film he's done. But the fact that it asks the audience to understand Jesus on a human level, it makes it much more a film that everyone can see.

That said, I do think that if you're not a practicing Christian, which I'm not, you might be missing out on part of the experience. I'm a former Catholic but even back then, I don't think I could've related to the film in the same way that more religious viewers could. But watching this, I could've help but wonder how some Christians wouldn't see this as an affirmation of faith. It's a film that asks you to understand the magnitude of Jesus's sacrifice. And you know what... a lot of Christians did. Even a great number of the film's initial detractors were greatly moved by the film. Detractors who had practically prepared themselves to reject it.

That said, I do respect the fact that a lot of Christians do not believe that Christ's persona is one to be interpreted. As far as they're concerned, he's God so leave him alone. And whatever one's religion may be, how you view your God is important.

So I'd say for Christians, approach with caution. You've got a 50/50 chance, either to be moved and... completely repulsed and violated, I suppose. It's your call. Don't kill the messenger, please .

For non-religious film buffs and casual moviegoers in general, I'd say if you want to see something different but just as powerful from Martin Scorsese, check it out.

...

Really long review. If anyone actually takes the time to read it, big thanks. I have a lot of fun writing these, even when nobody seems to read them.


Logged
Private Message
mcornetto
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 4:46pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



People read your reviews.  I remember seeing this film when it came out.  There was definitely a big stink about it.   It was a well-made film with a different twist on a story we've all seen tons of times.   Not your usual Scorsese fare though - so if you're looking for that you won't find it in this film.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 1 - 11
Ledbetter
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 8:04pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I have a couple of questions my friend.

Isn't this movie years old?  Why the review of such an old film?

Is there a possibility that timing is everything. The Christmas season and all. Mmmm.

I mean the public does tend to get it share of Pro-Christ, Anti-Christ sentiment flooding the marketplace.

I truely do question your motives when out of no where a review  of such a sensitive subject (and movie) is timed just before a most profound date.

You could have just as easily reviewed any other film. But as an ex-Christain, why this one...

Why not the Passion...

Shawn.....><

Logged
e-mail Reply: 2 - 11
mcornetto
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 8:37pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Ledbetter
I have a couple of questions my friend.

Isn't this movie years old?  Why the review of such an old film?

Is there a possibility that timing is everything. The Christmas season and all. Mmmm.

I mean the public does tend to get it share of Pro-Christ, Anti-Christ sentiment flooding the marketplace.

I truely do question your motives when out of no where a review  of such a sensitive subject (and movie) is timed just before a most profound date.

You could have just as easily reviewed any other film. But as an ex-Christain, why this one...

Why not the Passion...

Shawn.....><



Shawn,

If you haven't seen the movie then why are you even questioning James' motives or the review?  This movie does not disrespect anyone - which you would know if you had seen it.  
Logged
e-mail Reply: 3 - 11
Ledbetter
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 8:44pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Hey pal,

Where does it say in my thread I havent seen it?

I questioned the timing and if you think it does not disrespect anyone, I have to question your objectiveness.

Shawn.....><
Logged
e-mail Reply: 4 - 11
Electric Dreamer
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 8:51pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Taking a long vacation from the holidays.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
2740
Posts Per Day
0.55
I have a very personal reason for loving this film.
I caught its limited theatrical run in Boston back in '88.
Despite all the booing in the theater, I still managed to focus on the film.
For me, it helped me understand Jesus and feel for the guy.
It painted an intimate effective portrait of a tormented man.

The best part was when I exited the theater.
I saw the film at the Paris, it was a one screen art house for thirty years.
The theater had a ginormous Broadway style lobby.
Woody Allen always exclusively debuted his films in Boston there. Big to do.
The Paris theater was in a very Irish Catholic neighborhood, you see.
On this occasion, as I left, a horde of nuns surrounded me.
A priest splashed holy water on me and absolved me of my sin for seeing the film.
My first thought was, "Does that mean I get a refund on my ticket?"
I bit my tongue, those nuns would have kicked my a*s all the way to Charlestown.

E.D.


LATEST NEWS

CineVita Films
is producing a short based on my new feature!

A list of my scripts can be found here.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 11
mcornetto
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 9:19pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Ledbetter
Hey pal,

Where does it say in my thread I havent seen it?

I questioned the timing and if you think it does not disrespect anyone, I have to question your objectiveness.

Shawn.....><


Hey buddy,

Where does it say you have seen it?  
Logged
e-mail Reply: 6 - 11
Ledbetter
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 9:39pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Whatever Mike,

Pick a fight somewhere else tonight, Okay?

Oh, and get a shave...

Shawn.....><


Logged
e-mail Reply: 7 - 11
James McClung
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 10:35pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
Okay. I'm back. And I'll answer your question, Led.

I review movies as I see them. I saw this one two days ago. I saw The Passion when it came out. Simple as that.

I also try to review movies I think are worth reviewing and a controversial Martin Scorsese film is certainly that.

I honestly can't say why it occurred to me to see this one in the first place. Somehow, I came across it and decided to see it. I should note however that Netflix isn't available in France so it's only just now, after adding the film to my que months ago, that I've actually been able to see it.

The timing didn't even occur to me. I suppose it should have but it didn't. In any case, I had no ulterior motives for reviewing it.

If you'd like me to review The Passion, I'll Netflix it and review it.

Any more questions?


Logged
Private Message Reply: 8 - 11
Grandma Bear
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 10:41pm Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7961
Posts Per Day
1.36
James, I always read your reviews. You do an excellent job. Guy Jackson wrote great reviews as well. The two of you were my favorite reviewers.  So, don't quit.  


Logged
Private Message Reply: 9 - 11
Ledbetter
Posted: December 11th, 2010, 10:57pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



James,

Thanks for the insightful and kind reply.

I didn't say your review was in any way ill written. I would like to first and foremost say, it is very well writtin.

Your explaination leaves nothing left to be asked.  

Take care,

Shawn......><
Logged
e-mail Reply: 10 - 11
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: December 16th, 2010, 4:32pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1522
Posts Per Day
0.31
Martin Scorcese is one of the best filmmakers living today. I have long since forgiven this overrated piece of boring drivel. For the record, I have seen it- and even crossed the picket lines of my own fellow Christians to do so. I went in with an open mind.

I came out wondering if the fuss was even worth it.

Compared to some of Willem Dafoe's other work - be it To Live and Die In LA, Platoon, Wild At Heart, Shadow Of The Vampire--I thought he had done better in other films.

Don't let me get into the miscast Harvey Keitel and his NY dialect.
Or Harry Dean Stanton as Paul Of Tarsus, for that matter.







"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 11 - 11
 Pages: 1
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006