That other Passion of the Christ movie.
Martin Scorsese, with few objections, is possibly the greatest American filmmaker of all time. It is rare that a filmmaker of such high stature is bold enough to make a film of extremely high controversy, especially one dealing the most controversial story of all time. Envisioning the life and teachings of Christ is an impossible task, much as making the quintessential Holocaust film is impossible. It takes a collection of works, not just in films but in books and images of Christ to try and put together a picture of the Son of Man. As a Christian, I am fully aware that this portrait can never be accurately surmised. Also as a Christian, I have my own theology, but unlike so many, my mind open. In being a spiritually Christian man, it does not, however, make me unintelligent or an ignoramus. I am open to art: I love film, music, paint, and most other forms. I do have a small unnerving belief that the life of Christ in art must be treated carefully, though I accept it as art, and that art is just one of God’s ways of revealing himself to us, however that may sound. Scorsese’s film is just that, a work of art attempting to not so much paint a picture of Jesus, but man’s innermost objections and, yes, temptations in believing.
The film must of course be viewed in two lights, as most any good film should, both the story and the technical aesthetic. In the realm of the story, I raise my objections. The film paints that Christ was confused, and battered by his temptation. He views Mary Magdalene engaging in sex, though somewhat accurate, is portrayed through an almost heartbroken Christ. I do believe he had his doubts as he learned who he was. Imagine a child being told he was the son of the creator of the universe? That is some tough stuff, and you thought acne was a problem. I believe though, that once he reached his 30s, once he began his ministry, those feelings were gone, replaced by the Christ in him. The film portrays a slant on the idea that he never committed sins as a man; the child and the man may have committed sin, but he was just that, a man. Anyway, moving from my theology, something not appropriate to share in a film study entirely, the film has its flaws in the portrayal of Christ, to me, and at times in its account of the Gospel. I do not condemn it because, however, of the epigram that begins the film; it is not based on the gospels, or even an interpretation of them, it is based on a man’s novel and his search for understanding. This is something we all do, it’s just most of us aren’t great authors or directors. The story of course then goes into the titular “last temptation” of Christ: leading a life in full, as only a man. This is not meant to give any sort of truth on the event of the crucifixion, but of the strength of Christ to overcome his last temptation. It then brings us back to the crucifixion, where Jesus chooses against this temptation, ending his life in the sacrifice.
Technically, the film is a masterwork, one of our finest director’s finest films. The film is marvelous to look at, capturing more than just a Hollywood backdrop of Jerusalem, as it’s filmed in Morocco. Scorsese lets us know by his camera and his pacing this is a very personal film for him. Raised Catholic and a near priest, he injects his own doubts and eventual strength onto the “character” of Jesus, not on the man himself. That is where the question for me lies, is it ok to use Jesus as a character? Sometimes I say yes, others I say no. It is a difficult question as it should be. Jesus should never be an artist’s tool, but to present a message from the man himself, can he be a medium? Scorsese uses this, in my opinion, to show that Jesus is a man and a divine being, as basic Christian theology teaches. It is improbable to think humans will ever understand this dual nature, but Scorsese here shows how he sees it, and how he himself overcame himself. It sounds strange, but I can feel Scorsese using this as a healing film from his past troubles and cocaine addiction just as strongly as in Raging Bull. This film, to me, is near as fine an entry. Willem Defoe does as well as anyone can playing Jesus, though at times I see him having his own interpretation of what’s happening. Plus, I sort of just don’t like Willem Defoe. I think there are many other actors who could have played the role to much better affect. Interestingly enough, Scorsese’s second muse, Robert DeNiro, turned down the role due to the controversy of it. The bright light here, very surprisingly, is Harvey Keitel as Judas. Probably the most difficult character to play ever next to Jesus, Ceasar, and Hitler, playing the “traitor of all traitors” is a tough job. I have always been fascinated with the man of Judas, wondering, as Dylan sang, if he “had God on his side”. It was his fate and his destiny to betray him, something that had to be done. Scorsese handles all of these perfectly, with flawless camera and even better pace. Keitel gives his best performance since Mean Streets, and I don’t really think he has given a better one yet, sorry Quentin. And yes, it also has David Bowie as Pontius Pilate.
I like this film very much, it establishes a thought we all need to see, and a though we all need to have. That is the greatness of it; it causes you to think, as any art should on some level. His last temptation is our constant temptation, and it was handled by a great filmmaker for a reason: to be of quality and of thought.
Here is a brief high school like documentary on the film, so sorry for that. But it does feature some insight from Scorsese, screenwriter Paul Schrader, and Willem Dafoe.
Also mentioned briefly at the end is the Catholic Church's longstanding feud with Hollywood and filmmaking, and how this film was one of the first surges of the new Christian right, a very intriguing piece of information.
by Phillip Bryant
No comments:
Post a Comment