Jesus enters the Twilight Zone

What if Jesus had simply wanted to be an everyday Joe, get married, raise a family, and live a quiet, normal life? That question and others are examined in Martin Scorsese's firebrand film "The Last Temptation of Christ," which plays out somewhat similarly to the plots in "It's a Wonderful Life" and Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" in that the main protagonist is shown, with the help of a guardian angel, a vision of how life could have been different in an alternate reality. Here is what our film discussion group concluded about this polarizing picture:

IN WHAT WAYS IS THIS FILM DIFFERENT FROM OTHER MOVIES DEPICTING THE LIFE AND WORKS OF CHRIST?

·       It presents alternative views and takes on passages from the Bible, as well as depictions of actions and events not mentioned in the Bible, including Jesus making crosses for the Romans, a past relationship with Mary Magdalene, a close friendship with Judas, and, of course, the sequence near the end where he controversially has visions on the cross of leading a normal life.

·       It presents a very different personification of Jesus than we’re used to: this Jesus expresses fear and doubt, laughs, dances, and asks God for help and assurance.

·       It casts several instantly recognizable actors in prominent parts, often playing them against type, including Harvey Keitel as Judas and David Bowie as Pilate.

·       Unlike glossy Hollywood adaptations that came before it like “King of Kings” and “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” this film “strips away the veneer of theatrical and filmic glamour that has become associated with the Passion Play,” wrote critic Glenn Erickson. This Jesus is not completely flawless or flawless looking, and there is more violence and realism imbued in this production.

·       As critic Janet Maslin put it: “(Scorsese) has elected to shun the conventions of Biblical cinema, underscore the contemporary implications of Mr. Kazantzakis's story, create a heightened historical context for Jesus' teachings and emphasize the visceral aspects of his experience as well.”

·       In other words, instead of depicting Jesus as an otherworldly, supernatural deity, the filmmakers examine Christ’s identity as a real human being as well as a divine being; if he’s human, he has to have doubts, flaws and temptations. And if he’s human, we can also relate to him and understand him better.

MANY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS AND CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS PROTESTED AGAINST THE MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING OF THIS FILM, CALLING IT “BLASPHEMOUS,” “DANGEROUS” AND MORALLY OFFENSIVE”. WHAT ARGUMENT CAN ADMIRERS OF THIS FILM MUSTER TO DEFEND IT FROM NAYSAYERS?

·       It employs a written disclaimer right up front that this story is not based on the Gospels;  instead, it’s a fictional adaptation of Jesus’ life by author Nikos Kazantzakis.

·       Just as there are four different Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—that each tell at least a slightly different story about Jesus, this movie attempts to tell a different story about Christ.

·       The filmmakers involved included a Roman Catholic (Martin Scorsese) who explored many of the same themes of guilt, sin, faith, sacrifice, and redemption in previous films (including “Raging Bull,” “Taxi Driver” and “Mean Streets”; a Greek Orthodox (Kazantzakis); and a Calvinist (screenwriter Paul Schrader).

·       The “temptation” hallucination Jesus envisions on the cross is revealed to be a plot of Satan’s to entice him at his weakest moment. He awakens from the temptation to find himself right back on the cross, which shows that what we saw in his hallucination did not happen.

·       The depiction of sexual relations with Mary Magdalene is handled artfully; as Roger Ebert wrote: “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. Was he less than the rest of us? Was he not fully man?”

DOES THIS FILM REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHER PREVIOUS WORKS OF LITERATURE OR CINEMA?

·       Ambrose Bierce’s “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”

·       “It’s a Wonderful Life,” and “A Christmas Carol"

·       Pier Paolo Pasolini’s “The Gospel According to St. Matthew,” which also takes a low-budget, down-to-earth view of Christ

·       “The Passion of Joan of Arc” by Carl Theodor Dreyer

·       “Diary of a Country Priest” by Robert Bresson

·       “Roberto Rossellini’s “The Flowers of St. Francis”