For the length of its 164 min running time, Willem Dafoe appears in nearly every single frame of film in Martin Scorsese's, The Last Temptation of Christ. That it is also a great performance is even more impressive. Playing the title character, Defoe embues Christ with a humanity that has not been seen before or since the movies' 1988 release.
At the time of its release I remember the swarming controversy surrounding the film, as if Scorsese had committed the highest form of heresy in his vision of Jesus Christ. Seeing it so many years later, I'm having trouble understanding what the hoopla was all about.
For the most part, the story follows along the same beats as all the Christ stories we've all seen told a thousand times. We see him turn water into wine, heal the sick and tip the tables of the money changers in the temple. We see him as he gathers his disciples one by one, as he preaches to the masses and as he is inevitably crucified for his actions. The main difference is that this portrayal of Jesus is truly of the flesh. It assumes a hypothetically more real Jesus, with all the faults and failings of a true man. He is filled with self doubt, fear, foolhardiness and a weakness for the company of women for good measure.
Personally speaking, I was raised as a Christian and was told countless times, "Jesus died for your sins'". This phrase has been repeated so often that it tends to lose all meaning; a mantra rendered powerless by its oversimplification of a complicated concept. I found it surprising and refreshing that in the movie even Jesus himself is puzzled by it. He, along with the audience is questioning his place in the myth. He is struggling to understand why exactly his death must happen if mankind is to be saved and enter the kingdom of heaven.
The movie opens with Dafoe in a near manic depressive state. His truest confidant, Judas (played by a Harvey Kietel in very unfamiliar settings) is also his biggest doubter. He's sees something in the potential of Jesus and his claim as the son of God, but he wants proof and promises to kill Jesus should he falter on his path.
Scorsese's focus is singular and unmistakable. At all times the camera is trained on Jesus' every action, expression and thought, never straying for more than a few seconds, if only to allude to a setting or peripheral character. Its as if Scorsese was emulating the all seeing eye of God himself, forever trained on the progress of his child.
By this, we are able to follow his progress and it is clumsy and flailing at best. His journey begins in a haze of fear and self contempt. He sees himself as unworthy and really has no idea how it is he will go about beginning his ministry. As he travels the countryside, he then takes on the mantle of the prince of peace and "love" becomes the primary message. But his confidence is shaky. Jesus is practically stabbing in the dark for a guideline on how to do his job. He then takes to the desert, exposing himself to the elements and fasting as if in a vision quest. Upon doing so he returns with a new attitude. The message of love remains, but he brings it at the tip of a sword, so to speak. But still, even this new found bravado lasts only so long before he returns to his confused state of mind.
The inner battle Jesus faces in this movie is really at the heart of what makes it stand out. It makes sense that a man put in the situation the story presents us with would feel these feelings. If Jesus is supposed to be someone we can all relate to and see ourselves in, then why detail his weakness? Why not illustrate his confusion and frear? Who among us would face these circumstances with unflinching grace and strength. Surely no one needing the kind of saving and redemption promised by the Christ figure.
The last chapter of the film throws us a real curve ball which i wont go into. I will say it's a "what if" scenario that really pays off.
The production on this film could have been more epic but it refrains from a lot of the posturing and grandiose CGI vistas we are pummeled with in todays historical dramas. It opts for a more modest and personal view that I felt was right for the film.
The one strange thing about the movie is that the main players all speak with their natural American accents. Most movies of this type cast all British actors or at least enforce a proper English accent on everyone in order to give it some air of antiquity. The newest trend is to have the actors all speak in the original languages of their respective time and place such as in Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and "Apolocypto". I actually think that is a fantastic idea and it might have gone over well in this movie, but letting the actors speak as they do actually gave the movie the quality of a play and I was able to appreciate the story as it was being presented. Scorsese isn't so much interested in making us believe in what we are seeing, but more with having us feel what we are seeing. The difference is appreciable.
I suppose the tension surrounding the release of The Last Temptation of Christ is that it took some liberties with the telling of the story. Perhaps many devout Christians were offended that the narrative strayed from the exact word of the gospels. But if the story of Christ is truly a great one, then it can withstand different interpretations and still come out in the end pure. There is plenty of room for the imagination to play and for questions to be explored within the confines of its structure. If you have a master filmmaker the likes of Martin Scorses who wants to have a go at it, I say we let him. We can be grateful for anything he inspires in us, weather it be good or bad
PS. Look out for a cameo appearance by Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner.
No comments:
Post a Comment