Talk:The Last Temptation of Christ (film)

Summary

I wrote a summary for this movie and posted it here because 1) I'm new to wikipedia and don't know many of the standards and procedures. 2) I'm not a great writer and would like some feedback and/or editorial opinion. 3) I'm not a Christian. On this last point I think one advantage is that I'm only concerned about summarizing the movie, and not a life of Jesus. But it is also a disadvantage because I am unfamiliar with some of the nuisances of Christianity and what the movie is trying to say (i.e. about sin), that a devout person may know. Here is the summary without any links:

Jesus of Nazareth is a carpenter in the Roman client state of Judea. He is torn between himself as a man and the realization that he is the son of God. There is additional agony as he cannot be sure that he is the Messiah as predicted in the prophecies. This conflict results in a certain amount of self loathing and he even collaborates to construct crosses used by Romans to crucify Jews, an act that brands him a traitor in the eyes of he fellow Israelites.

Mary Magdalene, a Jewish prostitute whose clients include gentiles, represents temptation in the form of women and love to Jesus. She asks him to stay with her, which Jesus, as a man, seriously considers before deciding on traveling to a monastery. While there Jesus sees a vision of a snake in his quarters which "speaks" with the voice of Mary.

Judas Iscariot belongs to a nationalistic splinter faction which wishes to revolt against Roman rule. He is sent with orders to kill Jesus for being a collaborator. Jesus even asks him to do so when confronted, but Judas simply mimics the motion of the knife across Jesus' throat. Judas has known Jesus for a while now and wants to know of he is really the Messiah. Judas asks him if he will lead a revolution against the Romans, which Jesus denies, although not outright. He tries to tell Judas that his message is love, that love of mankind is the highest virtue that God wants. Judas is conflicted about this message, but joins Jesus in his ministry, telling him that if he (Jesus) strays from revolution he (Judas) will kill him.

Jesus then saves Mary from an angry mob which has come to stone her for her prostitution and working on the sabbath. Using the well known idiom, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, he persuades the crowd to spare her life and instead preaches to them. He tells them the parable of the sower and says that he is the farmer and they are the seeds. His message is that the weak and hungry will one day be the strong and fulfilled, and that love of their fellow man is the path of God.

Through his ministry Jesus develops a following and disciples, some of whom will eventually become his apostles. But throughout this time he is still uncertain of his role and his status as Messiah. He travels with his apostles to see John the Baptist who has heard of Jesus' reputation. After an emotional baptism, John and Jesus discuss their differing theologies. John believes that one must first gain freedom from the Romans before the world of God is declared, while Jesus claims that love is more important. The two embrace emotionally and Jesus wanders into the desert to see if God really speaks to him.

While in the desert Jesus is tempted three times by Satan: first with love as represented by a snake with the voice of Mary; second with power as represented by a lion with the voice of Judas; and third time by Satan himself as a naked flame. Jesus resists all these temptations and instead has a vision of himself with an axe chopping down an apple tree. He appears as a vision to his waiting apostles where he rips out his heart and tells them to follow him. With new found courage as the Messiah he proceeds to perform many miracles: giving vision to a blind man, turning water into wine, and raising Lazarus from the dead.

Eventually his ministry reaches Jerusalem where he is enraged by the money-changers in the temple and throws them out. The angry Jesus even leads a small army to try and take the temple by force. But instead he halts the steps and begins bleeding from the hands. He realizes that violence is not the right path, and that he must die in order to bring salvation to mankind. Confiding in Judas he asks his best friend and strongest apostle to turn him in to the palace guards, something that Judas does not want to do. But Jesus implores that this is the only way. A crying Judas acquiesces.

At the last supper Jesus tells his other apostles, Judas leaves early, to take bread and wine as his body and blood. Then while outside the city Judas leads the palace guards to take Jesus away. Simon manages to cut off the ear of one of the guards, but Jesus miraculously reattaches it telling everyone he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Meeting with Pontius Pilate he is told that he (Jesus) must be put to death because he represents a threat against the status quo. Jesus is tortured and whipped, and a crown of thorns is placed on his head. He is lead to Golgotha, where he is to be crucified with the plaque INRI. The crucifixion is carried out and Jesus, while in agonizing pain on the cross, sees and talks to a young girl who in his guardian angle. The noise from the crowd is muted while she leads him away, telling him that he has passed the final test and that he is not the son of God.

She takes him to be with Mary, and the newly married couple make love. Mary is impregnated by Jesus and they live an idyllic life in what looks to be a Northern European forest. But Mary one days dies and the sobbing Jesus is told by his angle that all women are "Mary," and thus he is betrothed to Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus. He starts a family with them and lives his life in peace. He even tells Paul, who is preaching nearby, that he is not the son of God and that Paul is wasting his time. But Paul tells him that his message is more important that who he really is.

Near the end of his life Judas comes and sees him and called him a traitor. It is revealed that Jesus' guardian angle is in fact Satan, who has managed to tempt him into this life of comfort and joy. Jesus realized that he must in fact die to bring salvation to mankind. Crawling back through the burning city of Jerusalem, he reaches the site of his crucifixion and begs God to sacrifice him. He is returned to the cross, his previous life being only a dream. He cries out as he dies, "It is accomplished." Ender qa 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ender, this is a very good start. When I have some time, I'll take a crack at some revisions and additions. Jedgeco 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Dream sequence"

The article describes the events after the angel (later revealed to be Satan) takes Jesus down from the cross, as a "dream sequence". Is there a reference for this?

My interpretation is quite different. I see these events as ones that, from the point of view of the film, really happened, but then were made to not-have-happened by the intervention of God the Father, in response to Jesus' prayer, after Judas shows Jesus his error.

I don't have any reference either; that's just the way I saw the film. But consider: According to the "dream sequence" interpretation, Jesus didn't have any control over the outcome. He could fantasize as much as he wanted, but it wasn't a genuine "temptation", because there wasn't anything he could do about it. Nor is there any danger of the chance for atonement being lost.

By my interpretation, on the other hand, Satan was on the verge of victory, which would have been attained with Jesus' natural death and the loss of the hope of man's redemption, and was denied that victory by Jesus' conscious choice to throw away the joyful life he had had, and make it not have happened.

I hope it's clear that I'm writing in the terms of the film, with its traditional view of substitutionary atonement; I'm not saying I myself believe in it. But in those terms, I think my interpretation makes much more sense. --Trovatore 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trovatore, your explanation makes sense to a certain extent. It's not really clear exactly what is happening during that extended sequence. However, it is almost universally referred to as a "dream sequence" or "hallucination" in everything that's been written about the picture; it's become a shorthand explanation. I'm going to look at my Scorsese books and see if he says anything about it. Jedgeco 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't know how to edit but there are errors in the plot.Jesus did not call his apostles to his death bed. John said God called them because Jesus was dying

The last supper was not a passover seder. 90.166.52.163 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit different but is it certan Satan tells Jesus that he is not Gods son. It has been a wile since I saw it, but can swear that one of the ways Satan convinces Jesus to come with him is by telling him that if God spared Abraham's son wouldn't he spare his own. Although maybe there is something in there that I am not interpreting correctly.140.232.146.190 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. 90.166.52.163 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Koran

The notion that Jesus was not crucified and did not die until a later age is also found in the Koran, which says many of the same things about him. It seems somewhat pertinent to try to link the story to islam and the beliefs of muslims. ADM (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also prominent in various gnostic texts, which arguably are where the Qur'an got the notion from. This isn't germane to the film though.Ekwos (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jesus died at Kashmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.191.33 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

FInal Shot

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the cinematographer on the film said that the whole story about the 'miraculous' last shot was bullshit. Anyone have any more information on this? 87.198.63.106 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Martin Scorsese really said openly that the final scene effect was really accidental but it worked so well that he decided to keep it that way.Mistico (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Passion of Saint Tibulus

This film, and particularly the outraged response of the Catholic establishment to it, is parodied in the Father Ted episode The Passion of Saint Tibulus. Should there be a link to this in the article? --Ef80 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See also to "whitewashing"

OK, so exactly why should whitewashing in film be a "see also" in this article? Are you going to put it on every article on a film about Jesus that uses a European actor to depict him? This looks more like an attempt to right WP:GREATWRONGS than to provide a good article on this film. --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, if you would do some simple research, you would see that the link is found in many articles in which characters or stories have been significantly changed to alter history or the ethnicity of major characters. As far as I am aware, this is the only film about Jesus in which the link can be found. And you are not the only editor to object to the inclusion of the link – significantly, no one has ever offered a good reason for its deletion, only that they are somehow offended by it. I find this curious. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether it's about Jesus is not really the point. Here's the problem as I see it.

If there has been a notable controversy about "whitewashing" for a particular film, say a significant film critic bringing it up, or a public controversy covered in multiple independent RSs, then of course it's fine to cover it. Whether one agrees with the claim or not, we can establish that the controversy occurred, and give citations.

But putting it in "see also" looks like a backdoor attempt by some editor to criticize without sourcing. That's more like political activism than encyclopedic writing. That should have no place in article space. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, just to be clear, my objection is not only to its appearance in this article. It should not appear in any film article simply on the grounds that some editor thinks it applies to that film. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't support the edit warring by User:82.53.130.48 and User:141.250.228.31. However, the defenders of the "see also" have not made any substantive argument. If (as it appears to me) the "see also" link is added to this and other films in order to make an unsourced criticism, that's a pretty direct violation of NPOV. It needs to be addressed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I initially found myself strongly opposing removing it. The chances that Jesus was white are vanishingly small so it's WP:OBVIOUS. But on second thought, the lack of any text in the "Controversy" subsection about this has me agreeing that this is a bit of a passive-aggressive snipe. Specifically to this movie, it bugs me even more since do we really think there was any chance Scorsese could have cast a Middle Eastern actor? I would have no issue with keeping the link provided something were added to that section reliably sourced to a few respected critics and historians. That's not entirely in accordance with the MOS's preferred way of doing this but I'm focusing on a specific word there, "comprehensive," that kind of establishes a standard this article doesn't meet. Can this really be considered comprehensive if its prose doesn't have anything about the racial incongruity between the lead actor and the character he played? CityOfSilver 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If there was a significant controversy and it can be reliably sourced, that can absolutely be added. The link should then appear in that text, though, rather than in "See also". --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

To my recollection, Dafoe's racially incongruent didn't instigate a controversy. That standard is so high that it wouldn't be met by tons of older movies with whitewashed casting since they came during an era when it wasn't controversial. (That era might extend to 1988, although maybe this movie didn't get this discussion going because it had too many other controversies to manage.)

I know we need work to meet policy, weight, POV, and contentiousness concerns. We can do that later. Right now, I'm wondering just what you think. Our definition of whitewashing in film is "a casting practice in the film industry of the United States in which white actors are cast in historically non-white character roles." This movie isn't an example of that? If you were a film historian and you were collecting examples of whitewashing in film for an article you're writing, you would say that you can't include this because Dafoe's casting didn't infuriate people as much as, say, Scarlett Johansson's in Ghost in the Shell? CityOfSilver 19:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

My personal opinion isn't relevant, but maybe you want to know my biases, so fair enough. I think Dafoe did an awesome job. If anyone else had been cast, Last Temptation as we know it would not exist, and I think that would be a pity. Maybe some movie just as good or even better would exist, but not the one we have.

"Whitewashing" is not a neutral descriptor of a white actor playing someone who historically was not white. It's inherently a criticism. To "whitewash" something is to cover it up, to falsify, to mislead. I don't think that's what Scorsese did in this case. Other people may differ, and if their views form a notable controversy, we can cover it. But it shouldn't be crammed into an uncitable, unchallengeable "see also" link. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Trovatore: ""Whitewashing" is not a neutral descriptor of a white actor playing someone who historically was not white." See, I agree, but you're not using the term we're trying to link to. Our definition of whitewashing in film, distinct from "whitewashing," is exactly that. There's a good reason we don't say anything about deliberate deception as a qualifier because in a lot of those cases, nobody was trying to fool anybody. I think most examples at that article would have to be removed if they required lying since come on. CityOfSilver 19:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't save it by relying on the text in the linked article. Readers may not follow the link. The term itself is a criticism. It is thus intended by the people who use it. Whether or not it's a valid criticism in this case, we can agree or disagree, but for a criticism to appear, it should be cited. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

So the definition at that article isn't reliably sourced? I went through as many of the first twelve sources as I could and none of them verify the idea that whitewashing is a critical, opinion-based concept with no fair basis in fact. Where is that coming from? CityOfSilver 21:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't rely on what linked articles say, in general. That's a general WP principle. Articles should stand on their own.

However, for the sake of argument, what does the linked article say? It says Whitewashing is a casting practice in the film industry of the United States.... Saying that Dafoe was white and was playing a non-white character is (reasonably) objective. Saying that he was cast as part of a "practice" is not. This article should not insinuate that the casting was following a "practice" without a citation. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The "see also whitewashing" does not belong. the facts and logic of this are simple:

1) The population of that area had more indo European in ancient time than today. This came from Anatolian indo Europeans, sea peoples, Macedonians and Greeks during Hellenistic period, and from Romans solders and auxiliaries who came from all over Europe. Only after the time of the putative Christ the region became more sematic especially after the Islamic invasions in the eight century CE.

2) To claim white washing one would have to show variance with a contemporary to Jesus physical description of Jesus -- or of Kazantzakis description. Neither exists. The fact is Jesus could have looked like virtually anyone from Europe, west asia or north Africa.

3) the fact that there is no physical description of Jesus in Kazantzakis book is an even more important point. This is Jesus as Kazantzakis imagines him.

4) This reminds me of the claims of whitewashing of Santa Claus when not portrayed as Turkish. Which is sadly deeply ignorant, since the Saint Nickolas from which that legend derives came from the boundary of the Celtic area of Anatolia. He would have looked like any Italian/Greek/Celt mix or non mix ancestry of one or all of those, and he certainly would not look Turkish as this predates the Turkish demic flow.Explainador (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)