Film Analysis: The Last Temptation of Christ and the Human Perception of Christ

(previously published on Blogcritics.org) Whenever a filmmaker decides to pursue the topic of Christianity for the purposes of making a compelling film, it's often met with strong controversy. This is likely because those who are strong in their faith have preconceived notions as to what is correct and what is incorrect in relation to their beliefs. As a result, any idea or opinion that may be in opposition of those preconceived ideas is often greeted with apprehension.

Legendary director Martin Scorsese had some experience with this mentality when he released his long-gestating passion (no pun intended) project The Last Temptation of Christ. Adapted for the screen from an equally controversial novel by author Nikos Kazantzakis, the book portrayed Jesus Christ in a more human context than many previous films. It brought forth the suggestion that Jesus Christ faced all of the same doubts, fears, and inner conflicts as the people for whom he died, and yet still lived a life free from sin. The consistently brilliant Willem Dafoe portrayed Christ in the film, and Scorsese regulars Harvey Keitel and Barbara Hershey portrayed Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene, respectively.

The performances in the film are, for the most part, very strong (with one exception being David Bowie as a rather stoic Pontius Pilate), and the technique and presentation of the film is astounding. However, this article is less about the presentation of the film, and is more about the ideas and concepts presented therein. While the film received strong critical acclaim (even securing another best director nomination for Scorsese), many religious organizations objected to the portrayal of Jesus in the film as a man with very human struggles. However, I would contest that many of the scenes that were looked upon as heretical may in fact present a more intriguing view of faith and Christian understanding.

One scene in particular that drew the ire of fundamentalists groups was a sequence where Satan comes to Christ while he is on the cross, and he presents Christ with a vision of what his life would be like if he did not perish on the cross. During the sequence, Jesus is shown marrying Mary Magdalene and producing children, and leading an average domestic life. I have always found the rejection of this concept to be quite peculiar. I myself possess a strong belief in the existence of God, and the sacrifice of his son for the sins of man. And if anything, many of the ideas in this film provide me with an even greater respect and admiration for the Passion of Christ. The text of the Holy Bible repeatedly informs the reader that Christ was 100% God, but he was also 100% man. In so many portrayals of Christ, it seems the emphasis on Jesus as God repeatedly overpowers the fact that he was also a man of flesh and blood.

Many cinematic portrayals of Jesus make it difficult to remember that he was tempted by the same sins that all men face. Scorsese succeeds in presenting Jesus as a man who constantly faced the temptation to turn away from his purpose as the Messiah, but ultimately never rejected it. It is hard for many people to believe that Jesus would have any longing to marry and produce children rather than be the savior of mankind; but in many ways, doesn't this make his sacrifice more meaningful and beautiful? I for one prefer the idea that Christ was tempted to forsake his purpose and live as one of us, with a normal domestic life, a normal occupation, and a normal family life. For me, it makes his sacrifice even more meaningful, for not only did he sacrifice his life, but he sacrificed the joys of a normal human existence as well.

Another element of the film that prompted much contempt was the portrayal of Judas as a more honorable character in the film. I will confess, this is a hard concept to come to terms with, but it also presents an interesting argument as well. If Jesus was meant and destined to perish on the Cross for our sins, was Judas not in some way an integral part in our ultimate salvation? If Judas did not betray Christ, would Christ have died for our sins? Or would we as people still be nothing more than filthy rags in the eyes of God, still unclean with sin that was never forgiven? And if God is indeed an omniscient, omnipotent entity, would that not suggest that it was already known and decided upon that Judas would be the catalyst to the Passion?

Overall, I believe Scorsese was attempting to create a film that sought to help us better understand the challenges that Jesus faced by making him a more human figure than any other film had attempted before or since. In doing so, he perhaps made one of the most accessible and fascinating portrayals of Christ that has ever been committed to film. The actors in the film do not speak in the cadence of the King James Bible, but instead speak in a modern style, which makes it much easier to relate to them, which only adds to the appeal. Many have argued that the film is wildly inaccurate, and provides a poor representation of the actual crucifixion. Those who make such decrees are missing the point of a film such as this; it is not meant to present a documented account of what actually occurred, but instead is attempting to present new ideas and concepts concerning a very familiar event in our history. If that was Scorsese's ultimate goal with this film (and I believe it was), he succeeded on a monumental level.

Movie Review: Ratatouille

In recent years, the world of animated film has had a drastic increase in quality and acceptance by a wide audience. The genre, which seemed exclusive to children and the young at heart, has evolved into a form that can express ideas that both juveniles and adults can identify with. And the famed animated studio Pixar is likely the most responsible figure in this transition.

With their recent computer-animated feature Ratatouille, it would appear Pixar has taken an even greater leap ahead in terms of crafting an amazing story that can appeal beyond the typical family-friendly audience. It stands as a wonderfully fun tale about the potential for greatness in anyone (or any rat). I was further surprised to discover by utilizing the cooking process in a symbolic sense, director Brad Bird also says much about the process of composing and directing a film.

The plot of the film concerns a confused but intelligent rat, Remy, who has an unusually sharp palette. This fact causes him to seem drastically different than the rest of his rat family and friends, and feels alienated from the rest of his rat family. When an unfortunate accident separates Remy from his family, he finds himself at an upscale French restaurant named after his late cooking idol, Gusteau. He quickly befriends a young man who has just gotten a position at the restaurant, and their secret friendship enables the man, Linguini, to achieve massive fame for Remy's work in the kitchen. Yet as the friendship continues, Linguini becomes more unappreciative of Remy's skill, and Remy becomes more disenchanted by the fact that his appearance is requiring him to be hidden from the rest of the restaurant employees.

This is director Brad Bird's third animated feature film after The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and like those two previous efforts, this film is an animated masterpiece. The first thing that is very apparent is the visual style of the film; not only does the art of computer animation continue to become finer and more enchanting, but Bird takes the technique further by utilizing very skilled live action camera techniques for a number of the animated sequences. This provided the film with a live action feel in many scenes, despite the fact that it is an animated feature. But the film's appearance is not its only strength; story has always been the driving force to Pixar's success, and this film continues that trend. Bird was likely intrigued by the subject of cooking by its parallels with directing; it requires seeing a final result that has yet to exist, and directing a number of unique and different elements to make the final result successful. Can Fellini's 8 1/2 be remade with a rat serving as the protagonist? With Brad Bird at the helm, it might be a possibility.

Whenever each new film is announced from the studios of Pixar, I have always felt that for film lovers, this is a joyous occasion. Pixar has yet to truly fail the general public with one of their films, and if Ratatouille is any indication, they actually succeed in raising the absurd expectations of their fans even further. Perhaps the most amazing fact is that they have made a series of films that are appeal to the parents of children as much as to the children themselves.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars

Movie Review: Auto Focus

There is a substantial amount of brouhaha that is made concerning the decadence of Modern Hollywood, and many have argued that they long for the innocence of Hollywood. But can that assumption about celebrity life really be constructed when there are so many examples to the contrary? Silent film star Fatty Arbuckle was suspected of sexually assaulting and murdering a woman with a piece of ice. Errol Flynn was an alcoholic, a womanizer, a brawler of Russell Crowe-like proportions, and had a number of arrests, one for statutory rape. Countless other celebrities have proven to have less than reputable personalities when the layers of their characters are peeled away.

In the film "Auto Focus" directed by Paul Schrader (who, having written the films Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Bringing Out the Dead, obviously has a skill with darker material), we are invited into the private life of "Hogan's Heroes" star Bob Crane (skillfully portrayed in this film by Greg Kinnear). Crane built a strong reputation during his tenure on television as a family man and a likeable role model that charmed television audiences worldwide; however, Crane was also a man consumed by very disturbing personal demons. When he encounters an excitable video technician on the set of "Heroes" named John Carpenter (Willem Dafoe, no relation to the horror director), Carpenter brings him into a world of strip club, pornography, and orgies that begins to consume everything else in Crane's life and slowly begins to draw his career into a downward spiral as well.

While watching the film, there are a number of things that becomes very apparent about Schrader's filming techniques: first of all, while he doesn't begin to match the technical virtuosity of his frequent colleague Martin Scorsese, Schrader is no slouch, and knows how to structure a film correctly in an a visually intriguing way. However, to focus on technique alone would be a disservice to the performances and story of the film. The basic plot, based on the Robert Graysmith book of the same title, is paced quite well, and progresses in a way that quickly delves into Crane's decadence and yet still doesn't feel forced or unbelievable. Part of this can be attributed to Schrader, but the main credit for this can be attributed to the acting, especially award worthy performances by Kinnear and the always reliable Dafoe. Granted, this film is not for a mainstream audience; if you were pleased by the wholesome quality of "Hogan's Heroes", this is undoubtedly not the film for you. However, if you are interested in a thoughtful commentary on how fame corrupts even the most seemingly decent of men, the film provides an interesting yet unsettling film experience.

4 out of 5 Stars

Movie Review: M

The number of films that have been composed concerning the notorious exploits of serial murderers has been pretty substantial since the inception of the art form. Some of the films, such as Silence of the Lambs, have been absolutely sublime; others, in fact many others, have been forgettable and dull. The ones that do succeed usually do so because they try to achieve some form of human element with the topic at hand, rather than simply exploit the surface trappings of the horror inherent in the situation. This has been true since the beginning of this sub-genre.

This fact is further supported by one of the earliest films in the genre, the 1931 German classic M. The film, which was directed by German film legend Fritz Lang and starred famed character actor Peter Lorre as a child murderer (predating his Casablanca and Arsenic and Old Lace fame for a number of years), tells the story of a pedophile who is terrorizing the streets of German town. When the whole town becomes terrorized by the actions of the criminal, law enforcement begins to infiltrate every element of life to pursue him. This causes the criminal underground of the town to feel threatened, and they too stage their own attempts to hunt the wanted man down. This creates a very intriguing shift in the film, for when the criminal element of the city joins the search, the terrorized denizens of the town no longer seem to be the threatened entity. Instead the child murderer that paralyzed the city with fear is no perceived as a hunted animal, and in a stroke of moral ambiguity, a more sympathetic figure.

The concept of the film, especially the idea of the criminal world staging their own efforts to solve the crime, were unique and original for the time, and a strong film with the same theme has yet to be made since; of all the horror films that seem ripe for a remake, this one is it. The film boasts a strong level of emotional power, despite the black and white appearance and the flaws in the sound (this was filmed during the early day of sound mastering, and therefore a mono recording track is used for the majority of the film, and many of the scenes are actually silent). Director Fritz Lang also proves why he was one of the greatest cinematic voices of Germany; many of the overhead shots were pretty daring for the time, as well as the ominous lighting for a number of the scenes. The sequence where Lorre is being pursued by the criminals and police of the city in particular was very impressive; the chase begins in an open environment, and as the chase continues, the scenery becomes smaller and more enclosed. It is as if the very city walls themselves are conspiring to trap this murderer like a caged animal.

Very special recognition must be given to Lorre for a tour-de-force performance as the murderer; the final scene where he pleads his insanity before the townspeople and the criminal underbelly of the town is still mesmerizing to this day. It is also slightly embarrassing when you reflect on the number of films portraying murderers and child molesters today. So many of these films portray these figures as nothing more than another hackneyed stock character, and here in its infancy is one of the most amazing portrayals of a murderer ever committed to film. He succeeds in the early stages of the film in really being an unnerving and sinister figure (and his whistling of Peer Gynt Suite No. 1 predates the ominous breathing sounds in Friday the 13th by over 45 years). At the conclusion of the film, it is hard to comprehend whether or not the petty criminals or the child murderer are the more honorable figures of society. Such dualities only enhance the brilliance of this film.

The ever-popular "serial killer" genre in film had much of its origins in this film, which is pretty amazing. What is even more amazing is how much better this film continues to be than most of the films in the genre that have been released since. Many will likely be turned off from the film because of the subtitling and German language, and that is a shame. Despite these differences, this is an amazing film that continues to be an entertaining watch even 70 years later.

5 out of 5 stars

Movie Review: The Searchers

Westerns have for so long been a film genre to tell simple tales of simple people searching for meaning in the battle of good vs. evil, and has not traditionally been a place to explore complex themes. Because of this long-standing fact, when the timeless John Ford film The Searchers arrived in theaters in 1956, it was viewed as a weak entry into the genre. However, the message of racial tensions and the idea of honor and responsibility have not only earned it acceptance, but have caused it to be hailed as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. While it is not my all-time favorite Western (one of Sergio Leone's many spaghetti westerns likely wields that label), the film is still nothing short of a masterpiece.

The film follows the troubled and difficult path of Ethan Edwards, a Confederate soldier with a blinding hatred of the Comanche Indian tribe who returns to his extended family; when most of his family is murdered by Comanches and his niece Debbie is kidnapped by the tribe, Ethan begins a grueling 5-year journey to find the missing girl that becomes a dark and disturbing obsession. When Ethan discovers that she has been taken in and accepted a place with the tribe, he is compelled to murder her for having associated with the very people he despises. Only in the end does he finally find redemption for himself, but at the cost of the family he loved so dearly.

This film is nothing short of beautiful in its production; the West has never seemed so enticing, and the natural beauty of the land provides a startling juxtaposition to the cruel attitude that Edwards has concerning the world around him. John Ford is held by many acclaimed filmmakers (including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and George Lucas) as one of the greatest of all time, and he is particularly admired for his mastery of the Western genre. While Ford was respected for his skill at filming in black and white, he proved to all naysayers he was just as talented behind a color lens. He also had a keen sense of symbolic value in film; the concept of doorways and the use to reflect Edwards' journey is astounding. The film opens with Ethan entering into the home of his family, finding peace with the few people he truly cares for; in the final shot, we see the exact opposite, as Ethan is framed walking out the doorway, with it being very apparent he may never return.

The message concerning racial tensions between the American settlers and Native Americans has rarely been as controversial as it was in this film, and it was made even more shocking by allowing American hero John Wayne to play a man that was in many ways despicable. Wayne's hatred of the Comanches from the beginning seems more severe than needed, and when he even goes as far as to consider murdering his own for associating with them, it is apparent that he is a man consumed and blinded by his hatred. This movie was released only a year after the start of the American Civil Rights Movement, and it would not be difficult to see the parallels between Edwards attitude towards the Comanches in the same light as the treatment of Black America during this period. While it is not certain that Ford was expressing his own views on this growing issues through this film, it certainly provided a unique perspective on this issue during a very confusing time in history. The film still holds up today as a fascinating film and should be considered required viewing for film enthusiasts everywhere.

5 out of 5 stars

Movie Review: Clerks 2

When the rise of the independent film movement occurred in the early 90's, director Kevin Smith was upheld as one of the founding voices responsible for the growth of the movement. His debut film Clerks was a vulgar, obscene, low fidelity film that became a sensation, primarily because in addition to these qualities, it was also extremely smart and funny. Since that time, Smith has matured as a director, and though his films are still primarily low-budget affairs, they are certainly more than the $27,000 price tag of his first film. When Smith chose to revisit the film that started his career, many were skeptical he could meet the same level of success, or would merely create a pale imitation of the original.

Fortunately, Smith not only matched the magic of the first film with this second entry, but he may have very well exceeded it. In the second film, Dante and Randal (played once again by Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Anderson) still feel imprisoned in a job they hate, this time in the fast food restaurant Mooby's (a fictional parody of McDonald's which has appeared in many of Smith's other films). The film occurs on Dante's last day, as he intends to move to Florida with a fiancee (Smith's wife, Jennifer Schwalbach) and a life that he honestly doesn't truly want. Resident wiseass Randal secretly is conflicted by this fact, as he feels his closest friend will leave him behind with a life that feels empty without Dante's companionship. The film details the dilemma Dante feels faced with: should he leave for Florida to fulfill a hollow expectation of a life, or stay in New Jersey with his best friend and his boss (Rosario Dawson) who he has fallen for?

For a film that is bursting with this many obscenities and vulgarity, one would think that it would be rather desensitized and shallow; however, the film succeeds at being a touching story of the love that two friends share for one another, and how important it is to the development of the characters as people. It also addresses the notorious Gen X question as to whether or not it is best to do what one wants with their life or to merely do what is expected of them. Very rarely has a film that would be deemed offensive by many carried so much heart.

I, however, was not offended by the film; in fact, I adored it. I have found all of Smith's films (with Jersey Girl possibly being the only exception) to be hysterical, but this may be his funniest effort yet. Jeff Anderson's Randal is still achingly funny as the eternal anti-social register jockey, and Brian O'Halloran's Dante plays a perfect foil to his antics. But the real superstar of this film is newcomer Trevor Fehrman as the sheltered, religious nerd Elias. His diatribes with Randal concerning his love of the Transformers and Lord of the Rings, and his description of his girlfriend's "Pillow Pants" were some of the funniest moments in the film. And the climactic Donkey Show was nothing short of comedy gold. And as always, Smith and his longtime friend Jason Mewes have memorable cameos as the mischevious stoners Jay and Silent Bob.

Smith has never set out to make Citizen Kane, but instead has always cared more about making entertaining films that are entertaining at fun. But he certainly deserves more credit as a serious filmmaker, for even in the midst of deviant sex, rampant political incorrectness, and an overall-demented world view, he has crafted a film that is truly personal, and even sweet. In the end, that is more than most comedies these days.

4 out of 5 stars

Movie Review: Peeping Tom

The Criterion Collection line of DVDs has become a figure of adoration for film enthusiasts everywhere for many years now. The series, which actually begun on laserdisc, remasters and releases culturally relevant and significant films for the general public. While some of the choices have been met with some level of controversy (look, I enjoyed The Rock, Armageddon, and The Life Aquatic, but I would certainly not deem them "culturally significant"), for the most part it has allowed films that would otherwise be largely unseen to find a mass audience.

The classic British thriller Peeping Tom is a valid example of an important film that has been given the honor of the Criterion treatment. The film, which was directed by British legend Michael Powell, tells the story of a mad camera operator who seeks to film the last moments of the lives of individuals by killing them as he operates his camera. The film developed a wildly notorious reputation in Britain for its disturbing subject matter, and it is often credited for destroying director Powell's career. Yet, like so many great films, the film's influence and importance has grown with time. Unlike most horror films, the plot of this film was strikingly complex and unique, and proved to stand as more intriguing than your standard horror fare. The film was also successful in utilizing some very unique camera techniques to capture the eerie perspective of John Barrard's murderous filmmaker. The first person perspective shots in the film effectively evoke the idea that you are watching the action through the eyes of the murderer himself. It was likely this voyeuristic touch that alienated so many British viewers when it was first released; however, it is highly effective in this horror setting, and has since been emulated repeatedly (I would not be surprised if John Carpenter was inspired from this scene, as the opening shots of Halloween have a very similar style).

The legacy of a bold film like Peeping Tom is often not given the respect and admiration it has earned until enough time has passed to see its influence on other films. This has proven true for a number of American films; Citizen Kane was considered a failure upon its initial release, yet time has exalted the film and placed it at or near the pinnacle of filmmaking. Thanks to the Criterion Collection, we now have the opportunity to view films that were ahead of their time and reflect upon how they have successfully altered the landscape of film for today.

4 and a 1/2 out of 5 stars