The Last Temptation of Christ, 1989 - DVD

I wanted to watch this film before I went to go see Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I hadn't seen it in a few years, and wanted a little refresher course on religious films that have made the public go ga-ga over the depictions of Christ, in a multitude of circumstances that may or may not have happened.

I mean, we only have the Bible to go on, right? No real eye witnesses around...

First off, Criterion is such an amazing company for creating DVDs of such high quality. I'm thankful that there is a company out there that takes chances on developing these DVDs that aren't mainstream, but are still brilliant pieces of work that deserve to be preserved and shown in the highest quality possible.

So. Nikos Kazantzakis took the idea of Jesus and gave us his interpretation of Jesus, on the cross, and his final moments of life. It's an interesting idea, with Satan tempting Jesus with the normal life of man, masking this new life in an attempt to have him forsake his heritage and his destiny.

I never read the book. So I really can't tell how well Schrader did with adapting the novel. But, Schrader has proven himself, time and again, as a competent writer. He's worked with Scorsese on a number of projects, including Taxi Driver, Raging Bull (also adapted) and Bringing out the Dead (also adapted). He's written and directed a few features, but nothing so mainstream of exciting as his other works.

Surely this was a difficult work to adapt, because the adaption of a novel is so difficult... especially when you're adapting one that is dealing with the emotions and lives of Jesus and his apostles. The novel is fiction, he wasn't adapting the Bible, so there is a narrative to work with... and the rendering of emotion on the screen, that's the actors job (along with Scorsese)... but it's the choices that Schrader had to make... well, I cannot comment on those choices since, again, I did not read the book.

I will say that Schrader gave us a very compelling script. Very tight. I think that everything else that is wrong with the film stems from the subject matter and the difficulty the audience might have sympathizing with the characters. This is a time and a place where people have no connection, save through a book. And that's not enough, for a lot of people. I'm not talking about faith, or religious fervor. I'm just talking about empathy and understanding and believing in the idea of Jesus Christ, as the son of God.

The dialog in some parts is stilted and hard to accept. And the actors suffer for this in these parts. There are moments of wonderful dialog... but then we're given to dialog that is just to move the film forward... and it hinders the believability.

I also appreciated the take on Judas that Kazantzakis took. It was interesting to see him as not only the man that Jesus trusted, but also the one that Jesus begged to betray him. As a friend. I'm reminded of History of the World... heh. Sorry, but that part is so funny.

Dafoe is wonderful. I think he's an incredible actor, and has some great moments in this film. But sometimes the dialog really got in the way. He certainly has a presense, and I found myself thinking, in regards to the acts that Kazantzakis stayed true to, how someone who went through those events kept sane. Even now, with the imaginations of ours fueled by fiction and film, if a person was having religious delusions (or illusions), that were actually real... how would they keep from going insane?

In this regard, Dafoe did an incredible job. The material and his acting stayed true... this was more often than not... so, overall, his performace was great.

I think that Keitel was not a very good casting choice. I'm not sure why he got this role. He's worked with Scorsese on a number of other projects, including Scorsese's breakout picture Mean Streets. Who's that Knocking at my Door, Taxi Driver... and that was it. Did he need the work? I don't know. His best piece of work, in my opinion, is Mean Streets. He's more natural than he's ever been in that film. In this film, he seemed to be overacting, all the time. None of it seemed genuine.

Don't get me wrong. Keitel has done some good work. Reservoir Dogs, U-571, Cop Land, Bad Lieutenant, Thelma and Louise. But in this film, he was mis-cast. As a side note, Keitel was given a Razzie in 1989, for worst supporting actor.

One bit of interesting casting was that of David Bowie as Pontius Pilate. He was quite good in his role, though short.

A depature for Scorsese, for sure, but you can understand why he might want to take a project like this. He was, by this time, a successful director. The work was controversial. He had a script from his collaborator Schrader and a great leading actor. I'm sure the entire production presented a challenge, and I respect him as a director for taking a chance on something that, at the time, was not being well received by anyone.

With a budget of only $7 million, and shot on location in Morocco (among other places), this was quite a low budget film. Universal agreed to produce the film for Scorsese (who was given an Oscar nomination for best director), on the agreement that he shoot a more commercial film for them. That ended up being Cape Fear.

Michael Ballhaus first started shooting Scorsese's work in 1984 with After Hours. He would go on to shoot The Color of Money, Christ, Goodfellas, The Age of Innocence, and Gangs of New York, which he was nominated for an Oscar. He's shot some pretty impressive movies. Broadcast News, Quiz Show, Dracula, What About Bob?, The Fabulous Baker Boys, Working Girl, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels... and then some dreck, like Wild Wild West, Outbreak, Air Force One... ugh.

The photography in this film is not quite like, say Goodfellas. You can see the same type of direction... but the lighting and the blocking of shots in this film is much different, and I attribute this to the low budget. I'm sure that Scorsese and Ballhaus were trying to get things done right the first time, while still preserving their artistic integrity.

With such a low budget, this film centers more on the atmosphere surronding Christ and his followers, and less on flashy special effects that might have given the film a slightly more ominous tone, but would have taken away from the purity of the story.

I remember when the film came out, and how all of the religious groups went haywire over it. I'm not an overtly religious person. I believe in God, that's about as far as it goes. I don't have the insight of religious leaders and how this film might have come off insulting to... whom? I'm not sure. But people these days (and almost two decades ago) really don't need a good reason to be upset, especially when it comes to their God.

I mean 'our' God. Sorry.