It isn't often that I write about a piece of fiction; I believe this is the first time I have ever quoted the thoughts of the director who made the movie adaptation of a piece of fiction. But when reading Roger Ebert's biography of Martin Scorsese, I chanced across some comments by Scorsese about the book
The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis. Scorsese's film version stirred controversy, to say the least. It has been many years since I saw it, and I have not read the book, so I'm not sure how faithful Scorsese was to Kazantzakis' vision. I wanted to share his comments because I was surprised -- and touched -- by Scorsese's view of the original book, and particularly his view of Jesus' last temptation on the cross. Below is an excerpt from an interview between Scorsese and Ebert. (Ebert came across as harboring some resentment, dislike, or antagonism towards his own Roman Catholic upbringing; Scorsese did not come across that way so much; he was likewise raised Roman Catholic. That tension was a recurring theme in the biography; it does play out here in a minor way in the interview.)
Scorsese: We just wanted to make him [Jesus] one of us, in a sense. ... Christologically correct, they call it, that Jesus is God and man in one. That's the one thing we assume, okay, bang, we go in with that and Kazantzakis too, you know, in the book. And the idea that, if it's man, then he has to be afraid of dying.
Ebert: And he has to be capable of lust.
Scorsese: And he has to be capable of everything. And what I thought was so great -- so great -- about Kazantzakis's book was that the last temptation is not for riches or whatever; it's just to live the life of a common man, to have a family, to die in bed and that sort of thing. It's almost a love that he has for mankind, you see. The love that he has for us. That's the idea. And in order to die he has to know what we go through. If he doesn't know what we go through, what good is God, you see.
So what did the fully human Lord think about, when his enemies taunted him to come down from the cross, and he had begged for the cup to pass from him? I think that Scorsese was right about this: it is possible that there was a last temptation born out of love for us, and love of life, and fear of death. It's what it means to be fully human.
5 comments:
In bringing Jesus down to the "common man" as Scorsese does, we must be careful lest we take Him off His throne, and lest we imply that He was never fully God and fully man in His earthly ministry. Efforts by Satan to tempt Jesus could not succeed, and we should never believe that Jesus was as weak as men in the face of temptations.
"Efforts by Satan to tempt Jesus could not succeed" -- exactly. Still, I was struck by how much the author of the book seemed to be truly moved by the idea of Jesus' love for us, and how much that was a factor for Scorsese as well. Who'd have thought?
Take care & God bless
WF
The Christ of that book/movie is, at best, Nestorian.
It has been so long since I've seen the movie (before I had a clear concept of what "Christologically correct" would entail), and I haven't read the book. I don't know if that portrayal of Christ is Nestorian; but it's not Docetist at any rate, which is a common mistake.
It does make me want to read the book ...
Take care & God bless
WF
Thanks for responding to my comment, WF.
The book and movie are Nestorian because they portray Christ as if he had a human person, which he does not. He has a full and complete human nature, including body and rational soul, but his person is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Otherwise there is no true incarnation, but merely a divine indwelling a la the prophets. Note the language of the Creed: "...and in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten." A Nestorian Christ can be of no use to anyone but himself: his obedience and his suffering become merely exemplary.
Either way, Docetist or Nestorian, Satan's purpose is secured. Deny the incarnation and one denies redemption as well.
Post a Comment