An attempt to understand religious tossing through religious tossing. Scorsese made a masterpiece, whether to agree with the ideas of the film or not. I disagree, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating the work. “The Last Temptation” grew out of Scorsese’s agonizing attempts to put his family’s world and modern culture in one head. The parents of the future director were zealous Catholics and tried to teach him to see the world through the evaluation system of harsh Catholicism. Later, Scorsese will be introduced to other worldviews that his parents would find unacceptable. Torn by worldview conflicts, Scorsese was greatly impressed by the book of another religious renegade – the Greek Nikos Kazantzakis, who still could not understand how both divine and human essences could coexist in Jesus. Since the divine side seems to be revealed in the gospels, Kazantzakis decided to imagine the human side in conflict with messianic destiny, about which he wrote a book. And Scorsese brought it to the big screen.
The film is a masterpiece of rich and talented use of film language. The director creates the right atmosphere. With the help of film language, a narrative is created in which the line between reality, hallucination and sleep is lost. Then the main mistake is the most seemingly correct decision. It is no coincidence that the main conflict develops. Here, Scorsese continues to reflect on his conservative upbringing. In the film, it is the devil, not God, who says that God does not want suffering. In Catholicism (and more generally in Christianity) this is not the case. It was God who made it necessary to suffer. Theological problem. How is that possible? Over the centuries, theologians have generated dozens of explanations that everything is not as it seems. Scorsese, as seen in the film, did not satisfy any explanation. Yeah, it's not what it looks like. Well, then I'll make it clear that everything is not as it seems. A reasonable explanation is probably much simpler. Christianity came from ages in which humanity was less sensitive, and therefore God, who demands suffering, did not raise any questions.
Notable is the role of Judas in Scorsese. He is the most consistent and persistent student. And actually saving Jesus.
Unfortunately, the film was unlucky. And today it is perceived not as "reflections on the nature of Christ," but as "the film that was protested against." This distorts not only the interest, but also the perception of the picture. The history of the conflict is not impressive in itself. In the late '60s, American society was tired of reform and scared. It wanted to hide its head in the sand of the good old days and the old foundations. The '70s and '80s were a time of religion and politics. Religious circles felt that their time had come and that religious norms could be enshrined in legislation. For the most part, they have failed. And the late '80s was a time of disillusionment for the Christian revival. Despite all efforts, progress has been modest. Disappointment became the ground from which the violent protest grew, when someone fell into the hands of the script for The Last Temptation. The script contained all sorts of obscenities and liberties that outraged ardent believers and made them exclaim “Get up a huge country.” Explaining that all of the bad parts of the script have been removed and that there won’t be any in the upcoming film didn’t help. Ultimately, the Christian public managed to basically disrupt the film's rental. But the film has survived time, unlike many once-grossing tapes that are now successfully forgotten.
It is amazing how narrow the target audience of the film is. Non-religious people will not be interested in the film. Religious people do not understand why it is not in the Bible. The film is for those who are interested in Christianity, but who understand it on a general cultural level that goes beyond church interpretations. That is, for a narrow stratum of educated people. Not enough.