Talk:The Last Temptation of Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve The Last Temptation of Christ, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.

Contents

[edit] Devout Catholic?

Changed "devout Catholic" to "raised Catholic", until a source is cited showing that Scorsese is reconciled to the Church. The man's been married five times. 209.149.235.254 16:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Changed "raised Catholic" to "devout Catholic (excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church". There are two reasons for this. The first is that "the Church" is not the only claiment to being "Catholic" (Anglicanism claims to be Catholic as well, for example). Secondly, it is upto him whether what he is doing is something he considers Catholic or not. It is a belief, and he believes he is Catholic, therefore he is Catholic, whether or not other people who claim Catholicism think he is or not.81.156.181.197 18:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The clause in brackets in the phrase "historical accounts of the Gospels (or what is believed to be historical fact)" seems unneccessary, as the phrase "historical accounts" simply imlies an account of something percieved as being in the past. It doesn't mean that it actually happened, merely that it is not an account of the present time. Maybe this is something that US english is not so clear about? 81.156.181.197 18:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to verify Wikipedia's statement that Scorsese was "excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church", found no support for it, and removed it because it seems quite misleading. The good old days of specifically excommunicating someone are long gone, and Scorsese never seems to have been seriously considered for such a process. All that's left these days is canon law stating what actions might be deemed to have resulted in a sort of "automatic" excommunication, and applying these is guesswork. We certainly shouldn't leave the impression that the film resulted in any formal action against Scorsese. I've reworded the growing up/devout phrase too, to what I think is a more accurate description of Scorsese's religious status. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If somebody can prove to me that the Gospels are indeed a 100% reliable historical source, then I'll be happy let my previous updates go. What I object to is the article's implication that what's in the Bible is FACT and the movie's digressions are FICTION. Certainly it needs to stated that the movie deviates from what's COMMONLY accepted about Christ, but the lines should not be drawn quite so sharply, since we have no genuine primary sources. Ramanpotential 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to be a 'Fundie' or anything, but how do you define a "primary source" other that "A biography written by people who knew him"? There's as much evidence of the story of Jesus' life, as there is King Henry V *shrugs* DOn't lean too far in either direction, both are doubtlessly shaded by the writers of the time and their positions, but saying there are no "primary sources" is just as bad.

Not the case I'm afraid. The Gospels were written several years (possibly up to a century, in the case of the Gospel of St. John) after Jesus was crucified, and it's unlikely that any of the writers ever met him. Even more importantly, none of the original documents, or even copies from anything like the period, still exist. FrFintonStack 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/source for theater bombing?

"On 1988-10-22, a French catholic fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film projection. This terrorist attack injured thirteen people, four of them where severely burned."

Can anyone find a source for this information? I've searched on the internet and not been able to come up with anything that looks like a citation. – Dcfleck 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Some references in the French press :

Ske2 16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, the l'Humanité article says that the bombing happened on 23 April, doesn't it? --Dcfleck 13:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't even tell if this is vandalism or genuinely mistakened POV lapse. Please reread the introductory paragraph and provide justification for such a blatantly personal interpretation of this controversial work. If it is indeed the true will of the writer and the director, I believe that direct quotations are necessary. --gorchung 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What you mean is that you wan't a source for the following claim:
"The central thesis of the book is that Jesus, while free from sin, was still subject to every form of temptation that humans face, including fear, doubt, depression, reluctance, and lust. By facing and conquering all of man's weaknesses, Kazantzakis argues, Christ became the perfect model for our lives: A Savior who sacrificed not only on the cross, but every day of his life as he struggled to do the will of his Father and eventually emerged having never strayed from his path and having never once given in to the temptation of the flesh."
or have I misinterpreted you? —Gabbe 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, especially the second sentence. Moreover, though this is probably a direct quote of Kazantzakis (bona fide, bona fide), we still need to point out in the very first place that the director's interpretation is NOT necessary what other perceives. It is not unlike introducing Muhammed's ansigt solely with the freedom-of-speech interpretation of the editors. If that were the consensus we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place. --gorchung 15:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Kazantzakis indeed states the paragrah in question in the book's preface. The author of the paragraph paraphrased, but s/he correctly stated his thesis as he defends it. I've modified the article to note where to find this claim in the author's writings. --22:01, 17 February 2006 (not a registered user; my contact is thedano81@hotmail.com)

[edit] Link to Gospel of Judas?

As I recall the film, Judas is portrayed in a much more favourable light than in the accepted Gospels - I remember a scene where Jesus takes him aside and has a discussion where he insists that Judas go to the authorities and betray him. Maybe there should be a link to the Gospel of Judas article? -- j-beda 13:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. In LToC, Judas is clearly an "insider" to Christ's plan.
Atlant 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a 'the last temptation' search, goes to a music album

maybe should be a page listing this one too? it's the proper english title for the book anyway.


--I second that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.149.204 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorized as a Christian Film debate

I would very much deny that this could be called a "Christian film". What do others think. The fact that an author of a work believes something to be the case doesn't actually make it so. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian -- By definition, any story involving Christ is "Christian". And Kazantzakis saw this as "Christian" as well. Atlant 13:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides, the definition in the category listing refers to films with Christianity as a major theme. No one can deny that Christianity is a major theme of this film! Tex 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I certainly see Tex's point about the definition of the category and on that basis it should be included. However I would content that conflicts with the title of the category which implies that the "character" of the novel / film is "Christian". For instance "The Life of Brian" is commonly regarded as a spoof of the life of Christ, does that make it a Christian film, hardly, it was highly critical in a satirical manner. The recent cartoon of the prophet Muhammad that caused such controversy would by similar criteria be called an "Islamic cartoon" but it would be Very offensive to see it so titled. Do you see the problem with the logic. Okay so the issue then becomes one of, does the individual making the work consider it "Christian", supposedly he does; or does the wider Christian world consider it "Christian", I don't think so; or does the wider world consider it "Christian", again I don't think so. At the end of the day we are only trying to best classify difficult subject areas, we should attempt to understand the problem areas and seek to understand each others points and describe as clearly as we can the information presented to us. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
But that cartoon was not written from the point of view of an Islamic believer attempting to portray their beliefs, whereas Scorsese was writing from the point of view of Christianity. Whether it agrees with all sects and denominations is moot, as no denomination is--universally--"more Christian" than another. Essentially, the film was made in support of Christian beliefs by an espoused Christian (at the time). It is also about Christ, rather than simply portraying him. FangsFirst 07:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novel or film?

is this for the novel or film? Because there really should be two seperate pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.102.66 (talk • contribs) .

This is very true. The article should not mention the novel only to go on and describe the film in great detail. The novel certainly deserves its own page. 24.193.142.31 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned in Chile

Up until very recently (around 6 years ago), Last Temptation of Christ was stricly forbidden in Chile, mainly because of the dictatorship of Pinochet, if i remember well, around 96-97, a teacher was fired from a school for screening it and it wasnt until Ricardo Lagos was elected president (10 years after democracy had came back!) that the ban was lifted and movies and other sorts of censorship were abolished (the list of banned movies was huge, probably more than a 100, but Last Temptation of Christ was THE most important of all banned movies). Did this happened in any other country, besides Chile?.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LastTemptation.jpg

Image:LastTemptation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)