The Last Temptation of Christ and the Christians' capacity to freak out too.
Since the Islamic world is being seen as far removed from anything we understand in terms of reaction to a film that disturbs the image of the holiest figure in a religion, I went back to see what happened around the release of The Last Temptation of Christ. This is a blatant Wikipedia cut-and-paste, but it's interesting. I don't think it's mentioned but the author of the book was excommunicated.
Now, I am not here to slam all religion. I've talked to enough people about what makes their lives worthwhile to have a great deal of awe toward the need for meaning making. But I also think that religion hits an equivalent nerve in all faiths. The difference lies in poverty, lack of education, manipulation by extremists of all types, fear of others, and myriad non-religious influences. These are real issues we sorely need to figure out how to deal with before someone with enough power tries to use religious rage to kill us all.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Last Temptation of Christ's eponymous final sequence depicts the crucified Jesus—tempted by what turns out to be Satan in the form of a beautiful, androgynous child—experiencing a dream or alternative reality where he comes down from the cross, marries Mary Magdalene (and later Mary and Martha), and lives out his life as a full mortal man. He learns on his deathbed that he was deceived by Satan and begs God to let him "be [God's] son," at which point he finds himself once again on the cross. At other points in the film, Jesus is depicted as building crosses for the Romans, kissing other men on the lips, being tormented by the voice of God, and lamenting the many sins he believes he has committed.
Because of these radical departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian fundamentalist groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' parent company MCA;[5] one of the protestors dressed as MCA's Jewish Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[4] Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[5] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film;[5] one of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.[4]
[edit] Banning
In some countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the movie continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore.[6]
[edit] Protests
In 1989, Albuquerque high school teacher Joyce Briscoe showed the film to history students at La Cueva High School, raising a storm of controversy by parents and local Christian broadcaster KLYT.[7]
[edit] Attack on Saint Michel theater, Paris
On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[8][9] The Saint Michel theater was heavily damaged,[9] and reopened 3 years later after restoration. Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts."[9] The Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, said "One doesn't have the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother."[9] After the fire he condemned the attack, saying, "You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ. From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it."[9] The leader of Christian Solidarity, a Roman Catholic group that had promised to stop the film from being shown, said, "We will not hesitate to go to prison if it is necessary."[9]
The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right National Front to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[8] Lefebvre had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church on July 2, 1988. Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[8] At least nine people believed to be members of the Catholic fundamentalist group were arrested.[8] Rene Remond, a historian, said of the Catholic far-right, "It is the toughest component of the National Front and it is motivated more by religion than by politics. It has a coherent political philosophy that has not changed for 200 years: it is the rejection of the revolution, of the republic and of modernism."[8]
= new reply since forum marked as read
positively other-worldly. (Try listening to it while driving through CA's Mojave Desert and you're almost sure to have a quasi-religious experience. 
When I saw it in Madison, WI for the first time during its theatrical release, a lone Christian nut-job with a sign was vigiling outside the theater.
I've viewed it 3-4 times since, each time feeling my breath stolen away by the film's beauty and the story's utter poignance. An unusual case where the film adaptation is actually better than the novel that was its source, imho.
