utkal
|
|
March 12, 2010 at 6:51 am
|
41 views
| NaachGaana Bol|
Share
The film and the controversy surrounding it provides an interesting parallel with the controversy surrounding some of Husain’s paintings. The parallel is interesting because like Husain who has painted thousands of paintings and the controversy is about a dozen at most, in case of Scorsese it is just one film out of twenty. Both Husain and Scorsese have created what they have done out of their love for their subject, not as a form of criticism ( unlike the danish cartoonist or Taslima Nasreen, though I support their freedom of expression to.). Both have managed to offend the fundamental elements and both have found abundant support among the more balanced viewers. I strongly recommend anyone interested in religion and theology should see the film. Below is the review of the film by Roger Ebert:
Christianity teaches that Jesus was both God and man. That he could be both at once is the central mystery of the Christian faith, and the subject of “The Last Temptation of Christ.” To be fully man, Jesus would have had to possess all of the weakness of man, to be prey to all of the temptations–for as man, he would have possessed God’s most troublesome gift, free will. As the son of God, he would of course have inspired the most desperate wiles of Satan, and this is a film about how he experienced temptation and conquered it.
That, in itself, makes “The Last Temptation of Christ” sound like a serious and devout film, which it is. The astonishing controversy that has raged around this film is primarily the work of fundamentalists who have their own view of Christ and are offended by a film that they feel questions his divinity. But in the father’s house are many mansions, and there is more than one way to consider the story of Christ–why else are there four Gospels? Among those who do not already have rigid views on the subject, this film is likely to inspire more serious thought on the nature of Jesus than any other ever made.
(more…)