Film Review: Daniel - 40th Anniversary

 "Daniel"

**** (out of ****)

Although "Daniel" (1983) may not be well remembered today and perhaps considered undeserving of being recognized for its 40th anniversary, this Sidney Lumet film remains extremely relevant today.

Like so many other Sidney Lumet films, "Daniel" is a story about social justice. Adding to the mix is a commentary on the differences between the generations and finding social / political causes to fight for, to believe in. And it is a story about identity - familial, cultural, social, political and self-identity.

Based on the novel, The Book of Daniel, written by E.L. Doctorow - who also wrote Ragtime - "Daniel" is a fictional retelling - though Doctorow and Lumet deny it - of the famous conviction and ultimate execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were accused of spying for the Soviet government in 1953.

In "Daniel" however the family name is changed to the Isaacson's and we follow their son Daniel (Timothy Hutton) and daughter, Susan (Amanda Plummer, daughter of the late Christopher Plummer). Their parents, Paul (Mandy Patinkin) and Rochelle (Lindsay Crouse) have been dead for decades. The "Red Scare" caused by Sen. Joe McCarthy and investigations by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) have been long over. A new generation is caught in their own battle for social justice - protesting the Vietnam War and demanding the White House bring the troops home. Will Daniel and Susan be able to meet the moment?

When Susan is introduced to us - showing off bruises on her arm and elbows to her family - we see an "eager soldier". There is an urgency and desire exuding from her which is contrasted by Daniel's behavior. He may have the hair grooming of the counter-culture - long hair and a beard - but he is much more reserved and detached. He sits with his wife (Ellen Barkin) across a dining table from Susan and listens on. It's the free spirit versus responsibility. With the dining table serving as an invisible battle line drawn between the two of them, Susan hits Daniel with her idea. She wants to take their Trust inheritance and create a Foundation, named after their parents, dedicated to left-wing political resistance. 

This hits at the heart of Lumet's superb film. How do we preserve the legacy of our family and live up to the expectations of those before us? Daniel is initially against the idea of using the family name for the Foundation. Daniel has tried to create his own path in life and by doing so has traveled down a conventional road. He doesn't want his parents' history to be linked to his future. Susan on the other hand takes pride in the family name of Isaacson and acknowledges in certain circles the name has meaning. Both she and Daniel must make good on the family name and commit themselves to important causes. With a name like Isaacson they are expected to.

As the film's title suggest, this is not merely the story of Paul and Rochelle Isaacson and their trial but Daniel's story of understanding history and his identity and their shared link. It is a self-discovery film. Screen time is split between showing us Paul and Rochelle's story and Daniel's search to try and uncover the facts involving his parents' trial.

Just as one of the first images we see in "Daniel" is of Vietnam protesters, our introduction to Paul and Rochelle shows them protesting for worker's rights as police approach attempting to intimidate them. Paul approaches one of the horse back police officers and begins yelling at him "Cossack!"  The Policeman knocks him down with his horse and it is Rochelle who helps him up. From then on the two remain inseparable engaging in left-wing politics.

One stark difference between each protest shown is the amount of people involved. More people were protesting Vietnam than engaged in the battle for worker's rights. Whether Lumet intended this or not, I came away thinking two things from this sequence. One, the protest movement has only gotten bigger thanks to what generations before them (AKA Paul and Rochelle) did. Two, politics is akin to religion. There is an equal amount of devotion involved. 

Paul and Rochelle live and breathe politics and pass along their views and convictions to their children. In one scene a young Paul walks into his father's repair shop with a box of Wheaties cereal. Paul begins to explain the fraud of advertising to Daniel and the implications of using a picture of Joe DiMaggio on the box. It is an interesting scene and showcases a kind of frank dialogue about ideas we don't hear in movies anymore.

Lumet shifts the film's tone from creating a romanticized version of left-wing politics of the 40s and 50s with the harsh realities of the times. One scene involves Paul, Rochelle and Daniel, along with other party members riding a bus, coming back from a Paul Robeson concert. Their bus is diverted as suddenly they are attacked by anti-communists. Again, it is Paul who bravely confronts his attackers and their baseball bats. All of these images have left an imprint in Daniel's mind.

What is also interesting in the way the Paul character is presented is the way it contrasts with an archetype I've labeled "the cowardly liberal". Usually in movies - "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), "Straw Dogs" (1971) and "The Ox-Bow Incident" (1943) - there is a character that espouses liberal ideals. Often it is a male character with a pacifist nature. The character isn't presented as "manly" but by the conclusion of the film will often be put in a situation that will not only challenge his ideals but also his masculinity. In "Daniel", Lumet always presents Paul as heroic. He is willing to confront danger at all times. Even during WW II, in which he enlists, he says he looks forward to going to the front lines to lock arms with his Soviet brothers.

In Timothy Hutton's hands, Daniel is a bit more temperamental and often prone to lashing out at his wife. Daniel is a kind of lost soul contrasting with his father's masculine traits. It is a commentary on the differences between the generations. It has often been said, young men of the 1960s never got the chance to prove their masculinity in the same way their fathers did. Their fathers went to serve in WW II, a noble war. Those coming of age in the 60s didn't want to fight in Vietnam. Daniel's only outlet to prove his masculinity seems to be lashing out at his wife. Hutton, who won an Academy Award for his performance in "Ordinary People" (1980), was on a hot streak during this period. He followed up this complex performance with a role in "The Falcon and the Snowman" (1985).

While Daniel may be a lost soul, he is the soul of the picture. Lumet cuts to Daniel throughout the film, as Daniel informs us of the various ways throughout history governments have executed their own people. If that wasn't dramatic and hard hitting enough, Lumet takes things one step further and explains how social class often determined how gruesome one's death would be. Often the more horrendous means of execution were saved for the working class. I ask you, what film today would have the courage to express these ideas?

Some have faulted Lumet's film for not concerning itself with the Isaacson's (or for that matter, the Rosenberg's) innocence or guilt. I often wonder, do "movie critics" (sheep) watch the movies they review? Do they just make stuff up out of thin air? Do they - like political commenters - make themselves deliberately stupid? "Daniel" is a piece of good ol' fashion leftist filmmaking. The film's view on the Isaacson's guilt is layed out in a scene between Daniel and a New York Times reporter. The reporter tells Daniel based on the information and private discussions with prosecutors, his parents didn't deserve to be executed and were made an example of by an FBI that felt pressured to get results. That doesn't mean Paul and Rochelle were entirely innocent but they were no threat to the United States and weren't passing along classified information to the Soviet government. There's the film's position on the matter! How much more clearer does it need to be spelled out for people?

And that stance is what makes "Daniel" so typical of the films of Sidney Lumet. Lumet's films were often about corrupt systems and social justice. One of Lumet's best known films may be "12 Angry Men" (1957) about a jury deliberation following a murder trial. One juror (Henry Fonda) stands alone to try and convince the other's of the innocence of the accused. Then there was "Serpico" (1973) starring Al Pacino about a New York cop that exposes corruption within the force. Police corruption also played a role in other Lumet films such as "Prince of the City" (1981) and "Night Falls on Manhattan" (1997).

It was astonishing than for me to realize after 15 years of writing reviews on this blog, I never reviewed a Sidney Lumet film! During this very special "year of me" I had to correct the matter. Lumet was a very important filmmaker. Some of his best known films may have been made in the 1970s  - "Network" (1976), "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975), "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974) and "Serpico". Though he wasn't part of the "New Hollywood". His film work dates back to the 1950s. In that sense he is comparable to Robert Altman, who had also been working since the 1950s but didn't find great success until the 1970s. Lumet kind of fell out of fashion in the 1980s - along with other great filmmakers like Altman, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich and Francis Ford Coppola - though "The Verdict" (1982) with Paul Newman is one of the great films of the decade. Luckily Lumet got to end his career on a high note with his final film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (2007). Lumet died four years later.

After 40 years "Daniel" proves Lumet's genius. To me "Daniel" can speak to the political activists of today. They are like Daniel and Susan - eager soldiers looking for an important cause to fight for. They want to prove themselves to society by showing their worth and going out to champion causes. Of course they lack history and context. The "causes of the moment" seem pale to the causes championed before them.

Lumet says this film took 12 years to get off the ground. Studios didn't want to touch it. Despite the fact Lumet had been nominated four times for best director Oscars. When the film did open, it was met with mixed reviews. However, Gene Siskel recommended it and Jeffrey Lyons declared it one of the year's best films. "Daniel" may not be Lumet's best film but this is an important work, full of ideas.

Film Review: Hero

 "Hero"

**** (out of ****)

Zhang Yimou's "Hero" (2004) is a tale about honor, love, betrayal, war, peace and yes, heroism.

What does it mean to be a hero? Does being a hero require feats of strength? Must it involve fighting and killing? The movie's poster has a man with a sword in his hand. Does a hero need to act honorably and have a strong moral code? Is a hero the one that starts a fight or walks away from it?

"Hero" was a departure for the great Fifth Generation Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yimou. The ever brilliant Yimou had acquired a reputation for making period piece dramas with sometimes subtle social and political messaging. Sometimes the messaging wasn't so subtle - as was the case with Yimou's masterpiece, "To Live" (1994), which resulted in the Chinese government banning Yimou from making films for two years. "Hero" was a martial arts movie, coming to U.S. audiences four years after the hugely successful "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (2000) - the highest grossing foreign film at the U.S. box-office for the time.

Perhaps because of this change in genres, it seemed to me "movie critics" (AKA sheep) got distracted in their admiration for the choreographed fight scenes and never really acknowledged what "Hero" or any of Yimou's subsequent martial art movies were about. That includes the positive reviews too! The great movie critic, Michael Wilmington, described "Hero" in his Chicago Tribune review as "a feast of lavish visuals and a heart-stopping explosion of cinema pyrotechnics and fight choreography that, in scene after scene, leaves you almost breathless." I agree with all of that but it says nothing of the drama of the plot and the themes Yimou is working with.

While a lot of critics, and the general public, sought to compare "Hero" to "Crouching Tiger", it actually isn't a good comparison. "Hero" covers the same time period as "The Emperor and the Assassin" (1999) directed by fellow Fifth Generation filmmaker, Chen Kaige. Structurally "Hero" lends itself to comparisons to Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece, "Rashomon" (1950). The "Crouching Tiger" comparisons I believe were done because it was topical and most mainstream audiences probably hadn't seen a martial arts movie prior to "Crouching Tiger". But again I must point out, even "Crouching Tiger" was about more than its fight scenes.

By the time "Hero" reached U.S. audiences - two year after its Chinese release - the United States was engaging in two wars - Iraq and Afghanistan - by a president, George W. Bush, who had argued against "nation building" during the 2000 campaign. It wouldn't be a tremendous stretch for audiences to think about such things while watching a film about a leader seeking to "nation build" and create one unified country. The China shown in "Hero" has eight warring Chinese states. Much blood has been spilt to achieve this goal set forth by the King. War, nations and peace was on a lot of our minds at the time. And it is these connections several "movie critics" at the time ignored.

"Hero" follows a young orphan warrior named Nameless (Jet Li). Because he was not bound by any family honor, we are told, he devoted himself to the sword. He has been invited to sit with the King of Qin (Daoming Chen) thanks to his amazing accomplishment of killing three of the King's most feared enemies - Sky (Donnie Yen), Broken Sword (Tony Leung Chiu-wai) and Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung) - three assassins from the city of Zhao that have tried to take the King's life. How could one man have killed these skilled assassins when the King's army couldn't?

Nameless reveals to the King that his strategy to defeat the assassins didn't involve swordplay as much as it did outwitting them, pitting them against each other, preying upon feelings of love, jealousy and betrayal. In Nameless' scheme he turns Flying Snow and Broken Sword against each other when Nameless confesses Sky's dying thoughts were about his love for Flying Snow. From that point on the characters self-destruct resulting in Nameless' ultimate victory. But is Nameless' story true? That provides the excitement and intrigue to Yimou's film. 

In "Rashomon" fashion we begin to see events played out in different ways from different character points of view. While each story seems plausible we slowly begin to see the grander scale of the film. This isn't merely an action martial arts movie but a deeper, richer story questioning national identity, patriotism and heroism. It is a contemplative look at war and peace. While it uses a historical setting, it was very much a story of the (then) current times.

Or, as some "critics" have commented on when reviewing Yimou's latest films - "Cliff Walkers" (2021), "Shadow" (2019) and "Full Red River" (2024) - Yimou has been restricted by the Chinese government and has begun telling stories that shed a positive light on his country. "Hero" tells an emotional story about China's first Emperor and the eventual building of the Great Wall. "Hero" would seem to be the beginning of this new style of storytelling from Yimou after being banned from filmmaking twice. It could have been considered Yimou's amends to the government.

Whatever its motivations "Hero" is also a beautiful looking film - as practically every Zhang Yimou film is! Yimou and his cinematographer, Christopher Doyle place special emphasis on certain colors - primarily red, blue, white and green. Some of the fight scenes take place during different seasons. One of the most beautiful sequences takes place in a forest, in what appears to be Autumn, as a saturated red dominates the screen. With red being symbolic of jealousy, which in some ways the fight scene is about, the shifting of colors reflects on different emotional perspectives.

The jealousy of the "red scenes" are contrasted nicely with the purity of "white scenes" between Broken Sword and Flying Snow as they reflect upon their past love and promises to each other. Their interaction also hits on a theme of masculinity, with Snow looking down on Sword for some of his actions (or lack of). The "white scenes" are further contrasted with the "harshness" of an opening sequence, mainly focusing on the color black, in the rain with Nameless battling Sky.

Some have complained "Hero"  is  "style over substance" and the film lacks an emotional center. This was summed up by critic Mike Clark when he was over at USA Today. He acknowledge the film could gain a cult following but wrote, that is "despite shortcomings in storytelling" and went on to add "because it gets you on some fundamental film lover's level - but dramatic isn't quite the one." I guess I'm just a big teddy bear softie because there are moments when I found "Hero" quite touching. Some of the more emotional scenes involve Broken Sword and Flying Snow. Actors Tony Leung Chiu-wai and Maggie Cheung were in the mesmerizing "In the Mood for Love" (2001) directed by Kar-Wai Wong. Here they do a slight variation on the themes presented in that film - two people that have allowed politics and social conditions to interfere with their love. Nameless may be the film's lead character but Broken Sword is in many ways the film's moral and emotional center.

By the end of "Hero" the audience must ask themselves, who is the real hero of this story? Is it Nameless for defeating the assassins? Is it any of the assassins for wanting to stop a King from engaging in a war? Is it the King for wanting to unify a country? Are all of them heroes? Does our answer to this question depend on our definition of a hero?

Although we are dealing with a martial arts movie or more accurately a wuxia movie, as known in Chinese culture, can we compare Yimou's film to the American western genre? Could the character "Nameless" be a nod to Clint Eastwood's character in Sergio Leone's "Man with No Name" trilogy? In those westerns and Eastwood's later movies, the concept of a "hero" was also played around with. "Hero" didn't necessarily mean an ultra good-guy like John Wayne. There could be shades of gray. Is this a point Yimou is making here with his characters?

Much like "Crouching Tiger", "Hero" ended up being a box-office hit, grossing more than $53 million at the U.S. box-office, thanks in no small part to the terrific cast - Li, Cheung, Leung and Ziyi Zhang. The film was also nominated for an Academy Award in the best foreign film category. I personally declared it one of best films of 2003 - I saw it before it hit U.S. theatres by buying a Chinese DVD, and other critics like Richard Corliss of Time Magazine called it the best movie of 2004.

As we are in the midst of the "year of me" - a celebration of my own birthday milestone, leading me to discuss important films and artists, I very much wanted to discuss Zhang Yimou, whom I have neglectfully ignored on this blog for the last 15 years. I have only reviewed two of his movies - "Curse of the Golden Flower" (2006) and the film released the same year as "Hero", "House of Flying Daggers" (2004). This is despite the fact Yimou has been one of my favorite filmmakers these past 23 years, since I first discovered his work. He has also been the most celebrated filmmaker on my annual top ten lists, appearing more times than any other filmmaker during these last two plus decades. And he has the honor of having topped my lists more times than any other filmmaker for a total of four. He topped what may have been my last annual top ten list in 2021.

"Hero" is a thought-provoking rich film commenting on politics, heroism, morality, love, war and peace. It is one of Yimou's great films.

Film Review: Why Worry? - 100th Anniversary

 "Why Worry?"

*** (out of ****)

You have nothing to "worry" about while watching a Harold Lloyd comedy!

Having mentioned a while ago I liked the concept of looking back on films celebrating their 100th anniversary - during the "year of me" on this blog - I reviewed Cecil B. DeMille's religious epic, "The Ten Commandments" (1923) and used it as a way to springboard into a broader discussion about the current preservation (or lack of) silent cinema. I further mused, will anyone care if movies of this age are no longer accessible? 

It was my position "The Ten Commandments" stood up rather well these pass 100 years. Since that was a drama I thought we should take a look at how well a 100 year old comedy would hold up and what would be a better example than watching a Harold Lloyd comedy?

I would think for modern viewers drama of this era would be easier to accept than comedy. Drama deals with the same basic human emotions that motivate dramas of today. Emotions and human nature has not progressed as much as some may like to believe. A sad story from 1923 will be a sad story in 2023. But the nature of comedy has evolved. What a society chooses to laugh at has changed. In modern times, looking at the world through a political lens - as the media and activists will have us do - I would argue it is the comedies that come under fire more so than drama. The change in comedy doesn't have to reference anything political or racial either. Once upon a time people laughed at someone getting hit in the face with a pie or slipping on a banana peel. On a societal level I believe this style of humor is considered dated. On a personal level, it still works for me! While a film of any genre dated 100 years ago will "show its age", it seems the comedies may provide a better insight into a society and thus may have a harder time transcending time. Again, I am very specifically expressing if we choose to view films through a very strict and narrow political lens. Funny is funny to me personally. 

By the time Harold Lloyd appeared in "Why Worry?" (1923) he had already developed his most famous screen character, commonly known as "Glasses". Charlie Chaplin had "The Tramp". Buster Keaton had "The Great Stoneface". And Lloyd developed a character that would represent "the everyman". Lloyd wasn't interested in politics or making any great social commentary. But Lloyd helped establish the groundwork for the modern day romantic comedy. "Glasses" was a typical American male who possessed what are often considered amiable traits. He was a "go-getter" who desperately wanted to achieve the "American Dream". He didn't challenge modern day moral convention the way W.C. Fields did. Lloyd wanted to get married and start a family. He wanted financial success and was willing to work hard. He was supposed to be your next door neighbor.

"Why Worry?" was Lloyd's fifth feature-length comedy after appearing in literally hundreds of two-reelers including classics like "Never Weaken" (1921) and "Now or Never" (1921). What makes "Why Worry?" such an oddity is its betrayal of the successful formula Lloyd and his surrounding creative team - Hal Roach, Sam Taylor, Fred C. Newmeyer - had created. All one need do to watch the genius of Harold Lloyd is see comedies like "Grandma's Boy" (1922), "Girl Shy" (1924) and "The Kid Brother" (1927). These were instrumental in creating the now standard clichés of the romantic comedy. "Why Worry?" wants to change the formula up a bit and the result isn't as successful as it should have been. 

In the film Lloyd plays Harold Van Pelham, a wealthy and privileged hypochondriac who travels to the South American island of Paradiso along with his Nurse (Jobyna Ralston) and valet (Wally Howe). In reality nothing is wrong with Harold and he almost seems to take pleasure in the idea of being sick. When he notices another, visibly sick individual, Harold ecstatically proclaims  "I have a great doctor. He says I have everything but small pox.". Harold's "concern" for his health is mocked when he arrives in Paradiso in a hospital gurney, puffing away at a cigarette. While views on smoking have dramatically changed, I assume even in 1923 it was a joke to see a man so concerned about his health to be smoking a cigarette.

Being so wrapped up in his various illnesses, he fails to recognize the feelings of his Nurse, whom we are told via intertitles, is putting her heart in her work. She however doesn't seem to believe Harold is ill and all of his pill taking is a waste of time. Her attitude of Harold does provide the movie with one of its commentaries - masculinity. Viewers may not realize this but a significant number of screen comedies are about masculinity. With Harold constantly being worried about his health, it presents him as a "weakling". He isn't a young and virile male. If Harold were to ever have any conception of winning his Nurse's hand, he will have to "man up". 

So far this plot while seemingly predictable is conventionally for the era and could have the making of a good Harold Lloyd comedy with Harold first slowly coming to realize his Nurse has feelings for him and that he has feelings for her. He would then have to prove his worth by showing he is no longer sick and can be "manly" - meaning assertive, aggressive behavior. Perhaps there would be a potential male rival competing for the Nurse's affection.

Unfortunately, "Why Worry?" doesn't quite take this route and makes some fundamental mistakes in its interpretation of the Harold character. Lloyd should play characters that are essentially likeable. We should be rooting for him and the female lead to get together. That's the way romantic comedies work. You create two likeable characters the audience wants to see get together by the end of the movie. "Why Worry?" doesn't create a likeable character for Lloyd. The Harold character comes across as snobbish. The movie doesn't have enough fun with the hypochondriac behavior by exaggerating it enough. A better example of this would be Eddie Cantor in "Whoopee!" (1930) or Woody Allen in anything.

Furthermore "Why Worry?" doesn't establish enough of a connection between Harold and his Nurse. There isn't a slow build to Harold's affection and the movie keeps the two characters apart from each other way too long. The idea that Harold has feelings for his Nurse doesn't seem to be a driving force of the plot. As such, we never really care if these characters end up together because it doesn't seem to be on Harold's mind.

This proves to be a waste of Jobyna Ralston and the chemistry she shared with Lloyd. Ralston was one of Lloyd's great co-stars, appearing in some of Lloyd's best like "Girl Shy", "The Kid Brother" - Lloyd's favorite of his own comedies - and "The Freshman" (1925).

Instead Harold spends a majority of his screen time paired with real life giant, John Aasen - making his screen debut - who plays a misunderstood and feared hermit, Colosso. The sight of the average height Lloyd standing next to the 7'2 Aasen is a visual joke that can be seen in more modern times as in the Billy Crystal comedy, "My Giant" (1998) with ex-basketball player Gheorghe Muresan.

While at first Harold tries to assist his giant yank out a tooth, the two men suddenly find themselves caught in the middle of a revolution as they fight off an army headed by another American named Blake (Jim Mason), whose presence wasn't made entirely clear to me. Described as an "American renegade" he resides on he island "to further his own financial interest" and "has lashed the riffraff of the Republic into an outlaw force". It is never explained what these "financial interest" are and exactly how they will be "furthered" by staying in Paradiso. 

The revolution abruptly begins when Blake receives a notice from the World Allied Bankers, who are upset with Blake and are concerned he is upsetting their "commercial interest" in Paradiso. They inform Blake they will be sending a representative  to "curb" his activities. Again, the "commercial interest" of the bankers is never revealed nor is how Blake is interfering with their interest. However, when Harold arrives on the island, Blake mistakes him for the representative and believes now would be a good time to start his revolution. Once again it is unfortunate but "Why Worry?" doesn't capitalize on this "mistaken identity" plot with Blake almost fearing him and Harold's actions being misinterpreted. For a better example of this, watch Danny Kaye in "The Inspector General" (1949).

Probably without meaning to do so, "Why Worry?" is inadvertently making some type political and social commentary just by the very nature that Americans - and not just regular Americans but the World Allied Bankers have "commercial interest" in a South American island! Blake's plan - whatever it may be - could be a commentary on American corporations and bankers interfering in the economy of foreign countries. 

I wonder if this movie had any influence on  Woody Allen's comedy, "Bananas" (1971) - where Allen gets involved in a Latin American revolution and ends up a country's leader.

In the end "Why Worry?" doesn't add up to enough to make a great Harold Lloyd comedy but it does have some funny sequences. I suppose one of the better ones involves Harold first walking around the town completely oblivious to the danger around him, as the townspeople are fighting. And yet his oblivious nature I feel speaks to the snobbishness I mention earlier about the character.

Though "Why Worry?" is a 100 year old comedy, I think the comedy largely works. The failure of the movie to more fully succeed has nothing to do with the jokes but rather the development of the characters. A modern audience can find something to laugh at.

Film Review: The Last Temptation of Christ - 35th Anniversary

 "The Last Temptation of Christ"

**** (out of ****)

In celebration of Easter, I wanted to take a look at Martin Scorsese's controversial, misunderstood masterpiece, "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988).

Of all the religious movies that have been made why did I chose this one? Why couldn't I chose a more "acceptable" film? One that provides a more biblically accurate depiction of Christ. The short answer is because I didn't want to. 

This may surprise many Americans to learn this but when Martin Scorsese released "The Last Temptation of Christ" some people complained. I know what you're thinking, you find it hard to believe Americans would over-react to something and start complaining. We are after all such a quiet and reserved people not given to faux "moral outrage". But you must remember this was 1988. As a society we have learned to advanced intellectually since than and are better able to drown out extremists voices on the religious and political spectrum. Of course I am lying and being sarcastic!

"The Last Temptation of Christ" was officially declared by the Catholic Church as being "morally offensive". The religious right - many of whom hadn't seen the film - condemned the film for it's depiction of Jesus Christ as a man. Not only a man but a flawed man. The church contended the film was an act of blasphemy. In a recent interview with USA Today, Willem Dafoe - who portrays Jesus - expressed his initial heartache when the film opened and commented how he felt the protesting hurt the distribution of the film.

None of this is terribly interesting to me but I mention it to give readers a sense of historical context. I am sure if this film was released today it would be met with the same fervor reaction from religious groups. I am not a theologian. I don't care how accurate a depiction the film is of Jesus' life. I would rather discuss the film as a work of art. A piece of fiction. I sincerely believe it is not a sin to watch this film. No film, book, poem, song or statue will lead us to the fiery gates of hell because we chose to engage it. I have two parents that ingrained morals and values within me. I was taught the difference between right and wrong. I even attended Catholic school during my elementary years. "The Last Temptation of Christ" will not lead you astray. If it does, your moral faith wasn't strong to begin with. That's why I feel comfortable writing about this movie during this holy time and why I don't consider it an act of blasphemy.

So many of Martin Scorsese's films revolve around themes of guilt, redemption and loyalty. Take a look at "GoodFellas" (1990), "Taxi Driver" (1976), "Raging Bull" (1980), "Mean Streets" (1973), "Gangs of New York" (2002) and even "The Departed" (2006). What greater canvass to address these themes than by examining the life of Jesus Christ. I would assume that is what drew Scorsese to this material based on Nikos Kazantzakis' novel of the same title.

The film states immediately that the events it depicts are not based on any of the Gospels. This is a fictional work with the objective of dramatically examining the duality of Jesus - both man and the son of God. While believers may often acknowledge this duality, do they fully comprehend the implications of it? What exactly must it feel like to be mortal and divine? What kind of struggles would that present? More specifically, what did Jesus undergo? The Bible doesn't give us a day by day account of Jesus' activities for the 33 years he walked among us. "Last Temptation" wants to tell Jesus' story in ways the average viewer can understand and relate to. The dramatic key to the film is the emphasis on Jesus being a man and thus struggling with the various temptations all mankind faces.

At one point in the film Jesus (Dafoe) confesses to a stranger his struggles. He confides there are times he gets angry and other times he feels lust but he never acts on these impulses. He doesn't act on those impulses out of fear of upsetting God. Here is a story of Jesus himself experiencing Catholic guilt. Jesus is being subjected to all the struggles his followers must endure. This humanizing of Jesus I believe makes this a relatable depiction. Now in modern everyday terms we can understand acts of faith. 

Scorsese and his film create other contrasts from the Bible as in its presentation of the friendship between Jesus and Judas (Harvey Keitel). Here it is Judas who is Jesus' most devoted follower. Judas, originally hired to kill Jesus for his participation in the crucifixion of Jewish rebels against the Romans, is convinced Jesus is the Messiah. Judas and the other Apostles follow Jesus as he spreads a message of love.

Scorsese's Jesus however is portrayed as one full of doubt and uncertainty. Now that he has these followers, what will he do with them? Where will he lead them to? What is his purpose? What message must he spread? Initially Jesus believes God wants him to spread a message of love but then later believes, through John the Baptist (Andre Gregory), that his message should be one of promoting force and having the rebels fight back against Roman oppression. Notice in these sequences Jesus now wears a bandana, as if he is in charge of a street gang. Jesus reveals to Judas, God only tells him what he needs to know. Piece by piece. Eventually he comes to the realization that he was put on this earth to die on the cross.

This aspect of the film reminded me of Nicholas Ray's "King of Kings" (1961) which also created a fictional storyline involving Judas being torn between the messages of Jesus (love) and Barabbas (violence) concerning how best to deal with injustice. Because it was made in the 1960s I felt the movie was making a commentary on the Civil Rights movement and the differing messages of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. With the "Last Temptation" being released in Reagan's America, I wonder if there was a political commentary being made here. A movement having lots of followers but no direction. Like a political party or Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.

For as much as "Last Temptation" changes about biblical teachings, in other ways it presents the viewers with many familiar stories and miracles they would expect from a biblical film. It may not be immediately clear to us but we do get a version of the Sermon on the Mount and hear Jesus reference some of the Beatitudes. We get a version of the miracle as Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding. We see Jesus resurrect Lazarus. And, fittingly for this film, we also get a sequence based on Matthew 4:1-11, when Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights and was tempted by Satan in the desert. As well as a shorten version of the Passion and the Agony in the Garden, where believers will tell you Jesus did express fear and prayed to God that he may be spared - "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by".

There is also a moment in "Last Temptation" that made me smile. There is a sequence where the Apostles are waiting for Jesus to return and begin to debate among themselves if they should continue waiting. Judas becomes visibly annoyed by this conversation and yells they will stay and wait. Afterwards, Peter (Victor Argo) agree with Judas. Judas then mocks Peter and tells him, he's like a rock. You can't change his mind. Of course this is a reference to Jesus referring to Peter as a rock he will build his church on. 

This fierce devotion to Jesus explains why Judas was chosen to be the one to betray Jesus resulting in his crucifixion. The other Apostles, it is believed, wouldn't be strong enough to commit such an act. 

The most challenging aspect of the film however is the suggestion that Jesus wanted to get married and have children. In "Last Temptation" he marries Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey) but starts a family with Lazarus' sisters. Of course not wanting to reveal too much to readers, I would like to bring your attention to the film's title.

It is the words the "Last Temptation" that are significant to the film and a key ingredient to interpreting the events of the film. By the film's conclusion "The Last Temptation of Christ" reinforces what all followers believe. The film's path leads us to the same destination as Christian doctrine does. That is what made the "moral outrage" the film was greeted with so disappointing. This is truly a beautiful work of art commenting on the sinner and saint in all of us.

Luckily some in Hollywood were brave enough to stand up to the protests and Martin Scorsese received the film's only Academy Award nomination for best director. But how unfortunate Willem Dafoe wasn't nominated for best actor. What an emotionally complex performance he delivers. Barbara Hershey meanwhile was nominated for a Golden Globe in the best supporting actress category. The late film critic, Gene Siskel, of Siskel & Ebert fame, declared the film the best movie of 1988 and called it a "recruiting film for Christianity". Bare in mind Gene Siskel was Jewish.

Since I am writing this review during "the year of me" - year's worth of reflections about films important to me - I'd like to share a brief story of my first interaction with this film. The movie had just been released on VHS and my father rented it. After my mother found out what he had done, she became very upset and couldn't believe he would bring the movie into our home. In her eyes this was a terrible sin my father had committed. There's a glimpse into what my childhood was like.

"The Last Temptation of Christ" is a powerfully tender and intellectually provoking exploration of Christ's duality, the nature of divinity, themes of redemption and commentary on man's inner conflict regarding faith.