I think my body has successfully slept the amount it needs to 'catch up' from a long period of deprivation. The last two nights, despite getting little sleep the previous nights, my body has had a very difficult time going to sleep. Granted, I've been retiring early, going to bed near 8 or 9 o clock in order to try to reset my schedule for rising early while still giving myself enough time to sleep 7-8 hours. However, I've not been able to sleep until midnight or later each night. My body will acclimate, I'm sure. But this is the first time in near three years I've been, as they say, out of a routine.
And as part of my vigil last night, i continued reading in Robin Riley's book Film, Faith, and Cultural Conflict: The Case of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. In it, Riley attributes the demonization from and toward both sides of the cultural conflict surrounding the production and release of the film to, as Girard first explored, scapegoating. The process of scapegoating is, to Girard, the process of transmuting blame from oneself to another object, thereby expiating the blame on oneself and alienating and demonizing the object of the scapegoating. This process, most notably, has its origins in the Old Testament Jewish rituals of sacrifice: Jewish sin and guilt against the Law expiated by the killing or exile of animals.
In regards to the conflict, both the "conservative religious" and "liberal progressive" camps were guilty of scapegoating the other, according to Riley. The conservative religious, whose chapter I've yet to read, I'm assuming transferred the blame for a morally depraved and religiously insensitive America to the film and its makers, thereby expiating their own guilt for ignorance, emotional irrationality, and unwarranted cruelty toward the film and its makers. Scorsese and the studios, and the other liberal progressives, who's chapter I have read, redirected all blame for the situation on the aforementioned ignorance and totalitarian anti-art sentiments of the religio-conservatives, subconsciously (or consciously) downplaying their own culpability for creating a film which was subversive to the core and even provocatory.
Riley has little empathy wish Scorsese and Schrader, the two main impetus behind the film being made, it seems. To Riley, Scorsese is a self-deceptive detractor of his native Catholicism and Christianity in general. Contrary to what he says--or so Riley claims--Scorsese's Jesus is a direct subversion of the traditional, and, it seems, according to Riley, historical Jesus, an "embodiment of the postmodern culture...a multivocal, heterogeneous and politically correct type of 1980 liberal America. This free-thinking, pluralistic man qualifies as an appropriate victim for removal of their collective guilt." He continues,
And as part of my vigil last night, i continued reading in Robin Riley's book Film, Faith, and Cultural Conflict: The Case of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. In it, Riley attributes the demonization from and toward both sides of the cultural conflict surrounding the production and release of the film to, as Girard first explored, scapegoating. The process of scapegoating is, to Girard, the process of transmuting blame from oneself to another object, thereby expiating the blame on oneself and alienating and demonizing the object of the scapegoating. This process, most notably, has its origins in the Old Testament Jewish rituals of sacrifice: Jewish sin and guilt against the Law expiated by the killing or exile of animals.
In regards to the conflict, both the "conservative religious" and "liberal progressive" camps were guilty of scapegoating the other, according to Riley. The conservative religious, whose chapter I've yet to read, I'm assuming transferred the blame for a morally depraved and religiously insensitive America to the film and its makers, thereby expiating their own guilt for ignorance, emotional irrationality, and unwarranted cruelty toward the film and its makers. Scorsese and the studios, and the other liberal progressives, who's chapter I have read, redirected all blame for the situation on the aforementioned ignorance and totalitarian anti-art sentiments of the religio-conservatives, subconsciously (or consciously) downplaying their own culpability for creating a film which was subversive to the core and even provocatory.
Riley has little empathy wish Scorsese and Schrader, the two main impetus behind the film being made, it seems. To Riley, Scorsese is a self-deceptive detractor of his native Catholicism and Christianity in general. Contrary to what he says--or so Riley claims--Scorsese's Jesus is a direct subversion of the traditional, and, it seems, according to Riley, historical Jesus, an "embodiment of the postmodern culture...a multivocal, heterogeneous and politically correct type of 1980 liberal America. This free-thinking, pluralistic man qualifies as an appropriate victim for removal of their collective guilt." He continues,
Along his path of liberation he rejects the religious aboslutes of Christianity and the limites of its moral code. He fulfills his religious mission by cleasing himself of the superstitions of his filmic predessesors and the religioon they represent. Jesus victimization on the corss producs a form of redemption, not the form identified with traditional Chrisitiaity, but a sceular redpetion of the autonomous conscioence conformed to the priciples of humaism. The CChristian story is replaced with a myth of progress, "the myth that humanity will gruadually become liberated and dvine through its own instrumentality." (Riley 57)
Jesus has tendencies toward introversion and salvation by enlightenment and self-denial, strong Gnostic tendencies, a fact which I myself have observed in previous posts. In this, Jesus represents a strong personification of the religiously individualistic and subjective culture of the late 1980s United States, and in this, Scorsese and Schrader's Jesus is a direct subversion of the objective, morally absolute, and mystified Jesus presented in the canonical gospels.
None of which I disagree with.
However, Riley gets into hot water when, throughout the chapter, he begins to assert that Scorsese is, essentially, in self-denial about his own motivations. Scorsese repeatedly said the film was a genuine expression of his own faith, an opportunity to "get to know Jesus better," or so he told Universal Studios as a pitch. Scorsese expressly stated that, to him, he wanted to re-open the dialogue about Jesus' divinity and humanity, to personally explore the relationship between the two, and, in the process, grow in his own conception of Jesus (Riley 38-39).
That being said, Scorsese and the studios denied that the film was "based in the Gospels" or relevant to the history that so many Christians hold dear as a center to their faith and, in the process, expiated all responsiblity for any negative effects or harm the film may cause in traditiol circles. And according to Riley, this is unconvincing.
None of which I disagree with.
However, Riley gets into hot water when, throughout the chapter, he begins to assert that Scorsese is, essentially, in self-denial about his own motivations. Scorsese repeatedly said the film was a genuine expression of his own faith, an opportunity to "get to know Jesus better," or so he told Universal Studios as a pitch. Scorsese expressly stated that, to him, he wanted to re-open the dialogue about Jesus' divinity and humanity, to personally explore the relationship between the two, and, in the process, grow in his own conception of Jesus (Riley 38-39).
That being said, Scorsese and the studios denied that the film was "based in the Gospels" or relevant to the history that so many Christians hold dear as a center to their faith and, in the process, expiated all responsiblity for any negative effects or harm the film may cause in traditiol circles. And according to Riley, this is unconvincing.
Scorsese contradicts himself and the film's disclaimer with statesments that confirm his intention to rpoduce a srious biblical film, "I've always wanted to do a film about the life of Christ." (Riley 55)
Because Scorsese has always wanted to do a film on Christ's life, this necessarily implies he believes that the film is "seriously biblical," which means to Riley, I assume, based in what Scorsese believes to be historical and real. However, this is quite a jump. For Scorsese to "contradict himself", this must mean that, while the film and Scorsese expressly say these events are fictional and not meant to underly the historicity presented in the Gospels, Scorsese's real, if subconscious purpose was, in fact, to do just that.
But why must Scorsese believe the events happened "like this" in order to explore a facet of genuine spirituality with the life of Jesus? Are only historical truths viable methods through which to explore very real and very personal spirituality? Is history the only viable medium through which to express one's spirituality? The only possible argument against such a theoretical artistic venture is that the life of Jesus as history is closed to artistic re-interpretation. The only viable expression of spirituality is that which is historical, and thus Scorsese must have in some way believed that the events he was recreating had some historical president. Scorsese must believe that this was the real, Jesus because nobody could dare to use the life of Jesus as a purely hypothetical exploration of spiritual issues, as allegory. Thus, Scorsese must have contradicted himself, and to prove it I'll use extremely ambiguous quotes like "I've always wanted to do a film about the life of Christ" to prove that Scorsese did, in fact, purpose to make a historically viable recreation of Jesus' life.
Oie.
Anyways, I think Riley takes huge leaps in order to prove that, in fact, Scorsese and the studios' Jesus film contradicted itself as a purely theoretical and non-invasive film. I agree with him that there were subversive purposeses for the film, purposes designed to argue, prod, and reopen dialogue about Jesus' dual nature as man and God. Both Schrader and Scorsese openly admit this. However, to assert that Scorsese is really a self-deceptive liberal who doesn't even understand his own motivations for making a film (which is what Riley here really implies), and that he really just uses claims of non-historicity and fictionality to transmit blame and scapegoat the victims of his art, is quite the stretch.
I'm going to finish the book today. But for now, I'm going to run!
But why must Scorsese believe the events happened "like this" in order to explore a facet of genuine spirituality with the life of Jesus? Are only historical truths viable methods through which to explore very real and very personal spirituality? Is history the only viable medium through which to express one's spirituality? The only possible argument against such a theoretical artistic venture is that the life of Jesus as history is closed to artistic re-interpretation. The only viable expression of spirituality is that which is historical, and thus Scorsese must have in some way believed that the events he was recreating had some historical president. Scorsese must believe that this was the real, Jesus because nobody could dare to use the life of Jesus as a purely hypothetical exploration of spiritual issues, as allegory. Thus, Scorsese must have contradicted himself, and to prove it I'll use extremely ambiguous quotes like "I've always wanted to do a film about the life of Christ" to prove that Scorsese did, in fact, purpose to make a historically viable recreation of Jesus' life.
Oie.
Anyways, I think Riley takes huge leaps in order to prove that, in fact, Scorsese and the studios' Jesus film contradicted itself as a purely theoretical and non-invasive film. I agree with him that there were subversive purposeses for the film, purposes designed to argue, prod, and reopen dialogue about Jesus' dual nature as man and God. Both Schrader and Scorsese openly admit this. However, to assert that Scorsese is really a self-deceptive liberal who doesn't even understand his own motivations for making a film (which is what Riley here really implies), and that he really just uses claims of non-historicity and fictionality to transmit blame and scapegoat the victims of his art, is quite the stretch.
I'm going to finish the book today. But for now, I'm going to run!