| Arts & Entertainment Pif
inuimi ... ..hi...... .....
T!liTlPMMiTMBirwirWff1WnfflWaaftij'~ih'itl'hiiiriywi(|>ii|i ■!!■ ■ 111 ■ ■ .him ■■■I i I. mw. .a.. .
Eric Gregory/Dally Nebraskan
Ken Baker, pastor of Lincoln Fellowship Bap
tist Church, leads church members in a protest
of “The Last Temptation” Friday.
By Trevor McArthur
Staff Reporter
Outside the Stuart Theater, at the first show
ing of “The Last Temptation of Christ,” the pro
testors attempted a miniature media circus.
A line of silent picketers marched by the
theater, carrying signs announcing objections
to a movie they had not seen. A few television
cameras were there to record the event and lack
of action.
Past the picket line and in the theater, the
mood seemed fraternal; audience members
chatted and acknowledged each other across
the isles.
It was a big family, the theater was almost
full of all the people daring and free-spirited
enough to be the first to see a movie others said
was so dangerous. Perhaps that was why some
were there.
Anybody expecting the totally blasphemous
movie described by fundamentalists surely was
and will be disappointed.
One audience member called the film “reli
gious propaganda.” The movie was, in fact, a
very sincere and well-meaning attempt to per
sonalize and humanize the story of Christ
Martin Scorsese, the director, did this by
taking the central premise of Christ’s life and
extending it to a logical conclusion: that he was
mortal as well as divine and subject to all
temptations (that’s the key word of the film)
that sinful man was and is.
“Temptation” is an interesting, though .
flawed, picture; it’s certainly not a must-see for
everyone. There are plenty of scenes that easily
could be taken out of context, but the primary
target audience is Christians, or those partial to
Christian philosophy.
However, the viewers must be open
minded, and to have some knowledge of
Catholic or Greek Orthodox theology is par
ticularly helpful.
The story opens with Jesus (Willem DaFoe),
a carpenter from Nazareth, lying on the ground.
He is plagued by voices in his head which he
thinks might be demons, and he fears might be
God.
When the voices come like birds clawing at
his skull, he is practically paralyzed and thrown
into grand mal seizures from the lightning
storms in his brain.
From the first scene, this is not a commonly
accepted portrayal of the Biblical Christ. This
is Jesus as merely a man; he was not bom
thoroughly divine, but rather God came into
him later.
The great conflict of the film is whether his
mortal and earthly self will accept his divine
role. This Jesus more resembles Jonah, the
reluctant prophet who would not follow until
fed to the sea.
Obviously, some do not share this view of
Christ and call the movie blasphemous for
interpreting the gospels this way. However,
while they certainly have a right to disagree,
they miss another point: this is not a film of
Gospel truth but of a modem novelist’s view
point
See TEMPT on 13
P'WWII I MFWMaHPMB
Andy Manhart/Daily Nebraskan
political or not, music will always be music
Iy Bryan Peterson
Reporter
“When the mode of the music
ranges, then the walls of the city
lake,”
- Plato
Need music be relevant?
This might seem like an unimpor
tant question to many people, but to
me, it is one which often should be
raised. I don’t have a cleat answer, or
even know if there is one. 1 enjoy both
the sounds and ideas of a band and
prefer bands that have a healthy mix
ture of both.
Many people don ’ t care whether or
not a band or performer has anything
social”or“political”or“relevant’’to
sing about; they just want bands to
make good music. But other people
are interested in such issues.
These arc all valid concerns. After
all, many people think the focus of a
band or performer should be on mu
sic, rather than lyrical content. I guess
that depends on the band and its audi
ence.
A band’s music and lyrics natu
rally will be a reflection of the tastes
and talents of its individual members.
Together, the music and lyrics of a
band represent a product or image
with which a band tries to develop or
keep an audience.
Whether this final product is a
crowded, smoke-filled concert, an
overproduced gimmicky album, or a
grungy demo tape recorded in a base
ment, the prospective audience is free
to choose whether or not to accept the
final product.
This final product mightbe overtly
political, as is the case with some so
callcd peace punk bands or much of
the work of such folk artists as Bob
Dylan or Peter, Paul, and Mary.
The final product also might have
nothing to do w ith “politics” or “so
cial relevance ” as in most current
Top-40 music.
Or the final product might lie
somewhere in between these two
extremes, adding an occasional bit of
social commentary to otherwise non
political lyrics. Bands like 10,000
Maniacs can sing about social or
political topics without their music
being overpowered by such ideas.
There are as many possibilities and
goals as there are bands.
Some bands just want to make
money, while others want to create
the best music possible. Others want
to become famous. Still other bands
want to spread their ideas, thoughts
and ideologies among their audience.
Such bands try to use music as a
means to convey a message rather
than sell records or become famous.
I don’t think any of these goals is
inherently better than any other. Each
band will produce music and lyrics
with its own goals in mind. I don’t see
the different goals of different bands
as competing with each other.
Overtly political bands arc not
competing against non-political
bands.
Each type of band has its own
audience and its own goals and im
age. Different types of bands are not
mutually exclusive: politically-ori
ented bands can be fun and non-politi
cal bands can provoke thought and
feelings.
Tracy Chapman, Sting, and U2 are
performers who have found a good
balance between politics and music, a
combination in which neither over
powers the other.
I do not see music and lyrical
content as two different ends of a
continuum. For a band just to be po
litical is not enough.
Obviously, if a band chooses to
mix politics and music, that is no
excuse to produce sloppy music. But
just because a band does not have
social or political lyrics does not
mean it has no responsibility to pro
duce meaningful lyrics. Meaningful
lyrics lake many forms and may not
have anything at all to do with a
political message.
It would be easy to debate whether
or nol Sting is more political than
Bono, and whether or not the use of
music for any purpose other than the
pursuit of musical excellence is de
stroying music as a form, but it would
all be meaningless.
The terms all arc relative, and will
be assigned different meanings by
every person.
To some, a certain musical struc
ture or even the use of a certain instru
ment might carry political overtones.
To Olliers, nothing less than blatant
sloganeering could be construed as
being political.
Music can be part of a social
change movement or ii can be an end
in itself. It can motivate people to
action or lull them into apathy. And it
does not matter what labels are as
signed to it — the music will still
remain.
It should noi constitute an assault
upon the integrity of the members of
the audience. The message may or
may not have “social relevance.”
Both sounds and ideas can be thought
ful and entertaining.
