Last Days in the Desert

A high-octane artistic team is behind Last Days in the Desert, a limited-release film about Jesus’ 40 days of fasting in the wilderness. Director Rodrigo García, the son of author Gabriel García Márquez, has led several award-winning films. Ewan McGregor plays Jesus (or Yeshua, as the film calls Him). Emmanuel Lubezki directs the camerawork—he has won the cinematography Oscar for the past three years, for The Revenant, Birdman, and Gravity.

In terms of aesthetics, Last Days has no flaws. That’s a welcome change from sometimes campy “Bible movies.” Lubezki’s naturally lit cinematography in the desert has the sand-scrubbed beauty of Georgia O’Keeffe’s bone paintings.

And McGregor delivers a mesmerizing performance. Yeshua is a gritty (although Anglo-Saxon) man, crying out to a silent sky and hauling water. The first part of the film—where Yeshua is hungry, dirty, and praying alone—is excellent. Satan (also McGregor, but in different raiments) strikes up conversations with Him.

Soon Yeshua stumbles upon a husband, wife, and child dwelling in a tent in the desert. He agrees to stay with them for a few days, helping the father and son build a stone house—and mediating their strained relationship.

The film personifies the temptations of Jesus, and in one moment it shows a brief vision of the wife baring her breasts (the film is rated PG-13 for this and a later image of a nude corpse). Though the film never veers into the level of controversy of The Last Temptation of Christ, it has plenty of edges that will provoke evangelicals.

This artistic edginess serves little discernible purpose. Art house films are often enigmatic, countering the pat storylines of studio films. This one is too enigmatic. Who knew a solitary desert journey could result in so many ambiguous conversations? García, who also wrote the film, succeeded in both good and bad ways in ensuring this was not another “Jesus movie.” He brings a strong visual aesthetic, but wanders into theologically edgy territory for reasons that are unclear.

Editor’s note: The version of the film screened for this review contained nudity. The final, theatrical version does not contain nudity, according to the film’s producers.