The Last Supper

The dark and slippery satire THE LAST SUPPER is an Orwellian farce, which, whether or not it intends to be, represents the distasteful course that American liberalism has taken over the past few decades. As a meal, THE LAST SUPPER hopes to serve up food for thought, but proves to be more fast food than grand cuisine. And, before we end the lame and obvious food metaphors, let's just say the film has a meaty premise, but is hard to swallow because it is half-baked -- okay, three-quarters baked.

The plot is simple: five rather smug and pretentiously liberal graduate students in Iowa, the heartland of American conservatism, have a weekly ritual of inviting a guest to Sunday dinner so that they can have philosophical conversations about politics. Apparently meant to be self-indulgent and self-congratulating chatter more than real debate, the intellectual hour goes astray when an unexpected guest proves to be a far right lunatic who expresses his sympathy for Adolph Hitler. Before the dessert gets served, it is the guest who gets carved up and the new Sunday night ritual becomes supper and a homicide. After some superficial debate, the housemates decide that they would be doing the world a favor by disposing of potential Hitlers before they became real life Hitlers. It is liberal activism taken to its not-necessarily-logical extreme.

Their guest list (of cameo guest stars) begins with the lunatic war vet (Bill Paxton), a homophobic priest (Charles Durning), a male chauvinist (Mark Harmon) and an anti-environmentalist (Jason Alexander), but quickly degenerates to lesser villains (played by lesser actors) that include an anti-abortion activist, a librarian who dares to object to "The Catcher in the Rye" and a virginal teenage girl who doesn't approve of sex education in school. The checklist of villains (in rapidly declining order) is obviously meant to show how easily the power to destroy can become indiscriminate and, indeed, addictive.

The film has been deemed anti-conservative by some because the supposed heroes are lefties and their victims are from the right and, at least at first, espouse only the most extreme notions of conservatism. But the point is that the various dinner guests do not represent typical conservative thought, but are grotesque caricatures of right wingers. The war vet -- seen through far left eyes -- can't be just patriotic, he has to be a crazed fascist. The priest can't merely see homosexuality as a sin, he has to be virulent in his hatred. The anti-feminist has to be a proponent of rape. Etc., etc., etc. The quintet of killers are not heroes or even anti-heroes, or even psychopaths, but clean-cut, well-educated, well-intentioned typical liberals who become drunk with their own sense of self-righteousness. Their hunt to destroy future Hitlers blinds them to the reality that they are the future Hitlers. For what was Hitler, but a man who thought he could build a better society by eliminating the undesirables? The right-wing victims are such obvious caricatures that they do not inspire anger or hate, but uncomfortable humor, not unlike guest stars doing a skit on "Saturday Night Live." The weakness -- or perhaps the point -- of the left wing assassins is that they are so blandly uninteresting as individuals. This preppy death squad -- Ron Eldard, Cameron Diaz, Annabeth Gish, Jonathan Penner and Courtney B. Vance -- are so homogenized and banal as individuals that they only can be moved to action as a group. The message is that Hitler alone couldn't accomplish much, but a group willing to rationalize any atrocity as a means to a just end is the real danger to society.

It is as a critique of modern liberalism in the era of political correctness that the film is boldly, almost brazenly, sly. The groundbreaking liberalism of the 1960s, a call of dissent in the name of openness and equality, has slowly faded into the background. Diversity has become the liberal buzz word, but it is, literally, skin deep diversity, not diversity of thought. It is said that we become that which we hate the most and as such liberal idealism has increasingly become a dogma of intolerance, double standards and self-indulgence. Liberalism is no longer the antithesis of conservatism, it is the mirror image.

Of course the basic message of THE LAST SUPPER could have been told as well, but differently, with the political roles reversed. Indeed, had the film been made in the 1960s, I suspect that it would be conservatives serving the wine to liberals -- and I suspect that the film would have been satirically sharper and more outrageous. Certainly, in that case, the film's casual religious symbolism might have made sense, religion being a favored main dish to the right. But as is, THE LAST SUPPER's attempts to mock religion seem like a lame afterthought -- an ill-considered seasoning, as it were.

The film is better as a concept rather than a story and lacks a punch. Instead of being spicy or zesty or deliciously decadent, THE LAST SUPPER seems to be served up as something that is good for you, nutritious rather than satisfying. Especially the finale when the last Last Supper is with a conservative talk show host played by Ron Perlman, who may or may not be the Hitler that the we are taunted with throughout the other meals. Just desserts are served up with an ambiguous twist that is as jiggly uncertain as Jell-O. THE LAST SUPPER makes the worst social faux pas of all by sending its viewers away only half filled and hungry for something more.

Never let it be said that only the British can do political satire. Here we see five (liberally-minded) housemates start poisoning all those who they believe will cause more harm than good in life.

Hardly a topic for comedy you might think, but then what you get is the blackest of black humour imaginable. However, it's not just darkly comic, but it also poses quite a few questions about morality along the way. You'll find yourself agreeing with both sides' points of view at some stage I'm sure.

Plus, all the performances are equally strong - Cameron Diaz in a most 'un-Cameron Diaz-like' role, but it's Ron Perlman and Bill Paxton who probably steal their respective scenes.

If you're looking for a laugh-a-minute comedy with a feel-good vibe to it, then steer clear. However, if you're after something much nastier which will make you think, while even raising the odd smile, then give this a go.

"The Last Supper" has a lot going for it. It makes fun of both ultra-right-wingers and of self-righteous left-wingers. Like "The Sixth Sense", it uses the color red to carefully dye the house of the roommates until it appears to be dripping in blood. It shows the corruption of the mind which will inevitably occur as a result of murder, and it displays the old saw about how the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.

Problem? The acting is pretty dry. None of the roommates are remotely likable, and their inevitable comeuppance loses some of its punch as a result. All of the characters, both the executioners and their prey, are excessively one-sided and flat, and no one is making the slightest effort to give any of their characters depth. The result makes the film a bit hard to sit through.

The Last Supper is a unique story centered around moral conflicts and political ideology - with the key questions and these's hung on a story of Murder / deceipt. The key concept of Liberal / Demcrat friend group pursuing and murdering dinner guests with immoral or right-leaning principles is not only interesting - but as current today as it appeared to be in 1995. As the story unfolds the comedy gives way to a darkness and the moral ambiguity of the murderers descends on the audience. The movie presents some large questions to the viewer around good vs evil and largely leaves the concepts and questions open for the viewer to consider and conclude. A surprisingly good movie with decent performances from Ron Perlemen and Courtney B Vance. Would highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in a movie which not only entertains but challenges the audience to think about their own moral principles and ideological views.

I just read through 48 comments and I think nobody mentioned "Arsenic and Old Lace," which is an obvious source for the idea of quizzing guests and, as a good deed, giving wine with arsenic to those who'd be better off dead.

Here the story is set against a familiar political divide, and as the murders (and cameos) follow one another, the criteria for getting killed become distressingly looser until the audience becomes impatient for the inevitable retribution.

All this exposition of criteria takes considerable time, and evidently character development needed to be sacrificed. I'm sure that in creating a large group of murderers who all share a house, the creators had something in mind (other than "Friends") and we get the impression of an attempt at characterization but it doesn't jell. The movie would have been better off with just one couple in on the plot; that's all Shakespeare needed for Macbeth.