L'ultime souper

A group of graduate students invite people (one at a time) for dinner and discussion. Their first guest in this movie is Zachary, a truck driver and Desert Storm vet who believes Hitler had the right idea, that Jews stole then and steal now, that the Holocaust was an exaggeration, that liberals accomplish nothing and they wouldn't be able to fight if they had to. He gets the others so riled that ... well, I won't say. But the students begin discussing the ethics of going back in time, if it were possible, to stop Hitler. Would they kill him or merely try to convince him he was wrong? Meanwhile, Zachary may be a suspect in a kidnapping.

Guest no. 2 is the kindly Rev. Hutchens, who believes the relatives of AIDS victims deserve no comfort. After all, those who got AIDS committed a mortal sin for which there should be no forgiveness. The dinners continue, with guests expressing more and more outlandish opinions. Some are not jerks, such as the sweet teenage girl who believes sex education should not be taught because family values are more important. And then there is wacko TV commentator Norman Arbuthnot, who may go into politics but probably shouldn't because he appears to be as demented as Hitler. Meanwhile, the students begin arguing more and more, while the garden never looked better. It's a special fertilizer they're using.

If this is a comedy, it's a very dark one. But I couldn't help laughing as ... continued improvements to the garden were made. And some of the weird opinions expressed were really funny. I didn't like the students--or their way of dealing with those who disagreed--but I did like Charles Durning a lot as the good Reverend, even if I didn't care for his opinions. And Bill Paxton did quite a good job as Zachary.

The best thing about the movie is that it gets a person thinking about other people's views and how bad it is to have unpopular opinions. We have freedom of speech in this country, and the right to our opinions, and this is what it means.

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.

A bunch of liberal grad students (played by then unknown Cameron Diaz, Ron Eldard, Annabeth Gish, Jonathan Penner and Coutney B. Vance) accidentally kill, at dinner in their house, a seriously deranged conservative (Bill Paxton) and bury the body. They figure they did the world a favor and invite ultra conservatives to their house, poison them and bury the bodies in the back yard. Among the victims (in cameos) are Charles Durning, Mark Harmon and Jason Alexander. Nora Dunn plays a policewoman investigating all the disappearances.

DARK dark black comedy but it's well-done. The script is sharp and witty and insults BOTH conservatives and liberals. With the sole exception of Vance (who's horrible) the acting is good and we see hunky Penner with his shirt off and walking around in his underwear. Well-directed too with a good eye to compositions and color. Great music score too. If you examine the plot closely there are loopholes and lapses in logic (like they bury about 10 people in their backyard and the neighbors never notice?) but still this is funny and makes you think. Ignored at the time of its release this made a little splash on VHS and deserves to be rediscovered.

This is a film that can be viewed on two levels.

The first level is that of a straightforward black comedy. Five liberal students, who think they have the answers to all the world's ills, have their comfortable world invaded by a redneck racist who is invited in for supper after coming to the aid of one of the students when he has car trouble. Naturally there is a clash of politics and, after a violent argument, the racist is accidentally killed. They decide to bury him in their garden instead of reporting the killing. What follows is a continuation of an earlier debate they had been having; would people be justified in murdering someone if they knew he was evil? Their answer is yes, and soon they are inviting other rightwingers for an evening of dinner, debate and death. On the first level the film is okay.

It is on the second, more cerebral level, that the film really succeeds. The great irony is that the liberals become intolerant, revealing the dangers of political correctness and the very real possibility of a left-wing police state in which alternative views are crushed in the name liberal values.

A good soundtrack, some sparkling cameos by the dinner guests, and a knockout performance by Ron Perlman as the conservative commentator make this largely overlooked comedy well worth a gander.

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.