When Critics Do Your Marketing

In 1988, I was 11 years old. I was excited about movies like Big Top Pee-wee and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. My sister was excited about The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking. That was our world. More grown-up films were not.

Then there was The Last Temptation of Christ. Director Martin Scorsese, the filmmaker behind movies like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, made The Last Temptation of Christ as a more human and conflicted look at Jesus. It opened on August 12, 1988, and earned about $8.37 million domestically. By comparison, Big Top Pee-wee made about $15.1 million, and The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking made about $3.57 million. In box office terms, this was not the kind of movie that should have crashed into my childhood memory. It lived in the same general neighborhood as other 1988 releases that came and went.

But those films stayed in their lanes. The Last Temptation of Christ did not.

AI rendered photo.

Ironically, religious-right leaders James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, and Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association believed they were defending the faith. In marketing terms, they were doing the devil’s work. Their protests did not bury The Last Temptation of Christ. They helped carry its name into the culture. The backlash was organized and public, with national denunciations, boycott calls, and protests around the release. Contemporary reporting described sold-out theaters, protests in Los Angeles and eight other U.S. and Canadian cities, and ticket buyers who said they came because Christians were trying to stop the film. Historical overviews of the religious right also identify Dobson, Falwell, and Wildmon as major figures in that movement.

That is why I remember the film at all. I do not remember it because I was eager to see it. I remember it because adults were talking about it. Church talk, television talk, public warnings, and organized protest pushed the title beyond its natural audience. If I knew about it, plenty of other people outside the target audience probably knew about it too.

When Outrage Does the Advertising

AI created based on newspaper photos.

What makes this story more interesting is that Scorsese was not trying to make a cheap blasphemy stunt. Years later, he said he wanted to make The Last Temptation of Christ “to get to know Jesus better.” He also argued that if Jesus is fully divine and fully human, people should be willing to look at His humanity. Willem Dafoe described the film in similar terms and also recalled that much of the opposition came from people who had not even seen the movie. That matters. In many cases, the backlash was not just a response to the film itself. It was a response to the idea of the film, and that idea traveled farther because people kept warning others about it.

As a follower of Christ, I do not think faith is protected by refusing questions. Art is supposed to disturb, probe, and expose. The problem is not always that art asks too much. Sometimes the reaction gives weak art more power than it deserves. If Christ can die on the cross and conquer death, He can endure a film that reframes His life on earth. He does not need our outrage to defend Him.

This is useful idiot marketing. It happens when critics, protesters, or offended bystanders do promotional work they never meant to do. They warn people about the movie, argue about the movie, and in the process teach the public why it might be worth noticing.

If a message reaches people who were never supposed to care, something besides the product is doing the work.

By opening weekend, the backlash was no longer just opposing the film. It was helping market it.

Attention Is Not Trust

There is a caveat here. Attention is not the same thing as trust. I can appreciate what Scorsese was trying to do and still think the movie itself is slow and lackluster. In this case, buzz got the film talked about more effectively than the film got itself loved. Buzz can get people through the door once. It cannot make a weak experience strong.

Why Most Small Businesses Should Not Try This

This is where the lesson turns practical.

Yes, marketers can try to trigger this on purpose. A group can put a message in front of a hostile audience and hope the backlash spreads it farther. In that case, the paid message is only the spark. The real gamble is that angry people will carry the message for free.

Sometimes that works. Sometimes it just makes people mad.

That is a dangerous bet for most local businesses. A national movie can survive outrage. A political campaign can live off conflict. A local café, contractor, therapist, or family business usually cannot. In a local market, relationships last longer than headlines do. If people decide you are baiting them, being smug, or trying too hard to provoke a reaction, they may remember the irritation long after they forget the offer.

Most small businesses do not need more heat. They need more clarity. They need a better message, a stronger offer, and a cleaner reason for people to care.

Sometimes the people trying hardest to suppress a message are the very people helping it travel. Some businesses need more visibility. Others just need fewer reasons for people to roll their eyes. If your business needs attention that builds trust instead of backlash, contact us.

---

Written with AI assistance based on the author’s ideas, experience, and editorial direction.

---