I love the Olympics, but I missed the opening ceremony this year. I was surprised to wake up the next morning seeing cryptic posts on Facebook criticizing the ceremony. Only later did I find out what the controversy was all about.
Many conservative Christians were in an uproar, saying that a scene from the ceremony was mocking the Last Supper, by way of a fat woman wearing a halo, drag queens and a naked man painted blue representing Jesus and the apostles at a table like in the scene famously depicted by Leonardo DaVinci’s Last Supper.
Curious, I checked YouTube which allowed me to watch clips – enough for me to see what was happening.
And you know what? Yes, to me it looked like the scene was designed after DaVinci’s Last Supper.
But you know what else? I didn’t feel mocked.
I’ve been mocked for my faith. I have been called names, accused of having attitudes I don’t have, and had my intelligence questioned because I am a Christian. I have observed the Christian faith be ridiculed endlessly online by people I know on social media.
The Olympic ceremony was doing none of that. Mocking is direct.
All the Olympic opening ceremony did was make a reference to DaVinci’s Last Supper.
I want to make a clear distinction between DaVinci’s Last Supper, the Last Supper as described in the Gospels, and the Lord’s Supper as named by Paul in his epistles.
DaVinci’s Last Supper was only about one moment in an entire evening that Jesus spent with his disciples, and was an imagination of what the disciples’ faces might have looked like when Jesus said one of them would betray him.
The actual Last Supper involved a great deal more, including Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet and a great deal of teaching.
The Lord’s Supper, while referencing back to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper regarding his body and blood, is not the same thing. That has to do with the eucharist, or communion, depending on which extraction of Christianity you identify with.
Equating DaVinci’s Last Supper with the Lord’s Supper, which is at the root of a lot of the fuss, does not even make sense because DaVinci’s painting portrays a moment of betrayal while the Lord’s Supper celebrates the believer’s union with God through Christ.
The 2024 Olympic opening ceremony did not mock the actual Last Supper. The 2024 Olympic opening ceremony made no comment at all on the Lord’s Supper.
The 2024 Olympic opening ceremony only referenced DaVinci’s painting.
That should not be extrapolated by anyone to be an attack on Christianity itself.
DaVinci’s painting is not sacred! It only is about something sacred.
The form is up for grabs, soundly in the public domain.
The form of the painting is what made it so genius in the first place; DaVinci figured out how to show all twelve disciples around the table with Jesus, without one having his back to the viewer.
The form is what has been copied, changed and “parodied” over time.
Many people have referenced this painting. In the 20th Century, it even became a meme. If you take a look at this website, you can find many references to “parodies” of DaVinci’s Last Supper.
On that website you can see parodies involving Darth Vadar and his followers, cartoon characters led by Bugs Bunny, and even a My Little Pony theme. Particularly striking, given the popularity of the TV show, is the pic of the cast of The Sopranos arranged in the same way.
What these memes tell us is that DaVinci’s Last Supper has become more about the form than the content. Yes, DaVinci painted a scene of Jesus and his disciples. But the form of his painting has taken on a broader cultural meaning related to “leader” and “followers.”
In each of the scenes on the website, the viewer is told who the characters are and who the leader is. In some instances, that leader might have the role of “savior” of the group. But in no instance is the leader equated with Jesus, nor are the followers equated with the apostles. Rather, it is simply a visual form that tells us who is in charge.
When we understand this form, we see that while the Olympic opening ceremony used DaVinci’s form, that does not mean it mocked the content of DaVinci’s painting. The woman with the halo looked nothing like Jesus. All the people standing or dancing around looked nothing like the apostles.
If I write a haiku to express something sarcastic, that may be a bad haiku. But it would be unfair for someone to read that haiku and jump to the conclusion that I am mocking Japanese culture. My bad haiku might just be a bad haiku, and it might be in bad taste, but the form I use is separate from the content I insert into it.
Using a form – even badly – does not equal mocking.
Form is NOT content.
My example isn’t even a good one, because a haiku is specific to Japanese culture while DaVinci’s Last Supper is specific to DaVinci.
When we make art and let it out into the world, it takes on a life of its own. We cannot control what happens to it. It can be changed and modified. Parts of it may be utilized for something that upholds the same sentiment as the original, and parts may be twisted into having a new meaning.
But it doesn’t necessarily equal mocking. Again, mocking is direct.
Imagine if someone took DaVinci’s painting and drew horns on Jesus’ head or distorted the faces of the apostles that DaVinci drew.
That would be mocking.
Using the same form – a straight table with a singular leader-figure wearing a halo in the center surrounded by people in a line on either side – is simply a new take. It is an adaptation of the form, not a commentary on the content. (By the way, DaVinci did not put a halo on Jesus.)
Saying that DaVinci’s form can’t be used in any other way other than the sacred content of the Last Supper is ludicrous. That’s like saying that once a sonnet is used for religious content, no other sonnets can ever be written, especially if they contain irreligious content.
In an interview with Vogue magazine back in May 2024, the director, Thomas Jolly, made no reference to DaVinci’s Last Supper, but did say that he was referencing the Ancient Greeks. His recent remarks reiterate his intent that “everyone would find a place.” At the table, so to speak.
(Take a look at this painting by Jan van Bijlert and decide whether the scene from the Paris 2024 Olympic opening ceremony was more like this or DaVinci’s Last Supper. Perhaps even Bijlert drew inspiration from DaVinci since he lived a few decades later.)
Rondall Reynoso, a Christian artist and scholar, shares even more insights about this controversy in his article. I do not feel the need to recount them all, but I do encourage my readers to check out his writing here.
All of this brings up an even deeper question which goes beyond the scope of this post:
Why are Christians holding up a piece of artwork as a symbol of Christianity?
The line of what is sacred versus secular has become disturbingly blurry.
While DaVinci’s painting contains religious material, it is not used in worship. It is not an icon. It is not a Christian form.
In fact, the New Testament says nothing about making or using visual forms for worship, and the Old Testament specifically prohibits making a “graven image” of God.
So, why is anyone getting upset about someone copying the form of an artwork which contains an image of Jesus that many could find questionable to begin with?
DaVinci’s painting is NOT Jesus. It is his imagination’s idealization of what Jesus (and his disciples) looked like.
You can say you didn’t like the content of the opening ceremony. You can say you didn’t think it was well done. You can say you were disturbed by some of the content, or that it wasn’t family-friendly, or that it was unworthy of the Olympics. Think what you want about all of that.
But don’t claim it was mocking Christianity because it used a form inspired by a famous piece of artwork which originally contained religious content.
It’s time to separate form from content.