(Ir)religiosity

“Guide us…to the end of time.”

I ran across this quote from the final paragraph of Italo Cavino’s Invisible Cities the other day.

The inferno of the living is not something that will be; if there is one, it is what is already here, the inferno where we live every day, that we form be being together. There are two ways to escape suffering it. The first is easy for many: accept the inferno and become such a part of it that you can no longer see it. the second is risky and demands constant vigilance and apprehension: seek and learn to recognize who and what, in the midst of the inferno, are not inferno, then make them endure, give them space.

If the title hasn’t already given it away, this is another post about The Tree of Life. After viewing the film a second time I am convinced that the field of theological aesthetics could stand to learn quite a bit from Terrence Malick.

In my first post I drew attention to Roger Ebert’s wonderful mediation on the film. There Ebert states that he believes the film ”stands free from conventional theologies, although at its end it has images that will evoke them for some people.” I think this is true although I would go a bit further and say that there are images, symbols and even names that evoke conventional theologies throughout the film. And, as far as a more generalized audience is concerned, I think the line between tacit conventional theologies and the sort of impressionist pastiche Malick has created is so fine it practically doesn’t exist. The ending is a perfect example, as Ebert points out. Given the breadth and scope of the film Malick all but sets himself up for failure. Virtually any ending seems inadequate for a film of this magnitude, but the one chosen does seem to fall into the comfortable arms of convention and familiarity.

Despite this, though, it still works. Just like the ostensibly conventional religious images and theological symbols work — and work wonderfully. This is because Malick is a master at couching the familiar differently, of subtlety wielding the conventional otherwise. More than any of his previous films The Tree of Life relies less on dialogue and more on pensive narration and, especially, breathtaking images of life and nature (The Thin Red Line is a close, close second). This is why the ending, while certainly flawed, still works within the context of the film — because by the time the ending comes the overall aesthetic and the symbolic frame have created an environment in which such an ending is wielded differently than it would otherwise, albeit in a very subtle and delicate manner. Read the rest of this entry »

I think it would be irresponsible for me to offer more thoughts, fuller thoughts, on The Tree of Life without having seen it at least once more. I saw it for the first time last Sunday and it has been bouncing around in my head since then. I’m planning to see it again tonight and will likely post more next week. In the meantime I have been reading a ton of reviews (the group of articles here and the posts here are certainly worth reading. This “deconstruction” is surprisingly good.) and I thought I would post a few thoughts thus far. Minor spoilers to follow.

In my previous post I alluded to the possibility that one of the film’s major leitmotifs is not so much the opposition between nature and grace but rather the implication of the one within the other, of their inherent and seemingly ambivalent contingency. The film certainly does this. It may not be as overt as some of the narration in The Thin Red Line but it practically oozes out of the production design. As one review puts it, it is not at all the idea of nature versus grace it is nature and grace, often positioned in a type of contradiction that is, for Malick, subject of awe and transcendence, revealing all things shining.

One of the most talked about parts of the film is the origins and evolution of life sequence. Reading this post and the comments that followed it struck me that Malick’s version of pre-history offers an interesting counterweight to that of Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey. In Kubrick’s sequence it is clear that Darwinian predation and violence are the common denominator of life. Predation is present for Malick, but not without contestation and ambivalence.

The Tree of Life’s most radical detour (the film is itself, a radical, unthinkable collection of detours) is a drop-in on the Mesozoic era after a sequence of shots tracks the birth of life on Earth. A raptor-like creature emerges from the forest and wades into a stream. At the opposite bank lies a wounded herbivore. The predator scampers over cautiously and apprehends his prey’s immobility. And just as we expect carnage (thanks to conditioning from Jurassic Park and its sequels), Malick provides instead, grace. The raptor, who has pinned the injured creature with one clawed food, shares a moment of silent communion with the wounded dinosaur, releases his grip and then leaves. This may seem an unlikely moment in the animal kingdom, even less so in the kingdom we can only know through the fossil record. But does Malick exhibit hubris here by applying a naive anthropomorphism to the scene, or do those who criticize do so by suggesting he’s necessarily incorrect in his vision, tacitly implying grace to be the sole provenance of humanity? A frighteningly elegant shot of a comet devastating the planet, and the dinosaurs with it, reminds that we’ll likely never know for sure. (link)

Is Malick suggesting that this is perhaps the first act of compassion in history? An instance of incipient grace? Of a type of grace found within nature, not reserved as the crowning achievement of humanity alone?

When read within the context of the larger trajectory of the film (if it can even be said to have such a thing) and within the even larger context of Malick’s entire oeuvre, I think the charges of anthropocentrism miss the point. In fact, if we go with the notion that the film reveals how unfounded the distinction between nature and grace really is — that the two are, in fact, more porous than conventional theology allows — then criticisms of anthropocentrism are actually more insipid instantiations of the very thing they denounce.

Why must it be the case that grace inheres in humanity alone? Whatever else it may do, The Tree of Life not only suggests that grace inheres in all things, but that grace and nature are, in some sense, in separable as constitutive of life and its processes the vicissitudes of which are at the same time both beautiful and dangerous. It is precisely this sort of ambivalence that is cause for the deep sense of awe and wonder that is characteristic of Malick’s films. One could even say it is transcendence without the metaphysical baggage of most theologies.

I’ve been looking forward to the enigmatic and reclusive director’s latest work ever since I saw the trailer. Malick is known for his idiosyncratic style, the juxtaposition of images of nature with the evils of humanity, and especially the haunting voice-over narrations. The Tree of Life looks to be no different. In fact, if the trailer and the early reviews are any indication it may be the pinnacle of Malick’s style, which makes sense since it is the very film that sent Malick on his 20 year hiatus after Days of Heaven. The film debuted at the Cannes Film Festival last week, winning the coveted Palme d’Or and opens today in limited release.

Malick’s films have always exuded a sort of poetic, quasi-philosophical, one might even say crypto-theological, quality. They explored the deep contingency and ambivalence of human nature, indeed of nature itself. A type of mystery that always leads back to the awe of existence, the wonder, the grace the inheres in all things and is, I think, the starting point of all theology. The opening narration in The Thin Red Line describes it well.

What’s this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?

And later as the film closes.

The brother. The friend. Darkness from light. Strife from love. Are they the workings of one mind? The features of the same face? Oh, my soul, let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out at the things you made. All things shining.

The cinematic ground Malick treads is ripe for theological rumination. It shouldn’t be too surprising. Though Malick has made a career out of scrupulously keeping to himself it is no secret that he studied philosophy at Harvard under Stanley Cavell and later at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. He eventually left Oxford without a degree after a disagreement with his advisor over his dissertation on Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein. So Malick turned to film. And he has created some real masterpieces.

But it looks like The Tree of Life — and the IMAX documentary companion piece The Voyage of Time that Malick hopes to make — may be more explicitly his than any other project. We’ll see. I can only hope.

For now what interests me is an interview with Brad Pitt, one of the stars of the film, conducted by Time Magazine. Near the end of the interview Pitt comments on the religious and theological themes of the film.

Terry has an embrace for Christianity, for all religions, but not in the textbook definition of Christianity. You’re looking at a man who loves science, and has an interpretation and a feeling for God. In America those two things usually don’t coincide. And yet he sees the two as one: he sees God in science and science in God. [...] I’d say that Tree of Life is not a Christian so much as a spiritual film. I was surprised, watching it last night, how powerfully it struck me. What the film was saying to me is that there is an unexplained power; there is this force. And maybe peace can be found, but not by trying to explain it with the religion. Maybe there’s peace to be found just in that acceptance of the unknown.

Aside from the fact that Pitt’s somewhat predictable remarks reinforce and are based upon the tired, “spiritual but not religious” cliché, they proffer an unimaginative, flat-footed reading of religion, specifically of Christianity. By dismissing what he calls ‘religion’ as something that impedes rather than facilitates a sense of mystery in the unknown Pitt ignores a robust theological legacy that does just that.

It’s probably because I am preparing a sermon based on Paul’s famous sermon at the Areopagus and I’m just coming off writing a thesis and making a short film of my own dealing with precisely these theme. Contingency, ambivalence, and unknown mystery are central to theology. They may not be the most noticeable motifs in the public sphere, but they are there. This is exactly what Roger Ebert picks up on in his reflections on Malick’s latest film.

Terrence Malick’s new film is a form of prayer. It created within me a spiritual awareness, and made me more alert to the awe of existence. I believe it stands free from conventional theologies, although at its end it has images that will evoke them for some people. It functions to pull us back from the distractions of the moment, and focus us on mystery and gratitude.

These conventional theologies are certainly operative but they are not representative of the entire discourse nor should they be taken as such. Theology is about “seeing through a glass darkly,” into the unknown enigma that is our ultimate concern. It seems to me that this is precisely what Malick’s film is about, indeed the narration in the trailer is almost a word for word reference to 1 Corinthians 13:12 (one of the few passages I prefer in the King James). I’m sure I will have more to say after viewing but it seems a safe bet to say that The Tree of Life may be the best type of theological film, the type of theological film we desperately need. It is an exploration of the mystery that we can never fully know but can never stop seeking.

Related articles

• Terrence Malick’s Mystical Tree of Life (pajamasmedia.com)
• Pick of the week: Malick’s gorgeous, crazy “Tree of Life” (salon.com)
• Watch 7 minutes of Terrence Malick’s THE TREE OF LIFE (geektyrant.com)

Tim Burton is one of my favorite film directors.  He’s got some upcoming projects that look to be pretty good (and one in the not so distant future that has the potential to be stellar).  I watched the trailer for 9 a few weeks ago and it looks to be pretty good, but I’m mostly stoked about his adaptation of Alice in Wonderland.  The first teaser trailer was released yesterday at Comic-Con (for real this time) and it looks delightful.  Interestingly, it looks like the Mad Hatter will be the main character.  I’m okay with that.  I guess I wasn’t paying attention before but it looks like Stephen Fry will be the voice of Cheshire Cat and Crispin Glover the Knave of Hearts.  Nice.

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Trailer is Back Online! (cinematical.com)

I know. Provocative title. Disappointing video post. I just had to. I’ve been looking forward to this movie ever since I saw the original trailer last summer. And now it opens on Friday. I can’t wait…

Related articles by Zemanta

• New Terminator Salvation Trailer Online (themovieblog.com)
• New Watchmen Trailer (themovieblog.com)

. . .the magic began.

(ht)

In keeping with the precedent I set last year, here are my top ten movies of 2008.

10.) Ironman
9.) The Happening
8.) Tropic Thunder
7.) Righteous Kill
6.) Burn After Reading
5.) Wall-E
4.) W.
3.) Frost/Nixon
2.) Milk
1.) The Dark Knight

Ten Movies I wanted to see but haven’t yet:

Appaloosa
Wanted
The Spirit
Slumdog Millionaire
Pineapple Express
Doubt
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Get Smart
Che
In Bruges

The Two Lamest Movies I Saw All Year:

10,000 BC
The Day the Earth Stood Still

Six Mediocre Movies:

Cloverfield
Hancock
Vantage Point
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Step Brothers

10 Movies I’m Excited to See in 2009:

Watchmen
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Star Trek
Public Enemies
Angels & Demons
Terminator: Salvation
Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian
Where the Wild Things Are
S. Darko
Boondock Saints II:  All Saints Day

What were your favorite/least favorite films of 2008?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dark Knight named as best film of 2008
• Top 10 Movies of 2008
• Discuss: Most Disappointing Films of 2008?
• Movie Mistakes of 2008

The good folks over at the Ooze sent me a copy of The Ordinary Radicals last week.  I had a chance to watch in full the other day and I really enjoyed it.  I read Jesus for President as soon as it came out and enjoyed it as well.  If you’re like me and weren’t able to attend the tour the past summer, then the film is definitely for you because it chronicles the entire journey, from being censored in Grand Rapids to refueling the bus with used vegetable oil (yep, that’s right, veggie oil) to everything in between.  And I haven’t even watched the special features yet.

Hearing some of the person stories that were spoken of in the book — the guy who left the military, and the Amish tragedy come to mind — was moving.  And of course the music was great too.  I absolutely love The Psalters.

I felt like that whole thing was just a tad long and could’ve been slightly shorter, but other than that it was great.  Good film editing and, from someone who didn’t make it to the real thing, a great inside look on the book tour.  Whether you’ve read the book or not, The Ordinary Radicals is well worth you time.

This is awesome.  A mashup of the unedited Dark Knight audio with video from Toy Story 2.  Brilliant.

[Ht. Marko]

It’s been almost two months since I initially watched The Dark Knight.  Since then a quote toward the end of the film from has been bouncing around in the back of my mind.

“It’s the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans, and uh, look where that got you. I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all, part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”

This comes at a crucial point in the film when Harvey Dent, with the help and prodding of The Joker, begins to assume his alter-ego of Two Face.  But I’m not really interested in that as much as I am the implicit critique of the established Order; not order in a sense of complete lawlessness and immorality, but Order in the sense of coercion and the artificial creation of consent to the violence of power. Read the rest of this entry »