One of the things JD Lyonhart argues in his book MonoThreeism: An Absurdly Arrogant Attempt to Answer All the Problems of the Last 2000 Years in One Night at a Pub, is that every argument that exists between religious and non religious thinkers ultimately is rooted in the same conundrum that frames the idea of the origins of the universe. That conundrum can be boiled down to the contradictory realities of Being (something that exists without a cause, or something that simply is) and Becoming (existence that arises from cause and effect).
Take the free will/determinism debate for example. We have become so accustomed here in the West to seeing this debate as one that is rooted in a story of sin and necessary judgment or necessary forgivness which requires some level of responsibility to uphold. We have become so conditioned to seeing the human story in light of western progress and its subsequent creation of and appeal to “individual liberty” that we have lost any and all ability to speak to the initial conundrum by which such debates emerge from. In fact, we tend to fly straight past it in favor of getting mired in subsequent conflicts that assume a whole bunch of things that would need to be argued first before something like determinism and free will can even begin to make sense as a proper argument. We can see this not least apparent in the notion of responsibility. We experience this world as humans in a way that appears to require levels of personal responsibility. Thus we assume it to be true on our way to arguing for something else. And yet responsibility cannot logically be used to argue for its own existence, it must first be argued for on its own basis. And that requires dealing with the conundrum of Being and Becoming. It’s equally easy to see how this same argument has implications for how we work through something like the problem of Evil.
In a very real sense we’ve become accustomed to making arguments for free will that require a prior belief in something called free will, and the same for determinism, that we can’t note the logical fallacies, even as we locate such claims equally in our experience of this world. It’s equally true to say that we experience this world as free persons who can seemingly shape our realities in one direction or another, and to say that the world that we experience in this way can be observed as one that is absent of a truly free will detached from nature because of the basic rule of cause and effect.
Such a conundrum ultimately takes us all the way back to the problem inherent in the origins of the universe. If we approach this problem from the vantage point of God’s existence we have the following dilemma: “If God is just eternal Being can he begin to create? No, because he is outside of time and so cannot begin to do anything. His inherent nature of eternity prevents him from doing anything new or different. He is stuck in his timelessness, unable to act beyond it to begin to create in time… If God is just timeless Being he is not free to create the universe, because he cannot act beyond his timeless nature to begin to create in time… God cannot suddenly begin to act beyond his nature to create in time. The problem of free will is the same problem as the origins of the universe: how can something go beyond its inherent nature?”
A similar problem emerges with indeterminism (Becoming, or the problem of infinite regress): “Indeterminism manages to avoid the causal regress of determinism. But it then suffers an equal and opposite problem. For if our actions pop out of nothing, then they can’t have a causal source in you as the chooser… the problem with determinism is our actions are determined by our nature. And the problem with indeterminism is our actions would not be determined by our nature, and so could not really be called our choices.”
Which of course all finds its basis in making sense of the origins of the universe. That becomes the place where we begin to wrestle with these same issues bearing themselves out in observable and experienced reality.
Or take the idea of love. Do we define love according to something one does? That would set it within the reality of Becoming. Can love actually Become if it has no Being? Often love is defined not only as an action but an action that bears itself out (emerges) through a distinct human responsibility. And yet people are equally prone to locating love in the actions of a creature, for example, who could not be held responsible in the same way according to this deifntion. This presents a conundrum. The same conundrum that occupies the origins of the universe and plays through into all of our disputes. In some sense who we are and this reality we know depends on what the origins of the universe says about the nature of reality (or itself), and, at least as is our tendency, how we observe and experience reality in time tends to be the driving force for our assumptions ahout the nature of reality relating back to its origins. These two things can’t help but get caught up in one another, framing how it is that ontological arguments flow in both directions at once. What gets ignored is the implications. But we can’t truly face and understand the implications of our assumptions unless we first acknowledge that Being and Becoming are tied to each other and that it represents a conundrum. The modern, western tendency is to ignore Being in favor of Becoming because the entire enterprise of western thought hinges on that not being undermined less we lose our cherished appeal to individual liberty. And in many ways we arrived there (the western narrative if you will) because of cynicism over what was percieved to be an emphasis on Being that restricted Becoming, formulating this into a philosophy of liberty and the will that no longer needed Being to justify its existence, despite this bearing the weight of a logical fallacy. At least part of the reason the West has been grappling with what has been called the “meaning crisis” for some time now.
Film Journal 2023: Margrete den første (Margrete: Queen of the North) Directed by Charlotte Sieling
Margrete: Queen of the North is made all the richer for the films apparent obscurity. Both the subject matter, which weaves a storied exploration of one of history’s most mysterious and fascinating Queens, and in the films release, which managed to fly almost entirely under the radar and out of sight in 2022. Makes stumbling across this gem that much more meaningful and exciting.
It’s a beautifully imagined period piece from the costume work right down to the often breathtaking Swedish landscape. A transcendent score, which enfolds the drama in an often nail biting degree of tension, acts as the perfect compliment to some outstanding performances, particularly the films lead.
One of the distinctive elements of the script is the moral tension that emerges naturally from the source material. The union between Norway, Sweden and Denmark that is still enjoyed today stems largely from this moment in history, where a pious and visionary queen helped to bring peace to the once embattled and divided lands. The story hinges on past events concerning her son, the once future king awaiting proper age who’s presumed death became a viscious rumor hanging over the Queens head, representing an obstacle she would need to overcome throughout her tenure. To keep the peace, or achieve peace, she brings a young boy into the courts and anoints him as her son and future king. When word comes to her that someone claiming to be her true son is on his way back to the kingdom, she is left with an impossible choice and no capacity to get at the truth. Believe this now man is her son and upset the union by throwing the stability of the kingdom into turmoil or hang him for treason.
Most of the film sits in this impossible choice, giving us the sense that things could implode at any minute depending on how this moral dilemma gets solved. It’s a fascinating exploration of the sort of political chessmatch that followed such alliances and oppositions at this point in history, and the Director really allows us to feel even the smallest details and intimate moments.
The films concluding moments are particularly invigorating, featuring an intense build up of different moments all colliding in this final climatic fashion, really putting a final explanation point to the mystery that clouds the actual history from our view. There is a fine point given to the necessary lack of resolution that allows the film to play with the potential of making certain interpretive moves or allowing the mystery to linger. There is a sense in which it does both things at the same time, which I felt was perfectly suited to the way it told this story from the beginning.
Definitely an unsung period piece, and for anyone who is a fan of these medieval era stories this would be a great choice not just for the powerful story and impressive technical feats, but for the chance to dig into an interesting piece of history that might up to this point be unfamiliar.
Film Journal 2023: Sound of Freedom Directed by Alejandro Monteverde
As a film it was fine. As a faith based film (and yes, in case it’s not clear it certainly qualifies as such) it’s a cut above the normal quality one might expect. Everythings on point when it comes to going straight for the emotions. The perfectly placed tear, the obligatory come to Jesus moment, the manipulative score. You wouldn’t even need the story to know exactly what this film was going for.
Now, first a story to set the stage, and then allow me a moment on my soapbox. Then I promise I will get out of the way and let this film do its thing.
My story: I had no idea what this film was or that it even existed. Which is strange given the avid film.goer that I am. We were looking for something to do Monday evening and Jen (my wife) suggested we go see a movie. I informed her that we had seen everything that was currently playing. She decided to take a second look and noticed that this film was playing in one or our local theaters. I agreed to roll the die on it. The only problem was all the showings were sold out. In fact, over the next four days the only showing with two seats available was at 9:40 morning Wednesday. Out of pure curiosity I snagged them
Wednesday morning came. On our drive to the theater I turned to Jen and confessed that I had a strange feeling about what we were walking into. I wagered a prediction. I suggested that a film that came out of nowhere from an unknown studio featuring Jim C. and numerous sold out shows could only mean one thing. An ultra conservative, right leaning, politically charged, faith based project that would be attended by an older, white, conservative Christian audience.
I was mostly right. In fact, it seemed like our entire theater knew each other except for us. The first thing we encountered walking in was an older Woman saying to three older Men “praise Jesus you came”.
Now for my soapbox: I’m genuinely torn. Not because the film itself is fine or that its subject matter (modern day slavery/pedophilia/sex trade) isn’t real and important, but because of everything that surrounds a film like this. Is this film supposed to be an evangelism tool for the Gospel, or a call to be concerned about pedophilia. The fact that the agenda feels confused doesn’t work in this films favor. Who is it reaching? Is it preaching to anyone outside of the choir? Does it want to? There is a direct call for people to give money towards this film at the end, and on one hand I’m all for small studios, independent directors, and small films without distribution finding creative ways to get their work made and out there. But this felt like it was about supporting more than the art. It felt like I was supporting a culture. A culture that would somehow see this film doing what other films don’t, which is fighting the good fight. The fact that the audience we saw it with would seemingly support a film primarily because of its association with, as I found out, the evangelical conservative right leaning voices lending it its support and behind its creation, bothered me.
I also said to Jen on the car ride home, I bet you anything that I can google this film and find a whole pile of comments linking it to the necessary take down of those dangerous liberals and their interests in upholding pedophilia and sex trafficking circles behind closed doors (yes, that’s a theory that ultra right conservatives continue to hold). Sure enough I was proved right once again. Right there with Jim C being praised as the poster child for the liberal takedown. Again, it seriously unsettles me that a story like this can masquerade as a political agenda. But here we are.
Now to step back down off my soapbox. Let me reiterate. The film itself is perfectly fine, especially considering its faith based roots. I will say too that the Directors previous effort Bella I thought was quite good, and from what I know of him he is probably the most intriguing part of this whole effort. I’ll just add to that, if you are someone who knows what this film is you are likely its target audience. And I have little doubt that it will really work for you. As for me, I didn’t know it existed. That’s probably enough to explain my reaction.
Film Journal 2023: Insidious: The Red Door Directed by Patrick Wilson
Prior to the release of The Red Door the only film from the franchise I had seen was the first one. So I decided to do a marathon over the last two days, culminating of course with the latest entry.
If someone had told me I would be this invested in the series on an emotional level when it was all said and done I likely would have offered a skeptical smirk in response. In fact, I didnt realize how much I was until I saw The Red Door. Dang did it sneak up on me in some unexpected ways. Of the series I found the third one to the be the weakest, while the fourth one demonstrated a return to form, providing what I found to be a satisfying conclusion to the overall journey. I fully expected The next entry to explore new territory and new characters and new stories. Instead I got the conclusion to the franchise I never knew I needed.
This series is built on patterns. Patterns that repeat themselves. It’s how each of the entries find themselves bound to the other. Cyclical patterns that not only connect the films but generations. The first tells the story of a family dealing with the trauma of their sons ability to connect to the other world. The second looks backwarda and explores how this trauma started with the father before continuing in the life of the son. The third fills in the gaps by fleshing out the story of Elise, the one who’s life intersects with this family through both the experiences of father and son. The fourth uses the fleshed out story of Elise to recenter us on this family, pushing us backwards yet again into another generational line while bringing the whole thing full circle in a poetic fashion.
In the Red Door we do jump forward into new territory, only not into fresh stories but into the necessary confronting of this generational trauma in the hope of finally breaking the cycle that has marked all the other films beginning and end. In this sense it becomes a powerful presence in terms of the franchises thematic and spiritual voice. For anyone who has dealt with such generational cycles and bounded, rooted trauma in their own life, this film offers a way to visualize it and make sense of it, and to even find freedom from it. Beautiful, poignant, and unexpectedly emotional, the Red Door does some of the strongest and most substantive work of the series, proving that the larger story is more than just its series of frights and jump scares. It’s a visionary exercise with a very real payoff.
*note the parallel references to Isaiah that tell the fuller story of “faith” in light of the exile and the hoped for messianic expectation. Taken together, verses 37-39 don’t refer to some predetermined election to salvation and damination, belief and unbelief. In both Isaiah and John these words are speaking into a present state of exile to note a percieved resistance to trusting in the work of God to be faithful to the promise. Resistance here doesn’t come from a people wanting to do horrible things, as the Pharisees are often caricatured to be. In the fuller picture of Isaiah unbelief of some percieved reprobate doesn’t become necessary to the belief of some elected remnant, it is simply the present backdrop through which God’s saving work becomes actualized and made known to the world in the whole of creation. Likewise in John, who brings this picture to fruition in Jesus by way of a Gospel that is all about connecting signs to a promised fulfillment.
The saving work here is not the saving work of some “individuals” over and against other “individuals. That misses the larger picture that this passage is tumbling towards with Isaiahs expectant messianic hope in view- Jesus. We are not the culmination of a saving work that becomes hope for the world, Jesus is:
37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: “Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” 41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. 42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human praise more than praise from God. Jesus’ Observations about Faith 44 Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.” -John 12:37-50
From Scott McKnight commentary: John’s Gospel was written so people would believe in Jesus as God’s Son and Messiah (20:30–31)… John begins to explain that lack of faith by working with two passages from Isaiah, the first from 53:1 and the second from 6:10.
Isaiah’s experience of his contemporaries not trusting his prophetic words anticipates how the leaders of Jerusalem respond to Jesus’ mighty signs (John 12:38). Isaiah extolled the glories of the “good news” that “Your God reigns!” (52:7) because God will redeem Israel, but when God’s Messiah enters Jerusalem, the leaders do not embrace the Messiah. They reject him.
Second, John appeals to a correspondence between divine purpose and human response in John 12:39–41 by turning all the way back in his Bible to Isaiah 6. There the prophet Isaiah was given a vision of “the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne” surrounded by “seraphim” and, after confessing his own unworthiness to glimpse the throne room of God, he is sent to tell the people of God—notice that—their response would be dull and inadequate until “the cities lie ruined” (because of exile). But he turns at the end of Isaiah 6 to announce there will still be life in the stumps that remain. Their condition of unbelief would end with belief.
“God intends persistent unbelief to lead to decisive judgment, consequent repentance, and ultimate deliverance” (Quast, John, 92). Too many forget the context of Isaiah 6 and see here a brutally unfair god. The Father of Jesus, however, would never hold someone responsible for unbelief if he both determined and caused unbelief. Never. John is here suggesting the unbelief of these leaders will someday be turned into faith…
“many even among the leaders believed in him” (12:42), indicating another dimension of faith: humans remain responsible. Sadly, John continues, these leaders who do believe in Jesus would not declare their allegiance to Jesus because of the social pressure put on them by the “Pharisees”—and John says they “loved human praise more than praise from God” (12:43). Perhaps we need to give some grace by remembering that faith is a journey, and they were just beginning.
Checking in at the halfway point to see how things are shaping up for my working list of top films of the year. Best, favorite, I know there is a distinction. But for me those lines get blurred fairly quickly when I’m sitting down and looking through which titles must be represented. Perhaps a better phrasing might be “most memorable”. These are the films I’m still thinking about the most in terms of my viewing experience.
Looking at where my list was at the first quarter back at the end of March, I’m noting a good deal of change and shuffling with a handful of titles holding strong. There might not be a ton of 4.5 or 5 star experiences, but this year has been really strong at the 4 star level. Thus, all of my honorable mentions could easily contend for a spot on my top 12 on a different day and/or with a rewatch.
I’ll begin with the best of the rest:
The product origin stories: Blackberry, Tetris, Air, Flamin Hot, Pinball: The Man Who Saved The Game
If anyone has an answer for this recent trend, I know of a good deal of Film Twitter that would love to hear it. That puzzle aside, I’m here for it. Air remains one of the most fun theatrical experiences of the year, its energetic script proving to be a genuine crowd pleaser, while Blackberry boasts some surprising artistic merit and indie cred with some captivating performances anchoring a familiar story in some surprising twists and turns. Pinballs melding of doc and drama played nearly as strong as the accompanying mustache, while Flamin Hot inspired while fostering some interesting conversation regarding how legacies get written and told adjacent to the products. And then there’s Tetris. One of the best globe trotting action/spy thrillers of 2023? Bring on the trend.
The 2022 Holdovers: Broker, No Bears, A Quiet Girl, Close, Women Talking
All of these films could be wrestling for my number 1 spot, so I figured I would spotlight them given their wide release in 2023 conflicts with their awards season representation and/or official release date in 2022. Broker leads the pack with one of the great Directors of our day (Kore-eda) demonstrating his penchant for strong themes and emotional gut punches mixed with humor and reflection on found family, forgiveness, all mixed with a good dose of moral ambiguity. Another iconic Director (Jafar Panahi) delivers what i think might be his most personal and intriguing work to date in No Bears, fusing his personal experience with film about telling the necessary stories in a messy and difficult and often dangerous world. The Quiet Girl is a profound exploration of telling stories without unnecessary words, while Women Talking is a powerful film about giving voice to the voiceless. And if Close has its way, it binds the quiet and the voice of the voiceless to a startling exploration of finding closeness in a world made of social constructs designed to keep us apart
Polite Society
In case we mistake a continually struggling box office with an absence of good, original fare, Polite Society braved those obstacles on its way to giving us a charming, creative indie action drama that hits in all the right ways, exploring a familial setting rich with cultural touchpoints and sibling dynamics. Flew under the radar, but absolutely deserves to be seen and celebrated.
The Indies: Brother, Hannah Ha Ha, Until Branches Bend, The Last Film Show, The Blind Man Who Did Not Want to See Titanic, Retrograde, A Thousand and One
Smaller films that deserve some attention, beginning with Clement Virgos Brother, who continues the trend of excellent dramas set in Scarborough (see last year’s Scarborough). It tells a story of siblings facing the challenges of growing up as black men in an impoverished neighborhood. The jumping back and forth in the timeline is a bit messy but the films attention to detail, intimate characterization, and the crafting of some really strong sequences more than make up for it.
Hannah Ha Ha is a startling achievement given a film so seemingly small in scope. It was shot on 75mm in IMAX format. The strongest case for why even the smallest films deserve to be seen on the big screen outside of A Thousand and Ones brilliant recreation of 90s era New York. The way this film is shot accents not just the landscape, but the scope of the challenges Hannah faces in the seeming smallness and mundaneness of her isolated life. In Sophie Jarvis’ impressive visually driven debut, the experience is shaped in the opposite direction, taking big and seemingly insurmountable challenges and making them small in the life and context of this community and the young woman at the center of its struggles. Smaller yet is the confined setting of Retrograde, a window into generation Z by way of simple conversational sequences. And then there are two films, The Blind Man Who Did Not Want to See Titanic and The Last Film, which work to reframe our perspective. In the case of the former, an astute human drama fused with romance that, using a cinematic approach, works to place us into the experience of a blind man trying to find his place in the world. In the latter, a film that plays reminiscent to Cinema Paradiso, celebrating the art form that allows Directors to do just that.
Dungeons and Dragons
In case you missed it, a film many wrote off turned out to be one of the freshest, fun and entertaining big budget blockbusters of 2023 thus far. A complete delight from start to finish
The Dramatic Comedies: You Hurt My Feelings/The Swearing Jar/Somewhere in Queens
The small dramatic comedy isn’t dead yet, even if the box office wants to make it appear that way. This is situational comedy at its best, and Julia Louis Dreyfus leads the way in an extremely relatable and hyper focused scenario driven story about the ways we relate to one another. Occupying a similar space is the relationship driven dramatic comedy The Swearing Jar, which uses music and cleverly designed narrative structure to sneak up on you with a big emotional punch. More rugged and given to its natural dialogue and dry sense of humor, Somewhere in Queens rounds this out as a wonderful exploration of familial relationship and generational divide.
HowTo Blow Up a Pipeline
Plays like a thriller. Acts like a thriller. Sounds like a thriller. Which makes this small, unassuming tension filled indie romp an edge of your seat experience. It’s not perfect, but it definitely plays
The Horror: Skinamarink, Emily, Knock At The Cabin, Godless: The Eastfield Exorcism
Skinamarink came out early and divided audiences. You either connected with it or you didn’t, and the film doesn’t leave much space to operate inbetween. For me it brought all my childhood nightmares, chronic as they were, straight to the surface. Little did me in like this experience. On the other end of the horror spectrum is Emily, a much more studied period piece that digs deep into the profundity of its questions relating to the fears that drive us forward and hold us back. The cinematography is particularly memorable, as is the literary approach. There is also the rich themes found in M. Nights Knock At The Cahin, led by a memorable performance by Batista, and the visceral experience of Eastfield, a film that will evoke the full spectrum of emotions (pair that with the Pope’s Exorcist like a fine wine)
A Good Person
This one fought the hardest for a spot in my top 12. The reaction for this one was mixed, but it really resonated with me in a big way when it came to the performances, the story and the themes. Speaking of “most memorable”. This one continues to linger,
Top 12 at The Halfway Point of 2023
12. Elemental
An animated film that plays to an older crowd, delving deep into generational trauma, the parent-child relationship, immigration, coming of age, cultural heritage, growing old. For a film that appears to rest on very obvious and surface metaphors, this one does a lot to bring the depth underneath to the surface in a satisfying way, boasting a nice visual style and some interesting world building.
11. Riceboy Sleeps
Reminiscent of Minari, if not quite as rich in its thematic focus. Where it excels is in immersing us in the world and experiences of a Korean immigrant widow and her son attempting to find their way in a foreign land (Canada). The film represents a gut punch, and there is so much beauty and sadness in the way these two people try to find their way together.
10 The Artifice Girl
A profound film in terms of its embrace of tough, philosophical questions. Even more impressive given the small budget and even smaller scale that informs the storytelling. What does it mean to feel. What does it mean to be human. What does it mean to exist. All of these questions begin to blur together into a singular existential concern when it comes to imaging a future driven by increasingly adaptive and intelligent AI. Lest we feel like this is a question for later generations, the film ŕeminds us that we are very much already here.
9. Linoleum
I wrote in my initial review that this film reminded me of why I love movies and what makes them so special. It’s quirky, unique, creative, and rich in its ability to tap into the core of the human experience. The film might set its ambitions on the big existential questions that accompany space exploration, but its true interest is the relationships on the ground.
8. I Like Movies
Still one of my most memorable movie going experiences this year. This tapped into nostalgia for a bygone era. More so it gave me a lens through which to see my own experience as someone who grew up with the majestic old downtown theaters and the onset of home VHS and DVD rentals. It allowed me to consider what that meant to me growing up, and how it became a place where I could fit in where I otherwise did not.
7. Asteroid City
Symmetry, color, comedy, visual storytelling, philosophical wonderings, quirky characters. It’s all here in a film that feels as much a call back to Andersons earlier work as it does a spiritual sequel to French Dispatch. Equal parts captivating and brilliant from one of the great modern visionaries.
6. Beau is Afraid
This is what happens when you give an already unhinged Director a blank check and free reign. Its bizarre, at points nonsensical and outrageous, but never less than captivating. The danger might be to assume the film fails to say anything coherent, but that would be to betray its narrative brilliance. And as someone who struggles with anxiety and who has mental illness in the family, the film hit a resonant note for me personally, and its one I’m still thinking about quite a bit.
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3
Volume 3 caught me off guard with just how meaningful it proved this franchise and it characters to be. This final goodbye pulled on the heartstrings and left me with all the feels, showing how you wrap up a trilogy with respect and care. One of my favorite MCU entries.
4. The Eight Mountains
Visually stunning, this big in scope intimate in detail story about a life long friendship contending with the hard realities of this world is a true cinematic experience. It blends metaphor and experiential drama as it finds its way into the different conflicts embedded into this reality. It leaves you with questions to ponder long after the credits roll
3. Showing Up
The follow up to the profound First Cow, Showing Up manages to exhibit a similar intellectual and artistic focus while treading new ground and exploring new space. It’s dialed back in all the right ways, focusing the expansiveness of its questions not on social and political constructs but on the nature of art, artist and viewer. The intricacies here show the filmmaker at her most open and intimate.
2. Past Lives
Rich in nuance and overflowing with visual and narrative poetry, the best way to describe this film is “prose in motion”. Less an intellectual exercise meant to be understood and more an experience meant to immerse yourself in. The past lives motif functions on multiple levels, but perhaps it’s most profound accomplishment is making the particulars of its story applicable on such a universal level.
1. Are You There God, It’s Me Margeret
I never expected a movie about a preteen girl going through puberty to land at my number one spot at the half point of the year, and yet here we are. Honest and authentic to its core, it’s a film about how to grow up with our questions and our struggles. Given the way the film parallels questions of God’s existence with the uncertainties of puberty, I think one of its most profound sentiments is the idea that whatever it is that we sacrifice for the sake of the self, it doesn’t take long for that allegiance to betray its need to be anchored in something bigger than the I. Which is why the grace notes we all need to navigate this thing we call existence arrive against expectations. That is what we call an exercise of maturity, and this just might be one of the most mature films I’ve seen in a long, long while, beginning with one of the best lead
I know this is a lot verses, but I wanted to outline the flow of the early chapters of Genesis in terms of it being a story about God’s promise. Note how each of the stories is marked by an act that leads to something contrary to what God calls very good, followed by a promise by God to act in response according to its reversal.
And notice how the reversal is continually rooted in a reversal of the curse placed on the land, which is paralleled with the command to be fruitful and fill the earth
And notice how Noah is raised up as a righteous figure whom will bring comfort relating to the curse on the ground by declaring its promised reversal. That reversal is attached to generations which, in this thread, ends with the promise to Abraham to make him fruitful and to fill the earth (father of many nations), and how that will come about for the sake of the scattered in the previous verses through the decendents that will be given the land of Canaan where he dwells (Israel). Precisely by being their God and them Gods people. From this comes the name Yahweh. Through this the promise of the reversal of the curse creation finds itself under will be reversed.
And don’t miss how this is tied to the seed of the serpent and the woman in conflict, with the Serpents head being crushed. If the movement Eastward to occupy and live off the cursed land is so that they might not live forever in that compromised state, the movement back, which must go through the fire, happens through God’s faithfulness to liberate the land (creation) from its curse:
Genesis 1:28-31 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
Genesis 2:16-17 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crushb your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Genesis 3:17-19 Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Genesis 3:22-24 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 4:10-12 10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”
Genesis 4:15 15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so, anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
Genesis 4:24 24 If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
Genesis 6:1; 5 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them… The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time
Genesis 5:29 29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.”
Genesis 6:18 “But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you,”
Genesis 8:21-22 “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
“As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”
Genesis 9:4-7 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”
Genesis 9:1 9 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.
Genesis 9:8-11 8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Genesis 10:32 32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.
Genesis 11:1;6 11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward they found a plain in Shinar and settled there… the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth
Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
Genesis 17:3-8 3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
Post #2
Some observations from the book Flood and Fury by Matthew Lynch
Joshua 24:12 12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you—also the two Amorite kings. You did not do it with your own sword and bow. 13 So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant.’
See my previous post which strings tougher all the verses in Geneis 1-12 relating to covenant and its association with the land. Now note here at the end of Joshua, the conquest book, the hyperlinks back to those stories and that promise; did not toil, cities you did not build (Cain and Abel and the Tower of Babel), the image of the land giving blessing instead of being cursed.
And even notice the reference to a bow. Lynch notes that in ancient stories it was common for a messenger of the god to show up and hand a leader a sword. This was a kind of anointing and a proclamation that “you fight for me”. This word for bow is the same language employed in the story of bow, which is Gods bow. Lynch links the note at the end of the story that God claims to be the one who does the action and carrys the bow with Joshua’s version of the messenger showing up with a sword in chapter 5. The messenger wields the sword, it doesn’t give the sword as would be expected in such a story.
Lynch then narrows in on 5:13 and the question “are you for us (Israel), or for our enemies”. The answer that comes: neither. This messenger is a commander of “the Lord”. Again, see my previous post that walks through the references to promise or covenant in Genesis 1-12 and note the emphasis on Gods work and Gods faithfulness to do what He promised to do in light of those sequential stories. As Joshua 5 continues it hyperlinks back to Moses at the burning bush with the call to “take off your sandals for the place where you stand is holy”.
Now here is where things get really cool. Let’s backtrack to the story of Abraham. Genesis 12:1 , “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land.”
Connect the land to the cursed land of Genesis 1-11
Then note the progression of the specific call that comes to Abraham in light of this promise . “I am God Almighty walk before me faithfully and be blameless”, followed by “You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.”
Now fast forward to Joshua 1-5 and note the progession in chapter 1 “to go” in relationship to the land followed by an unexpected turn of events. Rather than preparing them for battle the swords given are given for circumcision.
Backtrack again to Exodus 3 and 4 and the messenger to Moses and parallel that story with Joshua 1-5. Note the progression in that story that culminates in an act of circumcision that reshapes Moses understanding of who God is and how God is working in the world.
Lynch notes how these stories all parallel and connect with one another in this basic truth: that where the problem of Genesis 1-11 is this connection between the problem of violence and division, the idea that we fix this problem with the sword is always met with the divine revelation of Gods name and character wielding the sword in a different fashion.
Are you for us or for our enemies? Neither. Here God calls for submission to a different way of being in the world according to the kingdom He is building FOR the world, not against it.
Here is a philosophical idea I have been playing with lately. Mostly in response to questions I have been grappling with and which others have posed to me.
It has to do with how we measure or lay claim to the value of a life. Or perhaps more specifically, the question of a meaningful life. Or what is an ideal life. All three questions get at the same thing.
One of the most oft sentiments I hear is this. A meaningful life depends first on the conviction that less suffering is better than more suffering in a world where some level of suffering is inevitable. This applies most readily to uneccessary suffering.
It depends on secondly on individual liberty, meaning the ability of one to do with their life what they choose.
In the absence of either of these things a meaningful life, or the ability to live a meaningful life, is seen to be compromised.
If that is the foundation, what follows then is the question of contextualizing such a life. When asked what is the ideal life I tend to get two answers from those I am in conversation with. On one hand there is an appeal to a kind of relativism, albeit typically relativism that operates within the parameters and rules of knowledge and reason. On the other hand it seems commonplace that the measure of such value or idealism is dependent on a set number of years. Since the framework that we know today is, to simplify, a lifetime that moves from 0-100, absent of external factors such as suffering we tend to believe that the narrower the gap between life and death is within that given time frame (the reality that we know) the more tragic the loss is. For example, we deem it a greater tragedy that a 12 year old loses their life than an 80 year old.
Chances are that we will also say that both lives hold the same intrinsic value, philosophical quandries that force one to choose between either or aside. And yet, such a measure seems to force us to say at the same time that a life lived 100 years is a more valuable life in terms of its meaningfulness and its pointing to the ideal, creating certain philipshical tensions between the two claims. This tension is particularly relevant to the one posing certain existential demands to life itself.
The measure that we use to make both claims is the same. We measure it based on opportunity lost and opportunity gained , and that opportunity is based on that 0-100 time frame.
So that has me asking the following questions. It is often said by those who oppose religion that the idea of living forever is not attractive. We might desire it in the face of tragedy, but when we really consider it I have had many say to me that most of us wouldn’t want that. A world without death and suffering would be a world absent of life, because death and suffering are the things that allow us to know that we are living.
But is this really the logical conclusion of life and death, or our question of what makes a meaningful life? Let’s consider this. The reason we might think this to be true is because it cannot make sense of our present point of perspective and experience. But what if we rewound to not so many years ago when common life expectancy was 50. Suddenly 50 becomes the ideal.
Or what if we fastforward and imagine a lifespan of 200 where we eradicate certain diseases associated with aging. Would our perspective not change again? And where would we percieve to draw the line in that regard? At some point do we just say enough?
Or what about suffering? If we assume that less suffering is better than more, where do we draw the line when it comes to cancer research, for example? Do we imagine a world absent of suffering only to a certain point? And what do we do with a modern age where technological advancement is almost entirely about conveniences (the absence of certain forms of suffering) rather than necessities? Is that not all given to a matter of perspective as well?
Here is my wondering. I agree with the idea of inherent value. But I think what that demands of us is a similar given statement that recognizes death and suffering as adversaries to life. Without that our logical systems when it comes to the value of life falls apart. And I think that forces us to be honest about the arbitrary lines that we draw that allow us to label death and suffering as necessary to life.
It is no less rational to suggest that to think of the concept of a world absent of death and suffering than it is to rationalize a world with death and suffering. Both force us to appeal to mathers of limited perspective and demand of us a greater imagination when it comes to how we live in a world with death and suffering
Film Journal 2023: The Covenant Directed by Guy Ritchie
It took a little bit for me to wrap my head around Guy Ritchie taking on something this serious and this studied and dark. The first half of this film, which is where it really shines, goes a long ways in proving this marriage can work. Its chalk full of intricate sequences, delicate drama, and memorable moments. The way the action sequences are shot, using Ritchie’s signature style, is much more subtle than you might expect, toning down his normal energetic approach without muting it or disguising it.
The film is ultimately about the journey of this interpreter, which affords the film a window into a more nuanced discussion than you might find with someone like Bay, who does not shy away from an heavy set patriotism. Unfortunately some of that thematic weight gets muddled by the inconsistent nature of the pacing in the second half. Its there where i think the argument can be made that the wonderful performance by Dar Salim starts to shine a light on the miscasting of Jake Gyllenhaal. He’s not bad, it’s just that the moments in the second half where I felt myself slipping in and out of full engagement with the film led to over analyzing his role. Something felt a little off, even if I couldn’t out my finger on it.
Overall a pleasant surprise, especially for anyone who is a fan of Ritchie’s work. Adds a different flavor to his filmography that has an aged presence.
Film Journal 2023: Elemental Directed by Peter Sohn
The Good Dinosaur is not among my highest rated Pixar films, but to this day it remains one of my favorites. It trades the typical complexities of Pixars more legendary titles for simple storytelling, drawing out themes not through conceptual designs and intricate storytelling devices but through employjng an old fashioned narrative approach. It has been criticized for this, often occupying the lower tiers of people’s rankings. I have often argued that this is less a question of quality and more a question of expectation; i highly recommend this review for parsing out some of that complicated reality: thetwingeeks.com/2023/06/12/elemental-pixar-the-good-dinosaur-and-the-weight-of-expectations/?fbclid=IwAR2SHpiWuhjI-OgACTYmB7ojRcfbLghikKStTD3IkeGotkbiTC7xP9ze0_s
If the high concept element of the film is limited to the question, what if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had actually missed earth, the thematic exploration of family, belonging, adoption and growing up/coming of age in an uncertain world filled with trauma and struggle really connected for me. Given that Elemental is not only Peter Sohns follow up film but also the second film of his career, now spanning 8 years, it is fitting that this could be called a spiritual sequel of sorts. The interconnecting ideas and themes overlay both stories in a powerful way, the Good Dinosaur reaching a younger audience and Elemental reaching an older one given the ages and experiences of their main characters. It will be interesting to see how far Elemental’s reach will be when it comes to finding its target audience. It’s worth repeating that the film does veer older, with its subject matter dealing with the relationship between a younger adolescent and her relationship to her father. It is a perfect fit for fathers day, and I think it serves best speaking to either the parents in the crowd grappling with their relationship with a son/daughter, or the 16-21 year old crowd grappling with issues surrounding what it means to be an adult in a confusing and often difficult world.
In all honesty, the two films function really well as a double feature, both capturing the different phases of growing up and living the grown up life. They ask similar questions, and yet pose them from slightly different vantage points. What made the Good Dinosaur especially meaningful to me is that it came out the year that we adopted our then 12 year old son. The way it tackles the idea of found family and the idea of family being bigger than blood proved a powerful complement to our own experience of becoming a family 8 years ago. Elemental, in contrast, begins with the larger theme of immigration, following a family as they move from one country to another in efforts to begin anew. This cross cultural context, although different than our own, adds something to my personal experience with this film, as we adopted our son from Ukraine, traveling to unfamiliar territory to find him and he coming to this completely unfamiliar country called Canada after the family became official.
The story that we find in Elemental is actually deceptively rich. I have heard of some writing it off already simply on the basis of the trailer naming the main character, a fire Elemental, “Ember”. Yes, the metaphor at play is on the nose, all the way down to Ember having a firey temper given to fits of rage and her eventual encounter with water characters who are in touch with their feelings and prone to being a sobbing mess. The available puns that come from this make no efforts to hide themselves. But the world the film builds around this metaphor is endlessly interesting and unquestionably beautiful. The story even more so. I loved how the layers of the narrative form these progressively narrowing circles of plot lines and thematic focus, taking the broader context of the immigration story and playing that first in to the developing romance between the two polarized elementals, and then narrower yet into the internal struggle of Ember. The glue that binds these things together is the family dynamic, taking these ever narrowing circles and broadening it back out again into the films intergenerational dynamics, exploring how it is that the relationship between parent and child reflect these cyclical patterns and realities, some that hold us hostage and others that promise liberation. It’s in this sense that the film affords the two sides of its experiences, parent and adolescent, a proper entry point into the story.
For many of us who know what it is to be both, I would imagine the story might resonate on both sides of that metaphorical fence. I know it did for me, hitting on some heavy trigger points when it comes to my own grappling with these given realities and experiences. Perhaps most apparent is that deep rooted fear that my son hears much of the same messaging as Ember hears from her own father, and knowing how to communicate what I would really would want him to hear feels like an impossibility sometimes, even on our best days. That feeling of being misunderstood, and of misunderstanding, looms large in this story, with past regrets and failures lingering in the background of it’s own pertinent efforts to face these truths head on.
One last thing. I get that this film is not technically perfect (no film is). There is a degree to which it might be stretching itself too broadly in terms of its themes. For a surface level metaphor it is juggling quite a bit, and there is a chance someone might latch on to one element of the interconnected storylines and miss the rest. That’s the danger of trying to bring two sides of the audience in to the same story. You might end up spending so much time trying to find yourself in this story that you miss the other perspective. And the more subtext the film brings in the more likely that is. On that same note, I actually really liked what they did with the developing love story between the two young adults. It reminded me of the similarly lovely and immersive romance sequence in the live action The Little Mermaid. It’s a good example of how, at its strongest, this film is able to take those particulars and spin them as universals, with the romance bleeding necessary nuance into the other plot lines as they develop alongside it. If nothing else, the two sides of the conversation affords exactly that- important conversations across generational lines.
I do know that, without question, I personally am deeply appreciative of this film. Even more so of the Director. The stories he wants to tell, or that he feels he needs to tell, are stories that have deeply impacted my own life and grown my understanding of this world and my experiences of it. I would trade technical veracity for this type of grounded and accessible and personally invested storytelling any day, even with its imperfections.
The Stories of my Life 