Back in 2005, I reviewed the first movie to be made from the seven-volume series of
children’s novels by C.S. Lewis, called The Chronicles of Narnia. That episode was
called The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - which creates a frame for all of the
succeeding volumes.
For those who didn’t see Part One, or remember my review, this is the set-up: During
the Blitz of London, two brothers and two sisters from the Prevensie family are sent to a
country estate where they will be safe from the bombing raids. While playing hide and
seek at the estate, they happen upon a magical wardrobe which acts as the doorway
to a fantasy land called Narnia. This was a medieval world inhabited by feuding kings,
witches and wizards, knights in shining armor, talking animals, and every mythological
creature you’ve ever heard of. In that first film, the children found themselves in a
kingdom ruled by a wicked witch called the Ice Queen. The children made friends with
various animals, fairies, elves, and what not, to help the Narnians overthrow the
tyrannical queen. Most of the movie consisted of sword fights and endless chases
through the woods, building to a climax in which the poor little creatures were about to
be defeated by the cold-hearted humans. But since the story was structured as a
classic fairy tale, there had to be a deus ex machina for a climax. So a mystical lion,
named Aslan, came galloping to the rescue; the four siblings were hailed as the new
kings and queens, and everyone lived happily ever after.
C.S. Lewis had spent his life as a scholar of medieval literature, specializing in world
mythology, but in his later years he became a devout Christian, and The Chronicles of
Narnia was designed as propaganda to promote Christian doctrines. Aslan was
supposed to represent Christ; and in the first film, Aslan volunteered to be executed in
order to save the lives of the four children. But after his death, he was resurrected, and
the film ended with his disembodied spirit saying, “Lo, I will be with you always.” In my
review, I cited the Gospel chapters and verses which were alluded to in the screenplay.
I was highly impressed with the special effects of that first film. I thought the realistic
creation of centaurs, minotaurs, and anthropomorphic animals was worth the price of a
ticket, and I recommended that atheists should take their children or grandchildren to
the film so they could discuss the symbolism, and place the doctrines of christianism
within the context of the other mythology represented.
Alas, I can make no such recommendation for this film. Nothing new has been added.
As soon as the studio was assured that the first film would make a ton of money, this
sequel was given the green light. All the cast and crew are back - except for the
addition of Peter Dinklage as the Red Dwarf.
In this story, one year has passed in London time - when the children unexpectedly find
themselves whisked back to Narnia - only to discover that 1300 years have passed in
Narnia time. The castle in which they had once lived was now in ruins; their names as
great rulers of Narnia had passed into legend; and Aslan had never been seen again.
This time Narnia was in the grip of another tyrant. The pure and handsome Prince
Caspian is legitimate heir to the throne, but his uncle, who presently holds the scepter,
tries to have him killed so that the uncle can become the permanent king instead. The
four young protagonists are swept up in the battle between the lovable Narnians and
the cruel humans who, in this iteration, are called Telmarines.
There’s not much to this story: Most of the two hour screen time is occupied with sword
fighting, more charging through the woods on horseback, and clashes between the
opposing armies of the fanciful Narnians and the Telmarines. Interestingly, not a drop
of blood is shed - this being a Disney film and all.
Again the Narnians are about to be crushed when... behold!... Aslan suddenly
materializes. He unleashes a ground-shaking roar. All the trees come to life and attack
the Telmarines. Even so, a large contingent of Telmarines escape the deadly trees and
begin to cross a river. Aslan roars again, and a river god rises up and drowns the
remaining bad guys.
Prince Caspian assumes his rightful place on the throne, and the heroic siblings find
themselves transported back to 1941 London, after assuring the Narnians that they will
return if they are ever needed.
There is nothing in this film that specifically alludes to Christian doctrines. Aslan could
represent any number of savior gods. In the Islamic countries, he might well be touted
as a symbol of Mohammed.
But if you think your little ones would enjoy seeing mythological creatures engaged in
bloodless battles accompanied by the relentless clanging of swords on armor, I
recommend that you save your money and rent the first movie instead.
Chronicles of Narnia II: Prince Caspian
Released Summer, 2008
Brideshead Revisited
(Released summer 2008)
The 2008 movie Brideshead Revisited, adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by
Julian Jarrold, is based on the classic 1945 novel by Evelyn Waugh.
Waugh was a snob and a Luddite. Born into an upper middle class literary family in
1903 London, he always aspired to be part of the aristocracy. Like his alter ego
Charles Ryder in this story, Waugh matriculated at Oxford but spent his time carousing
with the more privileged classes and never graduated.
He hated everything about the modern world, and after becoming a successful author
Waugh was finally able to fulfill his lifelong ambition to be a country squire. He bought
an ancient stone villa and boasted that, save for the plumbing, there was nothing in his
house less than a hundred years old. He even wrote all of his books with a quill pen.
Waugh was a brilliant satirist, and throughout his career all of his characters were
grotesquely comic. Apparently Brideshead Revisited was intended as a nostalgic
valentine to the waning days of the British aristocracy, but since he cannot help but
write ironically, the story tends to strike Americans as an attack on the fatuousness of
their self-absorbed lives.
Waugh says that as an undergraduate he was an agnostic, but in his later years he
converted to Catholicism. In various interviews he said that the theme of Brideshead
Revisited was to show a variety of sinful characters being redeemed by “God’s
Grace.” In the book and the 1981 TV series, we see how all of the characters fight
against the Catholic faith of Lady Marchmain, but in the end they all succumb to the
superior wisdom of the Church.
What a writer intends, however, and what the public perceives are often quite different.
Many critics agree that Waugh did an admirable job of making the characters look
foolish and in skewering the absurdities of Catholic doctrine, but having everyone
suddenly convert at the end was not dramatically consistent.
I remember avidly watching the mini-series, with its rare depiction of a sympathetic
agnostic in conflict with the monstrously devout Lady Marchmain, who destroys her
entire family through her piety. But in the final episode when Charles suddenly converts,
my reaction was: “What?! That made no sense!”
Fortunately, the new movie version does not make that mistake. The ten hour
miniseries was not an adaptation of the novel, but a transcription of it: scene by scene,
word for word. The Davies and Jarrold version, on the other hand, is indeed an
adaptation. Some of the characters are eliminated and the plot is changed significantly.
Whereas in the book and the TV series, Charles rather wimpishly identifies himself as
an agnostic, in the movie on the other hand, he defiantly proclaims himself to be an
atheist; and the basic conflict is between Lady Marchmain’s adamant Catholicism,
versus her family’s very human desires: She drove her husband into the arms of a
sympathetic mistress; she drove her gay son into alcoholism; and she prevents the
marriage of her daughter to Charles Ryder because of his stubborn rationality. Instead
of being a story of religious redemption, this version becomes a study in the
destructiveness of religion. I doubt that Waugh would have been pleased with the film,
but 70% of the nation’s movie critics have been.
Highly recommended.
This is a documentary starring comedian Bill Maher, directed by Larry Charles (the
director of Borat), and shot under the working title of “A Spiritual Journey.” The film was
produced by an independent company called Thousand Words and financed by a
consortium of international distributors. Maher explained in interviews that the title is a
neologism which combines the words “religious” with “ridiculous,” thus alerting the
audience from the outset that this is going to be a satire about religion. In case the title
is not enough of a clue for unsuspecting movie goers, the advertising graphics show
three monkeys in the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil” pose, while
wearing Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic clerical garb.
The producers sought out a wide variety of spokespeople for all the major religions of
the world, but didn’t tell them that Bill Maher would be the person interviewing them.
Even when Maher showed up, most of the interviewees didn’t know who he was, or that
he was an outspoken skeptic, so they blithely proceeded to make themselves look just
as ridiculous as the title implies.
Maher says at the beginning of the film that he was raised as a Catholic, but at an early
age he began asking questions about religion which no one could answer to his
satisfaction. So this film is ostensibly a continuation of his quest. The structure is
similar to Plato’s “Apologia,” in which someone asks the Oracle of Delphi who is the
wisest person in the world, to which the Oracle responds: Socrates of Athens. When
Socrates hears about the Oracle, he finds it hard to believe, since there are many
people claiming that title, while he knows nothing at all. Socrates spends the rest of his
life questioning these people, only to find that none of them know what they are talking
about. At the end of his life, Socrates concludes that he must indeed be the wisest
person in the world, since he is the only one who understands how ignorant we all are.
But Maher is a comedian rather than a philosopher and his primary intent was to make
a comedy. So we only see those people who pompously claim to know all about God’s
Will -- but of course they all disagree on what “God’s Will” happens to be. And when
Maher asks follow-up questions in the Socratic manner, the results are hilarious.
Scores of people are interviewed, including Evangelical Christians, Catholic priests,
Mormons, and Muslim mullahs. All varieties of supernatural absurdity are skewered by
Maher’s rapier wit. This is probably the first all-out assault on organized religion ever
released in American theaters. If this doesn’t qualify as “blasphemy” then nothing
does. There are reports of it being banned in Islamic countries, but so far not in the
West. In fact, seventy percent of American critics have given it a favorable review.
Long-time atheists will probably not learn anything new; this is the movie that many of
us have always wanted to make; but it is very satisfying to see that somebody has
finally done it, and to see an audience finally laughing at the same kind of nonsense we
have always ridiculed.
My only caveat is that Maher refuses to call himself an atheist because he has the
mistaken notion that an atheist must be as dogmatic, uninformed, and closed minded
as a theist.
My recommendation is to take some of your borderline friends to see it with you. It will
definitely make them think.
RELIGULOUS
Released October 2008
Agora
Released in Europe 2009, in US 2010
Agora is a Spanish film, co-written and directed by Alejandro Amenabar. Produced by
Fernando Bovaira and released in Spain during October of 2009, it won seven Goya
Awards, including the one for best screenplay. It is about the murder of Hypatia and
destruction of the great research library of Alexandria in 391 CE. Hypatia is played by
the American actress Rachel Weisz (interestingly, the only woman in the film); Oscar
Isaac is the Roman prefect of Alexandria; Max Minghella is Hypatia’s slave; and Sami
Samir plays Bishop Cyril. All the actors speak American English with a slightly tinged
British/Continental accent.
Amenabar says that he wanted to make a film about the history of astronomy and
became intrigued by the dramatic possibilities inherent in the true story of Hypatia and
her conflict with the emergent Christian Church.
First, a little background:
Alexander the Great founded his eponymous port city designed around a harbor, a
lighthouse, and the world’s first research library; unfortunately, he didn’t live long
enough to see the project completed. “Library” does not necessarily mean a particular
building, but a “collection of books.” It is generally agreed that the Royal Library was in
full operation early in the third century BCE. But there is dispute about how many of the
books may have been accidentally destroyed by a fire during Julius Caesar’s invasion
of Egypt in 48 BCE. We do know, however, that many of the Hebrew books comprising
the original Septuagint were lost about that time.
There may, or may not, have been another fire in 273 CE, during the reign of Emperor
Aurelian who was defending the city against a revolt instigated by Queen Zenobia of
Syria.
There is little doubt, however, that in 391 the Christian Emperor Theodosius ordered
the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria dutifully
complied with destruction of the Temple of Serapis - which housed its own library. How
much of the Royal Library was left is unknown, but there was also a third library in
Alexandria at the Temple of Caesar - which may, or may not, have been burned under
the same orders.
Constantine was a Roman general who was born in 272, became emperor in 306, and
stopped the persecution of Christians that had been ordered by Domitian. In 313
Constantine issued a proclamation of religious tolerance, declared himself a Christian,
and began to convert pagan temples into Christian basilicas - although he continued to
honor the old gods - and was, himself, never baptized until he was on his deathbed in
337. In 325 he had ordered all the Christian bishops throughout the empire to convene
in the resort city of Nicea, near Constantinople. There, the bishops hammered out the
Nicene Creed, establishing the doctrines of the Christian Church, and began
assembling the first official Bible. In 367 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria announced
the canonical books of the New Testament (although some historians date it as 397).
Theodosius had become emperor in 379, and some time after his destruction of the
temples, he ordered all Roman officials to be baptized and to submit to the authority of
the Catholic Church.
The movie is divided into two time frames: it opens in 391 with Hypatia teaching
philosophy, astronomy, and mathematics in the library of the Serapium. One of her
students would later become the Roman prefect of Alexandria. The students guard the
library and museum, as Christians demand entry. A riot ensues, and then word comes
down from Emperor Theodosius to allow the Christians to enter. They do, and destroy
the library, along with the temple of Serapis.
Part two starts in 415 with Hypatia still teaching, using whatever materials were left,
when Theodosius announces that all government officials must now convert to
Christianity or lose their position. Hypatia refuses to submit in defiance of Saint Paul's
order that women must not be allowed to teach or hold any authority over men.
Moreover, Hypatia was promoting the concept of a heliocentric universe, first proposed
by the Greek astronomer Aristarchus - which conflicted with the geocentric model held
by the Catholic Church. It was known that Orestes, the Roman prefect, was in conflict
with Bishop Cyril over several issues, and that Hypatia was his chief advisor. So to gain
political control of the city, Cyril denounces Hypatia as a heretic and a witch. Orestes
defends her and loses his position. She is then attacked by a Christian mob, stoned to
death, and her naked body is dragged through the streets. The movie ends at this point.
But to continue with background:
After the close of the biblical canon in the 4th century, all books that were deemed to be
in conflict with the Bible or the Nicene Creed were declared heretical and destroyed.
So by the end of the 5th century almost all the books of classical antiquity were gone,
and the accumulated knowledge of more than a thousand years was lost forever.
Therefore, the destruction of the Serapium and the murder of Hypatia has become a
metaphor for the end of classical scholarship and the beginning of the Dark Ages.
It wasn’t until 1543 that Nicolaus Copernicus published a book which revived interest in
the heliocentric model of the universe that had been espoused by Aristarchus and
Hypatia. Copernicus, however, was a Catholic priest, among his many other
accomplishments, and he dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, perhaps to gain
ecclesiastical acceptance. Nevertheless, he prudently never allowed the book to be
published until after his death.
Galileo Galilei wasn’t born until 41 years after the death of Copernicus, but he made
improvements in the telescope and supported the work of Copernicus. In 1616, the
Church officially condemned heliocentrism as contrary to scripture and ordered Galileo
to stop writing about it. But in 1632 Galileo defiantly published his magnum opus,
“Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.” He was immediately arrested by
the Inquisition and spent the remainder of his life in custody. His contemporaries,
Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe, however, made further refinements in his system
and somehow managed to escape the wrath of the Church.
Alejandro Amenabar said he wanted his film to be as realistic as possible, so he
eschewed Computer Graphics Imagery (CGI) and recreated a highly detailed fourth
century city of Alexandria on the island of Malta - with one of the largest sets ever built.
All of the characters in the movie are based on historical figures, except for the slave
Davus, who was introduced to provide a story of unrequited love for the celibate
Hypatia. Since the film doesn’t present the early church in a very flattering light,
Amenabar says he screened it for the Vatican - which had no major objections to its
veracity.
The film was the biggest box office hit of 2009 in both Spain and Italy. Sixty-one percent
of American critics have also given it a favorable review, but perhaps unsurprisingly,
American audiences have generally snubbed it.
Highly recommended.
The Ledge
Previewed in U.S. July 2011
The Ledge is not only a well produced thriller, but also a tragic love story. Written
and directed by Matthew Chapman, it stars Liv Tyler as Shana, Charlie Hunnam as
her lover Gavin, and Patrick Wilson as her husband Joe.
The film opens with Gavin standing on the ledge of a high rise, apparently about to
jump. Terrance Howard plays police detective Hollis Lucetti, who has been
assigned the duty of trying to talk the would-be jumper down. Gavin explains that he
is not there by choice, but if he does not jump by a certain time, then someone else
will die, so he is trying to decide what to do. The story is then told in flashbacks, as
the clock ticks down.
Gavin is a lonely divorcee who works as assistant manager of a hotel, and
temporarily shares an apartment with a gay friend who has fallen on hard times.
Shana, who happens to live in the same apartment building, applies for part time
work as a maid at the hotel. Gavin gives her the job. But Joe, who is a devout
fundamentalist assumes that Gavin and his roommate are both gay, so he invites
them over for dinner in order to preach at them about the sinfulness of
homosexuality. Gavin explains that he is not gay and attacks Joe’s homophobic
philosophy as religious nonsense. Both men then stalk out in a huff.
As they work together at the hotel it becomes clear that Gavin and Shana are
attracted to each other, and when she reveals that she is not happy with her
marriage, they eventually become lovers. Meanwhile, Joe has invited Gavin to
dinner again, just for the purpose of trying to convert him. This results in the only
verbal battle between the opposing world views. They are the same old arguments
we have all heard before, but both sides are presented with equal passion.
Shana later tells Gavin that Joe was severely shaken by Gavin’s atheistic
arguments, but his response is the one we have all come to expect, i.e., instead of
changing his mind, he tries to redouble his faith by giving up everything and
becoming a missionary in Uganda. She doesn’t want to go to Africa; she wants to
stay where she is and go to college instead.
Eventually Joe discovers that Shana is having the affair with Gavin, so he makes
Gavin read the verse in Leviticus 20:10 which says that if a man commits adultery
with his neighbor’s wife, they both shall die. Joe says he is willing to die for his
philosophy; is Gavin willing to die for his? If Gavin is willing to give up his life for
Shana, then he will spare her. Joe knows that he will face the death penalty for
whichever one dies, but he is willing to make that sacrifice to obey his god’s
command.
The film has been a commercial success in several European countries but, as
expected, even the Laemmle chain of theaters has been reluctant to release it in
Christianized America. At the time of this writing, the film has only been previewed
in a few theaters, so audience response is limited. But of those who have seen it,
more than sixty percent have viewed it favorably. Reviewers have been more
negative, but their criticisms have been all over the map - suggesting that their
disapproval is mainly ideological and they are grasping at straws for something to
complain about. I suspect that if the good guy were anything other than an atheist
and the bad guy were anything other than a Christian, then it would be a smash hit
in America as well.
Bill Donohue’s Catholic League has urged a boycott of the film - which should be
recommendation enough for atheists to support it.
The murder of Christopher “Kit” Marlowe is still as shrouded in mystery and
conflicting theories as that of John F. Kennedy. “The School of Night” by Peter
Whelan explores all these possibilities with great panache in this production at the
Mark Taper Forum. Peter Whelan is a British playwright who has had many of his
works produced in London by the Royal Shakespeare Company. The School of
Night was first performed there in 1992. The Mark Taper production in 2008 marks
its American debut.
“Kit” Marlowe was baptized in 1564 and was only 29 when he was murdered in
1593. But during those years he had written several important poems and at least
six plays which remain classics of Elizabethan theater to this day. Probably the best
known is “The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus,” but only “Tamburlaine the Great”
had actually been produced before his untimely death. Tamburlaine was a
commercial success and Marlowe was hailed as the greatest English playwright
until William Shakespeare. Marlowe created the genre of epic plays written in blank
verse, the style which was later adopted by Shakespeare - who may have been a
friend and colleague. We know that several of Shakespeare’s plays are largely
rewrites of Marlowe’s earlier dramas.
Marlowe, Shakespeare, Ben Johnson, Sir Walter Raleigh, and another playwright
named Thomas Kyd were all living and working in the small world of London Theater
at the same time, and some were known to be involved with the queen’s secret
service organization. It was a time of great religious upheaval and paranoia. The
devoutly Protestant Queen Elizabeth had replaced the equally devout Catholic
Queen Mary shortly before Marlowe was born, and anyone suspected of Catholic
sympathies was regarded as a traitorous atheist. Spies were everywhere. Only 58
years later this broiling theo-political animosity between Protestants and Catholics
would erupt into a bloody civil war.
It is thought that Sir Walter Raleigh created a cabal of freethinking intellectuals and
republicans which is known today as “The School of Night.”
When Marlowe was in grad school at Cambridge on a scholarship, he was at first
denied his Master’s Degree because of rumors that he was planning to move to
France and study for the priesthood at the Catholic University of Rheims. Queen
Elizabeth, however, intervened on his behalf because of his “extraordinary service to
the crown.” So his degree was finally awarded. Those “extraordinary services” were
never spelled out, and this is considered to be evidence that he was working for her
as a spy.
In May of 1593 certain posters began appearing around London which were
deemed to be blasphemous and suspected as the work of Marlowe or his
associates. His roommate, Thomas Kyd, was arrested and their room was
searched. Certain heretical works of literature were found. Under torture, Kyd said
that they belonged to Marlowe, and furthermore, that Marlowe was a Sodomite. An
arrest warrant for Marlowe was issued, and on May 20th he reported to the Privy
Council for arraignment. Ten days later he was murdered in what the press reported
as a drunken bar fight. The coroner’s report, however, said that Marlowe had spent
the day in a private home in the company of three men known to be members of the
secret police and involved with the London underground.
At his trial Marlowe had been accused of being a member of the atheistic “School of
Night,” and believing, as the heretical work called the Toldoth Jesu says, that Jesus
was the bastard son of a prostitute.
Those are the historical facts. Armed with this information, Peter Whelan weaves an
elegant plot involving Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, young Will Shakespeare, Sir Walter
Raleigh, and Sir Thomas Walsingham, a patron of the arts, member of the
freethinking cabal, and cousin to the Queen’s spymaster.
The play opens with Kit Marlowe delivering a satirical prayer to “Dog” while serving
as “artist in residence” at the country estate of Sir Walsingham. All the aforesaid
characters come into the estate to discuss atheism, republicanism, and the nature
and function of literature, as the plot develops. There are several long speeches in
praise of the kind of atheism we know today, as well as the glories of the scientific
way of thinking and the necessity for the separation between church and state. As
Marlow awaits his trail, he says he doesn’t even know what the charges are. Is he
being accused of atheism, sodomy, or treason? Perhaps someone in the Queen’s
Court didn’t even want such matters publicly discussed.
Altogether it was a very satisfying intellectual feast. Even if the play closes its run at
the Taper on December 15th, it will probably be revived elsewhere. See it if you can.
Theater Review of play at the Mark Taper Forum, Dec, 2008
|
Woo Pig Sooie!
Despite the unfortunate name, this one-man show by Matt Besser is not an
imitation of the redneck routines of Jeff Foxworthy. On the contrary, it’s a
sophisticated and hilarious rant about the idiocies and hypocrisies of religion,
rivaling anything by George Carlin or Bill Maher. Perhaps the show could best be
described as the male equivalent of Julia Sweeny’s “My Beautiful Loss of Faith.”
But whereas Julia’s humor is wistful and sympathetic toward her Catholic
upbringing, Besser is flat out furious about the way he was treated by the Christian
community of Arkansas, as the child of a Jewish father and Protestant mother.
The title of the show refers to the cheerleading chant for the Arkansas Razorbacks.
Besser equates devout fans of sports teams with religious sectarianism, and he
claims that rooting for the Razorbacks is the closest he ever comes to participating
in some pietistic ritual. His show has played in various theaters under a variety of
names including: “God vs. Matt Besser”; “Besser in Satan’s Service”; “John the
Baptist, Matt the Atheist”; “Vatican’t”; “RU There Kobe, it’s Me Matt Besser”;
“Religious Experience Required”; and “The Bible Belch.”
He says that neither of his parents was particularly religious, but they wanted him to
understand his dual heritage, so they took him to both types of service. He found
both of them equally baffling. He goes into detail about a Bible School summer
camp he once attended when he was about ten years old. Supposedly it was non-
sectarian. But all the boys and their counselors singled him out as the only one
among them who was “unsaved.” They held special prayer meetings beseeching
him to “see the light,” and “come to Jesus.” Meanwhile, the same counselors were
sneaking out at night to screw the counselors at the girl’s camp across the lake.
Particularly poignant was an “anonymous” letter to his mother, calling her a
heretical backstabbing slut for marrying a “dirty Jew.” But Matt was easily able to
recognize the letter as having been written on his own grandmother’s typewriter.
I heartily recommend this show. The only caveat is that parking is by valet only, and
it always makes me very nervous to turn over my keys to some kid who looks like
an archetypal car thief.
Theater Review of Play at Upright Citizens Brigade Theater, Nov 2005