Lent Reviews Week 4: Noah

Ok so I guess I didn't get both reviews up last week after all...

  Noah was released in 2014. It stars Russell Crow and is directed by Darren Aronofsky. It tells the biblical story of the great flood from Genesis.

  This film sparked alot of controversy among christian viewers as it significantly altered the biblical narrative. I used to be something of a purist when it came to theatrical adaptions of books, plays, true historical narratives, and the like but, more recently, I have laxed this somewhat in this sentiment. In any case I think that its a mistake to lambast a film for biblical accuracy when it is so filled with truly christian values and in line with Catholic moral teaching. Noah is exactly that. Some have accused it of being a environmentalist propaganda piece. Though there are certainly environmental themes in the movie, I wouldn't say that it's overly extreme. Noah and his family are depicted as being vegetarians as dictated by the creator. Though many may not know this, it is actually in line with the biblical narrative which say's that man was not allowed to eat meat until after the flood (see Genesis 9:2). Another thing that's important to remember is that, though God gave the world to man to "fill ... and subdue" we ought to follow his example and be kind masters and stewards of the gift he has given us, as the catechism says "Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment." Noah reflects this teaching very well, as Noah's love and care for God's creation is contrasted with Tubal Cain's might-makes-right ideology. This comparison is also used to illustrate the film's themes about sin and violence among men. 

  One of the things that shocked viewers the most about the film was Noah's proposed killing of a newborn. This obviously does not happen in the biblical text. But those who things that this is somehow demeaning to the actual man would do well to remember that another, even more revered biblical figure almost did the same thing: Abraham. I can't help but feel that Noah's idea to kill Ila's child was inspired by the story of Abraham and Isaac. The difference being that God directly commended that sacrifice, while Noah is only doing what he perceives (falsely in this case) as being God's will for him. The reason he believes this is that the whole reason for the flood is to purify the earth of sin and man has been tainted by the sin of Adam. Noah believes, perhaps somewhat understandably that man is incapable of doing better and therefore must be destroyed. There is one particular moment where Noah looks up toward the cloudy sky asking God for an answer, but he receives none. In this I can't help but think of Job when he say's "Where then does wisdom come from? ... It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing" (Job 28:20-21) Like Job, and like Noah in the film, we too must discern God's will for us without direct contact with him. Ultimately Noah decides that God is loving and merciful, and wished to give the human race a second chance. And this is the film's main message.

  Another controversial thing in the film is the presence of the Watchers, giant rock giants who were once angels but came to earth to assist fallen man in disobedience to the creators wishes. However these are actually based on the Nephilim as mentioned in Genesis 6:4. This portrayal may not be in line with traditional interpretations of them, however they add a very mythological feel to the film. Indeed the film sets up a really impressive bible-based mythology about creation, the fall, and the great flood. Filmed (partly) in Iceland, the landscape has simultaneously a really new, young look and a wasted, used up feel. It may seem sacrilegious to portray a biblical story in this kind of mythological way but I like to recall the words of C.S. Lewis, "I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion...was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this.... Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not “a religion,” nor “a philosophy.” It is the summing up and actuality of them all."
  With that in mind I feel very comfortable saying that Noah may be both the best high fantasy since Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and the best biblical epic since Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

Score: 9/10

Lent Movie Reviews Year 2 Week 3 - The Killer (belated)

Between school and being sick I've not found time to write a review this past week. As I have this week off  figured I tried writing two reviews, to catch up. The first one being for...

  The Killer was released in 1989 and stars Yon Fat Chow and Danny Lee. It tells the story of Ah Jong (Chow, also called Jeffrey in certain dubs), an assassin, who accidentally blinds a nightclub singer named Jennie (Sally Yeh) and, out of guilt, takes on one last job to pay for the surgery to fix her eyes. Police Detective Li Ying (Lee) is tasked to hunter the killer down, but finds himself strangely drawn to him.
  The movie is something of a classic in Hong Kong, where it was made. It is expertly directed by Woo and contains many memorable and very well choreographed action scenes. The story, though somewhat simplistic, is very emotionally involving (even bordering on sappy at times) and the performances are all very solid. The score is kind of typical for an asian action film from this era but the film does memorably make use of the overture from Handel's Messiah during the climax. In other words, it's a really good film. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. Though its not a religious movie (duh) it does have alot of religious imagery and subtext and that is (mainly) what I am going to analyze in this review.

  The most common recurring religious image in the film is the church where the climactic shootout takes place. It is seen for the first time early in the film where Ah Jong waits for his friend Fung Sey (Chu Kong) to give him his next assignment. A priests asks him if he believes in God and he say's that he enjoys the tranquility. Woo, a christian, has said that the church symbolizes "understanding and redemption ... everyone, whether you’re good or bad, can find salvation in the church." This is interesting when applied to the scene after Jennie is blinded, where Ah Jong is having his wounds tended. Ah Jong, at this point, feels great remorse over the mistake he's just made. As his sits in the pew, painfully flinching as bullets are pulled out of his back, he seems to look up toward the altar with hopelessness in his eyes. We return to the church once more for the climax, where it is largely torn apart, it's peace and tranquility destroyed by the violence of men. Woo is also famous for showing doves flying around during his shootouts, a motif he uses for the first time in this film. He's says that the doves represents the hero's soul. So the film has many attractive elements for Christian viewers. 

  Of course there are also religious themes in this film that aren't christian, but rather influenced by the Confucian concept of yi (or righteousness). This concept says that certain actions are inherently right and we have a duty to follow them, regardless of the consequences. This can be seen in the film through the actions of both Ah Jong and his friend Fung Sey who stick strictly to their code, despite the often disastrous results. Both of them believe that it is ok to terminate their targets because they deserve it anyways. Of course this only adds to Ah Jong's consternation when an innocent (Jennie and later a young girl) is hurt in the crossfire. It's Fung Sey's actions, in trying to get the money owed to Ah Jong by Hay Wong Hoi, that ultimately spell doom for both of them. He is driven to do this because Ah Jong spared his life after he was hired to kill him by Hoi. Li Ying, on the other hand, admires Ah Jong's strict adherence to his code and envys his freedom. Li Ying himself is held responsible for the consequences of his actions by his superiors, while the Killer is relatively free to do what his code tells him is right. It should be noted that although following yi can lead to terrible consequences if your morality is warped, Confucianism stresses a proper forming of conscience so that following yi will align with the greater good. What is problematic about yi from a Christian perspective is that actions do have consequences, and these consequences matter. In other words, doing something that is right on its own, liking repaying a debt, can be wrong if it will lead to bad consequences. Despite being a christian, Woo himself has great respect for these principles and sees his film as a kind of "romantic poem" about tragic heroes. Indeed both of the main characters contain many heroic qualities, but because of the corrupt world in which they operate, they are both brought to ruin. Woo's respect for yi may be problematic from a christian perspective but the films portrayal of it's hero's is complex enough to alleviate most concerns. Ah Jong is portrayed as being very regretful of the life he's chosen but it's one that he ultimately can't escape. As he says when picking out a gun for one of his hit's, "Easy to pick up, difficult to put down." In other words the film doesn't necessarily invite us to approve of everything the characters do, only there conviction and loyalty to each other, which is what makes them tragic heroes. 

  There are two scenes in the film however, that could be still considered problematic. One is where Ah Jong shoots Fung Sey, who is dying from his wound so that he can 'die like a man'.This obviously flies in the face of the churches teaching on euthanasia, however I think we can sympathize with Ah Jong's actions in this case, particularly given his own flawed value system, even if we don't approve of them. The other seen is where Li Ying kills an unarmed Hay Wong Hoi to exact vengeance for what he's done. You might have your own opinion on capital punishment but the bible (or at least the new testament) is pretty clear on the immorality of seeking revenge.  Romans 12:19 says, "Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." What makes both acts especially problematic is the somewhat chest thumping way in which they portrayed, and though, as I said, killing Fung Sey has some empathetic elements, Li Ying's actions, quite simply, do not.
  In the end, though The Killer is certainly not without questionable morals, its still a very interesting film and not one without merit, even for a devout Catholic.

Score: 9/10

References:

Journal of Religion & Film: Jon Woo's The Killer and Girard

Salon.com: Gentelman with a gun

Lent Movie Reviews Year 2 Week 2 - The Scarlet and the Black

I opted to use this poster from the score as all the decent ones for the film had a rectangular aspect ratio.

  The Scarlet and the Black is a made-for-tv movie released in 1983. It stars Gregory Peck and Christopher Plummer and is directed by Jerry London. It tells the story of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty (Peck) who aided Allied escape prisoners during the German occupation of Rome in the Second World War.
 

The Scarlet and the Black is a film I grew up watching. I enjoyed it as a kid and it has held up quite well as an adult. The thing that drives the film is the conflict between O'Flaherty and Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Kappler (Plummer), the head of the German police in Rome. O'Flaherty's charity and concern for others is contrasted with Kapler's arrogance and cold cruelty. Similarly Pope Pius XII's (John Gielgud) benevolent though cautious treatment of O'Flaherty is contrasted with the threatening and iron handed way Kapler's superiors deal with him. Consequently, Kapler feels increasingly desperate in his efforts to round up O'Flaherty's escapees, while O'Flaherty himself is weighed down with trying to choose the best course of action in order to both follow his conscience and preserve the church's integrity. This contrast between their approaches to life, and to their differing world views, is brought to a head in the climax, where Kapler meets O'Flaherty in the ruins of the coliseum and asks him to help keep his family safe from the partisans once the allies enter Rome. The once proud conqueror, brought low, seeks help from his sworn enemy, who must now show himself to be the better man and help his adversary.
  The film is fairly historically accurate, though it does embellish and change around many events.  For one thing many of the other supporting characters name's have been changed (for anonymity I would suppose).  It was not Kappler but Ludwig Koch who asked O'Flaherty for help and O'Flaherty did not meet him face to face. There are other similar incidences, where O 'Flaherty and Kappler are substituted for other characters in order to keep the focus on them. The most notable departure is the portrayal of Pius XII's concern over O'Flaherty's operation endangering the Vatican's neutrality. As far as I know this was not the case. It was probably added to the film to give the protagonist a crisis of conscience, which is an understandable though questionable choice, given the negative light it cast on the aforementioned pontiff. There are other scenes which show him in a more positive light however, which helps me to overlook this flaw to a certain extent.

  The movie was shot on location in Rome and the director uses the location to his advantage. Shots of O'Flaherty strolling through the Vatican gardens dwarfed by St. Peter's statue or of him and Kappler facing off in the coliseum "where your (Kappler) ancestors watched the lions tear the christians to pieces", really add an expressive visual quality to the film. The performances are quite strong all around, especially from the two leads. Morricone's score is sparse but effective and, as always, memorable. In the end The Scarlet and the Black may not be a perfect film but it still holds up incredibly well. As a historical piece I think it could be compared to The Great Escape in that it gives a good overview of the actual story while at the same time embellishing it to make an effective thriller.

Score: 9/10