Mary

The film, Mary (2024), is pregnant with intimations of the theological implications of her unborn and then newly born son, Jesus. That story is of course well-known grace á the Gospels, and the theology of agape love associated with that faith narrative is at least available through the writings of Paul and many later Christian theologians. What we know of Mary is much less, given that her role in the Gospels is not central even though the heavy title, Mother of God, has been applied to her without of course implying that she is the source of God. The film, like the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has done, endeavors to “evolve the myth” by adding to Mary’s story even though the additions are not meant to be taken as seriously as, for example, the Catholic doctrine that Mary is assumed bodily into heaven. The movie comes closest to the magisterium in suggesting that Mary’s birth is miraculous; the magisterium holds that Mary is born without sin, and that Jesus inherited this because of the Incarnation (i.e. God, rather than Joseph, impregnates Mary). Suffice it to say that the perception of myth as static is the exception rather than rule; it is natural for the human mind to work with myths such that they can evolve rather than take them as given in a final form or extent. This is not to say that we should focus on the faith narratives as if they were ends in themselves and thus unalterable; rather, as the film demonstrates, religious transcendence is of greater value.

I contend that the film does a bad job of adding events to Mary’s life—filling in gaps, as it were—but the film does a good job of evolving her spirituality, or spiritual strength, and an even better job at intimating the nature of religious or spiritual transcendence. The failure, I suspect, have more to do with wanting to titillate audiences with fight scenes and even special effects, such as when Mary and Joseph ride a horse through a wall of fire to escape a fight scene. As there is no hint if a miracle, the entire scene adds nothing theologically and thus it can be easily tossed. Similarly, killing off Mary’s father in yet another fight scene adds nothing theologically and can thus be written off as another appeasement to keep movie-goers entertained by action and drama. Mary’s years spent growing up in the Temple scrubbing floors and presumably being educated are more useful, however, because her stint there cements Mary’s association with religion, which in turn helps support her as a major, though not the central, character in the Gospels. In this way, the film can be considered to serve as a foundation, or basement, for the Gospel narratives, which of course focus on Jesus, the Christ-Messiah.

The principal ways in which the film evolves the story by providing background to the Gospels are subtle and few. The first does not even involve any lines. Mary’s spiritual strength can be seen literally in how she maintains eye-contact when she comes face to face with Herod. He is the one who looks away; she does not. The implication stated by one of Herod’s guards is that Mary has “special powers,” and is thus a threat. The assumption is antiquated in the modern world; we would say Mary has fortitude. More than once in the film, she does not cave into the demon who is trying to tempt her. Her spiritual—not just ethical!—strength is evinced in her standing up to evil entities, human and otherwise. This hints at Jesus’s line to Pontius Pilote, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” Mary has that same faith, so there is a spiritual connection between mother and son. Considering all the antagonists facing Mary in the film, her faith that her role in the saga by which love will conquer the world by means of her son will succeed is truly amazing.

That faith is explicitly thought by Mary as the last line in the film. “But in the end, love will save the world.” Love will prevail. That may sound strange to people living in 2024, given the horrendous and large-scale aggression that were still being unleashed by certain governments, which of course are comprised of human beings with power. Mary’s faith may seem woefully or downright utopian. In the film, Mary believes that her faith that love will save the world has a lot to do with the fact that she chose her son just as God chose Mary to bear Jesus, and she would make the same choice even in that last scene after hearing a prophesy in the Temple from an old man. Holding baby Jesus in his hands, the man tells Mary and Joseph, “This child is destined to cause the fall and rise of many in Israel, and he will be opposed, and the sword will pierce your soul, Mary, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.” Even in spite of this future, Mary says, in effect, bring it on; the goal is worth it.

Parsing the prophet’s statement can provide us with the theological meat of the film. The haughty will be brought low by Jesus’s preachments and example of self-less, humble love, whereas the presumed lowly yet humble Hebrews of pure hearts will no longer be presumed to be sick or sinful (or both). It is easy to grasp that the sword refers to Mary watching Jesus’s excruciating death on a cross and having to mourn the death of a son; it is more difficult to understand what is meant by the sword that will pierce Mary’s soul being necessary “so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.” Christians watching the film may expect something like, “so that many will be saved.” Revealing the thoughts of many people whose thoughts were presumably hidden is a curious expression. Is the revealing of the thoughts of many part of, or necessary for, love to save the world? At its conclusion, the film raises an interesting puzzle that, in pertaining to the future, presumably has to do with the content of the Gospel narratives, including Jesus’s preachments and life. In the Gospels, does he or his actions facilitate the revealing of the thoughts of people? What thoughts, and of whom?

It is perhaps in the nature of religious truth that it is not in a film’s action scenes, but like the breeze that passed by Ezekiel on the mountain—a breeze that eludes the grasp of our finite fingers. Distinctly religious transcendence is not exhausted within the limits of human cognition, perception, or sensibility (emotion), so wrote Pseudo-Dionysius in the sixth century. The film is perhaps most of value in affording us an experiential glimpse of such transcendence as we try innately to figure out the prophesy.

A Fortunate Man

Religion plays a prominent role in the film, Lykke-Per, or A Fortunate Man (2018). On the surface, Peter Sidenius, a young engineer, must navigate around an old, entrenched government bureaucrat to secure approval for his ambitious renewable-energy project. The two men clash, which reflects more general tension that exists everywhere between progressives and conservatives regarding economic, social, religious, and political change. Although pride may be the ruin of Peter and his project, the role played by religion is much greater than pride manifesting as arrogance, if indeed it is arrogant to stand up to abuse of power, whether by a government bureaucrat or one’s own father.

Peter’s dad is a Christian pastor whose meanness to Peter belies any claim to know God’s judgment as well as to have an authentic Christian faith. Kierkegaard’s chastisement of the Lutheran clerical hierarchy in Copenhagen in the nineteenth century by emphasizing the need and primacy of subjective, inner piety resonates in this film. In fact, Peter’s angry reaction to his dad’s meanness when Peter is leaving home to go to college is similar the reaction that Kierkegaard must have had to hardened clergy in his day. Peter’s father begins by saying that although he gave money to Eybert, Peter’s older brother, when he left home, “you will get no money.” Adding insult to injury, the malevolent father gives Peter a watch that Peter’s grandfather had given Peter’s father. The “strings” attached to the watch that undo the giving spirit that runs throughout the Gospels is his dad’s hope that the watch will “sooth your hardened heart and open your stubborn mind.” Just in case Peter misses the point, his dad notifies his son that he is on the “road to perdition.” Peter is right, of course, in calling out his dad for his “cold intolerance” and “false piety.” That his dad demands an apology without having apologized for insulting Peter and then slaps his son’s face hard reveals the Christian minister’s abject hypocrisy, which we know has been longstanding because Peter says that he felt “like a homeless stranger” growing up in his dad’s house. Faith without love is worse than naught. Interestingly, after being slapped, Peter tells his dad, a Christian minister, to hit him properly. It is as if Jesus were saying to the Roman guard who scourging Jesus, lash me again—this time do it properly. In retrospect, Peter’s line anticipates his integrity and spiritual nature that come out as the narrative evolves.

Peter can be excused from rejecting his dad’s deity even though Peter has no idea that the Jesus in the Gospels would reject the hypocritical piety of the judgmental and hateful pastor. “Get behind me, Satan,” Jesus would likely say to Peter’s dad, and to Peter himself, Jesus would likely advise, “kick the dust off your sandals” and don’t look back. Peter has no idea that the Jesus in the Gospels is innocent and yet willingly suffers by judgmental and hateful men who are like Peter’s dad.

Following the death of Peter’s dad, Peter’s mother less harsh though just as judgmental when she meets with Peter, as if she, like her husband, were omniscient and thus entitled to judge their son’s soul. She presumes that her son has rejected God, when in actuality Peter has rejected his parents’ conception of God, and for good reason. His mother, unlike his father, however, grasps from the Gospels the value of humility and selfless love, and she is clever enough to urge Peter to be humble and selflessly love other people rather than demand that he recite the Nicene Creed. I suspect that his mother’s softer message of humility and selfless love is what enables Peter in grieving the death of his parents to face and reject his own sin of pride.

Peter asks the Christian pastor who officiates at the funeral of Peter’s mother for forgiveness for having hurt so many people. In the humbly asking the pastor for forgiveness, Peter accepts and values the Christian message underlying the Incarnation in the Gospels, where God’s selfless, or self-emptying love (agape), is in God becoming lowly flesh in order, again in selfless love, to redeem humanity from itself, and especially its pride. In other words, Peter does not need to make a profession of faith by reciting the Nicene Creed. In fact, that pastor, who associated with Peter’s dad when he was alive, abandons Peter by walking away rather than comforts the young, grieving son who is literally on his knees begging for forgiveness from God through the pastor. “You can cry more if you want to,” the callous cleric says as he turns to walk away as Peter is still kneeling. That pastor does not absolve Peter, or even say that God forgives him. But this is not necessary, for God is present not in that pastor, but, instead, in Peter’s change of heart that is triggered by his grieving. To be sure, Peter may go too far in his embrace of institutional Christianity, for he deeply hurts Jakobe Salomon, his fiancée, by breaking off their engagement because she is Jewish and he now views himself as officially Christian. Perhaps in grieving his parents, Peter internalizes some of their judgmentalism, which, along with omniscience, is associated in the film with institutional religion.

The irony may be that Peter, who dies a few years later from cancer even though he is younger than 45 or so, may go to heaven whereas both of his parents are likely in hell, but, lest I fall into the trap of presumed omniscience like Peter’s parents, I must remind myself: who am I to judge those characters? I can only stand perplexed as to the staying power of the stubborn presumed rectitude of Peter’s parents while I admire Peter’s willingness to confront himself spiritually to the point of willingly putting himself in a vulnerable position, literally and figuratively, that reveals the hurtful hardness of heart of yet another Christian pastor besides Peter’s dad.

 

Confucius (Kongzi) said, "A cap made of hemp is prescribed by the rites, but nowadays people use silk. This is frugal, and I follow the majority. To bow before ascending the stairs is prescribed by the rites, but nowadays people bow after ascending. This is arrogant, and, though it goes against the majority, I continue to bow before asccending."  The Analects 9.3 

 

Conclave

In the film, The Godfather, Part III (1990),  Cardinal Lamberto laments that Christianity, like water surrounding a stone that is in a water fountain, has not seeped into European culture even after centuries of being in Europe.  Watching the movie, Conclave (2024), a person could say the same thing about the Roman Catholic Church, though the ending does provide some hope that internecine fighting and pettiness for power, even aside from the sexual-abuse epidemic by clergy, need not win the day.

Concerning the dead pope, we are told at the beginning of the movie that he never had any doubts about God; what he had lost faith in was the Church. Through the movie, the reason is obvious. At one point, the new Cardinal Benitez from Kabul, Afghanistan aptly characterizes his fellow cardinals as “small petty men” concerned with power. Even thusly characterized, the cardinals elect Cardinal Benitez as pope, and it is only fitting that he chooses the name, Innocent. It is in the innocence of a person who has no ambition to be pope and is genuinely surprised to be elected that the Church has hope.

The outcome of the election is subtly anticipated early on by the notably unique sincerity in the blessing of the food that Cardinal Benitez gives at the beginning of the conclave, and is implicitly guaranteed by the rebuttal that he later makes in front of the other cardinals to Cardinal Tedesco’s claim that the Church is at war with Muslims. After the second bomb, Tedesco declares, “We need a leader who fights these animals,” who are the Muslims in Europe. Cardinal Benitz disagrees: Inside each of us is what we are fighting. This is exactly what Mary Magdalene tells Peter and the other disciples in the upper room after the resurrection in the film, Mary Magdalene (2018); rather than waiting for Jesus to come on clouds to vanquish the evil Roman soldiers, the change starts within, “in the transformation of our own hearts.” Accordingly, the kingdom of God is already here even as it is not yet—pending us vanquishing the enemy within, which is done in part by being compassionate to people who are suffering.

In the conclave, “the men who are dangerous are the men who do want it.”  Cardinal Bellini says he doesn’t want it, but he does. He has progressive views (e.g., more of a role for women in the Curia), which he refuses to hide in his campaign, and this strategy makes him appear to have integrity, but he doesn’t. Even though he is a Christian, and even a cleric, he angerly rebukes Cardinal Lawrence’s claim, “This is a conclave, not a war,” by saying of Cardinal Tedesco and the conservatism which that cardinal represents, “This is a war!” This is the first of two mentions of being at war—Tedesco’s war with Muslims being the second.

Even Cardinal Lawrence, the dean of the College of Cardinals, who laudably seeks the truth concerning Cardinal Tremblay and even Cardinal Benitez, is a partisan. The homily that he gives on the first day of the conclave subtly favors the progressive platform of Cardinal Bellini, whom Lawrence was still supporting to become pope. Cardinal Lawrence lauds the Church’s diversity in being comprised of people in different countries, whereas Cardinal Tedesco wants an Italian pope. “Certainty is great enemy of unity,” Lawrence tells his brothers. “Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. . . . Faith walks hand and hand with doubt. Otherwise, there would be no mystery, and therefore no need for faith.” This message is in line with Cardinal Bellini’s liberal platform because the presumption of certainly saturates Cardinal Tedesco’s ideology. As the Cardinals sitting at tables at the first dinner, Cardinal Tedesco observes that the tables are “divided by language.” He suggests to Lawrence that the next pope be Italian so it is not Cardinal Adeyeme, a black African. Cardinal Lawrence is rightly disgusted and leaves the table. Lawrence even prays with Adeyine as he cries, and puts his hand on Adeyine’s hands even though Lawrence knows that Adeyine had impregnated a teenage woman when he was 30.

Furthermore, at some point in his search for the truth concerning whether the dead pope had fired Cardinal Tremblay, Cardinal Lawrence tells a bishop, “No more secrets; no more investigations; let God’s will be done.” That Lawrence himself later investigates by entering the sealed-off papal apartment is justified by what he uncovers not only concerning the dead pope, but also Cardinal Tremblay. Finally, Lawrence is justified in keeping Cardinal Benitez’s medical secret after that Cardinal's election. Even though Benitez’s rather unique medical situation technically violates church law, Lawrence earlier said to Cardinal Bellini, “I thought we were here to serve God, not the Curia.” 

As truth-oriented as Cardinal Lawrence is, faith without love is for naught in Christian terms. In this regard, Cardinal Benitez steals the show; he is the true protagonist in the end. Just as Mary Magdalene’s rebuttal to Peter on the nature of the kingdom of God gives the film, Mary Magdalene, so much theological value for audiences, it is Cardinal Benitez’s rebuttal to Cardinal Tedesco that the Church is at war with Islam that not only gets that cardinal elected, but also provides the theological value, and thus hope, of Conclave. Take on the enemy within—one’s own hatred of Muslims—rather than fight them, Benitez tells his brothers. He could have gone further by preaching to the petty, power-seeking men: feel and exercise kindness and compassion to Muslims; go out of your way to serve them, especially those who dislike you, for something more is involved spiritually than the much easier, "love thy neighbor as thyself." Then you will find that you have conquered the enemy within and entered the kingdom of God.

Obsession

Brian De Palma’s film, Obsession (1976), harkens back to Hitchcock’s film, Vertigo (1958) primarily in that resemblances between a character-contrived myth, or story, and the closely related (though different in key respects) social reality in the film (i.e., what’s really going on in the film’s story-world) trigger perplexed reactions for the character being duped by other characters in the film. I thought she died, but there she is . . . or maybe that’s another woman who looks like her—so much so that I believe I can will the woman to be her. The human mind may be such that it convinces itself of even a supernatural explanation rather than admits to have been fooled by someone else’s cleverness. At the very least, doubt as to what is really going on can be stultifying. The human mind is all too willing obviate its uncertainty by either resorting to a supernatural explanation or making something so by force of will, as if believing something to be the case is sufficient to make it so.

The European philosopher, David Hume, wrote a text on the natural history of religion in which he suggests that we mere mortals have an innate tendency to add familiar ornaments onto divine simplicity; we innately anthropomorphize the wholly other so it looks human. Then we believe that our artifices are ontological, or real, and even divine. De Palma’s Obsession explicitly draws on religious iconography and even dream-like mysticism in conveying Michael’s vision of Sandra as Elizabeth brought back from the grave. Viewers may resist the religious cross-over because it is easier to accept that a distraught man believes someone is his deceased wife than that our minds are just as prone to lapses when we enter the domain of religion. This is not to suggest that religious meaning is thus invalid, or even that symbol, myth and ritual cannot be useful in enabling religious experience; rather, Obsession can, if we allow it to do so, gently show us what our minds may be up to in making metaphysical and ontological leaps in matters of religious faith. At the very least, the human mind ensconced in the religious domain regularly confounds belief with fact, whether epistemologically or ontologically. Similarly, we conflate two distinct literary genres: faith narrative and historical non-fiction as if the respective purposes were the same even to the respective writers themselves. We are much better at distinguishing films that are fictional from those that are based on a true story. Even a fictional film can hold a mirror up to human nature as it exists in us. I submit that the human mind is not as goof-proof as we think. Both in Vertigo and Obsession, the minds of the protagonists are definitely put under stress by observation of resemblances that don’t make sense yet are extremely inviting.

In Vertigo, Scottie thinks he recognizes Madeleine even though the contrived story is that she jumped to her death at a convent. In Obsession, Michael thinks Sandra, whom he sees priming for a painter in an Italian church, is his former wife, Elizabeth, whom the contrived story has as having died in a car more than a decade earlier. Whereas Madeleine really is Madeleine, Sandra is not Elizabeth, but is actually Michael’s (and Elizabeth’s) daughter, who is in on the scam that is being perpetrated by one of the kidnappers and Robert, Michael’s very patient real-estate partner.  Sometimes investments like swindling jobs can take over a decade before the returns come in.

In Obsession, it is not just the resemblance—though curiously not adjusting for the difference in ages—of Sandra and Elizabeth by which De Palma conveys isomorphic (i.e., of the same shape or form) resonances throughout the film The images shown at step-wise distances as the open credits are shown are of a church on a hill in Italy. Michael and Elizabeth first met there, and this is where Michael sees Sandra during a business trip with his business partner over a decade after Elizabeth died. The visual resonance of the church is found in the large memorial structure that Michael has erected in a park for his dead wife and daughter. That even as a real-estate developer he refuses to carve up that part is a testament to how dear that monument is to him. The church and the memorial edifice are also isomorphic with the top of the wedding cake in Michael’s dream of his wedding to Sandra, who, uncomfortably, it turns out, is really his daughter, Amy. That incest may have occurred by the time the couple return to America is left up to the audience, though that Michael has his arm around Sandra in a taxi connotes a certain physical intimacy, especially given the changed sexual mores in the 1970s. The ethics aside, any discomfort felt by viewers can be said to have its source in the obvious lapse in Michael’s will of wish-fulfillment as being sufficient, to him, to render the young Sandra as a replacement or even incarnation of Elizabeth as if from the grave. Willing it so does not make it so. Michael’s dull gaze at Sandra when she is on a painting riser in a church full of religious iconography not only shows the suspension of his rational mind, but also the implication that religious devotion is also susceptible to such a lapse.

One way in which myth touches us emotionally and even spiritually is in the resonances between symbols in myth and things in the world in which we live. The human brain makes use of such likenesses in dreams, such as the one that Michael has of his wedding to Sophie. Whether intentionally or not, De Palma converges myth with the dream in portraying Sandra as translucent and even other-worldly as if she were a goddess. Sandra is vicariously Elizabeth, who has come back from the grave to give her inattentive husband another chance. Michael believes this to be so even in his waking state, and his temporally elongated gaze at Sandra at several points in the film resembles how a person might look at a religious statue, such as that of the Virgin Mary, in adoration. Sandra gains goddess-like standing in the myth, which Michael accords as real empirically.  Therefore, myth can also touch our world in that a person thought to be real (in our world) has mythic resonances. In Christianity, both Jesus and Mary are typically believed to have existed historically and also in a distinctly religious state (i.e., heaven) while maintaining human form via the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the bodily assumption of Mary.  

I submit that the salience of Christianity in the film allows the viewers to grasp that the myth in the story-world, which Michael believes is real in his waking daily life, resembles distinctly religious myth as it is believed in as real by religionists. Of course, one big difference is that viewers find out what is really the case in the film, and this bursts the story’s credence, whereas religious people are not debriefed as to whether the characters of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in the Gospel stories are merely nominally real in the stories or actually existed historically. The debriefing in the film can be understood as giving the audience a psychic payoff in lieu of the one that never comes in religion.

Perhaps such a payoff in religion is not really what we want; after all, at the end of the Da Vinci Code (2006), Robert asks Sophie whether it is worth deflating the faith of Christians by revealing that Jesus was married and had at least one child—thus implying perhaps that Jesus was a man rather than a god-man. The religious meaning in Sophie’s spiritual, inherited qualities is not deflated, but the faith of many Christians who have not been debriefed on the relation between the myth and history could be expected to take a hit to the extent that the basis of their faith is the divinity of Jesus Christ rather than, say, compassion itself to people one doesn’t like (or don’t like the person).

If the reality is different than the myth, does the distinctly religious meaning in the latter necessarily or inherently collapse? Not so for Mary Magdalene in the film, Mary Magdalene (2018), who tries in vain to convince Peter in the last scene that the kingdom of God is within, and thus starts with the transformation of one’s own heart from compassion toward others, rather than with Jesus coming on clouds in the future to defeat the evil Romans and free Israel. Michael’s debriefing by Robert in Obsession is like wish-fulfillment writ large for an audience that is not accustomed to finding the meaning of a religious myth in the myth itself, rather than in other domains, such as history, astronomy, and even moral science.

Obsession is embellished with ornate religious settings and even meaning, especially with Sandra appearing like a goddess of sorts in Michael’s dream—his dead wife being de facto a goddess. As in the domain of religion, there are stories and there is the world in which we live out our daily lives. Resonances between the two give us pause, as we are not really sure what is going on—and what is really real of the two, or what the resemblances mean. Michael’s bubble is burst, but he comes out just fine in realizing that his daughter was still alive and that they have found each other in something more tangible, perhaps even more real, than the world of myth that Robert had foisted on Michael in order to swindle of him of his money. To be sure, the world of myth can come in handy, for surely there is some sense of reality that goes with the claim that Robert, once killed in his climatic fight with Michael, is in hell.  

Bell, Book and Candle

If ever there were a mistaken title for a movie, Bell, Book and Candle must rank in the upper tier, for the spells in the bewitching comedy hinge on a cat and a bowl rather than bell, book, and candle. Magic can be thought of as the making use of concrete objects, combined with words, to engage a supernatural sort of causation meant to manipulate sentient or insentient beings/objects for one’s own purposes.  The film, Bell, Book and Candle (1958), is not only a love story and a comedy, but also the presentation of a story-world in which witches and warlocks engage in contending spells for selfish reasons. That story-world in turn can be viewed as presenting a religion, which can be compared and contrasted with others. Most crucially as far as religion is concerned, the supernatural element that is observable in the story-world points to the existence of a realm that lies beyond the world of our daily lives and thus renders the film’s story-world different. Put another way, the unique type of causation, which appears only as coincidence to the characters who are not in on the existences of witches and warlocks in the story-world, transcends appearance because the “laws” of the causation operate hidden from view, as if in another realm. I contend that it is precisely such transcendence not only in terms of belief, but also praxis, that distinguishes the domain of religion as unique and thus distinct from other domains, including those of science (e.g., biology, astronomy), history, and even ethics.

The film’s plot, in short, revolves around a spell-induced romance between Shepherd Henderson and Gillian Holroyd. He is “a human being,” an odd label that witches and warlocks in the film apply to others as if witches and warlocks were not also human beings. Gillian is a witch. Gillian’s relatives, Queenie and Nicky, are like Gillian, at least through most of the film. Interestingly, Elsa Lanchester, who plays Queenie, would go on to be in the hit television series, Bewitched. In that series, a witch is married to a “human being.” Unlike in that series (which I watched as a child and thus had in the back of my mind as I watched the film), the film contains descriptors of witchcraft, which I submit can be regarded as a religion due to the transcendent element in the supernatural causation. Implicitly, the film provides viewers of other religions with a comparative-religion mindset.

One lesson in comparative religion is that fear may naturally grip a person of one religion when exposed to another. This point is made visually in the film when Shepherd looks into Gillian’s store window from the sidewalk and sees the intense greenish fire towering up out of a bowl as a spell is being enacted. Unaware of the existence of witchcraft, Shepherd leaps to the conclusion, in fear, that the store is on fire (he lives above the store, so naturally he has more an a passing concern). The supernatural element is scary to him because it is different and he does not understand it, so he references it to something that is familiar to him (i.e., a fire in a store). I submit that we tend to do this when we come in contact with another religion than our own. In watching the movie, viewers do not make Shepherd’s assumption because the presence of witchcraft in the story-world is conveyed up front, so we are vicariously inside the religion of witchcraft and so we laugh at the comedy rather than are afraid as if it were a horror movie. Even so, in watching Shepherd’s fear, the viewers are “taught” a lesson of comparative religion in how people of one religion naturally react to seeing another. Furthermore, the viewers can take the secrecy of Gillian and her relatives when Shepherd enters the store because there’s a fire as also being a very human tendency of co-religionists in holding some information back from outsiders. We are indeed a territorial species, and this goes for religion too.

The film also furnishes the film-viewers with an admittedly negatively-biased list of the attributes of witches and warlocks, such as that they cannot cry or blush, they float in water, and cannot love (though they can lust). As an exercise in comparative religion, angels in Christianity can be contrasted in that they definitely can love (and cannot lust). Angels don’t float, cry, or blush because unlike witches and warlocks, angels do not have corporeal bodies. The distinction on love is the most significant because whether or not a person can love others colors one's very existence. 

Spells, in the admittedly biased view assumed by the film, which, after all, was released in 1958, are made for selfish reasons. Gillian admits admits this to Shepherd, and she adds, moreover, “I have lived selfishly.” Left out are spells that are meant to help other people. With spells coming solely out of selfishness, Gillian tells Shepherd, “we end up in a world of separateness.” Unlike “humans,” witches and warlocks as they are in the film are thus not likely to marry, for a relationship of give and take based on mutual love, and thus other-regardedness, would “mean giving up a way of thinking and even a whole existence” that is built on self-centeredness. That existence is depicted in dramatic terms when Gillian and her brother, Nicky, threaten each other with spells in order to manipulate the other for their own selfish interests. 

People who belong to Wiccan covens in the twenty-first century would balk at the claim that their religion is founded on selfishness and manipulation. Such people might claim that the film unfairly depicts Wiccan as Satanist, or at least with attributes that are antithetical to Christianity, whose primary orientation, at least in theory, is to neighbor-love rather than to placing self-love above God. It is interesting that Gillian is usually dressed in black until she ceases to be a witch, and that Nicky refers to her by saying, “Well, speak of the devil.” 

The film's depiction of witches renders them (and warlocks) as being antithetical to Christians. Portraying such a stark dichotomy surely made it easier for the viewers in the 1950s and 1960s to distinguish the religion of witchcraft from the Christianity that was so dominant then in American culture. Furthrmore, beyond listing some of the attributes of a witch that are so obviously different that those of angels (except for Lucifer), making the foundation of selfishness explicit in what is paradigmatically a witch's “whole existence” helps the viewers to go beyond the particular characters to view witchcraft as part of a religion That is to say, the witches and warlock in the film can be understood as being in a religion that is distinct, and thus can readily be compared and contrasted with others. That prejudice against witches and warlocks in the 1950s could be useful in making contrasts in a way that makes it easier for movie audiences to think in terms of comparative religion by going to a movie does not render the project ethical. Also, the effort to distinguish a religion from others too much can backfire in that things in common can be brushed under the rug, or missed, in the process.

For example, applying religious faith to spells is completely unique to witchcraft. The notion of a spell-using words and certain material objects to trigger causation that operates in another, transcendent realm, can be applied to the consecration by Christian priests of bread and wine into having the essence of Christ’s real presence (which is based in another realm) in what is called transubstantiation and consubstantiation in Christian theology. The expression commonly used in magic, hocus-pocus, is what Medieval Christian laity used to say when, in not knowing Latin, they would repeat the words of consecrating priests, hoc est corpus, which translates as “This is the body (of Christ).” This declaration in liturgical ritual, evinces the spoken word being applied to a material object (i.e., bread) to transform that object's essence according to whatever laws pertain to a transcendent-based, supernatural (i.e., not based on a law of nature) sort of causation. The filmmakers could have gone further in making this commonality explicit. Queenie, for example, could say to Shepherd, “Why is it so strange to you that witches conjure spells; your priests do the same in transforming bread into the body of your Jesus.” That would probably have been too much for Christian viewers to swallow when the film was released, but I contend that the film (and the medium of film more generally) would have been more valuable as a contribution to opening up the academic field of comparative religion to the public (i.e., academic laity) had the screenwriter and director empowered the dialogue to go further. 

As for the negative bias towards spells and the entire existence of witches and warlocks, subjecting it to debate in the dialogue may have been beyond the ken of the filmmakers then. A more intellectually stimulating film would have resulted had Wiccan advocates been consulted. To be sure, that spells may be inherently manipulatory is a legitimate claim not to be dismissed by going too far in the other direction, but holding a society's religious biases up to audiences as being at least debatable is a positive role that filmmakers can assume, with better, more thought-provoking films resulting. This gets at what is precisely my thesis concerning film: that the medium has untapped potential to stimulate philosophical (and theological) reasoning by people who have not necessarily taken courses in philosophy and theology. 

Farha

The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, being in the wake of the Nazi atrocities, was arguably viewed generally then as something that the world owed to the Jewish people. Perhaps for this reason, the UN did not take adequate measures on the ground to safeguard the Palestinian residents. In retrospect, the possibility, even likelihood, that people who group-identify with (or even as) victims consciously decide to become victimizers should have been better considered. The film, Farha, made in 2021, illustrates the sheer indeterminacy, and thus arbitrariness, of human volition when it issues orders to the body to be violent against other rational beings. Channeling Kant, it can be argued that the decision to shoot a family that poses absolutely no threat impurely out of hatred based on group-identity fails even to treat other rational beings as means—to say nothing of as ends in themselves. The unadulterated deplorability in being unwilling even to use another person as a means to some selfish goal, preferring instead to kill rather than respect the otherness of another person, grounds the verdict of the culprit being less than nothing. In another film, The Brutalist (2024), Laszio, the Jewish protagonist, erroneously concludes that Jews must surely be less than nothing, given how they were treated not only in Nazi Germany, but also in Pennsylvania even after the news of the Holocaust had reached the other shore. Whether brutality or passive-aggressive prejudice is suffered, however, turning one’s victimhood into victimizing is ethically invalid, for such a callous reaction fails to treat other rational beings as ends in themselves, and may even be so severe as to fail to treat them even as means.

Near the beginning of Farha, an Islamic teacher of girls looks on approvingly as one of the girls reads that the words of an unbeliever are the lowest. I submit that this line sets the tone for the film, and underlies how the Israelis and Palestinians have treated each other as groups historically, and most egregiously in how the Israeli government killed and decimated in Gaza in 2023-2024, interestingly just after Farha had been made. The unprovoked willfulness, or volition, that the film depicts of an Israeli commander deciding to have two of his subordinates shoot an unarmed Palestinian family and leave the just-born infant to die because a Palestinian baby is not “worth a bullet,” can be interpreted as the prima causa that, aggregated, lead to Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023, which in turn led to the disproportionate Israeli decimation of Gaza, with as many as 55,000 killed and over a million residents rendered homeless and suffering a famine. In other words, the pivotal incident of the film can be heard has the proverbial first shot. As it was not heard around the world, the filmmaker of Farha performed that service for the world.

Myopia circling self-identification based on groups perpetuates cycles of hatred and violence. In Farha, the Islamic teacher objects to Farha’s father, who decides to allow his daughter to attend school in the city. She already knows the Koran, the teacher says. “What else is there to learn?” Closing the loop, as it were, can lock in antagonism based on group-identity, for the Koran not only states that the words of the unbeliever are lowest, but also that if a nonbeliever living in the same village refuses thrice to convert, it is better that that person be killed than risk that one’s false beliefs pollute the believers. I read this line while I was spending a Spring Break at Yale reading the Koran for a term paper. In Christianity, the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 that Christians should avoid close contact with people who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To be sure, merely avoiding contact is ethically superior to killing, but an Islamicist could point ironically to the story of Abraham as teaching that divine commands (and thus revelation) trump even universally-accessible moral principles.[1]

In Farha, the Israeli group-commander is not following a divine command when he uses his free will to give the order to shoot the Palestinian family; he is thus culpable. He even knowingly breaks the promise he made to Farha’s uncle, who was anonymously helping the Israeli commander, that women and children would not be harmed. Even though the commander’s group-identification-saturated paradigm backs up his volition, he is blameworthy as an individual, for his volition is his alone and so, as the Americans say of the U.S. President, the buck stops with him.

Coming away from the film, a viewer might wonder why it is that the village had to be evacuated immediately. The loud-speakers repeatedly threaten that any (Palestinian) villagers who do not leave the village immediately will be shot. Why such a hurry?  Ironically, the Israeli military could cite Paul’s no-contact dictum; the possibility of sharing the village is never brought up in the film. The dire urgency is undercut visually in the last scene, as Farha sits on a swing next to that which her friend had sat—that other swing is now broken. The village is deserted—no Israelis have moved in. Flies swarm the dead baby in the courtyard—the corps not having been worth even a bullet.

Is it such an Augustinian, Hobbesian, Pascalian, and Machiavellian world that peace is only possible once all humans have been removed from the equation?  For only finally, at the end of the film, is the village at peace; Farha walks away in silence and no one is left. She leaves the village in desolate peace. If the Age of Reason did indeed fall to the Holocaust and Gott ist tot as Nietzsche claimed, such that all we have left is human subjectivity, as the decimated philosophical phenomenologists of the decadent twentieth-century erroneously concluded, how will humanity pull itself together, especially if group-identification is permitted to continue to have such staying power in human consciousness?  Until her world was needlessly turned upside down, Farha just wanted to be a teacher; she wanted to break through constrained knowledge and help others to do so too. She ends up just trying to survive long enough in a small pantry-room to escape the arbitrariness of an antagonistic human will. Perhaps a little Buddhism might be helpful in dissolving the grip of group-identification; a group’s name can be understood as just a label, rather than as corresponding to an actual group-self, which does not really exist. In other words, “Israeli” and “Palestinian” may be interpreted as labels in a nominal rather than a realist way in terms of whether anything existent corresponds.  

---

1. See Soren Kierkegaard’s book, Fear and Trembling, on this point: namely, the divine command to sacrifice Isaac trumps the ethical charge of murder even though only Abraham knows of the command whereas the ethical principle not to murder is accessible to anyone.

The Brutalist

It is easy to conclude that Adrien Brody “steals the show” in his depiction of Laszio Toth in The Brutalist (2024), a film about a Jewish architect (and his wife and niece) who emigrates to Pennsylvania from Hungary after World War II. As I was stretching my legs after watching the very long yet captivating film in a theater, a woman doing the same declared to me that Adrien Brody had definitively stolen the show. I wasn’t quite sure, though I perceived Guy Pearce’s acting out Harrison Van Buren to be emotionally fake, even forced. In understanding the film, it is vital to go beyond the obvious characters (and actors) to acknowledge the roles of two silent yet very present characters as definitive for the meaning of the film. Before revealing those characters, the proverbial elephant in the room must be discussed: Being Jewish even in the modern, “progress”-oriented world.

It is not long after Laszio sits down to talk with his initial host—Attila, the cousin—that the religious question comes up. Although Attila is Jewish, his wife Audrey is Roman Catholic and Attila has converted. Laszio shocked not only at this, but that Attila has changed his last name to the Americanized Miller. In the next scene, set outside, we see a large “Jesus Saves” lit sign in the background; in the foreground is bread-line, which is out of bread. Jesus may save souls, but apparently not hungry bodies. The implication is that Attila sold his soul in giving up his religion to fit in.

It is not that Laszio carries any grudge against Christianity; it had not been the force behind the Nazi’s Final Solution, and thus behind the concentration camp where both he and his wife Erzsébet had (separately) been sent. “Dreams slip away,” Harrison observes. Laszio can of course relate; he says at one point that he had no choice but to come to America. No longer a working architect, and unfairly deprived of housing by his cousin once in Pennsylvania, Laszio must stay in homeless shelter and shovel coal for work. To him, America is no shining city on a hill; he tells his wife at one point, “They don’t want us here. We are nothing; we are worse than nothing.” He has internalized the external prejudice against Jews, and perhaps may feel on some level that his internment in a concentration camp to have been justified. The Brutalist is not a light film.

To be less than nothing may be justified by the infliction of suffering and even death on others, as the Nazis did; to be forced to endure the sting of such intense hatred is on the contrary not to be less than nothing. Interestingly, we could say that the innocent civilians in Gaza in 2023-2024 were not less than nothing; less than nothing is applicable instead to the Israelis who can be implicated in and killed 55,000 Gaza residents and made more than a million homeless (even bombing in a tent camp). As these numbers far exceed the 1,200 Israelis who died and the couple hundred Israeli hostages, justified natural justice was also far exceeded by vengeance. That the Jewish deity saves that for itself makes this verdict all the more damning.

Just the president of Israel was wrong in his insistence that every resident of Gaza was guilty and thus deserved to suffer, so too it would be wrong to conclude that every Jewish person was culpable for the horrendous over-reaction in killing tens of thousands of Gaza residents and making many, many more homeless and facing famine and a shortage of medicine. Jewish people generally need not be in the awkward psychological position of both presuming to be the chosen people and a people that is worse than nothing.

Just as Laszio suffers wrongfully in interiorizing the sentiment of prejudiced people that Jews are worse than nothing, he does not have to carry his memory of the death-camp into his architecture. A drawing of one of his buildings is labeled, “The past in the present,” which conflicts with his intention that his buildings not only endure stylistically, but are apart from time. The underlying problem is that a human artifact cannot both hold on to the past and yet have an ambiance of eternity. The huge, cement building that he designs for Harrison looks like a giant tomb, such as the ones constructed in ancient Egypt. At the same time, the dark, hard-solid walled rooms could pass for the gas chambers used by the Nazis to kill people at the concentration camps. Laszio carries his dark past into his architecture in the “new world.” That he intentionally uses light to show a Christian cross in the distinctly Christian chapel in the building may connote the hope that had been utterly absent in the death camps. Laszio’s pride in this architectural achievement is ironic, given both his skeptical reaction to his cousin’s conversion to Catholicism to fit in, but it is not as if Laszio might convert to Christianity. After all, “Jesus Saves” is associated in the film with no bread left in the bread-line.

I submit that Christianity and the Holocaust are the two silent partners, or characters, in the film. That the consulting architect is a Protestant is no accident, for the city wanted assurance because Laszio is Jewish. Christianity is also present in Attila and Audrey’s bedroom in the form of a crucifix on a wall, and perhaps most explicitly in Harrison’s insistence that the chapel be distinctly Christian, rather than a prayer room as Laszio initially proposes. The light shown in the chapel from the cross on the ceiling cannot be missed in the otherwise gray tomb-monstrosity of a building.

As for the Holocaust, its subtle imprints can be found throughout the film. Perhaps that character is most felt—most present—not in the tomb-like rooms in the partially constructed community center—and it is odd that the public would want to spend leisure time surrounded by walls, floors, and ceilings of cement—but when slabs of cement are loaded onto a freight train. The heavy, almost deafening thuds on a drum, the iron tracks, and the train itself conjure up the trains on the way to the Nazi death-camps. When the train crashes, the fire may even evoke the ovens in the camps. It is perhaps no accident that the film has Harrison fire and evict Laszio (recall that his own cousin, the Christian Attila, kicked Laszio out earlier). The sudden freight of having to fend for oneself (and one’s family) is felt existentially, and such a fear must have been felt by the victims of the Holocaust. To subject anyone to such freight is to render oneself, rather than the victim, as worse than nothing.

Both Christianity and the Holocaust are very much present in the film, and yet obliquely so. The implicit message may be that as much as we want to be free of the past, it’s imprint can be found all around us. Why didn’t Christianity come to the rescue of the Communists, Jews, and gays in the Holocaust? Both hope and despair seem to coexist without cancelling each other out. What lies beyond Laszio’s attraction to the cross in the context of the tomb, and his unconscious interest in reimaging the dingy inner sanctum of a death camp? Why didn’t “Jesus Save” as the neon sign in the film insists?  To be free of the past does indeed lie in Laszio’s free-will, as it does for the rest of us, even though existential trauma, if left to its own devices, can reverberate through time if the severity is sufficiently intense to leave imprints in not only the human mind, but also its constructed artifacts. The human mind is perhaps too fragile for what people are all too willing to inflict on others. Not even our religions seem to be enough.

The Greatest Story Ever Told

Among the classic biblically-based films out of Hollywood, and the first to show Jesus’ face, The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) is a highly idealized rather than realistic depiction of the Gospel story. Only when Jesus is on the cross does emotion show on Jesus’ visage; even the horrendous suffering from the torture leading up to the crucifixion is not shown. The Christology is thus idealized, with Jesus’ divine nature impacting his human nature even though the two natures are theologically distinct. Because the film was the first to show Jesus’ face, it could be that depicting Jesus’ human nature in its fullness, absent sin of course, would be too much for a film made before the social upheaval that began in 1968 in the West to depict. The main drawback in depicting Jesus in such highly idealized terms is that it may be difficult for Christians to relate to Jesus in emulating him by carrying their own proverbial crosses in this fallen world. The main upside of the almost Gnostic idealization is that the theological point that the Incarnation is of the divine Logos, which in turn is the aspect of God that created the world, is highlighted. Reflecting David Hume’s concern, I submit that transcending (rather than denying) the anthropomorphic “God made flesh” to embrace God as Logos—God’s word that creates—more fully captures the insight of Pseudo-Dionysius, a sixth-century theologian, that God goes beyond the limits of human cognition, perception, and emotions. 

The narrator’s first and last lines in the film highlight the theological doctrine that the Son of God is God’s Logos, which has been (with) God since the beginning of time, rather than just since the Incarnation of the Logos as Jesus, the Son of God. The film begins with a voice saying, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. I am He. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing that has been made. In hi was lif, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. The greatest story ever told.” The statement, “I am He” can be interpreted as Jesus himself speaking, and saying that he is the Logos, which was (with) God even in the beginning. This connection, I submit, between Jesus Christ and the divine Logos has typically been missed by Christians, including those who preach from the pulpit. This has probably been so because the Logos transcends the Incarnation, which in turn has been the focus in Christianity since its beginning.

Connecting the first words in the film, especially if it is the resurrected Christ that is speaking, with what Jesus says after the resurrection at the end of the film connects the Logos, the Incarnation, and the Kingdom of God in a way that is very useful to people wanting greater insight into Christian theology. That film as a medium can serve such a purpose ought not to be lost on the reader either.

The final scene of the film depicts a larger-than-life Jesus amid clouds speaking to his disciples. “Make it your first care to love one another, and to find the Kingdom of God, and all things will be yours without the asking. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” That Jesus begins with the distinctive nature of the Kingdom of God resonates with Jesus’ statement in the Gospels that he has come to preach the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. He situates himself thusly as the means rather than an end in itself, for the goal for his followers is to manifest the Father’s kingdom. The task is to “find the Kingdom of God,” and the means thereto is to love one another(caritas seu benevolentia universalis). Both in his preachments and example (agape seu benevolentia universalis) in the Gospels, Jesus is oriented to people being able to instantiate the Kingdom within by an inner transformation that transcends ethics, for religion does not reduce to ethics as the Biblical stories of Abraham and Isaac, and Job, attest. The Kingdom of God is within, so “(m)ake it your first care to love one another, and [thus] to find the Kingdom of God [within].”

Drawing on the first spoken words in the film, the last line, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” can be understood in terms of the Logos, which was (with) God even in the beginning, and thus at the end of the film it is clear that the Logos is eternal, existing through time from its beginning to its end. I submit that this transcends even the theological point that from the Incarnation on, Jesus’ resurrected body clothes God’s word for the remainder of time. It is interesting to ponder the alternative that the Logos reverts back to being solely God’s word, or rational principle, after the resurrection, such that the Logos transcends even Jesus’ resurrected body, but this is not recognized as theologically valid; perhaps theology only goes for far, given the inherent limitations of finite, subjective beings, such as in terms of cognition, perception, and emotion.

In short, the Logos, Jesus Christ as the Incarnated Logos, and the Father’s kingdom are explicitly linked by the first and last words spoken in the film. Perhaps it can be said that the Logos, which is God’s word and thus is God’s creative aspect (e.g., God spoke, and there was light), creates the Kingdom of God and provides us with the means to enter it, which boil down to extending compassion even one’s detractors and people who are rude. Jesus preaches and exemplifies this means in the Gospel narratives; even so, it is noteworthy that the first thing that the resurrected Jesus says at the end of the film is to love one another, rather than to speak first about himself. It may seem rather profane, or too close to our daily lives, that the Logos and its Incarnation don’t get top billing at the end of the film. In fact, “I am with you always” can be interpreted as referring to caritas seu benevolentia universalis (especially including people who have done us wrong). The spiritual interpersonal dynamic that manifests when compassion is shown to a detractor in need of help is, I submit, the spiritual substance of the Kingdom of God, and that substance available within even human nature until the end of time.

Religion in Film: Resisting the Formulaic

Historically, meaning in the history of cinema, perhaps too much effort or attention initially went into fidelity to doctrine, especially in Christianity. Heavily stylistic, unrealistic epics could be said to merely illustrate doctrines. Then as filmmakers began to think in an open-ended way concerning how to depict the transcendent both visually and ideationally (i.e., as an idea), the dominance of the earlier control-orientation slipped away to be replaced by innovative ways of understanding how the transcendent may relate to the realm of our daily mundane existence in the world. The extraordinary potential of filmmaking to tap into the human imagination without necessarily providing definitive answerers could be seen. I submit that this historical trajectory is a positive development. This does not mean that heterodox belief has or should win out; in fact, religious practitioners, including the clergy, can help filmmakers to depict the transcendent and its relationship to our existence in novel ways that do not seem so formulaic as to be easily brushed aside as less than credible. Old wine can indeed go into new jugs, and even new wine may be tasted without the world collapsing as a result.

Let’s begin with the old approach. “In his 1936 encyclical Vigilanti Cura, Pope Pius XI argues that, insofar as ‘the motion picture has become the most popular form of diversion which is offered for the leisure hours . . . ,’ it is crucial that Catholics pressure ‘the industry  [to] produce motion pictures which conform entirely to our standards.’ Only in this way can ‘the motion picture be no longer a school of corruption’ but ‘be transformed into an effectual instrument for the education and the elevation of mankind.’”[1] But what standards?  Are they moral or theological in nature, or both? Are the standards moral only that can be derived from theological doctrines? If not, on what basis are the extrinsic moral standards legitimate for the Church to enforce on Hollywood? The very notion of standards, moreover, connotes the negativity of prohibition, whereas teachings instead would imply that films are made proactively to illustrate through narrative principles and values found in Christianity. Rather than fixate on Hollywood as being corrupt, the pope could have pictured it as an opportunity full of potential, ignoring the decadent films. For beyond educating people, films can elevate us, as the pope admits. In short, rather than viewing the glass as half empty; it can be viewed as half full. Rather than concentrating on emptying out the stale brew, the focus can be on that which is added that is salubrious from a distinctly religious standpoint. What does it take to do so?

Going from the mentality of slapping a ruler on a wrist to helping filmmakers to render the transcendent through narrative using visuals and sound entails eclipsing the subjectivity of the filmmakers as well as “’the immanent frame’ of technological modernity,”[2] which includes not only the techniques but also the business of filmmaking.

Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), for instance, eclipses Polanski’s own subjectivity (or secular bias) in leaving it to the viewer whether Rosemary is dreaming or really is raped by Satan, although the short cut-away later briefly showing the baby’s face in the crib provides an answer that the supernatural realm that is transcendent of our world is indeed real. Furthermore, showing the animal raping Rosemary hardly fits with modernity, including the business interests of Hollywood. In short, Polanski took a risk, and he was not out to superimpose his own views of the supernatural onto his audience. That is, Polanski resisted what Heidegger calls the “culture-industry,” wherein, according to Barnett, “cinema merely discloses the rich subjectivity of the artist rather than any truth conveyed by the work itself.”[3] Instead, Polanski allows Heidegger’s “letting be” to occur by not trying, as Barnett puts it, “to wrest determinate meaning” from the work.[4] Polanski creates the openness in which viewers can be open to transcendence in a metaphysical sense.

Barnett points to The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) as being an example of what to avoid in this regard, as “the thematization of Christian doctrine or dramatization of Christian conversion” in the film “is most likely to elicit eye rolls and snickers.”[5] The characters are so stylized and idealized as to please not only the camera, but the financially-inclined producers as well. Nothing offensive. Nothing challenging. To be sure, at the time, as the first film to show Jesus’ face, the film could have been reckoned by some people as controversial. Even so, merely illustrating a Biblical narrative visually and with sound goes only so far.  The Ten Commandments (1956) too, goes only so far. Both films are “safe” in that they follow well-established doctrines exquisitely and present the Bible in the modern medium.

To be sure, over-stylized, non-realistic illustrations of Biblical narrative can contain allusions to the holy that seem genuine or real. In the television miniseries, Jesus of Nazareth (1977), for example, an eerie scene takes place in which other-worldly instrumental music plays as Jesus silently walks, with bright back-light behind him highlighting his meager, weak (yet paradoxically strong!) form, toward Pontius Pilate, whose facial expression intimates that something wholly other is going on in the case of Jesus. We see something similar in the realistic reactions of the disciples witnessing Jesus recusitate Lazarus in The Greatest Story Ever Told. Both scenes resonate with the qualities of the holy described by Rudolf Otto in The Idea of the Holy. So the phenomenon of the holy can be depicted in a catching way even in heavy-stylized (i.e., unrealistic) films whose primary orientation is to present established Biblical narratives in an orthodox way. 

It would take perhaps until The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) for the transcendent itself to again be raised as a question rather than an established fact with respect to Christology, or Christian dogma. The Exorcist (1973) explicitly raises the question of whether the supernatural demon really exists, though the psychological bias of modernity is eviscerated by supernatural feats that cannot possibly be explained as mental phenomena.

Of course, the very existence of the transcendent need not flagged and left up in the air for a film to represent religion in a way that resists the easy and convenient stylization of modernity.  The Others (2001) resists simple movie technique by turning the tables on the viewers without questioning the reality of the transcendent. Ghost (1990) also provides an innovative way into there being another realm, though with the familiar bipolar trappings of heaven and hell that ironically give the film the veneer of established doctrine—such easy formulaic being used by the modern industry of film to sell.

To draw out the transcendent in a way that does not seem trite or already well-groved, “Filmmakers must uncover the tensity between beings and Being, between the systematized habits of the human world and the raw primitivity of non-technical existence. Thereby, the mystery of being-in-the-world is manifested, and with it, the possibility of a truly poetic encounter with Being itself.”[6] Overstylized, too-conventional depictions of Biblical narrative can fall short in terms of showing the human “struggle to discern the divine presence.”[7] To manifest “the ineffable and invisible” beyond “normal sense experience,” “a fundamental incongruity between human everydayness and the transcendent world is expressed” even as both are contained within a oneness.[8] This incongruity must burst through preconceived notions, as are in heavily stylized Biblical epics, or the depicted transcendent will not seem real to viewers. Put another way, raw Being should challenge the viewer, yet not be so different or new that it is not believed to possibly represent something real beyond the movie theater or living room.

The subtle, almost-invisible cascade of ghosts going down the stairs in Poltergeist (1982) and the human’s facial expressions of simple wonder are much more suggestive of another realm than is the over-fabricated, almost sensationalistic hole in the bedroom closet heading to the other realm. The liminality of the numen, which lies between realms in at least the human imagination, is difficult to capture visually, and is thus too susceptible to being done up in a meretricious or gaudy way by filmmakers in line with modern sensationalism and cinematic technique.

There are of course new ways of telling old stories. The Chosen, a television series made in Texas of Jesus and his disciples, is a case in point. They are all presented in a realistic way, as are the Romans. Matthew is mildly autistic. Jesus has some very human reactions to everyday situations. Yet the world depicted is one in which miracles take place. The transcendent is real even as the characters are portrayed realistically. So while some stories, such as The Others, may do away with conventional notions of a heaven and hell, other stories are quite conventional yet they resist easy formulation repeating oft seen epics. There is indeed so much potential in filmmaking to depict transcendence in a myriad of ways that the old way of controlling the medium so that it conforms with doctrine in a conventional way has thankfully been defeated.  Nevertheless, the danger of an over-reaching subjectivity of a filmmaker imposed through the medium is still with us, given human nature, and it may still be too tempting for filmmakers to turn to heavily stylized Hollywood props and well-trodden plots instead of thinking outside the proverbial box. I am convinced that the human imagination applied to religion in film has not come close to having been exhausted.  

---

1. Christopher B. Barnett, “Can Cinema Be ‘Religious’? Heidegger, Technology, and the Transcendent,” Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary, 139, No. 2 (Spring, 2024): 19-23.
2. Ibid. Barnett is quoting Charles Tayler, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 539-93.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Michael Bird, “Film as Hierophany,” in Religion in Film, John R. May and Michael Bird, eds (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1982), p. 4.
8. Paul Schrader, Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer (Boston: Da Capo Press, 1972), pp. 3-13.

Mary Magdalene

In the film, Mary Magdalene (2018), Mary Magdalene and the other disciples have two different interpretations of the Kingdom of God; these may be called the interior and the eschatological, respectively. The Kingdom of God is within, already and not yet fully realized, or not yet at all, as it will be ushered in by Christ in the Second Coming, which is yet to come. The film’s point of view is decidedly with Mary’s interior interpretation and against Peter’s revolutionary (i.e., against Roman oppression) eschatological take. After both sides fail to convince the other, Peter sidelines Mary in part also because of her gender, so she decides to preach and help people on her own. That the film does not portray Jesus and Mary as romantically involved is a smart move, for it sidelines a controversy that would otherwise distract the viewers from focusing on the question of the nature of the Kingdom of God. This focus is long overdue in Christianity, and is important because only one of the two interpretations—the eschatological—has dominated historically. The film is valuable theologically in that it gives the minority position—Mary’s interior interpretation—a voice. To be sure, Mary Magdalene is a controversial figure, so the choice of that character as a mouthpiece in the film for the minority theological position on the Kingdom is daring and not without its drawbacks. For one thing, she is a woman in a man’s world in the film. Outside of the film, in real life, a medieval pope denigrated her by erroneously identifying her as the prostitute in the Bible, and her reputation had to wait until the twentieth century for the Vatican to correct the error and label her as the Apostle to the Apostles. Finally, there is the Gnostic gospel, The Gospel of Philip, in which Jesus kisses her and the male disciples ask, “Why do you love her more than us?” That jealousy is present in the film, and plays a role in the dispute between Mary and Peter on the nature of the Kingdom. So, returning to the film, having her as the mouthpiece for a minority position that has not seen much light of day historically in Christianity puts the credibility of the interpretation at risk. Accordingly, it may not have much impact in shifting the emphasis away from the eschatological Kingdom in the religion, given the tremendous gravitas that any historical default enjoys.

The version of the Kingdom of God that has dominated in the history of Christianity has the Kingdom not yet here as it depends on the Second Coming of Christ. In contrast, the minority’s report, which Mary holds and advocates in the film, has the Kingdom being “already” and “not yet.” Whereas the Second Coming is external, being evinced in the world and on a collective level, Mary understands Jesus as preaching the importance of the interior conversion of the individual as being crucial to any change in the human condition externally in the world. Whereas the Second Coming commences a revolution against collective oppression and injustice more generally, Mary’s Kingdom gives primacy to each individual letting go of hatred and embracing love. Jesus’ second commandment, to love one’s neighbor, including one’s enemies, fits Mary’s version.

The film is unique among Christian films not only in providing a substantial and sustained dialogue focused on the Kingdom itself, but also in relegating the resurrection and the Second Coming to secondary roles. This corrective is overdue. When Mary joins the other disciples (for in the film, she is a disciple) to tell them that she has just seen Jesus risen, the men have much less trouble believing that Jesus would choose a woman as the witness than in Mary’s notion of the Kingdom. That is, the men seem something less than awestruck by Mary’s good news that Jesus has beaten death and is finally at peace, whereas they are very concerned about the Kingdom. This suggests that for them, the latter is more important. To them, the resurrection is just a sign that the Second Coming will indeed occur and bring with it the Kingdom on earth in a revolutionary battle against Roman oppression.

According to Mary Magdalene, the men misunderstand Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God. If she is right, they are relegating the resurrection to a mere sign for nothing. For one thing, Jesus’ insistence in Matthew 24 that “this generation will not certainly not pass away until” the Son of Man comes “on the clouds of heaven with power and glory” undercuts continued belief in the Second Coming itself, for it did not happen while Jesus’ generation was still alive. It does not undercut Jesus’ divinity to say that he is wrong about when the Son of Man would come on clouds of heaven to judge the living and the dead, for Jesus goes on to say at Matthew 24:36, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the father.” That the Son is thus not omniscient (i.e., having complete knowledge) raises questions about the relationship between the Father and the Son, but for our purposes here, the problem is that Jesus makes a statement about when the Second Coming will occur then contradicts being able to make such a statement by admitting that he doesn’t know when the event will occur. The contradiction is in scripture itself. Making a claim about something that the claimer knows is beyond the person’s knowledge is itself a mistake. Were I to tell you that I will be arriving next Tuesday and that I don’t know when I will be arriving, you would scratch your head in bewilderment.

When a gospel narrative contains a contradiction in dialogue, it is tempting to eclipse the biblical narrative by going behind it to ask what historically might have been said (we don’t know) or whether a copyist could have inserted the line about the current generation to get the Christians then to wake up. Such a copyist would have erred in creating the contradiction if the line about the Son not knowing the day or time was already extant in the manuscript; otherwise, whoever subsequently added the line about the Son not knowing the day or time—that line likely added after the generation alive during Jesus’ lifetime had died (and the Second Coming had not yet occurred)—erred in failing to remove Jesus’ (or the earlier copyist’s) statement claiming that the Second Coming was imminent.

Whether taking the errors in the gospel as a given or trying to get behind them by speculating about copyists, I contend that giving the Second Coming pride of place in interpreting what Jesus means by the Kingdom of God is not a smart move. Recently, I attended an “Oxford Movement” Episcopal Church “high church” service during which the pastor claimed that the season of Advent pertains to the Second Coming rather than to Christmas. I walked out during the homily and got some breakfast. At the diner, a professor at Yale’s divinity school told me that Advent had referred to the Second Coming from the second to the eighth centuries (notably not from the start). He said Advent came to be associated with Christmas because that is lighter. He was insulting the association with Christmas (even though he going to do some Christmas shopping after breakfast!) “Well,” I replied, “then Advent should be before Christ the King Sunday rather than after it.” That Sunday culminates the liturgical year because Christ the King refers to the Second Coming (which ushers in God’s Kingdom in that interpretation), which is the end of the story. Then the liturgical year begins again with the season of Advent, which I had assumed was universally known by Christians as period of awaiting the birth of Christ, the light coming into the world. How could that possibly be a degradation? I was implying that the Second-Coming referent had been wrong, and thus the subsequent tie to Christmas was an improvement. The scholar demurred. To place a season called advent just before Christmas but claim that the season pertains to another event is misleading at best. It’s just dumb. In actuality, Roman history suggests that Christmas on December 25 only began in the fourth century, so the Advent that had begun to be observed in the second century was a completely different season from what Advent is today. To take what was a completely different season and superimpose it on another season just because they both have the same generic name (advent means “arrival, emergence or coming of” something significant) and claim that the latter season should have the same meaning as the former is asinine. Having a liturgical reading on the Second Coming (e.g., Matthew 24) on the first Sunday of Advent, after Christ the King Sunday, constitutes a liturgical error, given that Christ the King ends the liturgical year. Liturgists would be better off creating an advent season (calling it something other than Advent) that leads up to Christ the King Sunday, and keeping the Advent season of Christmas where it is (i.e., leading up to Christmas, after the Sunday celebrating the Second Coming as the END).  However, to add a season oriented to the Second Coming ignores the scriptural (and perhaps historical) problems with the Second Coming itself. Even if taken only as myth, the Second Coming is weakened by the scriptural contradiction, especially if that comes out of copyist errors, which may suggest that the myth itself was added. The myth may have been added because the world really did not change in the first century of Christianity; something more was needed to effect the change of heart preached by Jesus in the Gospel narratives. That which was needed, however, may have been a different interpretation of the Kingdom of God—precisely that which Mary advocates in the film.

Therefore, I submit that it is foolish to pin the Kingdom of God to a theological concept that is problematic even within the faith narrative alone (i.e., without eclipsing by asking historical questions). Practically speaking, to predicate the arrival of the Kingdom on the Second Coming, which did not arrive while Jesus’ generation was still alive, may push the arrival of the Kingdom off indefinitely, and thus keep Christians from acting so as to bring about the Kingdom now. To be sure, even if the Kingdom is to come in the future, the Bible indicates that Christians can do things now so as to be able to enter the Kingdom in the future. In Matthew 25, Jesus says that when “the Son of Man comes in his glory,” people who have cared for the poor, prisoners, and, moreover, strangers will “inherit the kingdom,” which is “eternal life.” Essentially, the Kingdom in this version is heaven, which may explain why Jesus says that the generation then alive would still be alive when the Son of Man and the heavenly Kingdom arrive. In caring for people beyond one’s friends and family, Christians can make it more likely that they will go to heaven.

It is interesting, however, that enemies are not mentioned explicitly even though Jesus commands his followers to love their enemies. This omission is problematic because, more than helping the poor and even neighbor-love in general, coming to the aid of one’s enemies (and detractors) would “move mountains” in bringing about interpersonal and world peace. The great fault in the eschatological version of the Kingdom lies in not being able to recognize that the Kingdom is present in a heart that overcomes its hatred in order to care even and expressly for enemies, and in a world that is constituted by such individuals who have voluntarily undergone the interior transformation that brings forth forgiveness and even caring where it is least convenient but most needed, given human nature.

Viewing the Kingdom as exclusively “not yet” may itself be erroneous, for Jesus says in Matthew 3:2 that the Kingdom is at hand. There’s a bigger, more intractable problem, however, because Matthew 3 states that the Kingdom is “already” whereas Matthew 24 has the Kingdom “not yet.” The two different interpretations of the Kingdom are both in the Gospel! This is problematic if, as in the movie’s theology, the Kingdom is and ought to be the main focus of Christians and Christianity itself. Supporting this primacy, Jesus states in Luke 4:43 that preaching on the Kingdom of God is the purpose for which he has been sent. This situates him as a means in relation to the Father’s kingdom; he—meaning his preaching—is the way to his Father’s kingdom. To take the way for its destination is to conflate means and ends. It is generally agreed that ends are more important than means.

It is imperative, therefore, that we delve into the rival interpretations of the Kingdom, which we can do by analyzing the dialogue between Mary and Peter in the room where the disciples are hiding on Easter. The film definitely has its point of view, which is in support of Mary’s interpretation. The film backs this up by showing Mary as being the closest to Jesus in a religious (not romantic) sense. For instance, in one scene, after Mary has walked away from the disciples to spend time with Jesus in a field, both characters literally and figuratively look down on the anti-Roman zealotry of the disciples.

After Jesus has risen from the dead, Mary goes to the disciples to give them the good news that Jesus has beaten even death, and is now at peace. Mary refutes Peter’s conception of the Kingdom of God as awaiting the Second Coming for the people to rise and Jesus be crowned king so Roman rule would finally be vanquished. “Jesus never said he would be crowned king,” she tells the disciples. “The kingdom is here, now,” she explains in dispelling the disciples’ misinterpretation of Jesus’ preaching on the Kingdom. The disciples see no kingdom because the Roman occupation has not ended, but she insists that “it’s not something we can see with our eyes; it’s here, within us. All we need to do is let go of our anguish and resentment and we become like children, just as he said. The Kingdom cannot be built by conflict, not by opposition, not by destruction; [rather] it grows with us, with very act of love and care, with our forgiveness. We have the power to lift the people just as he did, and then we will be free just as he is. This is what he meant.” The kingdom, she goes on, is not the sort that is of revolution “born in flames and blood.” Peter dismisses Mary’s version, insisting, “just outside that door, there is no new world. No end of oppression. No justice for the poor, for the suffering.” In keeping with, and applying, her interior-oriented notion of the Kingdom, she asks Peter, “How does it feel to carry that anger around in your heart?” If Peter wants a new world, he first needs to swallow his demons—doing so is the only kind of change that can change the world. Nevertheless, he insists that the fact that Mary has seen the risen Jesus means that “he will bring the kingdom.” It is something not yet rather than here already in the heart ministering to anguish and hatred. “The world will only change as we change,” Mary retorts. Otherwise, what we’re left with is cascading revolutions and oppressions with the human heart unchanged in its balance against its own demons. Real change can only come from within, person by person, rather than collectively, as by organizations such as revolutionary governments. This is the point of view expressed by the film. The disciples opposing Mary have misunderstood Jesus. She is, after all, closest to Jesus throughout the film, so her claim of having understood better what he had in mind is credible.

The implications of the dialogue (and the film’s point of view) are important. For one thing, liberation theology is radically off the mark because it puts societal structures ahead of intrapersonal transformation. We won’t get economic and political structures that do not oppress without the people in business and government letting go of their anger and hatred, as well as their related power-aggrandizement and greed. Moreover, the focus on Jesus, including on his resurrection, is itself off the mark, but so too is the belief that the Second Coming will usher in the Kingdom, for it is “already” here even though it is “not yet” in the sense that not nearly enough individual hearts have transformed themselves for the proverbial mustard seed to manifest into a tree with many branches. Going person by person, eventually enough people will have let go of anguish and hatred and thus be better able to love their enemies for the Kingdom to manifest societally in a peaceable kingdom.

Perhaps the most radical implication is that the focus of the Church should be on helping individuals to face their demons and help not only strangers, but also enemies, rather than on worshipping Jesus. In the film, Mary asks the men if they had heard Jesus ever say he would be crowned king. Because in the Gospels Jesus refers to the Kingdom of God as his father’s Kingdom, it stands to reason that the Father is the king, and Jesus dutifully serves him by telling people about his father’s kingdom. This is not to deny Jesus’ divinity, for he is resurrected both in the Gospels and the film. Nevertheless, of the three manifestations (or personae in Latin) in the Trinity, Jesus Christ has received by far the most attention throughout the history of Christianity. The film does not go so far as to suggest that Jesus should not be worshipped. In the film, he is not worshipped, even by his disciples. Rather, in one scene he and Mary watch the men pray to the God of Israel (rather than to Jesus). Even once Mary tells the other disciples that Jesus has risen, they do not drop down and worship him in that scene; rather, their emotional attention is on the nature of the Kingdom, which is thus presumably more important to them. It is not as if the Kingdom itself can be worshipped, and the disciples do accept Mary’s claim that Jesus has risen from the dead, so it is reasonable to think that they would eventually worship him were the film extended. Such worship would not be their primary focus, however, yet neither would Mary’s version of the Kingdom. The film is thus tragic in that we see the disciples except Mary coalesce around Peter and his version, and we know that historically, their side has been dominant while a pope relegated Mary to being a prostitute. The challenge for Christianity may be in how to shift the focus from that of worshipping Jesus and waiting for the Second Coming before the Kingdom can be realized to the worship being a means to focus on Mary’s version of the Kingdom and the human agency that it implies and indeed even mandates.