The Physician

In the 11^th century, Christians were not welcome in Persia, so in the film, The Physician (2013), Rob Cole, a Christian, pretends to be Jewish in order to travel from Western Europe to study at the medical school of Ibn Sina, a famous physician in Isfahan. He eventually reveals his religion as that of “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” when he is on trial before the local imam. The Jews there doubtlessly feel used and betrayed. As interesting as interreligious controversy can be, I contend that the nature of Cole’s crime is more significant from the standpoint of religion itself. In short, the film illustrates what bad effects are likely to come from committing a category mistake with respect to religion and another domain. Whether conflating distinct domains or erasing the boundary between them, category mistakes had diminished the credibility of religion as being over-reaching by the time that the film was made. As for the matter of interreligious differences, the sheer pettiness by which the three Abrahamic religions that share the same deity have made mole hills into untraversable mountains is hardly worthy of attention, whereas that which makes religion as a domain of phenomena unique and thus distinct from other, even related domains, is in need of further work. The film could have done more in this regard.

Rob Cole’s crime is the desecration of a human corpse by dissecting it. It may be that dissection does not count as desecration because the study is done systematically and for the beneficial outcome of progress in medical science, but this argument is not even presented to the imam in the film. Even though the old man agreed to the procedure just before he died in Ibn Sina’s hospital (and medical school), and Cole’s purpose was to save lives by discovering human organs, the imam sentences not only Rob, but also Ibn Sina to be executed for having “violated Allah.” Presumably the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish deity is against progress in the science of medicine such that sickness is not so often a death-sentence. Holding to a dogma nonetheless demonstrates one of the fallibilities of the human mind when it enters the domain of religion. It is not as if Cole’s dissection and study would cause death and destruction—two things that are typically associated with evil. In fact, Rob, with Ibn’s assistance, which alone is an interesting role reversal, successfully operates on Shah Ala ad Daula, the king of Isfahan, using the knowledge obtained during the dissection of the corpse. That operation in turn enables the Shah to survive the next day, when his presence is needed as his army sets out to fight a radical Islam-only invading force to which the local imam is allied. That force is against the presence of the Jews in the city, and would certainly against the Shah pardoning Cole and Sina. In short, the Shah was too secular and tolerant for the imam and the related invading king.

The “religious” rationale for finding Cole in violation of Allah’s law should be treated as more problematic in the film. Cole, Sina, or even the Shah could engage with the imam during or after the “trial” on the validity in religious terms of the injunction against medical science advancing by study of human internal-organs, for what is scientific—and thus of that domain—is being claimed by the domain of religion. Hence it is assumed by everyone in the film except for the medical student and his teacher that religion can legitimately override medicine even in the domain of medicine.  I contend that this overreaching is invalid—it is akin to an invading army taking over a city—because religion’s coverage should fit within its borders. In other words, religion has primary jurisdiction over that which is distinctly religious. The overall domain of a religious deity holds sway within the religious domain, just like a king’s authority only extends throughout his kingdom even if he claims to be ruler of the world. Kings of other kingdoms could rightly object to the latter claim by insisting that another king’s authority extends only to the borders of that king’s realm. This does not invalidate the meaning of “ruler of the world” within that realm, just as “God is omnipresent and omnipotent” has meaning in the religious domain even though science and other domains, including metaphysics, psychology, and history, do not yield to the authority that is in the religious realm. Paradoxically, by overreaching, the credibility of that authority is diminished even within the religious domain. In the film, the validity of Cole’s dissection of a willing corpse is stronger than that of the religious decree against “desecrating” human corpses regardless of any benefits from it in other domains. The egocentric over-reaching of religion can be likened to a bully, who, once made transparent, is typically viewed as less than credible.

The gap between whether Cole (and Sina) should be applauded or punished is so large that they can be said to manifest from different social realities. Cole and Sina heal the Shah as a result of Cole’s dissection and his teaching thereof to a very enthusiastic Sina, yet the local imam ignores or dismisses the value of this progress and its benefit—perhaps not just for religious reasons as he is politically against the ruling Shah. Cole utterly dismisses the validity of the Imam’s ruling and sentencing on the basis of Cole and Sina having offended or violated Allah. Whereas Cole and Sina may have been religious, the narrow, and one-sided ruling makes sure that even if the two men survive, they would never be fully religious again. Running a hospital as a physician back in London at the end of the film, Rob Cole surely looks at religion itself more skeptically than he did before hearing the imam’s narrow ruling.

The upshot is that confining the authority and validity of religion to its own domain so it does not over-reach with the presumption of legitimately being able to overrule the innate authorities in other domains in those domains is a good thing. This does not mean that the distinctly religious belief that a deity is sovereign without limitation is rendered invalid in the religious domain. Likewise, claims that everything is political and religion is really just psychology (e.g., Freud) or a function of means of production (e.g., Marx) are valid only in the domains of psychology and economic philosophy, respectively. Religionists are not the only guilty party in terms of over-extending the authority of their domain onto others even over the authorities in those domains. Within a given domain, I contend that the substance and criteria of the domain is worthy of respect in itself rather than as a subsidiary of another domain’s substance and criteria. Disrespect in this respect may even contribute towards a mental habit that thwarts interreligious dialogue and peace. Even respect between people may be diminished.

In the film, Hope Gap (2019), Grace attempts to use the Roman Catholic Church’s religious injunction of legal divorce to undercut the validity of her separated husband’s request for a divorce. Edward’s request is unhinged from any reality, Grace insists (as if by even her faith she is omniscient with respect to realities). That she has been contemplating suicide suggests that she may be the person untethered from a viable reality. From the standpoint of a legal system of a country, the religious dictate of one party of a marital separation should not be allowed to overrule a law that permits divorce even if the counterparty (Edward) is religious. In the office of a lawyer, the substance and criteria of the law should prevail, just as the substance and criteria of distinctly religious meaning should prevail in the office of a priest, imam, minister, or rabbi. Those four functionaries have much more in common, being in and of the same domain, than they may realize. In fact, they could help each other to resist the power-aggrandizing temptation to overreach their religious authority in usurping the authority of authorities in other domains. Then the substance and unique criteria of the religious domain of human experience would be more respected. At the very least, humility and self-discipline—“coloring within the lines”—naturally earns respect.

Lest this critique be misconstrued as secular in nature, the upshot is that the stuff “within the lines” of the religious domain (i.e., distinctly religious phenomena, such as religious meaning that does not depend on history or science, as is not reducible to ethics or psychology) deserves to be uncovered from underneath the weeds that have hitherto been allowed to grow and even thrive from seeds that have drifted over from other gardens. In the film, the imam may not even understand what desecration means in a religious sense, and yet he is quick to interlard a religious belief as if it deserved to be decisive and thus hegemonic in the political and (related) jurisprudential domains. Similarly, I wonder whether people who deem themselves capable of accusing others of committing abominations as if the word itself warrants death know that the word only means “disliked by God.” This is distinct from “hated by God,” of which evil unequivocally qualifies. To be sure, in the religious domain, such activities that are disliked by the deity are not recommended, for the actual point is likely to obey God, but the commonly held dire connotations of the word as if dislike were equivalent to hate misses the mark and yet precisely such “making mole hills into mountains” has given rise to much suffering and harm historically. The sheer presumptuous of ignorance and what it feels entitled to, is, I suppose, hated rather than merely disliked from the perspective of the very condition of existence, or Creation, even when that condition or ultimacy is personified as a deity with divine attributes even if they anthropomorphic in appearance. Film has amazing potential as a medium through which such thoughts can be projected and put in dialogue with some depth and extent beyond what is typically done by filmmakers who want to hurry a plot as if skipping a stone quickly on the surface of a lake.

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.