Spoiler Alert: These essays are ideally to be read after viewing the respective films.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query silent night. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query silent night. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, November 6, 2025

Silent Night

The medium of film has an amazing ability to trigger emotions, even very strong ones, through dialogue, narrative, cinematography and sound. The suspension of disbelief, if achieved, renders the impact all the more complete. Dread, for example, can be conjured up even with another yet different emotion, such as joy, even in the same song. The medium is also capable of stimulating thought not only as viewers attempt to figure out unnecessarily convoluted plots, but also thinking more abstractly in philosophical or theological terms. Such abstractions, besides being implicitly or explicitly treated in the narrative, extend beyond the confines of a narrative and its story-world. “Life and death” is such a theme, as is whether the human soul is immortal. Less tantalizing, though arguably just as important for typically being overlooked, philosophy of mind (and philosophy of psychology), for which a strange, incomprehensible plotline is by no means requisite or even constructive, stands as a rich reservoir for filmmakers. Even though the question of life and death is central to the film, Silent Night (2021), which interestingly was made during the global coronavirus pandemic—there is even a “Covid Supervisor” listed in the credits!—a seldom-recognized vulnerability innate to the human mind may deserve top billing in that film. The group-think evinced by the group of friends at the house on Christmas Eve and perhaps a wider mass-hysteria only touches the surface of the problem in terms of the human mind. I contend that the star-attraction in the Christmas film rightly goes to the human mind’s vulnerability to presumption to the assumption of infallibility (and susceptibility to group-think cognitively and as in terms of power).  In the context of a group’s suicide pact, critical thinking in the sense of critiquing whatever assumptions are being held is so very important, yet it is only evinced by Art, a young boy, who is under unrelenting pressure especially from his parents to take a fatal pill before a “cloud” of toxic, climate-changed gases hits.

As for the film’s plot, Nell and Simon, who have three boys, including Art, invite friends that they have known since school over for Christmas in Nell's mother's upscale house. Everyone is trying to celebrate Christmas, so they resist turning the subject to their impending self-inflicted, albeit presumably necessary, deaths. Death is assumed as certain and very painful for anyone who does not take the “exit” suicide pills that the government has made available to British citizens, but not to the homeless and illegal immigrants—a moral problem really only bothers Art. The assumption that suicide, or an “exit,” as in “Brexit,” is necessary presupposes that death from the toxic ground-level “cloud” is certain. Art’s mother, Nell, makes this assumption; so too does her husband, Simon. They are determined to force Art to take the pill rather than to allow their eldest son to hold out with James’ fiancée, Sophie, who is pregnant and does not want to kill her baby. James even tells Art that the scientists all agree with the government that failure to take the pill would result in intolerable suffering from inhaling the inevitable and long-lasting poisonous gases. As it turns out, Art is correct, and they are all wrong, because he wakes up the next morning, alive, after the “cloud” has passed by and snowfall has cleared the air. His parents had not given him a pill when they took theirs because they assumed that he was already dead merely because he had blood on his face. That Simon and Nell make this assumption without even checking for breathing or a pulse and yet somehow know that survival inside the house post-cloud will not be possible just because the scientists and governments say so belies the validity of the parents’ claim to be so confident in their reasoning and conclusion. That suicide is involved means that the stakes are high, and yet unchecked assumptions are allowed to preempt even holding off on the pill until such time as active poisoning is taking place.

Only Art insists on that strategy of wait-and-see, and his parents promptly veto it. Nell assumes that her son would be suffering alone—another unfounded assumption. Only Art questions the critical assumptions being made by the adults. He even subjects the adults’ suicide “pact” as well as a government policy of issuing suicide pills (only) to citizens to moral critique. He even points to his parents’ stupidity in giving him Christmas toys that night, which of course he will not be alive for long to use! “Your mom is a bit daft,” Simon admits to his son in a touching scene on the stairs. At least Nell recognizes that Art is intelligent, for at the Christmas dinner, she tells him, “You clever, clever boy!” He has just scolded all of the adults at the table, “You all should be ashamed of yourselves!”, for not having done enough politically—such as in voting Green rather than Conservative, as Bella and Sandra lament later—to reduce carbon emissions so the atmosphere would not throw air-borne toxins back and kill at least half of the human population (so far). Even during the dinner, a toxic brown “cloud” of poisonous gases and fierce winds traveling at ground-level is sweeping through the land and will hit the house sometime after midnight, hence on Christmas. Besides having taken climate toxicity too lightly for decades, the adults at the table are apparently unaware of the Christmas line, and a child shall lead them. Nell admits to everyone that Art is clever and yet she dismisses his very reasonable arguments in favor of “wait and see” rather than preemptively taking suicide pills under the assumption that doing so before the “cloud” arrives is necessary to obviate what is sure to be intolerable suffering. Instead of considering Art’s arguments, Simon and Nell, as well as James, their physician friend, are oriented to refuting Art’s objections to suicide as preventative rather than as a last resort in a worse case scenerio.

To the adults in the house, the government, scientists, and even the adults themselves could not be wrong, and yet no one except Art realizes that the toxins might pass with the passing “cloud” rather than stick around for, as Nell supposes without any evidence, a hundred years. She may be thinking of a thermo-nuclear winter, though for that a hundred years may be too optimistic. Such a mistake is indeed possible for Nell; after someone says at dinner that the Queen could be in a bunker with beans and dog food, Nell states how bad it would be to have to eat dog food for a hundred years even though it is obvious to everyone else at the table that Queen Elizabeth II had several small dogs throughout her life and would include them, and their food, in a bunker. Therefore, we can be skeptical of Nell’s explanation to Art that suicide is necessary beforehand because the airborne poisonous gases can go through water pipes and glass windows and thus reach throughout the house. In fact, the belief that the Queen is probably in a bunker implies that suicide as preventative rather than as a last resort is de facto refuted in action at a high station to which even the government is due loyalty. With so much on the line—literally life and death—it is significant that no one at the table suggested that they go to the basement when the “cloud” arrives and come out the next morning to see if the danger has passed or else whether there really is no alternative to suicide other than dying a painful death.

Moreover, the lack of questioning and debate regarding the assumptions being made is itself a red flag concerning the human mind. At one point, Sandra (whose beauty, I might say, steals the show) tells Bella in a hallway that the news reports of the gruesome deaths from around the world cannot be wrong. True enough, but it is possible that all such deaths took place in the “cloud” rather than after its passing, especially if rain or snow ensued. Even James’ medical assumption that no one can survive the gas is undone by Art ingesting some of it in a mini-twister outside that night and yet waking up the next morning. He has breathed in some of the toxin and yet survives it!  Not even what the physician is assuming medically is correct!

Not even Sophie, who initially does not want to commit suicide, questions the reigning assumption that the toxic gas will kill everyone in its path. Art’s willingness to stand by Sophie rather than take the pill is quickly shot down by his mother, Nell, and both of his parents go into hyperdrive in conveying to their eldest son that he will take the pill because, “We are your parents.” Who in growing up has not heard that line! With his life on the line, Art emotionally distances himself from his “protective” parents whom he says love him but are “trying to kill me.” It is not that Simon and Nell are bad people; in fact, they are trying to keep all of their boys from suffering extremely painful deaths. However, the eventuating of snow falling overnight, which likely cleanses the air of the poison, demonstrates that especially Simon, Nell, James, and Bella “leapt to conclusions” in supposing the inevitability of the worst-case scenario quite erroneously. At the very least, everyone should have been open to holding off from taking the pills until clear indications of poisoning could be seen either upon the “cloud’s” arrival or the next morning. Had Bella not stabbed Alex after she threw up the pill that Bella had stuffed in her sleeping mouth, Alex would wake up the next morning and presumably find Art lying in his parent’s bed alongside his dead family. Sophie would wake up and presumably go on to give birth had James not insisted that she take a pill with him. Generally speaking, were the group-think “pact” pushed less severely, more people could wake up in the house the next morning—Christmas morning—and be stunned and grateful for the falling, cleansing snow. Minds are closed to the possibility that the “cloud” could be like a passing thunderstorm in that people could safely wait out the passing storm deep inside the house, and it dawns on nobody that falling snow overnight could cleanse the morning air of the poison, so taking the pill would most prudently be at least held off.  When suicide is an option, it is dangerous to have a mind that does not counter its own values, beliefs, and “findings,” and thus assumptions and conclusions; such minds are particularly susceptible to group-think, in which a group of people hold a narrow view and fight off any challenges or objections to it; dissent, in other words, is subject to vitriol and exclusion.  

Art, a young boy, is the only person in the house who questions the “group-think” party-line and its assumptions. Only he survives, at least to the next morning, which the adults had insisted over and over again would not be possible. He wakes in a house whose beds are laid upon by the bodies of his brothers, parents, and their parents’ friends. As the credits roll, the closing instrumental version of the song, “Silent Night,” masterfully juxtaposes the holiness of Christmas Eve with the dread of impending mass suicide.

The film may lead audiences to question not only mankind's ignorance and culpability in having let climate change get so out of control, but also, from Art's questioning of the assumption of certain death, the human tendency not to question the assumptions that we make and to take precautions in case an assumption is wrong. We are too liable to assume that we are infallible creatures, even though the fact is, we are human, all too human. Having caused climate change to the extent that a toxic cloud circles the globe and then to needlessly commit suicide makes our species look very bad. We have done it to ourselves is the lesson from the film. In at least implicitly assuming that we know more than we actually do, and thus avoiding criticism of our assumptions and conclusions as unnecessary and even a waste of time, the vulnerability of the human mind is laid bare. It would be a profound human service of film if it would lay bare the vulnerability to a presumptuousness of de facto infallibility, which in turn preempts the activation of critical thinking in the sense of questioning one’s own beliefs, assumptions, values (and thus ideologies), and conclusions. The human mind is not as logical innately as we may perceive it to be; at least a semester of logic should be required of any college student. In the film, Nell’s reasoning is atrocious, and yet she comes down hard on Art’s very reasonable argument.

Nell thinks the Queen would be eating dog food in a bunker for 100 years. That the dog food would obviously be for the queen’s dogs is a more reasonable assumption than that the queen would eat dog food for a century, and yet in stating how bad that would be, Nell has no recognition of how faulty her reasoning is. This means that it is nothing short of dangerous for her to turn to Art and insist that he will take a pill rather than wait and see in case the gases are airborne only as the “cloud” is passing. Forget the queen and her pets; the emperor (and what parent is not an emperor?) is proverbially not wearing any clothes! That a power that is presumably clothed is actually bare is precisely the attitude toward one’s own mind—one’s own assumptions, theories, and conclusions—that I suggest the film implicitly advocates. This is done by showing just how damaging group-think, perhaps even a global hysteria, and especially a failure or refusal to critique one’s own thinking and assumptions can be.

Besides the distortive impact of its unconscious, the human mind does not ratiocinate nearly as well as we suppose. As the impact of our species on the planet increases, whether by igniting nuclear war or burning fossil fuels, questioning our own thinking and that of others becomes more crucial. The adults in the film may be in the midst of a suicide-pact doomsday hysteria that has gripped the world, or they could merely be too intolerant to dissent in a sort of group-think mentality within the house. Either way, they are not thinking clearly enough to warrant the assumption of infallibility, especially considering the myriad of factors that are involved in climate, including whether a heavy snowfall will clear the air.


Tuesday, February 4, 2014

The Oscars: Beyond the Eye-Candy

Writing on the night of the 84th Oscars in 2012, Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes of The New York Times seemed to wonder "aloud" as they analyzed the 5,800-member Academy’s cultural relevance. They had found most members to be “overwhelmingly white, male and 60ish.” Such a rarified persona is presumably enough to relegate the Academy to oblivion. Coming during “Black History Month,” Billy Crystal’s portrayal of Sammy Davis, Jr.—a character sketch that had gone unscathed many times in the 1980s—functioned as a lightning rod for people otherwise bored with the lack of surprises in the announced winners (or the host). Lest “let’s go kill Hitler” had become too politically incorrect for Crystal’s Sammy Davis character to say (like Crystal, Davis was Jewish) at the Oscars, one might take a gander at the excellent film, Inglourious Basterds. This brings me to the main point. According to the New York Times, the Academy may not be relevant because the award-winners did not do well at the box office. I respectfully disagree.

The New York Times points to the “generally weak box-office performance among the year’s nine best-picture contenders—only one of which, [The Help], amassed more than $100 million in domestic ticket sales.” The best picture, The Artist, had amassed only about $32 million. Cieply and Barnes contend that film’s win underscores “the Oscars’ growing detachment from the movie-going public at large.” Indeed, only about one in ten of the Oscars’ viewers had seen the film.

The classic cinema look must have reminded some Oscar viewers and attendees of the grandeur of the big screen.    (source: The New York Times)

Providing another perspective, I submit that the Oscars is not a popularity contest. The awards are not about telling the public what most titillated it over the past year at the movies. The existence of the technical categories, such as art direction and sound mixing, points to something else—a chance for the experts to award talent. Whether we like it or not, the general public is not the best judge of the talent of a sound editor; we go to the movies to become absorbed into a world, rather than to resist this by critiquing each technical function that went into the making of the film.

So while many people saw the last Harry Potter movie and may have enjoyed it (I passed on the last three in the series), art design and cinematography went instead to Hugo, a film that far fewer people had seen. Whereas every member in the Academy can vote for best picture, the other categories are voted on only by their respective practitioners. While this allows for politics and bias (e.g. James Cameron not getting best actor for Avatar due to his personality), the method also enables people in a position to recognize skill to be decisive in the selections. A director watching another director’s film, for instance, can pick up on good directing much better than we could as viewers. I suspect the general viewer’s opinion becomes more valid when a particular technical function is bad (e.g. a scene is out of focus, or certain sounds can’t be heard). I suspect that practitioners in a given field are necessary to discern between five cases, each of which looks good to the rest of us.

Therefore, I think there is great value in having something more than The People’s Choice Awards. Moreover, the ancient Greeks were on to something when they defined virtue as excellence, and modern society only shows its banality in viewing such a conception of virtue as not relevant simply because not many of the public have seen specific instances.

While I found the storyline of The Artist to be formulaic (the “punch-line” is actually in some classic films about silent-era stars), the selective use of sound was interesting, as was the decision to have the film mostly silent in a sound era. I make this observation from the standpoint of the art and science of film (as well as from the vantage-point of film history), which is not necessarily that of the general public. The film’s technical functions were fine; that those awards were spread around to other films may testify to the imprint of practitioners of the respective functions. In other words, one film might have had the best sound editing while another had the best art direction (though in 2012 Hugo got both of these).

Hugo deserved to win for its art and cinematography, as much of “that world” of the film is essentially art. The screenplay is also notable—even if many more people went to see Harry Potter. Hugo is not only a movie for kids; it contains, or is, a commentary on functionalism (and machines, and indirectly, technology). The screenwriter backs this up with a theology that is historically associated with functionalism (i.e., Deism, or God as clock-maker).

Even so—and this is where having experienced screenwriters voting—the screenplay of The Descendants may have been even more decisive (i.e., excellent) because the protagonist’s (not the actor’s!) choices having to do with character (i.e., virtue) are key to the film itself and especially its narrative. Specifically, how far the protagonist decides to go against one of his antagonists is vital because anything would have been justified. In making the nuances of the protagonist’s choices, the screenwriting is vital to the film in saying something about being human. The general life and death theme means the story is ultimately about being human. Relative to the screenplay of The Descendants, that of The Artist is rather formulaic—even predictable. Watching the ending, I thought to myself, “I’ve seen that before.”

I do not believe that the general public is in a position to judge between the best of the art and science of film-making. Indeed, film-making itself, including its various technical functions, is not like cooking—something that most people can do (or even judge). Whereas having taste buds makes anyone a potential expert on whether a dish is “good,” we cannot assess sound mixing or art direction, or even period costumes, simply by watching the finished product. Even in regard to acting, even though bad acting is rather obvious to the viewer, discerning between good actors must surely be difficult for a viewer who has not studied and practiced the stills of acting. Knowing the “tricks of the trade,” only an experienced actor could discern the nuances that distinguish good actors from the best. We, the general public, already knew before Oscar night which films had been popular and thus “good” in terms of popular opinion. Left unknown until "the envelop please" was which films were the best as judged by the practitioners according to standards forged out of specialized training and years or even decades of experience.  

If standards sourced in expertise are indeed irrelevant in modern society, Hollywood's output might reduce to what we think we want: more meaningless but tasty eye-candy. As the old adage goes, be careful want you ask for; you might get it. Lest we get what we think we want, we might want to view the Oscars as something more than a rubber-stamp of the People's Choice Awards; we might deign to acknowledge without feeling humiliated that the typical viewer is not the best judge. This lesson is lost on Hollywood itself to the extent that producers and directors chase the "top grosser" prize for the first weekend. 

Arthur Abbott, the renowned retired screenwriter in The Holiday, has the obsession that has come to grip Hollywood in his cross-hairs as he addresses the crowd at the WGA event to honor him with a lifetime achievement award. "I came to Hollywood over 60 years ago," he says. "When I first arrived in Tinseltown . . . there were no cineplexes or multiplexes. No such thing as a Blockbuster or DVD. I was here before conglomerates owned the studios. Before pictures had special effects teams. And definitely before box office results were reported . . . like baseball scores on the nightly news." As subtext, Malcolm Lee, the film's screenwriter, was undoubtedly sending Hollywood a message: Things have gotten out of hand and the quality of films has suffered as a consequence.   

Karl Jung would say Arthur Abbott instantiates the "Old Man Wisdom" archetype of our collective unconscious. The viewers are thus inclined to respect Arthur's points. (Youtube: Jacky Huang Szu Han) 

Film-making need not be led by polls and focus groups like a dog chasing its tail. There is still such a thing as talent, which comes from intuitive aptitude, training, and experience. Such expertise is not always reflected in the first-weekend numbers, or, moreover, readily observable at a distance. Chasing that distance is an exercise in futility (or self-destructiveness) for any aspiring or veteran film-maker who values outstanding quality in the craft.

Source:
Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes, “’Hugo’ Wins 2 Early Awards at the Oscars,” The New York Times, February 27, 2012.




Sunday, November 23, 2014

Heaven Is For Real: Applying Kierkegaard to a Film

In Heaven Is For Real (2014), a film based on Todd Burpo’s best-selling non-fiction book of the same title, the evangelical Christian minister becomes convinced that his son, Colton, actually visited heaven while in surgery. Todd cannot make his faith-held belief intelligible to even his wife, Sonja. She misunderstands her husband and questions his obsession and even his sanity until Colton tells her something about heaven that applies to her uniquely. Then both parents are uniquely related in an absolute way through faith to the absolute—to the absurd, in Kierkegaard’s parlance. How Todd deals with his realization can be unpacked by applying the work of the nineteenth-century European philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard.



Before Sonja comes to believe in the impossible, a formidable wall stands between her and her husband as he grapples with whether to take heaven literally and comes to believe that Colton has been there.  “I’m sorry I can’t help you,” Sonja tells him at one point. His relation to the absolute, the impossible, has become isolating, for such a relation is individualized, according to Kierkegaard, and incommunicable to others.

In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard dissects the Biblical story of Abraham being prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. Essentially, Abraham goes above the ethical to embrace an absurd impossibility by faith. Faced with God's demand of sacrificing Isaac and God's promise that Abraham's seed will spread, Abraham has faith in the impossible on the strength of the absurd (i.e., that God will somehow present the old man with another child to fulfil the promise). It is absurd for God to have Abraham sacrifice his only offspring and yet promise that Abraham’s seed will populate the nations, yet somehow Abraham embraces this impossibility.

Kierkegaard contends that such an apparent impossibility held by faith cannot be communicated. A “knight of faith” must therefore be isolated in this respect. This is part of the price he or she pays for violating the ethical on the strength of the absurd, which transcends but does not obviate the ethical dimension. "Abraham is silent--but he cannot speak, therein lies the distress and anguish. For [Abraham might say] if when I speak I cannot make myself understood, I do not speak even if I keep talking without stop day and night. . . . The relief of speech is that it translates me into the universal."[1] By the universal, Kierkegaard has ethical principles in mind, for they are on the universal level because they are known inter-subjectively and thus can be understood by others.

For example, a person who resists the temptation to take more than his share of a food can be understood by others as doing so on the basis of fairness. This ethical principle is widely known, so a person acting ethically can appeal to fairness in justifying his or her action. In intending to violate his ethical duty to care for his son, Abraham no longer has access to ethical principles; a person of faith is alone, without recourse to shared understandings and thus support from other people. The paradox or impossibility embraced by faith "cannot be mediated,” Kierkegaard contends, “because it is based on the single individual's being, in his particularity, higher than the universal."[2]  A knight of faith, unlike an ethical hero, gives up recourse to intersubjective (i.e., universally understood) ethical principles; making matters worse, because the impossibility is particular to the individual (i.e., the faith is applied to a particular situation), it cannot be made intelligible for this reason too. God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; it is not as if every man has the same demand and can thus stand in Abraham’s shoes. Therefore, Kierkegaard writes, "The true knight of faith is always [in] absolute isolation.”[3]

As effectively depicted in the film, Todd Burpo suffers from such isolation as he grapples with what his son is telling him and concludes that heaven is for real, rather than imaginary— a dream, fairy tale, or myth. That is to say, he takes heaven’s existence literally, rather than figuratively. Not only is Todd not understood; he is misunderstood, which puts him in a tight spot. Nancy Rawling, a member of the church’s board that oversees the minister, Todd, tells him that his obsession is hurting the church. Besides his leaves of absence, Nancy has a problem with what he is preaching. Underneath, she resents God for taking her son but allowing Colton to live. She does not know Todd’s isolated pain, and thus is jealous.

Before Sonja is convinced that Colton really did visit heaven, she chastises her husband for being sidetracked from cares of this world, including most notably their family. She does not understand that the absolute paradox of existence that so grips her husband is really about their family—Todd comes to this realization only at the end of the film.

Colton tells Todd, for example, that he sat on Pop’s (Todd’s maternal grandfather) lap in heaven. This sends Todd into a frantic search for pictures of the man. When Colton recognizes a boyhood picture, Todd is face to face with the absurd. “That’s impossible,” he says. “Everyone is young in heaven,” Colton explains matter-of-factly. Todd does not notice the inconsistency in one boy sitting on the lap of another boy roughly of the same age, or the convenience for Colton in everyone in heaven being approximately his age.[4]
  
Even Colton’s sister who died in the womb is Colton’s age in heaven. That a baby who had not made it out of the womb in life would exist as a girl Colton’s age in heaven is an absurdity that Sonja initially decries as impossible; but that Colton knows of the miscarriage, presumably from his visit, convinces his mother that her son had actually been in heaven, and, moreover, that heaven is real, literally. From her cognitive conclusion, Sonja suddenly has faith in the impossible. Even though Todd also believes that Colton spoke with the unnamed daughter in heaven, he and Sonja find they can only embrace without words on the strength of the absurd that transcends understanding.  The wholly other is finally ineffable; we are left with the experience of yearning beyond the limits of human cognition and perception.

Seeking nonetheless to be understood and to spread his new faith sourced in his particular circumstance, Todd feels the need to preach on heaven as literal—even inviting radio listeners to come hear him at his church on the next Sunday. “You don’t have to save the world; that’s already been done,” Nancy had already warned the evangelical minister. Kierkegaard warns that a false knight of faith is sectarian.[5] Todd’s partiality—his mission to get others to accept the absurd in spite of his unique vantage-point—stems from the obsession and feeds off pride. In his sermon, Todd claims that love demands telling people that they are loved. Does it? Might this be as much presumptuous as it is compassionate? Maybe love more naturally issues simply in being witnessed rather than being told.  In any case, his Augustinian conclusion from heaven being real (rather than imaginary) that God is love, and therefore that we should love one another, is hardly harmful, and it closes the gap that existed, when he wrestled with the absurd, between his preoccupation with heaven and tending to the people in this world.

Kierkegaard’s knight of faith "is the paradox [;] he is the individual, absolutely nothing but the individual, without connections and complications. This is the terror that the puny sectarian cannot endure. Instead of learning from this that he is incapable of greatness and plainly admitting it, . . . the poor wretch thinks he will achieve it by joining company with other poor wretches.”[6] Hence, Todd advertising his upcoming sermon on heaven to radio listeners can be taken as an attempt to pivot off the insecurity of a faith-based isolation by trying to convince other people of the veracity of his claim and being oriented to how they should live accordingly.

Kierkegaard tells us,

A knight of faith “is assigned to himself along [;] he has the pain of being unable to make himself intelligible to others but feels no vain desire to show others the way. . . . The false knight readily betrays himself by this instantly acquired proficiency; he just doesn't grasp the point that if another individual is to walk the same path he has to be just as much the individual and is therefore in no need of guidance, least of all from one anxious to press his services on others. Here again, people unable to bear the martyrdom of unintelligibility jump off the path, and choose instead, conveniently enough, the world's admiration of their proficiency. The true knight of faith is a witness, never a teacher, and in this lies the deep humanity in him which is more worth than this foolish concern for others' weal and woe which is honoured under the name of sympathy, but which is really nothing but vanity. A person who wants only to be a witness confesses thereby that no one, not even the least, needs another person's sympathy, or is to be put down so another can raise himself up."[7]
Todd expects his distended congregation to accept his faith-claim even though the minister came to it out of his particular relations. In fact, Todd goes on to tell them how they should live accordingly. He dismisses, in effect, the innate unintelligibility of the absurd. It is possible, nevertheless, that Colton’s visit is a dream or hallucination. After all, the book tells of Colton describing Jesus sitting on a throne just to the right of God—an image that fits with Todd’s evangelical paradigm. Interestingly, Colton’s repeated emphasis on heaven being beautiful does not necessarily point to, or require, a literal interpretation. Moreover, the meaning, and sense of spiritual well-being that the boy gets from the experience would not be diminished had he actually been dreaming or hallucinating—the latter from a hormone released by the human brain in the process of dying yet not dead.[8] In turning to preaching his message, Todd is vulnerable to building a house of cards on a fiction.

Kierkegaard’s false knight is plagued by pride, and is too weak to leverage the strength of the absurd into a sustained faith that can withstand the solitude of intelligibility and the ever-present possibility of non-existence (i.e., the visit being a fiction). The figure is akin to Nietzsche’s ascetic priest—a voluntarily-weakened bird of prey that is too weak to resist its (dominating) urge to feel the pleasure of power by dominating others. Telling others how to live by bracketing off areas of strength by Thou Shalt Nots, the weak herd animals who nonetheless seek to dominate are not strong enough to accept their inner constitution of weakness. They are not of true faith, and yet their herd follows them as if purblind. Were Todd content to be a  witness to love simply by loving, he would not feel the need to save the world on the word of his son. As Nancy points out, God’s Son has already done that.



[1] Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Penguin Books: London, 1985), p. 137.
[2] Ibid., p. 109.
[3] Ibid., p. 106.
[4] Colton may have been dreaming—sitting on his great grandfather’s lap without seeing the man’s face then suddenly the man is a boy like Colton.
[5] Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, p. 106.
[6] Ibid., p. 107.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh have studied the hormone and found it to have such a property. As for common images, we can look to cultural (i.e., shared) myths and the related archetypes (e.g., Jesus with a beard—an image that came about in the early Middle Ages—Jesus being represented as clean-shaven in the ancient Roman, or Patristic, epoch of Christianity).