Academic resurrections

“The Visitor”
written and directed by Thomas McCarthy

The Easter-Passover spirit has moved me to ponder rejuvenation. Recently I’ve watched two flicks about lifeless academicians overcoming their deadness: “The Visitor” and “Disgrace”. Both are “on the nose” metaphors executed with hugely different skill level. (Why one works much better than the other should be a separate entry). Together with one of my favorites ever - “The Wonder Boys” they belong to this peculiar campus film (is it a genre already?) about a weak eggheads’ struggle to become a mentch.

The Economist in “The Visitor” does not live. He is all shallow and empty pretenses, has no joy, just displays meanness, or carelessness. By the end he has found his own voice and takes a stand.

The Professor in “Disgrace” is a cold blooded manipulative fuck, full of himself with no clue about the other. The unfolding of the film allows him to find humanity embracing the feelings of others in a compassionate way.

The Literature Teacher in “The Wonder Boys” just can’t wake up from the self imposed and degrading wasteful life spin. The finale finds him powerful again.

Each of heros overcomes his spiritual death reaching deep within himself. It is possible when confronting the Outside; either because of a chance meeting (“The Visitor”), personal tragedy (“Disgrace”) or life pressure combined with inspiration from others (“The Wonder Boys”). Each “resurrection” happens as a combination of the inter and the outer.

While religious myths (for their believers - realities) at the core of resurrection place the metaphysical, the will of God, something that acts from Above, the "normal life" stories in the discussed films are driven by a tightly connected dance between the external and the internal. This human level of their metaphorical spin I find truly inspirational in its reality.

Come to think about it, perhaps most film stories with wide and profound audience reach are in fact more or less disguised resurrection metaphors.

If so,

Happy Resurrection Everyone!

The world as a story

Levitating monks battle the devil
who tries to break their
world sustaining storytelling.

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
Written by Charles McKeown and Terry Gilliam
Directed by Terry Gilliam

To me one of the most alluring aspect of screenwriting is its connection to life seen as a story. In this respect investigating the craft of writing is a bit like pondering our existence – and vice versa. That's why writing is not trivial. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why screen writing today is such a popular trend.

One of the best scenes in “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” deals head on with the subject of the world as story. The scene is a beautifully shot flashback to the first meeting between dr. Parnassus and the devil, Mr. Nick. Milleniums ago, a towering and fantastic cave/fortess/temple deep in (Himalaya?) mountains. Dr. Parnassus – as a lead monk – oversees a kick ass (most participants levitate) group meditation. Clearly they are engaged in a super important activity. Suddenly the wind blows and the devil, Mr. Nick appears:

MR NICK
What exactly do you do here?

DR. PARNASSUS
We tell the eternal story.

MR NICK
Oh.... What's that?

DR. PARNASSUS
The story that sustains the universe.
The story without which there is nothing.

MR NICK
Nothing? Really. Are you telling me
that if you stop telling this story...
that the universe ceases to exist?

(After Mr. Nick stops the story and freezes the monks, a bird shits on his head, and the bad spell is broken.)

DR. PARNASSUS
A sign! A message! That bird was a messenger...
from distant places we know not of!
(triumphant)
Other places! The point is, you're wrong!
And I'm wrong! It doesn't have to be us here!
(indicating monks)
Somewhere in the world, right now...
someone else is telling a story! A different story!
A saga.. a romance... a tale of an unforeseen death.
Tragic or comic.. it doesn’t matter.
It’s sustaining the universe!
That's why we're still here.

Are you dangerous?

Stanislav Grof, MD

In his lecture “The Future of Psychology” Grof, an accomplished psychiatrist and a researcher of consciousness, offers a view of the world that is an alternative to the prevailing mechanistic, industrial, “scientific” reality. In this new (or old but forgotten) paradigm the consciousness is not only separate from the brain but also superior to it. Clearly, medical, therapeutic, social and cultural implications of such a stand are enormous. For example: Grof’s work on para-natal and pre-natal trauma offers a new insight into wars and other social calamities.

To those who are already shrugging their shoulders with dismissal, here are the words of Vaclav Havel as he presented Grof with the Dagmar and Vaclav Havel Foundation Vision 97 Award:

“The Foundation also tries – in the spirit of its name - to orient itself in the direction of what in a certain way points to the future, what is – I would say – farsighted, what transcends the horizon of momentary attractive opportunities, but may not be appreciated and validated until some years pass. What is in a certain way visionary and pioneering.

It is a risky endeavor, because it usually has two groups of opponents. Perhaps not directly opponents, but two groups of dangerous people. One group consists of the hard scientistic traditionalists, who are unable to imagine that modern science could transcend its own boundaries and traditional paradigms; they engage in a great determined fight against that which eludes their grasp. It is interesting that their fight undertaken in the name of rationality often reaches fanatic proportions; they tend to have a peculiar obsessive gleam in their eyes.

The other group that is dangerous, even though probably less, consists of a wide range of madmen, sectarians, and members of various strange fringe groups wanting to attach themselves, by their little claws, to this kind of scientific exploration, so that they could test and validate their various, more or less interesting, delusions.“

To the Havel’s list I would add a third category: religious fanatics and various warriors of “I have the only correct way to perceive The Mystery and if you don’t follow my dogma you are clearly in cahoots with evil.”

I hope you do not belong to any of these groups. If you do and somehow are reading this line - hang on - you have a chance of liberating yourself. Just open your eyes, ears, heart and mind. Do not fall into the “deaf ears madness”, which is the inability to hear what the universe constantly attempts to reveal to us. Constantly, as in “all the time.” This includes now.

The Unwanted Proof

...

Why do we do bad things to ourselves,

knowing they are bad?

Doing bad things to others

is simple to explain by “knowing better”,

which is another name for love or hate.

But harming ourselves because we know better

does not make sense.

Unless harming we do out of self hate.

Does some part in us not want us to be perfect?

Is it the evolution testing the strength of its monads

so that The Future of Life will be bright and powerful?

Is it the (peculiar you must admit)

expression of God’s love to us? (Free will and all that.)

Or is it a dark force rejoicing in crippling the God’s creation?

Hating us. Seeking out every opening

to trigger our self damage.

Applying constant pressures of laziness, procrastination,

deafness, blindness and haste.

Hidden, or not so hidden, in everyday choices,

seemingly trite, in fact decisive

to the eternal consequences of our missteps.

Why are we weak, stupid and scared?

The answer that seems most reasonable is indeed

a metaphysical one.

And that is a terrifying thought.

Metaphysics taco short of a combination plate.

Antichrist, by Lars von Trier

Aside the appreciation of the technical skills (I wish I had von Trier’s command of the craft) I didn’t like the film. For the first part it kept me cold and bored, during its second part I was sucked into it, but ultimately confusion won over.

I had a feeling that the narrator was saying “I am so freaking talented” (he is) that even without making much sense I can play with you and you’ll eat it up. Some folks apparently do.

The “nature’s evil nature” is an interesting concept, worthy of either a serious screen treatment or an ass-kicking entertainment. This film delivers neither. Theological pretentious abound. Visual references to Tarkowsky are promising but stay just that - some potential directions never explored, instead pushed over by hysterics. There were laughs in the movie theater, and I doubt they were intended. I have to admit that the way the film articulates one of its main thoughts - “Chaos rules” - is really funny. Yet, it seems to try to be a dark turning point and not a comic relief.

Tarkowsky was serious and treated his viewers with respect. Trier giggles, switches styles, drops ideas, races madly where the Great Russian would take his time and explore. I realize that comparing those two is not right (even though von Triers invites it by dedicating the film to Tarkowsky). “The mirror” and “Stalker” are uncompromising mediations, while “Antichrist” feels like a quick job to make money. Such talent like Trier's is clearly capable to enter a serious dialogue with Tarkowsky and still make a popular film. Pity he just got high on “look Ma, I’m directing” part.

A misunderstood hero.

The film original title: God in the World
Written by: Torah, history
Director: (read on)
Playing EVERYWHERE

It is one of those long term, open ended dramatic projects that are difficult to review because the ending hasn’t happened yet. However if the show follows the requirements of a good story (of which we are not certain) a lot can be deduced from its beginning.

This classically archetypal tale (at least at its first and the second act) follows a character of a Creator who struggles for perfection, goodness and harmony. His arch begins with having limited consciousness, not knowing what to do and how to evaluate itself and the outside. In the process of bringing elements to existence, the Creator learns their value and builds a moral scale. He did not know they were good or bad before he created them. His names things that he continues to bring into existence as “good”.

The horrifying first image of almost unnamed abyss with no direction, no separation, no purpose and no place. Plenty of water. The first creation, full of ambiguity, awe and danger is is looked at from above by the Creator, who at this time does not know yet. His inner struggle (for self expression? consciousness?) is yielding light. This is a major step forward for our hero. The inciting incident of the story.

It opens nicely: with Bereishit (at the beginning) - no back story here! However early on the script backs off returning to the creation of a human. Why do the writers do that? Why such narrative devise so early on? Wise rabbis comment that it’s in order to clearly point to the first objective of the story and that is justification of the rest day upon the creation. This reviewer respectfully wants to offer his interpretation: it is to position the created elements, that is humans, within “good” context, even though they do not deserve it.

The Creator brings into existence a human, his (what will turn out to be) rival. At first he does not see much separation between himself and his deed. (He created his “rival” copying himself). This opens an interesting dramatic question: is the villainousness of man an inherit trait of the Creator, or does it result from some mishap during the creation? In either case the Creator is to blame. As in every good story, he is a character with a flow. It is left to us to identify with him and cheer him in his attempts to become a complete, fulfilled being.

The creator overlooks his obvious creative limitation - human, which is the only element that is not immediately upon its creation commented upon as “good”. Rather it is included in all that has been created, which is labeled “very good”. It is as if the Creator knew that something was not quite right but went with His euphoria anyway. (How human of Him). This wish-full thinking of our hero will come to hunt him later. Because human kind is far from “good”. The creator has to struggle to keep his "goodness" intact and frequently has to annihilate his rivals. When they reappear they are conniving, lying, blaspheming and stupid.

The opponent, later transformed into a group character, is a rather dull, pathetic creature, overplayed and predictable. The Creator on the other hand is portrayed so subtly that spectators at times do not see him on screen! We wonder where was the director of this show!

The journey of our hero at times is heartbreaking. He faces constant objections, lack of understanding and has to fight the plethora of human vices. It takes its toll. At the beginning of the third act the protagonist needs to be kept on a life support system.

Mixed genres annoy. Melodrama blends with horror, suspense with cheesy sentimentality. One more time somebody assumes the audience to be less intelligent that they really are.

Production values are spectacular. The size of the production is breathtaking. The sets bring awe, however costumes are only passable. Music is superb (too many composers to list here).

The question remains: will our hero make it? Will he fulfill his destiny? Will he complete his character arc? Will the opponents evolve and change?

I am waiting not only for the conclusion of this huge story but also for its sequel which is clearly assured by the box office success of the original.

Top image: Hieronimus Bosch