ACADIA DIVINITY COLLEGE
THE DIRECTOR AND THE THEOLOGIANS:
A THEOLOGICAL CONVERSATION OF RELIGIOUS THEMES IN THE FILMS OF M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF A MASTER OF ARTS IN THEOLOGY
BY CHAD W.D. BOLTON APRIL 18, 2008
© copyright Chad W.D. Bolton, 2008 I, Chad W. D. Bolton, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan, or distrubute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.
Signature of Author
Date This thesis by Chad W. D. Bolton was defended successfully in an oral examination on 7 April 2008.
The examining committee for the thesis was:
Dr. Christopher Killacky, Chair
Dr. Lance La Rocque, External Examiner
Dr. Glenn Wooden, Internal Examiner
Dr. William Brackney, Supervisor
Dr. Craig Evans, MA Director
Dr. Harry Gardner, Dean & President
This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology). THE DIRECTOR AND THE THEOLOGIANS: A THEOLOGICAL CONVERSATION OF RELIGIOUS THEMES IN THE FILMS OF M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One 1
1.1 - Why Study Film? 3
Film Is The New Culture 6
Christianity And Culture 15
1.2- Interaction Of Film And Religious Themes 20
Meaning of Film 20
Film As A Means To Religious/Theological Discussion 23
How To Derive Theology From Film 25
1.3 - Summary 35
Chapter Two 37
2.1-The Films Of M. Night Shyamalan 35
Wide Awake 41
The Sixth Sense 48
Unbreakable 52
Signs 58
The Village 63
Lady In The Water 69
2.2 - Summary 75
IV Chapter Three 78
3.1- Transcendence 79
An Evangelical Understanding 80
A Protestant Understanding 83
A Catholic Understanding 85
3.2-Purpose 87
An Evangelical Understanding 88
A Protestant Understanding 90
A Catholic Understanding 95
3.3-Love 96
An Evangelical Understanding 97
A Protestant Understanding 99
A Catholic Understanding 102
3.4-Hope 103
An Evangelical Understanding 104
A Protestant Understanding 106
A Catholic Understanding 109
3.5 - Summary Ill
Conclusion 112
Bibliography 121
v PREFACE
Film has always been a passion of mine. I remember my first trip to the theatre and how magical that experience was. Since then, movies have always been of interest to me - their production, their ability to comment on the current world, and the mass amount of fun to be had in watching them. As I grew, my interests changed and soon I fell in love with philosophic theology. I began to process information as a philosopher and theologian and it soon engulfed my entire life. The moment I became aware that the combination of these two passions - film and theology - were a worthwhile pursuit, I knew that this area was where I wanted to turn all of my attention, focus, and energy on.
This thesis is a product of that study and of that work.
There are people who must be thanked for helping me along this journey. First, a thank you goes to Dr. Anna Robbins (London School of Theology) for introducing me to the exciting, emerging, and powerful study of film and theology. Secondly, this thesis could not have developed, without the constant mentoring of Dr. William Brackney
(Acadia Divinity College), my thesis supervisor, professor, and friend. I served as student assistant to Dr. Brackney from 2007-2008 and his helpful critiques pushed me while writing this thesis, to always strive for the best of my potential - a lesson I will always remember.
This project also would never have seen completion without the support of my family from home in Dow Settlement. Whether it was listening to my arguments, helping me proofread, shaping my thoughts and opinions on the matter, this is as much a product of their dedication to me as much as it is my dedication to the research. My parents, grandparents, and brothers were all influential in one way or another in the composition
vi of this work. Also, another thank you goes out to my friends here at Acadia Divinity
College. Their questions, conversations, and sometimes harsh, but helpful critiques made me consider, write, re-consider and re-write elements of this project. Without them, I shutter to think at what my overall views of the world would be, as they often were there to help 'keep me on track.'
Finally, I owe a thank you to all the film-makers and theologians in the world.
Without them and their endless time and energy, our world would cease to exist as we know it. Their dedication to their professions made possible this work, and for that, I thank them. It is my own goal that one day, I will be able to contribute to either the realms of film or theology in such a way that does honour and justice to those who have worked so unceasingly before me.
vii CHAPTER 1
All is quiet on the set and the camera is rolling. The lights are focused at the perfect angle and the boom microphone hangs a meter over the attractive actor's head.
The director sits in his chair, raises the megaphone to his mouth and bellows into it,
".. .And action!" After the scene is shot, the actors and actresses take a break, while the set in the studio warehouse is torn down and then, return when a newly constructed environment is prepared for the next scene. When the entire shooting is complete, the director, cast, and crew sit back and roll in the piles of money their new project earns.
Chances are good that this simplistic and stereotypical portrayal is what most people immediately think of when they hear the words 'film,' or 'movie.' Many people view the art of film as "an escape or an exotic fling,"1 which fuels their motivation to dismiss the message of the filmmaker and focus entirely on the story. They very seldom acknowledge the genuine thought that goes into the movie-making process. They choose to neglect the hard work of leading the audience on an emotional ninety-minute ride, which in turn delivers a message that can be applied to the entire audience's lives. Most movie-goers do not seek lessons that may be learned from film, if only the appropriate study and consideration of film be given. As Andrew Light, associate professor of philosophy and public affairs at the University of Washington, explains, many people go to the theatre to escape reality, but perhaps society should change its mindset on this very motive; perhaps people should go to the movies to learn lessons that their daily lives cannot teach them, and yet lessons that their daily lives direly need.2
Andrew Light, Reel Arguments: Film, Philosophy, And Social Criticism (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003), 1. 2 There has been much discussion regarding film as a particular art form, which begs the question whether a film must meet a certain amount of cinematic qualities in order to be classified as 'high film,' In this particular context, the lessons under consideration are religious in nature.
Of course religion can refer to theoretical systematic doctrine as well as ethical concerns, all of which can bear upon human situations. So, the question becomes, what can film teach us about religious issues? After this has been examined, we will use the methods of
Christian theology3 to analyze the religious themes presented within the films.
While the goal of this thesis is to examine one particular filmmaker's potential religious statements, those of M. Night Shyamalan (1970 - present), it is important to examine film in general and methodological approaches to it. Why should one study film?
How is film viewed in today's culture? How should one approach it? Who controls the meaning of a movie? These questions, plus many more, deserve their due attention before any type of particular study, such as theology can be applied. It is to these two particular points that this project now turns - first, that film is a crucial part of contemporary culture and thus should be used to promote theological themes, and secondly, one needs a proper and sound methodology to compare and contrast Christian theology from religious themes in film.
rather than low budget 'movie.' However, this thesis will not debate this, and thus the words 'film' and 'movie' will be used synonymously, referring to any moving picture that is created with a camera and contains a narrative and plot. For a more complete discussion on this topic, please refer to Chapter 2 of Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi's book, Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. 3 The working premise of what theology is, is typically thought of as 'talk about God,' or literally, 'the study of God.' Of course, this definition would then be applicable to any religion that takes time to contemplate and understand the deity that they believe in. If this is the case then one need take care expressing differences between theologies (ex: Christian theology or Buddhist theology). However, over the years, 'theology' has become primarily associated with Christianity, and therefore it will be sufficient in this thesis to always have the lone word, 'theology' refer to the Christian perspective. 'Theology' then is the discussion of the Christian God, and all doctrines, ranging from salvation in Jesus Christ, to creation, to ethical living, all which stem from the premise that God exists. 41 wish to acknowledge my Christian bias. I am a professing Christian and believe its messages to be Truth and therefore will be examining Christianity's discussion with Christianity's interpretation of religious themes in the proceeding chapters.
2 1.1-Why Study Film?
To begin this survey, one must first ask,' Why should anyone even study film?''
For many, as stated above, film provides a form of entertainment, and entertainment often
serves as 'an escape.' People watch movies to relax; it is here, in viewing 'another's life' that the audience's burdens of the world are often placed on hold. Their minds are
brought along on this imaginary, yet interactive journey, but can then quickly be
forgotten about after the film has ended.
However, it would be difficult to find someone who has not watched a movie that has not affected them one way or another, in at least one particular moment in their lives.
Stanley Cavell, professor Emeritus of Aesthetics at Harvard University, puts it best when he says, "Movies are hard to remember, the way the actual events of yesterday are. And yet, like dreams, certain moments from films viewed decades ago will nag as vividly as moments of childhood."5 This is perhaps because people find a connection between their own lives and the lives of those on the screen. Andrew Light goes onto say, ".. .the potential of film is so much more than escape."6 So, what is this potential that he speaks of? Here, film scholars differ. Some argue that it should be studied solely for its artistic contribution to the world.7 The same way paintings, dance, and sculptures are analyzed by art critics, so film should be treated with such diligence and analytical and critical procedures. These art forms reveal something innate about the human condition, and convey abstract characteristics such as beauty, religion, and sometimes even truth.
5 Stanley Cavell, "The World Viewed," in Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi (Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 67. 6 Andrew Light, Reel Arguments, 1. 7 John M. Desmond and Peter Hawkes, Adaptation: Studying Film And Literature (Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2006), 1. 8 There have been many philosophical discussions concerning the possibility of cinema being an actual art form. I recommend reading the 'Introduction to Part 1' in Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi's book
3 Other scholars reject such 'emotional' reasons and look to film for social purposes.
Within this orientation, the social reasons for studying film range all the way from ethical questions to individual beliefs and values. Bryan P. Stone, Associate Professor of
Theology at Azusa Pacific University, in his book, Faith And Film (2000), demonstrates the vast range of social aspects that film influences. On one page alone, Stone picks up the discussion of the larger society and film, and then makes it a point to speak directly to the individual. "... [we] must also ask about the way in which Hollywood film conventions teach us to understand and relate to difference in our society - the outsider, the foreigner, the gay, or the minority...There is no single person, entity, organization, institution, or power in our society today that even comes close to rivalling the power of film and television to shape our faith, values, and behaviour."9 Surely, film does indeed affect the way humans see themselves and others in a larger community context. "Study of mainstream cinema may reveal how it represents gender, class, or race; how it normalizes heterosexuality, how it legitimizes patriarchal values or forms of thought and feeling promoted by the prevailing ideology."10 Similar to Stone's second line of thought,
Ernest Ferlita and John R. May, two Catholic writers, also write, "Our affirmation about film would be simply this: It has always, at its best, been artistic in the fullest sense of the word and exercised a strong moral influence on its audience."11 It becomes quite apparent, rather quickly, that film study can help sift through the sociological pressures of film. Stone argues that a film sometimes may be a mirror of the real world, or sometimes
Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures for more information on this particular topic. Ultimately, I side with them when they say that film is an art form and believe their concluding paragraph to be the determining factor in the debate. 9 Bryan P. Stone, Faith and Film (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000), 6-7. John M. Desmond and Peter Hawkes, Adaptation: Studying Film And Literature, 1. 11 Ernest Ferlita and John R. May, Film Odyssey (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 3.
4 it may be a window into a different world, but it is a lens all the time. The film does contain biases and prejudices of those involved; therefore film study becomes crucial to
sift through these biases and examine whether the presentations of the filmmaker are ontologically right or wrong. It could very well be that a filmmaker's portrayal or reflection of the world is correct and should be sought after, but with film studies, this helps the viewer remain objective and strives to keep the film's subjectivism in check.
Closely related to the sociological factors that film presses upon individuals, film should also be studied because it connects the audience to the story and message of the film itself. Often people leave a theatre crying, laughing, or discussing how close 'that movie hit home.' Sometimes this is an emotional response to a story, or an intellectual recognition of the theme, but nevertheless, both connect the audience member to the big screen so that it becomes 'the mirror' that Stone speaks about.
Related yet again to sociological inquiry, and yet separate in its own way, the importance of film study is often grounded in relation to culture; that is to say that to understand film properly is to understand how large a role it plays in today's society, regardless of sociological differences. "Visual imagery is the primary language of our day and draws together people of all ages, races, genders, and classes."13 Not only does film allow for different cultures to communicate, but it also has become the dominant cultural product of society. In the North American context, to understand the present culture, one must understand film, and thus the importance for film studies is revealed.
Due to the overwhelming power that film has on culture, it is onto this very subject - the relationship of today's culture and film - that attention we now turn.
12 Bryan P. Stone, Faith and Film, 6. 13 Doug Adams, "Foreward" in Silver Screen, Sacred Story, ed. Michael G. Bausch (Washington, D.C: Alban Institute, 2002), 1.
5 FILM IS THE NEW CULTURE
Film has embedded itself in the current world culture on a massive level. As
Professor of Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological Seminary, Robert K. Johnston, suggests, American culture (if not world culture) has incorporated the characteristics of a film into real life. "For many Americans, life is now played out as if it were a movie.
Our fantasies are more real than reality. It doesn't matter how celebrity is achieved. The conversion of life into an entertainment medium is pervasive."14 Film has become more than the 'new must-see movie of the week;' it has become a definition of culture. It is has evolved from something that is simply watched into something that is now experienced. As one scholar commented on the evolution of film into everyday culture,
"...it is gradually becoming a language."15 The following section will briefly explain how film became such a force in the world.
Neal Gabler, currently professor of American culture and film at University of
Southern Carolina, in his book Life The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality
(1999), addresses this very issue. Ever since humanity has discovered that entertainment provides distractions from their lives, society and culture have been shaped by it.
However, in more recent years, specifically the late twentieth century, film has crept up on the reality,16 and began to replace life with the same amusements found in the
14 Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality: Theology And Film In Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 23. 15 Karen Hanson, "Minerva In The Movies: Relations Between Philosophy And Film," in Philosophy Of Film And Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 391. 16 Parameters of what 'reality' must now be set, before the discussion may pursue. Reality in its classical understanding is ontological, and contains truth about the objects that exist within this atmosphere. This would include things which cannot be observed, or in some situations, cannot be understood. When one says, 'a film is not real,' they are commenting that film is merely appearance and that reality as such lies beyond what can only be observed through sense-data. However, the word over time, has come to be regarded as a subjective type of worldview, in which reality can be different for all participants, or the mere views and beliefs are all that consist of reality and no actual ontological reality it exists apart from one can
6 entertainment business. The household icon, Martha Stewart, manages our set for us, while clothing lines such as American Eagle, Old Navy, and The Gap are our costume designers. Plastic surgeons are looked upon as society's make-up artists. The biggest sports events, such as the Super Bowl, are watched just as much for their commercials, as they are for the actual football games. People fall in love with the weekday soap operas or the teenage drama serials mostly because they admire the characters and circumstances
• 17 witnessed in these types of dramatic shows.
It is difficult to explain the exact process of how entertainment has replaced the real world, but its effects are everywhere evident. Gabler, for example, points towards the shift from newspapers to tabloids. In his discussion on this replacement, he writes,
".. .as entertainment, the tabloids were providing a purer form of sensationalism than had previous papers. It also meant that they had disassembled life into a series of pictures that no longer even needed any news value to crack the newspaper. Through the tabloids
America was becoming a two-dimensional society in which the news, like the movies, 1 R was now measured in images."
Gabler continues to explain how various entertainment forms went so far as to take over the ideas, or knowledge base, of Americans. This seems odd, for as he points out, entertainment is packaged through sensation, while ideas are primarily products of
"ratiocination - the kryptonite to entertainment's Superman."19 However, entertainment found a way to get to the ideas - through the education system. It was not long before perceive. Debates still occur if reality is a nature itself or merely what human experience makes it. The usage of the word in this context (Gabler's) however seems to resemble a closer working of the second description - that reality is a portrayal of a current cultural setting, which entertainment has begun to replace. 17 Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality, 23. 18 Neal Gabler, Life The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999), 73. 19 Ibid., 138.
7 education was being taught through entertainment. This movement gave birth to the hit
PBS children's program, Sesame Street, which parents encouraged for educational development, and which kids loved because it was fun. One need not look too long in the television guide to see how this brought about many new programs, which continue on in today's society and help to educate children.
The conquest of entertainment did not cease there however. It soon began to affect individual, ordinary, middle-class people. Humanity became, and still is, obsessed with 'celebrity-ism.' Full length television programs, in which ordinary folk willingly star in, such as Jerry Springer or Judge Judy, is proof of this obsession with many North
Americans. These people are searching for fame, in some manner, even if it means completely humiliating themselves. "It does not matter how celebrity is achieved, only that it is."20 Turning a regular ' Joe-Schmoe' into a fifteen-minute-fame entertainment product became the new medium and people loved it. This cultural entertainment take over pressured people to find a way to become popular and achieve celebrity status, in any way possible.
In his book, Gabler relates the following story and comments on it, demonstrating the entertainment's industry and it's conquest of the human psyche:
During one episode of the television program America's Funniest Home Videos, in which people sent in videos of what purported to be entertaining and usually spontaneous moments in their lives, the host Bob Saget asked the week's winning entrant when he realized that he was going to submit his tape. 'Right away,' said the man. To which Saget quipped, "The new consciousness." Of course Saget was right. People increasingly had come to regard their own lives as entertainment, and this consciousness would only be encouraged and abetted by new technologies that did for ordinary individuals what the mass media did for celebrities.21
Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality, 23. 21 Neal Gabler, Life The Movie, 233-234.
8 Establishing that entertainment has indeed begun a conquest over reality, Gabler then turns specifically to the leader of this brigade - the film. In attempting to understand why film emerged as the leader of entertainment mediums, Gabler accurately notes:
"Astonished by the movies' sudden and unprecedented population, analysts searched for reasons why, besides the obvious ones that film was cheap and that it satisfied the hankerings of the masses for fun. But the answers were all there in the film experience. No other entertainment could provide the same immediacy, the same vast scale, the same phenomenological impact as the movies. In a society that loved sensationalism, they were sensationalism's apotheosis...They had interpreted reality in a way no other art form had, in part because as a photographic medium they were fashioned from the materials of reality... What made the movies seem even more real, and what made them even more powerful in their effect, was how the audience mentally processed them. As Hugo Munsterberg (a Harvard psychology professor) noted, the movies played in our heads and seemed to replicate our own consciousness." 2
This new consciousness which replaces reality with film entertainment, can be seen throughout contemporary culture.23 The 1998 film, The Truman Show (directed by
Peter Weir) took this new inner consciousness and made it come to life. The movie is about the middle-aged, ordinary man Truman Burbank and his slow realization that his entire life, since his birth, has been one big television show, which the rest of the world has been watching. His small community is actually a set contained with a massive studio and monumental moments in his life (or at least what he always believed to be monumental, such as the tragic loss of his 'father'), were actually carefully scripted plots, to keep the audience always guessing. The movie is unrealistic, but that is not the point;
11 Ibid., 49-50. 23 There is a distinction to be made between the 'big screen' (film) and the 'small screen' (television). While it could be argued that TV is easily as persuasive as film, it would still appear, from general observation, that film is the underlying power that motivates all other entertainment media. Many dramatic plays and musicals have been transformed onto the 'big screen.' Video games are made into movies, while a television series are often considered a successful show if it can be incorporated into a film. Film seems to be what most, if not all, other forms of entertainment strive towards. However, both Gabler and Jarvie are arguing exactly the same point, although they have different conceptions of reality.
9 rather, Weir was commenting on and agreeing with Gabler's argument that life has been overtaken by entertainment. The very name of the main character (played by Jim Carrey),
Tru(e)-man, points towards the fact that this ordinary run of the mill individual was living in a world that had been manipulated by and through the entertainment medium. This
'true man' may have been true to himself, but his entire existence was a product for the world's addiction to entertainment.
Of course, it was not long after this film that reality TV sprang up in North
American homes. Television programs such as Survivor, Big Brother, and The Amazing
Race and their sky-rocketing viewer approval overtook the networks in the late 90s and soon came to be known as the 'normal' type of television in the new millennium. Lately, this has been taken a step further, to where people's quest for celebrity status can now be seen on the Internet. New sites, such as YouTube and Google Video, have allowed average North American citizens to put their faces, their own 'life movies,' up for display, for anyone to watch. Based solely on the amount of videos that are found on these sites, it suggests that the majority of people in North America wish to be the new celebrity of their culture. Gabler, who wrote his book in 1999, was right. Since the publication of his work, society and culture have developed even more significantly into a fame oriented society. Since film has come into the world, reality has taken a back seat. This can arguably be good or bad, but the undeniable fact remains that film has not only influenced everyday life, but become like life. In conquering reality, entertainment became reality. Perhaps William Shakespeare was right when he wrote, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women are merely players.. ,"24
24 William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7, 139-140 (London: Mackays of Chatham PLC), 1599.
10 A philosophical interpretation of Gabler's arguments can be seen in the works of
Ian Jarvie, who relies heavily on Plato's Republic. This philosophic exploration of film, the leading tool in entertainment, as being a fundamental part of reality originated in
Greece, approximately 400 B.C.E, principally from the Greek philosopher who was a forerunner of Western thought. Plato, recalling the teachings of his beloved instructor
Socrates, recorded a particular teaching involving an allegory of a cave. Here is the description of his allegory:
And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: —Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets... And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall?26
A short while later, one of the prisoners gets free and escapes, climbs out of the cave and is completely blinded by the sunshine of the 'real world.' Plato wrote:
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an
In Jarvie's argument, his working premise of what reality is shifts slightly from Gabler's understanding of the word. Jarvie asserts that reality is an ontological existence, independent appearance and sense-data. Understanding the term this way perhaps is more philosophically concrete than Gabler's, for the transition of reality being separate of perception to something that is known through sense-data, or moving images, is much more clear now. For Jarvie, entertainment conquering reality, is more a matter of re-defining of the term 'reality,' from something that was beyond an object's noticeable characteristics to something that is known only through sense-data, or perception. Plato, The Republic, Book VII, trans. Benjamin Jowett; available online at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
11 illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, - what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?... And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.27
In this famous cave analogy, men are chained so that they cannot turn their heads or bodies, thus being forced to gaze upon a wall, where shadows of images are cast. The chained people believe the images they see to be real. Their reality, or knowledge, consists of only these shadows, which they think are all that exists. Ian Jarvie, author of
Philosophy Of The Film (1987), does an excellent job of translating Plato's writing into a philosophical discourse on film. Noticing the similarity between Plato's cave prisoners who are watching these images on their cave wall and going to see a movie, Jarvie insists that the outcome of each event is completely different. He first parallels the prisoner with a movie goer and substitutes the world of the cinema for the cave.
Unlike Platonic Elitism, (which Jarvie defines as "the anti democratic idea that insight into the true and the good is vouchsafed to only a few individuals and it is the place of the everyone else to hearken unto them),"28 Jarvie explains that the average thinker, or in this case, the everyday movie goer, is well aware that they are entering an imaginary world when entering the theatre. They willingly subject themselves to the images on the screen. The danger of confusing reality with film then makes no logical sense for they are aware of the two worlds. As Jarvie explains, "If movies are a pleasant
Ian Jarvie, Philosophy Of The Film (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1987), 49.
12 interruption from an uncomfortable life full of pressing problems there will be little advantage to mistaking the film world for the real world."29 Jarvie suggests that because the average person can easily slip and change into 'real life mode' and 'film mode,
Plato's account of the person who escapes from the cave and sees the 'real world,' is too simple. If the people watching the images on the wall in the cave can be symbolic for those watching moving images on the big screen, or in other words the 'film world,' then in Plato's story, the cave dweller who has now seen outside of the cave comes to a sharp distinction between the 'real world' and the 'film world.' However, in contrast, Jarvie argues that such a rigid distinction usually does not and often cannot occur. He proposes that "we are men of two worlds, moving effortlessly between the two. How do we designate one as the real world, the other as unreal? Why would we not, on the cave analogy, come to regard both as parts of the real?"30
Jarvie is proclaiming the same as Humanities Professor at Temple University,
Noel Carroll, who says that "motion pictures have become a fixture of everyday life in the modern world."31 More precisely, Jarvie claims that men and women have incorporated the film world (or the images in the cave) into the real world, the same way as the escapee will come to incorporate the cave and its false reality into, and part as, the real world. Rather than taking the 'real world' into the fake, humanity operates the opposite way by transferring elements of the fake world into that of the real. In movie language then, the film world is best thought of as a sub-world to that of the real, but nonetheless real itself. Surely this is the case when experiencing the film in the theatre
1U1U. 30 Ibid., 50-51. 31 Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, Philosophy Of Film And Motion Pictures (Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2006), 1.
13 for there are elements of the real world that one experiences while watching a film that
support Jarvie's argument. The act of seeing the moving images, the smell of the theatre, the taste of the popcorn, and the feel of the chair all exist and point towards this merger of the film world and the real one. "What we do is to create real conditions in our real world that allow us in imagination to experience a world that we know, both cognitively
and emotionally, not to be real. This makes the contrast argument (as Plato's escaped cave dweller contrasts the real world from the delusional cave) less plausible as the means by which we mark and sustain the boundary between the real and the unreal." In other words, when upset, scared, angry, or emotionally immersed in the life of a character on the screen, we try to get rid of these feelings by saying to ourselves, "This is just a movie."33 It seems to be the case then that this imaginative film world is in actuality, a consistent part of this world. Humanity cannot shake it - film has become our culture, whether we like it or not. It has developed into our daily lives, become a pattern that
"provides clues to the unconscious collective mind and suggest the directions of a culture."34
To summarize the argument thus far, I have suggested that film study is a crucial exploration in a society where culture emphasizes entertainment as the new primary goal.
If film, as it has been argued, is the leading form of entertainment, and entertainment is the product of an evolving culture, then it stands to reason that film itself has adapted itself as being the new culture of North America. Having established, then, that film is
32 Jarvie, Philosophy Of The Film, 51. 33 The argument of appearance (i.e. a film) versus reality could be brought into this conversation. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) offered insight into this conversation in his book, The Problems Of Philosophy. In short, it suffices to say that in observing a film through the senses, a certain amount of ontological reality can be perceived, thus justifying Jarvie's point that the world of the film is indeed an active part of the real world. 34 Neil P. Hurley, "Hollywood's New Mythology," Theology Today 39, no. 4 (2006): 402.
14 this new emerging culture, only one question remains - why is culture important to the world?
Obviously, it does not take one long to realize the power that culture has over everyone in the world. Everyone has a culture, or better defined, a worldview that is dictated by factors which they cannot necessarily always choose, such as family, geographical setting of childhood, and trends that occur within the society around them.
Culture alters how one perceives the world, and this concept of 'worldview' is of the utmost importance. As David K. Naugle, at Dallas Baptist University writes, "What could be more important or influential than the way an individual, a family, a community,
a nation, or an entire culture conceptualizes reality? Is there anything more profound or powerful than the shape and content of human consciousness and its primary
interpretation of the nature of things?"3
The question in this thesis's context then becomes how to relate culture, heavily
encountered through experience and epistemological subjectivity, and reconcile it with
Christianity, which is based on an ontological Truth. For this inquiry, one turns to
Helmut Richard Niebuhr, one of the forefathers of the twentieth century in connecting
culture and Christianity.
CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE
In his now classic book, Christianity and Culture, H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-
1962) picked up the discussion concerning the relationship between these two subjects -
culture and Christianity. His work examined five different ways that culture and the
35 David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 345. 36 It should be noted that the concept of 'culture is a modern invention, founded in the nineteenth century. As James Wm. McCledon points out, the invention of cultural theory was made possible by two
15 Christian faith can interact with one another. All five have advantages, but also contain shortcomings as well. Ultimately, he does not directly support one typology over the other, but merely lays out the argument for each and allows the reader to make his or her own choice. Keeping in mind what Gabler and Jarvie said of how film has become the very cultural experience of North America, for the sake of this study, it could be said that
Niebuhr has provided various ways that film and Christianity could interact. Niebuhr's five types involve two extremes, while the other three fall somewhere in the middle.
On one side, we have the position of Christ against Culture. This position is not concerned with interpretation and how to convey the story of Jesus in a changing context, as the Bible usually stands as the only 'true' way to bring others to Christ. Niebuhr himself describes what this position enacts, "The counterpart to loyalty to Christ and the brothers is the rejection of cultural society; a clear line of separation is drawn between the brotherhood of the children of God and the world."38 To put this into context of this project, someone who supports this argument would have nothing to do with uniting film and Christianity; film would be considered a waste of time and would only harm the viewer by taking his mind away from Christ.
Indeed, one needs not travel to too many churches to find this attitude. Many evangelical pastors and church members view the theatre as a place of evil that draws
Christians away from their main focus. Bryan P. Stone's personal history with this
historical events. The first was the industrial revolution and the second was the evangelical revival of the Christian faith. These events began a chain of events that rendered British thought in a constant attempt to identify the wholeness of society. See the following source: James Wm. McClendon, Jr., Witness: Systematic Theology, Vol.3 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000), 20-28. 37 These five typologies are: "Christ Against Culture," "Christ of Culture," "Christ Above Culture," "Christ Transforming Culture," and "Christ Paradoxical To Culture." 38 H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ & Culture (New York: HarperCollins, 1951), 47-48.
16 attitude is one to which almost everyone can surely recall having been introduced to through someone in their past:
I grew up in a conservative Christian denomination that taught that it was wrong to go to the movies. The cinema was spelled s-i-n-ema, and Hollywood, we were taught, was an industry that was as opposed to Christian values as anything could be. Nothing short of absolute non- attendance at the cinema was understood to be the appropriate response of Christians to Hollywood and its values My church's position was not intended to be a political statement, nor was it a strategy to bring about change in the industry such as a boycott would be. It was simply an expression of a fundamental desire on the part of its members to keep themselves unstained by the world.39
One should not be too critical or harsh on this position, for surely if film is culture, and "many contemporary Americans are shaped much more decisively by popular culture than by their formal education or their religious training,"40 then film could in fact, prove to be detrimental to individuals. However, to say that all films partake in this deprivation of humanity is faulty, for surely this is not the intention of all films,41 if the pure intention of any filmmaker at all. The fact is that some films actually can be used to help promote
Christian behaviour and beliefs, which leads to Niebuhr's second type.
On the opposite end of the spectrum lay the 'Christ Of Culture'' advocates. These people argue that to set up a duality between Christ and culture shrinks God and puts Him into a small box. Their thought is that if God is God, then He can work through many different ways. He remains constant but is continuously at work revealing himself in different time periods, different locations, and through different methods. If this is true, then perhaps Christ could be found in the world and not just in the church. Niebuhr
Bryan P. Stone, Faith and Film, 5. Robert Jewett, Saint Paul at the Movies: The Apostle's Dialogue With American Culture (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1993), 5. 41 The fact that some films can be used for the wrong use, results in a call for critical and theological filmstudie s for Christians. This will be discussed later on, when dealing with certain approaches to film from a Christian perspective.
17 summarizes German thinker Albert Ritschl's views on this issue by saying, "Only by engagement in civic work for the sake of the common good, by faithfulness in one's social calling, is it possible to be true to the example Christ."42 To put this into the current context once again, this position enlists film, among other cultural products, as tools to help proclaim the Gospel and convey the story of Christ and other theological issues to the current state of the world. If a film can demonstrate truth through its dialogue and moving frames, then surely this benefits the church.
In the New Testament communities, one sees fragments of culture and
Christianity interacting with one another. For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:9-22, Paul is trying to build bridges between himself and the truth of God that he carries and the different cultures of that time, which were separated due to factors such as class and race.
"Paul's gospel was that Christ had died for all, and that all must therefore be reconciled."43 In contrast, it seems Romans 12:2 points towards Niebuhr's first type - that the gospel has no time for culture. However, it is important to remember that
Niebuhr, nor any true Christian, would ever denounce the word of God for culture. Paul warned his Roman followers to not become 'conformed to this world' (to be conformed in this context would be too worship movies and forgot about the message of the living
God), but says nothing about using the world to convey the message of God's sacrifice for humankind. The blunt point that Christ came for all, Gentiles, Jews, etc., and that He came in human form, seems to suggest that a human action, such as filmmaking, can be a tool to reach many different peoples in many different walks of life. One would be naive
H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ & Culture, 97. Robert Jewett, Saint Paul at the Movies, 4.
18 to think that Christ could not work in any way that He sees fit, and there is no Scriptural or theological proof that He would have a serious problem with using film to reach others.
Especially in an age where film plays such a dominant role in life, it would be tragic if Christians could not comment on society's portrayal of life through film, for apologetics and evangelical witness are "at least partly meaningless if we cannot speak within our milieu and time in understandable language about understandable experiences."44 David S. Cunningham, a professor at Seabury-Western Theological
Seminary, concludes this specific topic with this comment on books and films:
They (films and books) create an imaginative world within which we can dwell, thereby directing our attention away from a focus on ourselves alone and urging us to attend to the lives of others. They lead us into a relationship of sympathy and empathy with other human beings - helping us to recognize, in the lives of fictional characters, our own lives and indeed the whole human condition. They help us to see and appreciate the whole of a human life, thereby better demonstrating the relationship between belief and action and providing realistic circumstances within which we can begin to understand what our own beliefs might mean in practice.45
Unfortunately, this position causes many people to become cautious. Very few
Christians like the idea of interpreting the story of Christ to fit a context, which usually results in people rejecting this second position of Niebuhr's all together. Therefore, it is extremely important that people become informed and educated to be able to differentiate between what is allowable for the story of Christ to be interpreted and what is not.
Applying that to this thesis's context, people need to become good theological film critics so that they might discern healthy films from those that may be detrimental to the
Christian faith, which leads to the next section.
Malcolm Boyd, "Theology and the Movies" Theology Today 14, no.3 (2006): 359. David S. Cunningham, Reading Is Believing: The Christian Faith Through Literature and Film (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2002), 237.
19 1.2 - Interaction of Film And Religious Themes
Before one can begin to discuss methodologies when approaching film from a
theological perspective, one must ask a very serious question - in film, who holds the
meaning? This question really is the fundamental starting place to any form of literature,
or artistic display, whether it be a painting, novel, or film. Even in Biblical hermeneutics,
scholars must tackle this question, which would suggest that this inquiry is an important
one.46
MEANING OF FILM
Who does hold meaning then? Does the filmmaker simply tell us what to think
and that is the end of it, or does the audience have to, as the late historian and philosopher
Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) put it, "demystify the apparently profane worlds and
languages of literature, plastic arts, and cinema in order to disclose their 'sacred'
elements... ?"47 In other words, is it even possible to find Christianity in a film that does
not make any implicit comment on YAHWEH or Christian doctrine?
Of course, like almost anything, there are strong arguments supporting conflicting
sides in the debate on if Christian discussion can derive itself from non-Christian film. It
would seem fool-hardy and ignorant to dismiss a director's intentions in making a film.
The lengthy work and meaning that the filmmaker embeds into the final product is worth
noting, for without it, there would be no film in the first place. In the early days of
cinema, critics argued and complained that this new, emerging art form did not allowed
46 J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word, Chapter 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 175-183. 47 Mircea Eliade, The Quest (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1969), 126. 48 YAHWEH, the unpronounceable monotheistic God of the Israelites in the Old Testament, later became to be identified as the godhead of the Christianity Trinitarian God and the Father of Jesus Christ. When modern Christians say they are worship God, this is to whom they are referring.
20 them the amount of freedom that the other arts did. "The film is in absolute, despotic control of your senses. It tells you where to look and for how long, imposes its own inarguable and unstoppable rhythm, and your options for interaction are pretty severely limited."49 Even when people leave in the middle of the theatre experience, the film keeps on playing. It does not care about one's reactions to the film, if people may take personal offence to the film, or one's bodily functions that cause them to leave abruptly.
Of course, filmmakers know this and use this aspect to manipulate the emotions of their audiences. Horror movies trap the person in their seat in the theatre and force them to either look away or stare in awe, but regardless, that person is frightened. Extreme close- up shots of certain people or things in a film also have the same effect. In the 2004 movie Friday Night Lights (directed by Peter Berg), extreme close-ups of the characters, football action sequences, and certain images give the viewer a feeling of inescapability, the same that many of the characters feel about the small town they have grown up in, which supports one of Berg's themes of the movie - small town dynamics. At the end of the film, in the final scene where coach Gary Gaines (played by Billy Bob Thornton) removes the graduating players' names from his football strategic planner, and replaces them, the audience feels remorse, but they are forced to watch the names of the students fall away on little pieces of steel to be forgotten about in the anticipation for next year's season.
Yes, film makers are fully aware that they control the viewers and the meaning of the film. As Terrence Rafferty, a notable film critic from The New Yorker, puts it, "The manipulative power of cinema is neither a good nor a bad thing; it is what it is, and all
49 Terrence Rafferty, "Everybody Gets A Cut," in Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 45.
21 movies partake of it in varying degrees." It is important at this moment to pause and consider the idea of 'the auteur theory,' a French term conceived in the 1950's to identify the director as the primary influence and 'author' of the film. Until this particular film theory was discussed, people had a hard time identifying who the 'author' was, and thus directorial intent was difficult to conceive.51 However, once it was established that a director was the one responsible for the final creation - the film - then a film analyst understood better the film deeper, by identifying features, or 'trademarks' of a director in his work and understanding the auteur's context.
This being said, the power of the individual watching the film must still be taken into account. David Ingham at St. Thomas University, a former English professor of mine once told me, 'A film does not mean anything until there is someone to whom it means something.' His words ring true and put the viewer's role into perspective. The viewer's life experience and knowledge on a particular topic can add to the essence of the film and can even help 'round out' the meaning that the director himself has attempted to convey.
People will look at a particular film and walk away with a different perspective from another individual who viewed the film. This is because everyone interprets not only a film, but life itself, differently. "We are always interpreting, although we are not always aware that we are doing so."52 The filmmaker can only bring an audience along - manipulate them - so much. It is up to the viewer to connect the dots through
In today's culture, where mass media is overwhelming, many cultural scholars continue to debate over the 'auteur theory,' and if there can be true recognition of the real author. See Lawrence Grosberg and others, Media Making: Mass Media In a Popular Culture (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006), 135-160. 52 Ibid., 138.
22 interpretive methods. This epistemological approach to film, rather than an ontological meaning of a film that floats aimlessly around in the universe, basically states, "Meaning is made through interaction."53 One film expert writes, "Even when ascertainable, the filmmaker's intentions or goals are not authoritative in constructing or assessing interpretations of film. As with all art, once a film is made, it is a public object open to interpretation according to conventions of intelligibility and the interpreter's creative response. What a filmmaker tries or intends to accomplish in making a film is distinct from what interpreters take the film to mean."54 Why then could Christian film critics not take a film, identify religious themes, and make theological deductions from it?
FILM AS A MEANS TO RELIGIOUS/THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION
In his article On Movies As Spiritual Discipline, Gordon H. Matties, Associate
Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at Canadian Mennonite University, tackles this very relationship of film and theology and the process of film viewing. He notes,
"Roger Ebert (from the show 'Ebert and Roeper,' or formerly known as 'Siskel and
Ebert') has said that an excellent film engages one's right brain (creative and emotional dimension) while watching the film, and one's left brain (analytical dimension) afterward.
The complexity of film art requires such holistic engagement."55 To view, truly, a movie is not simply to see a movie. It is in fact a process which requires both sides of the brain to engage with the content it is presented with, thus stimulating both sides. Two Catholic theological film critics, John Pengente (professor of media education) and Monty
Williams (professor of theology), both at Regis College, see this process similar to that of
53 Linda Mercadante, "Using Film To Teach Theology," Theological Education 42, no.2 (2006): 21. 54 Joseph H. Kupfer, "Film Criticism and Virtue Theory," in Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinnee Choi, 339. 55 Gordon H. Matties, "On Movies As Spiritual Discipline," Direction 34, no.2 (2006): 280.
23 prayer - it appeals to both hemispheres of the brain. Prayer does indeed make use of the creative side of the mind, while also analytically challenging it. Their words ring true, when they write:
Everything that is a human construct is a product of the imagination, and so manifests some trace of the divine creativity. Art raises that level of creative awareness to a self-conscious activity, and film combines the diverse manifestations of human creativity in sound, image, drama, and community in the most flexible and fluid ways to offer the most comprehensive shapings of space and time available to human consciousness. When we watch a filmattentively , we participate in a form of contemplation that allows us to experience the imagination fully engaged in creating.56
None of this discussion is to diminish the significance of Scripture or the church or Christianity in general. The issue is not whether films are actually a new type of religion, or if film viewing is the equivalent of prayer; rather, all of it boils down to two main points, made clear by Matties. "First, God is taking initiative to meet human beings and draw them toward relationship. Divine initiative may be embodied by the artistic expressions of popular culture. Although God is fully known through the incarnation in
Jesus Christ, God in the Spirit/wind, blows where it wishes. Second, that effulgence of the Spirit in human artistic expression belongs to the common grace that imparts to all."
Matties concludes his analysis by demonstrating that this kind of approach to film and theology is rooted in trinitarian theology - God is acting in cultural, human constructs, the Spirit is active in the creativity of work of God through human beings (i.e. films), and finally it is Christological insofar as that God sent His son to work in the particular realm of humanity, regardless of how corrupt it is.58
John Pungente and Monty Williams, Finding God in the Dark: Taking the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius to the Movies. (Ontario, CA: Novalis, 2004), 20. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 284.
24 Finding religious themes in film is not a completely new concept, although its popularity has grown significantly over the last two decades. Scholars, of both film and religious studies, have been looking at the movies for theological comparisons. Perhaps a few quick examples will help clarify how theological extraction from films can occur.
There have been countless articles written on Messianic religious themes found within contemporary film ranging all the way from Superman (1978)59 to The Matrix (1999).
In each of these films, there is a 'chosen one': one who will fight, and if need be, sacrifice his or her life for the human race. What do each of these movies say about
Christological doctrines? Or, for another example, what does the film Sideways (2004) promote in relation to the themes of Ecclesiastes?61 Or can Christian faith and science perhaps meld themselves together to form a new kind of epistemology? Is this what is implied in the 1997 film Contact?62 One can begin to see quite quickly that religious questions do indeed lie within the movies, even in ones that do not explicitly convey
Christian thought.
HOW TO DERIVE THEOLOGY FROM FILM
The question one must now ask is 'howT How does one go about seeing theology alive in the films of today's world? What are the methodologies that are used, and which ones are better? So far this exploration has discussed why one should study
Jeffery Wittung and David Bramer, "From Superman to Brahman; The Religious Shift of the Matrix Mythology," Journal of Religion and Film 10, no. 2 (October 2006); available online at http://www.unomaha.edu/irPVol 10No2/WittungBramer Matrix.htm 60 Anton Karl Kozlovic, "Superman as Christ-Figure: The American Pop Culture Movie Messiah," Journal of Religion and Film 6, no. 1, (April 2002); available at http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/supennan.htm 61 Jill Middlemas, "Ecclesiastes Gone Sideways," The Expository Times 118, no. 2 (2007): 216- 221. 62 Bryan P. Stone, "Religious Faith and Science in Contact" Journal of Religion and Film 2, no. 2 (October 1998): available online at http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/stonear2.htm
25 for film for theological reasons, but has not yet offered any practical means of which to do so. The rest of this chapter will now turn to that very question.
For this, one turns to Dr. Robert K. Johnston, author of the book Reel Spirituality:
Theology & Film in Dialogue, and a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. In chapter three of his book, Johnston outlines five theological approaches to film, which are useful both theoretically and practically. In a way, these five methodologies are similar to Niebuhr's five typologies, found within Christ and Culture. Johnston realizes that, much like typologies, there may be other approaches to film and theology, but these five are general and broad so that in most cases almost every sort of approach is covered by one of these five. What is interesting about these approaches however is that, unlike
Niebuhr's classifications, these approaches are based mostly on chronology, or history; the earliest being absolute 'avoidance', and the most recent being 'divine encounter.'
The following diagram64 outlines his positions and will become a useful chart in describing each approach.
From Film to Theology
divine encounter
appropriation
Ethical dialogue Aesthetic (The Dialogue's Focus)
avoidance
From Theology to Film (The Dialogue's Direction)
For more information on Johnston's input into this subject, it is strongly recommended that one visits the following video site: http;//www,unomaha.edu/jrf/Vo 110No2/AAR2.htm 64 Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality, 42.
26 This picture helps to chart the approaches to film which most people utilize and practice in their daily life. The horizontal axis has as its two extremes, "Ethical" and
"Aesthetic" which helps measure people's responses to film. The ethical position involves a person coming in with a pre-determined view of morality and thus judges the film based solely on the individual's beliefs and ethics. The aesthetic position, on the other hand, allows viewer's to be completely open to the direction or the statement that the film wishes to point them. The movie is judged not on pre-set worldviews, but on the aesthetically created worldview which the film emphasizes. In this the viewer puts his or her own morality behind them and allows the movie to offer its points. Judgement and criticism do not become subjective, but rather attempt to understand what the film is saying. The vertical axis, meanwhile, is signifying similar positions; it represents the emphasis and priority of the viewer. Someone who falls into the "From Theology to
Film" category is a viewer who compares the film to his/her pre-set theology. A film, in this case then, is described good or bad depending on how it supports or denotes a person's set of beliefs. For example, a pro-life advocate who watched a film with an abortion scene in it, and then labelled that movie 'bad' regardless if the abortion is a central part of the movie's theme or not, would be someone who would be classified as moving from 'Theology To Film.' This individual is one who watches the film and then applies the movie's content to his or her own theology. Obviously these two sides would almost always be in constant disagreement. The following five positions, 'avoidance,'
'caution,' 'dialogue,' 'appropriation,' and 'divine encounter,' fall somewhere in between these crossing lines. A quick look at each, from Johnston's discussion, will help to identify the main feature of each position.
27 The initial Christian reaction to the cinema was that of avoidance. When film was first emerging, churches tended to view it as a secular and corrupt portrayal of morality.
Films, many reasoned, were evil and something was needed to protect the 'innocent' from viewing such horrid images, such as sexual scenes, violence, and coarse language.
This methodology is still alive today in many places in Christian and Muslim communities. Many Christians have decided to condemn the film medium because they see films as distorting their pre-set theological beliefs. This is why the approach
"Avoidance" is placed where it is on Johnston's chart; viewers of this method have no room for gaining better understanding of theology from film.
The next theological approach to film is 'Caution.' Different from that of complete rejection, this approach at least allows the viewer to watch film, but then critique the film based solely on what that particular viewer regards to be theological truth. If the film does not align itself to the viewer's standards of ethical behaviour, then it is condemned and discarded as 'junk.' Indeed, many congregations are cautionary and hesitant of film's pervasive power, because of their set theological biases. They are not so much concerned with what the film could be teaching them, but more with how the film aligns with their own thoughts, thus it is placed on the lower left side of Johnston's chart.
The first approach in the upper-right quadrant of Johnston's scheme is
'Appropriation.' It is here that the film slightly begins to become more important than the theology in terms of not only methodology, but also content. However, this being said, appropriation is difficult, if not impossible, to ignore. All forms of story-telling
28 contain an invisible, underlying, construct, in which the story has some direct or indirect connection to and effect on the life of the one hearing the story. This is indeed my former professor's words coming true when he said, 'A film does not mean anything until there is someone to whom it means something.'' Johnston writes, "Those who would seek to appropriate a movie's vision of life recognize that movies can offer insight to the
Christian viewer about the nature of the human. There is something new a movie can provide for a Christian. More than dialogue is called for. The theologian must be receptive to encountering the Spirit in a new guise and only then turn to respond from the viewer's own theological point of view."66 This very modern approach to film is becoming more evident in the scene of the emerging church, where sermons on Sunday morning are being replaced by watching a film instead.
Stemming from this is a Christian, yet heavy-laden aesthetic approach to film, entitled, 'Divine Encounter.' This position is the pinnacle of the postmodernist's worldview, in which it is thought that "both theology and motion pictures work with transcendence, the difference being that theology appeals to the elite while movies are oriented to the masses."67 Johnston claims that film, the ultimate art form since it can envision, capture, dramatize, and celebrate, participates in ultimate transcendence, since it can attempt to pick out the 'universal' from the 'particular.' (for example, Grace from a particular scene in a movie, or Forgiveness from a specific situation)68 This idealist approach is attractive to many, for it satisfies the subjectivity of humanity.
65 Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality, 55. 66 Ibid., 56. 67 Ibid., 57. 68 It is here that I diverge from Johnston's promotion and endorsement of viewing film as Divine Encounter and align my thought with that of Plato, the one who introduced the discussion of the relationship of universals and particulars. I would argue with Johnston that there is a presupposition in his position - that we know what actual, true Transcendence is. This concept can be found in Plato's
29 Understanding the surrounding methodologies, one can now examine Johnston's middle position, called 'Dialogue.' It is here where (in this author's opinion, as well as
Johnston's) true and beneficial theological film criticism can occur, and this is the methodology in which Chapter 3 will engage. This is an approach that remains neutral, both theologically and aesthetically. Its focus is on the 'now' of the moment, which
allows the film a chance to say what it wants. In this instant, the film-maker is given his or her time to make their point and to get it across to the audience. It is, at first, simply the audience's job to listen and see where the film takes them, without pre-set biases or beliefs. Once this is done, and the credits roll, then the viewer is free to engage with what the movie said and how that plays into, encourages, and contrasts with his or her theological beliefs. "To comment on film theologically in this sense is not to isolate one's theological observations from an artistic critique of the work as a whole. Nor is it in an outside perspective as the lens through which the movie is seen. Rather, there can be real dialogue between Christian theology and the movie, for the movie itself invites it."69 This approach, even if the end result is disagreement, allows for theological beliefs to converse with the film's message.
Why should one even attempt to engage with film from a theological perspective at all? The answer is simple. If film can be used for wrong purposes, such as desensitization towards violence, or as a tool for pornography, then a Christian film critic
Euthyphro when Socrates sought the true concept of Piety and not just particular examples of it found in this world. The same is true for Transcendence, or Grace, or Beauty; all humanity can do is know the particulars, but never know God's conceptual language for the ontological nature of these terms. Otherwise, we would be similar to God and would have no need for film in the first place. It is absurd and fallacious to think that the Logos could be reached through a human creation, such as film. No matter how beautiful or transcendent a film may be, I do not believe it can classified as Transcendent (with a capital'T') or Beautiful (with a capital 'B') in itself. At best, I can only justify approaching film sometimes with the 'Appropriation' approach; seeing particular things pointing towards something greater and how that shapes my theology. 69 Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality, 51.
30 needs to be able to distinguish between helpful and harmful elements and themes of film.
As Johnston points out, "The violence that was integral to Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Schindler 's List (1993) helped viewers discover the horror of war and the Holocaust.
It is easily distinguished from Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). The sexuality of The
Thomas Crown Affair (1999) can be distinguished from Caged Heat (1974) or
Frankenhooker (1990). But do viewers understand the larger intention of these movies, or are they all just occasions for many in the audience to engage in murder and sex from the safety of their seats?"70 The 'Dialogue' position enables Christians to engage with various films to make these distinctions and to identify these intentions that Johnston speaks of.
Of course, some Christians will object that it would probably be better to assume the 'avoidance' position and not even risk the possibility of exposing oneself to the harmful effects of film. However, this type of position fails to acknowledge how helpful some films can be. The individuals who uphold this view fail to recognize that
Christianity must go out into the cultural world, in an attempt to proclaim the gospel message through dialogue with others.
As with any position, there will be objections. People may not feel particularly open to the idea of allowing the film to say what it wants to, while their Christian beliefs sit on the back-burner. This complaint however is missing the point, for the 'Dialogue' position is not intended to instantly judge the film, but rather to engage it. Johnston writes, "To give movie viewing this epistemological priority in the dialogue between film and theology - to judge it advisable to first look at a movie on its own terms and let the images themselves suggest meaning and direction - is not to make theology of second
31 importance. Religious faith is primary. In fact, I argue that the nature of both movie
going and religious faith demands that film viewing be completed from a theological perspective. But such theologizing should follow, not precede, the aesthetic
experience."71 In simpler terms, priority is still given to theology in content, but it comes
second in methodology.
A simple analogy perhaps outlines Johnston's point better. If theology, for a
Christian, could be a judge in a courtroom looking for truth, while knowing the defendant
(a certain sexually implicit film) is probably guilty, that judge must wait and hear the defendant's argument, with a clear and non-biased mind, before deciding to hand out a ruling on the matter. The same is true in film; Christian theology must wait for a film to make its case, engage with the film, and then come to its own conclusion. It is imperative for the film's meaning to be heard first. Johnston reminds his readers that even "T. S.
Eliot cautioned that whether a piece of literature was worthy or not could only be decided on aesthetic grounds. Here is ground zero with regard to a person's response to any work of art. Eliot then went on to assert that the subject of literature (and film) was ultimately too important not to be completed from a theological perspective."72
It is this approach also that allows one to draw theology out of a non-religious film. Malcolm Boyd, an American Episcopal priest and civil rights advocate, speaks of this procedure as 'negative witness,' which in this case, could be a film that never speaks directly about God or Christianity, but asks serious questions that are typically classified as religious questions. It is this process of examining a secular question or theme, religious in nature, which constitutes the first step of Johnston's 'Dialogical'
71 Ibid., 49-50. 72 Ibid., 151.
32 methodology. "It is the Christian's task to move through, and from, 'negative witness' towards 'positive witness,' that is the positive proclamation of what the Gospel of Jesus
Christ has to say about a specific problem or situation which has been graphically set before men's eyes in the form of 'negative witness.'"74 If the first part of Johnston's middle approach is to recognize the religious themes that the film highlights, then the second part is to convert that material into Christian theology: what Boyd would call the conversion into positive witness.
In any good film, that takes itself seriously, there will be at least one religious theme that emerges. It is for this reason that one can take a non-Christian film and yet be able to converse with the film maker's points of view; these religious themes allow conversation between film and Christian faith to occur. They are the 'points of contact' between the Christian and the non-believer. This is the main positive feature of dialogue between film and faith; it provides one with the proper procedure to transform 'negative witness' into 'positive witness.'
Of course, there are other positive features of a dialogical approach as well. One of them is that 'Dialogue' also fits well with the aforementioned conclusion about who controls the meaning of a film. The conclusion reached earlier was that both filmmaker and viewer were necessary in obtaining true meaning. 'Dialogue' allows for this procedure to transpire, for the director paints his message with his paintbrush (the film
' It is important to note that in the discussion of Boyd's terms, 'negative witness' should be understood in the context of a Christian-biased 'positive witness.' This is to say that a 'positive witness,' for a Christian, is any person or thing that explicitly promotes the Christian message. A 'negative witness' therefore has nothing to do with a negative commentary on the nature of a thing; in other words, a 'negative witness' is not implying that something is against Christianity, but rather implies an absence of the Christian message. Perhaps a re-working of Boyd's methodology would be to refer to the transformation of a 'passive witness,' into a 'positive witness.' 74 Malcolm Boyd, "Theology and the Movies," 360.
33 itself) and this is acknowledged before the viewer then grasps what he will from those ninety minutes of picture.
The practicality of this approach should not be overlooked, however. The
Christian community must embrace film with discretion and the appropriate education, which is provided by this approach, that is necessary to be able to comment on what they have seen and then relate Christ and demonstrate Christ-like actions back out into the world (translating 'negative witness' to 'positive witness'). When Christians say, 'we are in the world, but not of it,' they are recognizing the power that film contains and that it is an intricate part of every day life (rather than a separate entity, as Jarvie stated) and realizing that the film itself should not be glorified over God, but rather that it can be used as a productive means to demonstrate God's love for all of humanity, if Christians are willing to learn from it.
At the end of the day, any one of these five theological approaches to film can be used and perhaps even slightly modified, when one comes into contact with the movies.
Debates between which approach is best have been present since the invention of the film, and will doubtlessly continue to occupy film and theology studies for the rest of time.
The important aspect to keep in mind is not so much which methodology one chooses to use; rather, that one takes the power of the relationship between film and Christian theology seriously. Film has become a main subject for today's culture. Everyday life is slowly adapting itself into the structure of a movie. With film being such a pressure on the culture in which we now live, it seems appropriate to be educated on how to be a
Christian and a moviegoer.
34 1.3 - Summary
It is important to recover what has been discussed so far, before moving to an
analysis of the films. The goal of this chapter was two-fold, both components necessary to the discussion of film and theology. First, we focused on why Christians should
involve themselves interactively within this modern invention of the moving picture. It
was established that film is a growing medium of entertainment and that with entertainment seeming to dictate the present culture, film has become the prime influence
on this culture; that film has embedded itself into the world on such a level that once distinct from reality, the two are almost inseparable. We then noted how important culture is in relation to the world and how it commanded and controlled the world. With this much power in the clutches of culture, and thus film, the Christian should utilize this modern phenomenon to help promote the Gospel. If this does not begin to happen on a more frequent basis, the world's culture will move on, leaving the Gospel message in the dust.
After emphasizing the importance of a correlation between film and faith, the chapter then focused on different methodological approaches to how a Christian can connect these two subjects. The approach emphasized, and which will soon be utilized, was one of dialogue. This allows for a religiously non-explicit film to converse with
Christianity, like a discussion between a non-believer and someone of faith. The common denominators that exist between the film and the faith are the religious themes, such as human nature, the concept of a transcendent being, or the examination of injustice.
The questions raised about these themes in the film, called the 'negative witness,' are able to be offered a solution by the doctrines found within Christianity.
35 With the importance of such a study identified and a workable, practical approach to an inquiry outlined, one can now begin to distill religious themes from a film. In this project, the themes examined will be from a collection of films, all created by the same writer and director - M. Night Shyamalan.
36 CHAPTER 2
2.1 - The Films of M. Night Shvamalan
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the 'negative witness' of these films, which then can later be transformed into 'positive witness.' Having discussed why film is important in culture, and how to approach film from a theological perspective, one can undertake the task of the utilizing the dialogical methodology of Johnston. This chapter, therefore, will commence the first step in this approach and explore each of Shyamalan's films individually, allowing the films to speak for themselves, identifying the film maker's own religious concepts as they develop. With each film, Night offers another opinion on religious-centered themes, and this chapter will follow that quest, expounding upon the themes and teasing them out of the films for analysis.
When looking at the films of M. Night Shyamalan, one immediately acknowledges his range of genre interest. Wide Awake (1998) is a pleasant family film that deals with childhood development, while The Sixth Sense (1999) is one of the most original horror movies ever made. Unbreakable (2000) is a dramatic tale, mixed with an element of action, as it is about a regular man who finds his destiny in an extraordinary way. Signs (2002) deals with aliens in a sci-fi genre, while The Village (2004) is often referred to as Shyamalan's period piece, as the film seems to unfold in the early years of pilgrim settlements. Lady In The Water (2006) is complete fantasy, yet lived out in the real world. With all of these different flavours and strains of genre, Shyamalan still circulates similar characteristics in all of his projects, such as cinematographic style, geographical location, and religious themes.
37 Cinematographically , for example, he has a habit for using reflective camera
shots. In many of his films, the event or character being filmed, is shot in a reflective
surface, such as a glass door in Lady In The Water, or a television set in Signs. This is
sometimes done to reinforce certain themes, such as fragility, as in the case of
Unbreakable, and sometimes it is done for pure cinematographic and aesthetic purposes.
Another unmistakeable feature in his films is the geographical location, as all of his
stories unfold in Pennsylvania, his state in which he too grew up and attended his
Catholic private school. This type of reflection is not uncommon for Shyamalan, as he
usually mimics aspects of his own childhood and young adulthood in his films, almost as
if he was internalizing himself in his films.
Another recurring and interesting element is Shyamalan's use of water in various ways. Often, water is used to symbolize weakness or suffering of a character in some way in his films. For example, the aliens in Signs are allergic to water, the main protagonist in Unbreakable has only one fear which is water, and in The Village, the villagers abandon the main character, Ivy, in the forest out of fear, when it begins to rain.
One soon begins to see connections amongst all of Shyamalan's works. His films are united cinematographically or with similar, personal niches and trademarks that must be rather important for him. For a complete list of all of these similarities, one should consult the Internet Movie Database. The list currently numbers fourteen, but it is growing with each new release, as Night makes more films and people notice more inner- woven connections.
However, what is of greater relevance here are the thematic similarities that are drawn together within his major six films. All of his movies thus far have incorporated
75 Best described as 'the art/technique of movie photography.'
38 four main themes that bear upon religious questions and conversations. The first is that
all of his films deal, in some way, with transcendence; that is to say, that the characters in his films often struggle with something that is larger than themselves. From finding God,
(Wide Awake, Signs) to the afterlife, (The Sixth Sense) to carrying a terrible, yet
fundamentally important secret of one's own community (The Village), Night deals with people who deal with things that point to something beyond themselves.
The second similarity in all of his films is the insertion of purpose. In most, if not all, of his movies, his characters are seeking purpose for their lives; they are looking for meaning to justify their existences. If he does not directly use the word 'purpose' in the dialogue of all of his movies, he at least makes reference to it, or uses synonymous words, such as 'reason,' or 'meaning,' to convey his ideas on the issue. In his films, the characters bring different questions to light, but they all begin with 'Why am I...,' and
Shyamalan usually, by the end of the film has found the answer, which answers his characters, 'This is why...'
The third religious theme found within his work is the concept of love. Love becomes a driving motif for many characters in his films, commenting on the ontology of love and how it is played out in the world. This love is often demonstrated between two or more characters on screen, but does not limit itself to eros. Sometimes the love is portrayed through a parent-child relationship or a simple friendship. Regardless of the way it is demonstrated, it is evident that love is a strong factor in Shyamalan's films.
The final theme that his movies account for is hope. Hope is often found as the only factor that keeps his characters alive. The viewer is subjected to the character's journey as he or she looks for transcendence, purpose, or love, that seems to be
39 desperately missing from his or her life. Hope is what keeps the person searching, knowing his or her life is missing one or all of these elements, and without this hopeful attitude, there would be no developing story and no climatic ending, for a character could never learn or find anything unless hope motivates him or her to search for that missing piece.
Some may ask if these films relate directly to the Christian experience, if these religious themes are meant to be explicitly Christian. In some films, such as Wide Awake,
Signs, and even Lady In The Water, where God is directly mentioned, the argument could be made that there is a direct application to Christianity, as the themes discussed are often identified as coming from God. Yet even here, Shyamalan is not arguing for a specifically Christian orientation, but rather just the concept of a theistic god. It is in fact more accurate to say that Shyamalan is exploring religious concepts, rather than specific theological themes. In Michael Bamberger's book, the film maker's thoughts on
Christianity are firmly outlined:
His (Shyamalan) films were rich in faith. Devout Christians flocked to The Sixth Sense, which Night found intriguing. He was not Christian, but he had gone to a Catholic school through eighth grade and an Episcopalian school from ninth through twelfth, and images of Jesus of Nazareth had surrounded him all his life. 'I find it much more poignant to think of Jesus as a man, doing what he did purely on faith,' Night once said. 'By making him a god, he can't be an example to me. If you have every piece of magic available to you, and then you walk on water, what's the big deal? I can't emulate that. But if he's a man - if he's a Martin Luther King, if he's Gandhi - that's real. That's attainable. That's a model. If Jesus made a blind man see on faith alone, that's awesome. If he went to the cross as an ordinary man with just unbelievable faith, how inspiring is that? I'd be in awe of that man. I'd put his picture on my desk, even though I'm not Christian. But by making him a deity, by giving him magical powers, I think you reduce him.'76
Ibid., 66-67.
40 If Shyamalan is not articulating Christian theological doctrine in his films then,
it becomes imperative that one approaches these six films with the methodology of
'Dialogue' that Robert K. Johnston advocates, as discussed in the first chapter. Chapter
one suggested how one might approach film theologically, and now we will utilize this
methodology, letting the films speak for themselves and drawing their own conclusions
about these religious themes.
2.1.1 -WIDEAWAKE7*
Shyamalan's first real opportunity with a Hollywood company and budget came
in 1998, when he wrote and directed Wide Awake, a family film dealing with heavy
issues including, but not limited to, purpose and epistemology. The story picks up with
Joshua Beal, a young boy in grade five, who is dealing with the recent loss of his grandfather. The relationship between the two is presented in flashbacks, and the viewer is privileged to see the love between the two and to witness the life lessons that the grandfather has taught his grandson. These life lessons range from sports advice, to never quitting something once it is started, and most importantly, to never losing faith.
However, with the pain of losing his grandfather, Josh sets out on a mission to find God so that he can confirm that his grandfather is managing well in the afterlife. Attending a
Catholic private school, which Shyamalan probably mirrored after his own personal
As indicated, Shyamalan does not necessarily promote Christian doctrine in his films. He claims not to be a Christian, despite his Catholic background and training as a child, but can this accurately be so? With Christianity as the leading religion of the world, and his own Christian educational background, can Shyamalan, ever truly be separate from Christian discourse? Could it be that his films are influenced and motivated by Christian themes and topics even on the sub-conscious level? Perhaps they are, therefore making it more accurate to say that Shyamalan is not a practicing Christian and does not explicitly display the Christian message. This allows for a distinction between directorial intention and discourse. Therefore, while perhaps in some way, his films are motivated by Christian doctrine from his childhood experiences, his goal is not to necessarily portray a Christian message in them. 78 Wide Awake. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Joseph Cross, Rosie O'Donnell. DVD. Miramax Films, 1998.
41 childhood, Josh believes that there must be a way to talk to God, thus he tries to talk to
God through the Pope and different Cardinals, but each time is disappointed to find that
God is not directly speaking audibly to these 'special men of faith.'
It should be noted that the fact Josh and his family are Catholic suggests that
while Shyamalan is not a practicing Christian himself, he does seem to be promoting a
search for the Christian God. At the same time, while he is promoting an epistemological
quest for Yahweh, he also is critiquing Christian issues in the film, one example being the
concept of Hell. In one humerous scene, his main character, Josh, asks his nun-teacher
about the concepts of Hell and why the Bible condemns people there who are not
baptized. The teacher (played by Rosie O'Donnell) enforces the fact that going to Hell is not determined based solely on baptism procedures. Josh, and his other classmates, become confused about this and ask if the Bible is wrong therefore. Assuring them that the Bible is indeed correct, the teacher then is at a lost for words in front of her
inquisitive grade five class, but luckily the bell rings allowing for her to be excused from the conversation. This is not necessarily Shyamalan being unfair or anti-Biblical, but
simply acknowledging the fact that Christian doctrine from Scripture is often confused with Christian ritual from the church, (or adiaphora, from the Greek, meaning
'indifferent thing.'79) and that if one is going to claim Christianity as the religion they choose to follow, distinctions of this sort need to be made.
Indeed, Joshua Beal is one very inquisitive ten year old, as he recognizes this distinction himself. However, his inquiry is not limited here; he has many questions
See specifically Richard Hooker, a sixteenth century theologian who helped found the Anglican tradition, based largely on reason. His work, Of The Lowes Of Ecclesiastical Politie (1593), is the best source for this concept of adiaphora, as he draws distinctions between what is essential for Christianity and what is left to man to decide.
42 pertaining to many facets of religious faith. His questions make people re-examine their own beliefs, like a modern day Socrates, all the while trying to find the answers himself.
His own epistemological quest to find God is divided into three developmental stages, which Shyamalan acknowledges and corresponds with a month of the school year. In
September, Josh sets off to find God, and this is characterized by the heading, 'The
Questions.' In December, he begins to see 'The Signs,' while May brings him 'The
Answers.' Enough has already been said about the first stage - questions and concerns he has, leads Josh to a search for God, mostly for his grandfather's sake, but also to make sense of the world and his inquisitiveness.
The second stage that follows from the questions, are indicators that he is on the right track - 'signs from above.' Due to his sceptical, yet supporting friend, Dave
O'Hara, and no luck finding a direct, audible link to God, the young ten year old lives out his fifth grade year in frustration and depression. As stated earlier, the Cardinals contain no direct communication from God, nor does the Pope, which confuses Josh more so.
Why are they so often referred to as men who talk with God, if it is only them ever doing the talking? He would give up on his mission altogether if it were not for memories of his grandfather having such a strong faith in God. These memories and the thought that his grandfather could not have been mistaken about God, drive him and force him to keep searching. One night, after being scolded by his friend Dave about how stupid his mission is, Josh comes to the conclusion that God does not exist, which makes him worry about where his grandfather really is (or if he is at all) and how he is doing. In a particular short scene, Josh addresses his concern for the lack of proof that God actually exists to Father Peters, the school's licensed priest:
43 JOSH: You're looking for God right? FATHER PETERS: As often as I can, yes. JOSH: Well so am I. FATHER PETERS: Is that right? JOSH: Father Peters, you're not allowed to lie to me, right? FATHER PETERS: What do you mean? JOSH: Well, I want to ask you something and I don't want you to make up stuff because I'm ten or anything. FATHER PETERS: I'll give it to you straight Joshua. I promise. JOSH: (pause).. .Do you ever feel like giving up? I mean, since it's been so long and all and you haven't met Him. How do you even know if He's made up or not? FATHER PETERS: Sometimes I do feel like giving up, but one thing I've learned is that doubt is a part of everyone's journey.. .no matter what they're looking for. JOSH: It ain't easy... FATHER PETERS: I know.
Josh's own journey is typical of any believer struggling to maintain belief. Doubt plays a big role in the process of discovery, and this doubt is the usually the reason that either pushes a person to dig deeper for what they are looking for, or it makes them give up on the thing. In Josh's case, the doubt eventually almost does him in. One night, after
Dave's remarks about how God can't be real, Josh slowly comes to his own conclusion that God does not exist and his grandfather believed in a lie. In tears, he asks God for a final sign, to show him he's on the right track, otherwise he will give up on this search.
Wishing it would snow causing school to be cancelled the next day, Josh heads to bed and when he wakes up, is pleasantly surprised to find that his request has come true. He
44 takes it as a sign that God has answered his prayers and reinforced, continues on with his journey.
Other than his odd quest, Josh's life is as normal as any ten year old's; in his life, there is an irritating older sister, homework and tests, a bully named Freddie Waltman, a young girl he's attracted to who goes by the name of Hope (no accidental naming), and an annoying fat classmate who wants someone to play with him, but no one ever does.
However, the world for Josh is slowly transforming from a world of toys and birthday cakes to a world of heartache and questions.
In this growing stage, Josh realizes that perhaps he should act in the same fashion that his grandfather acted towards him - out of love. Thus, he sympathizes with the bully
Frankie Waltman and bids him a fond farewell when he is forced to leave the private school. He decides to finally play with the overweight kid in his class and be his friend, regardless of how ridiculous he may look doing it. He shows his kindness to those around him, demonstrating a maturing boy. The big turning point, which leads into the final section of the movie entitled, 'The Answers,' (and chronologically happens in the month of May) for Josh's transformation comes one day when he decides to stop by
Dave's house after school. Going into their 'galactic spaceship,' (which is actually a closet) Josh sees Dave laying on the floor, unconscious. Unsure of what is wrong, he begins to holler for help. The next scene picks up with Josh's parents explaining to him that Dave has epilepsy and is lucky to have survived the violent thrashing of his body in such a small space like the closet he was in. Seeing the disease and awfulness in the world, Josh comes to the final conclusion that despite his kindness, the world is a horrible place and thus God cannot exist. If God, just and good, existed, then He would fix what
45 was wrong with the world, including his best friend's epilepsy and his grandfather's
death. A few days later, Josh goes to visit Dave and is relieved to see his friend doing better and sitting up in the hospital bed. The scene that follows is important for Josh's
quest, for it is here where he actually finds God.
DAVE: Hey Josh, I don't think you should give up your mission. JOSH: But you were right. Bad things just happen and people die and there's no one there to take care of them. It's just the way things are. DAVE: I believe now. When I was in the galactic battleship, you walked in. It was like a miracle. JOSH: It was no miracle. DAVE: Why do you think you just popped by my house that day? Why do you think you just walked in then? JOSH: Lucky. DAVE: No, it was more. Just don't give it up, dork.
Here Shyamalan asserts his main theme, and at the same juncture where Josh finds God. He finds God in his purpose: in something greater than coincidence that allowed him to be in the right spot at the right time to help save his friend. This entire time, Josh was looking for an indication of God and that indication comes from purpose.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), a British philosopher, once said "Unless you assume a
God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless."80 Phrased in another way to fit
Josh's Christian context - once one finds a purpose, one finds God. While people look for a purpose for their lives, they are also searching for a god - something that gives existence meaning.
Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 17. Once Josh realizes that everything he has experienced this past year has been an
indication pointing to his purpose, he then finds God. The relationship thus could be
stated as such: By finding purpose, God's will for one's life, one also finds God. It is by
demonstrating love towards the undeserving bully or the obese annoying classmate, Josh
finds his sense of purpose and meaningfulness in life. He is able to see the world for what it truly is, along with the sorrow in it, but realizes that God is in even these small things. By looking for God, he has found not just that which he was searching for, but many other important things, including his purpose and how to try and make the world a better place by acts of kindness and love. In his English class, for his final assignment, he gives a speech which summarizes his conclusions from his search:
JOSH: Fifth grade was the most rigorous year yet. TEACHER: Rigorous or toughest? And eye contact, Joshua. JOSH: Rigorous.. .and toughest year yet. Before this year, everything was Batman action figures and Ninja Turtles cartoons. TEACHER: Relax your shoulders. JOSH: Now, there's family, friends, and girls. Before this year, bullies were just bullies for no reason. Weirdo's were just weird, and daredevils weren't afraid of anything. Before this year, people I loved lived forever. I spent this year looking for something and wound up seeing everything around me. It's like I was asleep before and I finally woke up. You know what? I'm wide awake now.
Indeed, Josh is wide awake now because he has found purpose and has consequently found God, and also has an acute sense of seeing God in the day to day life of living. At the very end of the movie, this sense allows Josh to finally see this small boy who always seems to be following Josh around the entire film. Josh had always assumed him to be just another random schoolmate, but then in a mysterious, brief
47 encounter, he realizes that this boy is not all that he appears to be. The boy simply tells
Josh not to worry and that 'he' is alright. Josh is confused and begins to walk away, but when he realizes that the boy is talking about his grandfather and turns around, the boy has disappeared. Shyamalan here is reinforcing the concept of God being in everyday life, but as a direct result of finding purpose of one's life in the love that he or she exhibits.
2.1.2 - THE SIXTH SENSE81
The Sixth Sense was undoubtedly Shyamalan's most popular film to date. The
1999 movie was nominated for six Oscars, including Best Picture of the Year and probably has more longevity than any of his others, simply because of the pure audience attraction to this spiritual picture. Not long after the film, many people were quoting the catchphrase of the movie, T see dead people.' If people were talking about it, then at least most individuals in North America knew about this powerful film, which obtained its popularity due to a large part of the film's surprisingly, shocking, ending.
The movie begins by introducing a successful child psychologist, Dr. Malcolm
Crowe (played by Bruce Willis), who is celebrating with his wife for a recent honourable recognition for his excellence in his field of work. However, a mentally unstable man, who blames Malcolm for never actually helping him with his 'problem' when he was a small child, breaks into the doctor's house. He holds his psychologist responsible for lying to him, telling him things would get better, and in a fit of rage and fear, shoots
Malcolm and then turns the gun on himself. The story then fast forwards to the next fall, where Malcolm, back at work, has apparently fully recovered from his shooting, and is
81 The Sixth Seme. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment. DVD. Barry Mendel Productions, 1999.
48 trying to help a small, troubled, boy named Cole Sear. Cole, age ten, is a smart, yet
introverted, child who is being raised by his loving, supportive, single mother. At first,
Malcolm struggles to get through to Cole, which troubles him even more, for he sees
similarities between Cole and the boy he was never able to help - the one who was at the
beginning of the movie and committed suicide after shooting Malcolm.
In desperation to prevent Cole from turning out like the other child, Malcolm
gives all he can to help, while his marriage falls apart around him. His wife no longer
speaks to him, ignores him all the time, and he soon learns that she has begun seeing
someone else. Not knowing what to do or where to turn, he throws himself more and
more into his work, slowly befriending Cole and forming a friendship that is mutually beneficial.
Meanwhile, Malcolm's wife, who continues to ignore him, is unaware of his attempt at reconciliation. Yet, Malcolm does not give up and continues on with his repetitive life, all the time, reaching Cole, slowly building his trust. Finally, Cole has realized that perhaps this man can help him after all and is ready to tell Malcolm his secret that he has carried his entire life - he sees dead people. These apparitions visit him frequently, scaring him, unaware that they are actually dead, and going about the tasks that they did in their normal lives. Malcolm, of course, is taken back by this secret and does not believe Cole at first. However, as the film progresses, he soon comes to believe the ten year old, as one night in trying to diagnose Cole's problem, he realizes that this type of behaviour has been noted in another one of his child patients before - the child that grew into the man that tried to kill him four months ago. Once again motivated by the idea of Cole turning out like the other child he could not help, Malcolm trusts the
49 small boy and together they begin to dissect what these apparitions could possibly want
from Cole and why they are appearing to him:
MALCOLM: What do you think these ghosts want when they talk to you? (no answer) I want you to think about it, Cole. I want you to think about it really carefully. What do you think they want? COLE: Just help. MALCOLM: That's right. That's what I think too. They just want help, even the scary ones. I think I might know a way to make them go away. COLE: How? MALCOLM: Listen to them.
Cole decides to try out this theory, so one night when the ghost of a small girl appears to
Cole, rather than running away, he faces the visitor and begins to speak to her, asking what is wrong and how he can help her. This conversation leads Malcolm and Cole to the girl's at-home funeral, where being led by the girl's ghost, Cole finds a hidden video tape in the girl's old room. He gives it to the girl's father, as instructed by her, and the father watches the tape, which is a video recording of the girl's mother administering poison to the sick girl. As the father confronts the mother in front of family and friends,
Cole and Malcolm leave, fulfilling the wishes of the small, deceased, girl.
Solving the problem of why the ghosts appear to Cole, Malcolm realizes he has helped the child. He has helped the boy account for this mysterious sixth sense, or in other words, his purpose. Realizing his job is complete, Malcolm returns home to find his wife asleep, watching their old wedding videos. It is here that Malcolm understands why his wife has completely ignored him ever since he was shot, why she acts like he is not even there and does not talk to him. He really is not there; he has been dead. Slowly,
50 the words of Cole's description of the ghosts he encounters, surface to his mind. Cole
had claimed that the ghosts go about their former life's business, unaware that they are no
longer alive. Malcolm realizes that he has been dead since his shooting months ago by
the boy he was never able to help. Realizing his own purpose, which was to help Cole
find the purpose for his special gift, Malcolm can now let go and leave his wife's
presence, which in a sense, has been haunting her ever since his death. This is really an
old ghostly stereotype which supposed that spirits of the deceased were never able to
leave this world's earthly borders because they had 'unfinished business' on this planet to which to attend and that there remains a purpose to be completed on this planet.
Shyamalan here is emphasizing certain religious themes again. The first is the belief that every individual is created for a specific purpose: a particular agenda that needs to be completed. Secondly, there is a sense of transcendence, as it promotes a life beyond physical death, and something greater than the grave. And finally, it suggests the power of love is something that can be reached beyond death, in this transcendent element itself.
Malcolm's specific purpose is to help Cole understand his gift, and he is not allowed to 'move on' until this task is completed. This is suggesting, therefore, that the concept of purpose goes beyond death and that this life can only be perceived as successful and complete when one's particular purpose is fulfilled. This, in turn, critiques the concept that a purpose is a mere man-made invention that is always necessarily accomplished at death, but rather that there is an ontological purpose, or task, for each individual's life. If this ontological category of purpose exists, as Shyamalan is suggesting, from where does it derive its very nature? From where does this bundle of
51 being, comparable to the Platonic conception of the Forms, derive its origin? One must assume something greater than the category itself: a being which creates and regulates the
Purpose for humanity.
To demonstrate that this appears to be Shyamalan's direction for the concept of purpose, he has Malcolm follow through on an idea from Cole about how he can talk to his wife so that she'll listen to him - talk to her when she is asleep. Not yet knowing he is dead, Malcolm heeds the little boy's advice and it is when he does this that he realizes his wife has not been ignoring him intentionally and that he has actually been dead for months now. Realizing this, he is allowed to tell his sleeping wife what he has always wanted to, but never done:
MALCOLM: I think I can go now. I just needed to do a couple things. I needed to help someone. I think I did. And I needed to tell you something. You were never second. Ever. I love
you. You sleep now. Everything will be different in the morning.
In fulfilling his purpose, Malcolm is now free to move on. As the screen fades to white, and purpose completed, the doctor vanishes, freeing his wife from the haunting feeling of her dead husband, allowing her to let go and move on, and allowing the audience members to contemplate their own purposes in life and how to find, identify, and fulfill it before time runs out.
2.1.3 - UNBREAKABLE82
This 2000 box office hit focuses in again on Shyamalan's religious themes and how one specific man, David Dunn (once again, played by Bruce Willis), finds his role in life. Where The Sixth Sense left its audience wondering how one finds his or her own purpose, so Unbreakable attempt to answer this very question. David is the average, 82 Unbreakable. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson. DVD. Touchstone Pictures, 2000.
52 mundane American, going through a break-up with his wife, all the while still trying to
raise a son. He is a security guard at the university, with a keen skill, almost a sixth sense
if you will, that allows him to observe people and then deduce their lives, specifically the
evil in it. This of course, makes him excellent at his job, for he is able to detect people's
intentions. If that were not strange enough, the man is also unable to be hurt, as he has
never had a cold, or been sick, in his entire life. Especially impressive is his
impenetrable bone strength, as he not only is the lone survivor of a train wreck at the start
of the film, but he does not even break one single bone in the accident. Contrasted to
David is Elijah Price, an African American cripple (played by Samuel L. Jackson) with
an eerie addiction to comic books and a rare disease, which makes his bones very brittle.
The slightest nudge can break any bone in Elijah's body in more than one spot.
Most of the movie portrays Elijah getting in touch with David via an invitational
card to Elijah's comic book store, and then trying to convince him that he does indeed
contain this superhuman quality of strength. David shrugs it all off, contributing his
survival of the train crash to luck. However, Elijah keeps insisting, to the point of
stalking David, that he does indeed have an extraordinary quality, which is the complete antithesis to his own disability, and that he needs to recognize the potential this power contains. Much like in The Sixth Sense, here as well is one character pushing the other to find his purpose in this world:
ELIJAH: This city has seen its share of disasters. I watched the aftermath of that plane crash. I watched the carnage of the hotel fire. I watched the news waiting to hear a very specific combination of words, but they never came. Then one day, I saw a news story about a train accident and I heard them - 'There is a sole survivor and he is miraculously unharmed.' I have something called Osteogenesis Imperfecta - it's a genetic disorder. I don't make a particular protein very well and it makes my bones very low in density; very easy to
53 break. I've had fifty-four breaks in my life, and I have the tamest version of this disorder - Type 1. There are Type 2, Type 3, Type 4. Type 4's don't last very long. So, that's how it popped into my head. If there is someone like me in the world and I am at one end of the spectrum, couldn't there be someone else opposite of me at the other end? Someone who doesn't get sick and doesn't get hurt like the rest of us? And he probably doesn't even know it. The kind of person these stories are about, (referring to comics) A person put here to protect the rest of us; to guard us. DAVID: .. .1 see guys like you all the time in my work. You find someone you want to take advantage of and you tell them a fantastic story. And somewhere in there, you say, T just need your credit card number. A small down payment.' This morning was the first morning that I could remember that I didn't open my eyes and feel sadness. I thought the person who wrote that note had an answer for me.
With time however, David does come to accept the possibility that Elijah may be
correct. He finds that he can lift miraculous amounts of weight fairly easily, and slowly
begins to discover the path to his true purpose. Going back to Elijah for advice, David
begins to believe he is who Elijah thinks he is - a type of modern day superhero. Elijah
explains to him that it is no coincidence that the work he does involves helping and protecting others. In one scene, where Elijah meets David's wife, Audrey, he explains to her that there are things beyond rational explanation and things that are transcendent and
above chance or coincidence:
ELIJAH: A 737 crashes on take-off and 172 die. No survivors. A hotel fire downtown and 211 die. No survivors. An east rail train derails seven and a half miles outside the city and 131 die. One survivor. He is unharmed. I have spoken with your husband about his survival. I suggested a rather unbelievable possibility. Since then, I have come to believe that possibility, however unbelievable, is now more probability. AUDREY: And what is it you suggested? ELIJAH: These are mediocre times, Mrs. Dunn. People are starting to lose hope. It's hard for many to believe there are extraordinary things inside themselves, as well as others. I hope you can keep an open mind.
Elijah tells her what it is he believes, but she too writes him off as being crazy and dismisses his notions. Yet, as the plot evolves, David finds that his ability to detect odd
54 things about people is in itself quite strange and could point towards something greater.
He starts to think maybe Elijah is right; maybe he is a hero of sorts. The problem occurs,
however, when he recalls a particular incident from childhood, confirming that he does
have one particular weakness - water. He is terribly afraid of water and cannot swim,
and thus torn between believing in Elijah's theory and facing the reality of his mundane
life, which renders him sad and lost:
ELIJAH: That little bit of sadness you spoke of in the morning -1 think I know what that is. Perhaps you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing. DAVID: .. .1 have been sick. When I was a kid, I spent a week in the hospital getting better from pneumonia. I almost drowned. Two skinny, little kids were fooling around in a pool, dunking me and I swallowed some water. They didn't know it and it almost killed me.
Heroes don't get killed like that. Normal people do, right?
Elijah goes onto explain, however, that every hero has a weakness, something that
a hero struggles against. For David, it is water, and he too soon comes to acknowledge
this. To fully test Elijah's theory, David goes to a train station and, using his sixth sense,
is able to deduct the evil, suffering, or injustice in people's lives. Here, he encounters a man who is holding a family hostage, and risking his life for the happiness he speaks of, he decides to follow him and try to help the family.
A fight between David and the hostage taker ensues, and David soon finds himself being thrown from a room in the family's house into their pool. Unable to swim, he struggles to breathe, kicking and thrashing in the water. Luckily, the children, whom he helped escape, save him. He re-surfaces from the water and then goes back into the house to rescue the mother, and in the process, he kills the kidnapper.
After having done this, in the film's conclusion, David returns to Elijah's comic shop to thank him for helping him find his way. Everything in David's life seems better
55 now - he wakes up happy now, not sad. He has rekindled and saved his failing marriage,
earned the respect of his son, and most importantly, found his true identity. However, the
shocking twist comes when shaking hands with Elijah, David's keen sense allows him to
see how distorted this cripple really is. Elijah is the one who caused the plane crash,
hotel fire, and train wreck in the city, in a search to find his antithesis - one like David.
In a disturbing, concluding scene, Shyamalan here focuses his audience on the concept of
purpose:
ELIJAH: Do you know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world; to not know why you are here. That.. .that's just an awful feeling. DAVID: What.. .what have you done? ELIJAH: I almost gave up hope. There were so many times I questioned myself. DAVID: You killed all those people, {shocked, crying) ELIJAH: But I found you. So many sacrifices just to find you. Now that we know who you are, I know who I am. I'm not a mistake! It all makes sense! In a comic, you know who you can tell who the arch villain is going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero. And most times, they're friends, like you and me. I should've known way back then, you know why David? Because of the kids - they called me Mr. Glass.
Shyamalan is not encouraging acts of terrorism to be committed to find one's own purpose. Rather, a possible interpretation of this ending is the observation that he is underscoring the importance of finding purpose in one's life and suggesting a method of how to do this. Finding identity for this film's characters is of the utmost importance, for it is in finding their identity (who they are), that they find complete happiness. When this happiness is encountered, Shyamalan suggests, that their purpose is then found; they know what they have to do. When David acknowledges his true identity - that of a
56 protector or guardian of people - his purpose becomes clear and he knows what he must
now do and goes to the train station where he can help people.
Shyamalan emphasizes the distinction between the happiness that is found when
purpose is discovered, and the sadness that one sees in a character such as David when he
is not doing what it is he should be. True happiness, Shyamalan's argument is, comes
from finding true identity and living out that purposeful identity. This is why at the end
of the film, Elijah, or Mr. Glass, is not afraid to reveal the terrible things he has done, nor
afraid of jail. He has already found his purpose, which was to find a hero to protect the
innocent from others like him. In his mind, his actions brought about a greater good; to him, his ends justify his means and his purpose is fulfilled.
Shyamalan once again, points the viewers towards something more transcendent than the lives of humans themselves. As one of the earlier scenes unfolds in the movie, one sees Elijah as a teenager sitting in his bedroom, unwilling to go outside, in fear that he may get hurt. However, his mother enters the room and encourages him to not be afraid, to step outside, and take a chance. The scene however is important in this discussion as it outlines a connection between God and purpose:
YOUNG ELIJAH: I'm not going out there anymore. I'm not getting hurt again. This is for the last time, {referring to arm in cast) I told you. ELIJAH'S MOTHER: You can't do anything about that. You might fall between this chair and that television. If that's what God has planned for you, that's what's going to happen. You can't hide from it sitting in a room.
Indeed, what Shyamalan is driving at, most Christians would agree with. Many believe that a supreme being does have a specific purpose, or plan, for each of his
57 individual creatures and that it is the recognition of this identity that brings about
fulfillment, which fully allows people to do what they were created for.
2.1.4 -SIGNS83
Signs was released in 2002 and is Shyamalan's most direct religious statement, as
the main character, Graham Hess, is a weary, father of two, priest, who has lost all trust
and faith in God, as his wife, Colleen, was recently horrifically killed when a neighbour
fell asleep at his car's wheel and slammed into her, while walking home one evening.
Suffering, Graham quits his job at the local church and focuses on trying to raise his son
and daughter with the help of his younger brother, Merrill, who has recently moved into
the Hess farmhouse with them. While the struggle for this family of moving on in life
unfolds, other universal events begin to happen, such as strange crop circles being made
all over the world, including in the Hess' corn fields. First thought to be con artists, the
crops keep popping up all over the world in short spans of time, and mysterious animal
reactions to rustles in the wind begin to occur, making people think twice about mere
cons. Before too long, it is declared official - aliens are attempting to take over the planet. These signs that pointed towards alien life were in fact true, which is half the reason the film is called what it is.
The other half of the reason for the name however comes from a deeper rendering of the story. Graham's personal struggle with his wife's death, have led him to a dark world where there is no God who cares for His creation. As Shyamalan himself describes the film in an opening commentary on the DVD of Signs, it is "a metaphor; a conversation between God and this one man (Graham). The title, Signs, it definitely has
Signs. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix. DVD. Blinding Edge Pictures, 2002.
58 two meanings. One is the crop signs that they find in their yard, but it is also talking
about faith and the existence of signs from above, in a kind of heavenly manner and the
main character played by Mel Gibson, is a man who has lost faith and is actually in
search of signs that there is somebody out there watching over them."
Indeed, this is not just another alien film, but rather, is a movie that deals
primarily with the questions of a deity's immanence. Graham cannot understand why
God has taken his wife away from him, so he deduces that perhaps God does not exist.
Some viewers of this film would say that Graham has actually become an atheist and that
he has lost his faith in God. This could be true, but there is another option; he could
believe in a wholly transcendent, deistic, non-immanent God. He sees no indication, or
signs, in the world of God being directly involved in the lives of humans, yet he could
still believe in a divine being. Proof for this latter position comes from one scene in particular, near the end of the movie, where Graham's small boy has an asthma attack,
caused by the alien's invading intentions. As he sits there, holding his son in his arms with the possibility that his son may die, glaring him in the face, Graham whispers to God:
GRAHAM: Don't do this to me again. Not again. I hate you. I hate you!
Luckily, the small boy pulls through his attack. This recognition of God, however, indicates that deep down, Graham does believe in God's existence, but does not see His presence anywhere in the world. Besides this one short scene, Shyamalan gives no indication as to what exactly Graham believes, but the initial interpretation of his beliefs seems to be that he has turned to an atheistic position. Regardless, some type of faith has been lost in God; hope has been removed. A speech, given by Graham to his younger
84 M. Night Shyamalan, Signs. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix. DVD. Blinding Edge Pictures, 2002
59 brother, Merrill, while watching the incoming news feeds about the pending alien
invasion, outlines two opposing positions that every human chooses between:
MERRILL: Some people probably thinking this is the end of the world. GRAHAM: That's true. MERRILL: Do you think it could be? GRAHAM: Yes. MERRILL: How can you say that? GRAHAM: That wasn't the answer you wanted? MERRILL: Couldn't you pretend to be like you used to be? Give me some comfort. GRAHAM: People.. .break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck; more than a coincidence. They see it as a sign; evidence that there is someone up there watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck; a happy turn of chance. I'm sure those people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights (referring to the alien's spaceship) in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation isn't fifty-fifty. It could be bad. It could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own and that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there's a whole lot of people in the group number one. They see those fourteen lights - they're looking at a miracle and deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there'll be someone there to help them and that fills them with hope. So what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or look at the question this way - is it possible that there are no coincidences? MERRILL: (long pause) I was at this party once and I was on the couch with Miranda McKinney. Whew. She was just sitting there, looking beautiful, starring at me. I go to lean in and kiss her and I realize I have gum in my mouth. So I turn, take out the gum, stuff it in a paper cup next to the sofa, and turn around. Miranda McKinney throws up all over herself. I knew the second it happened, it was a miracle. I could've been kissing her when she threw up. That would have scarred me for life. I may never have recovered. (begins to chuckle) I'm a miracle man. Those lights are a miracle. GRAHAM: There you go. MERRILL: So, which type are you? GRAHAM: Do you feel comforted?
60 MERRILL: Yeah, I do. GRAHAM: Then what does it matter? (no answer/long pause) I never told you the last words that Colleen said before they let her die. She said, 'See.' Then her eyes glazed a bit and then she said, 'Swing away.' Do you know why she said that? Because the nerve endings of her brain were firing as she died and some random memory of us at one of your baseball games just popped into her head, (another long pause) There is no one watching out for us, Merrill. We are all on our own.
Graham has lost his hope in God, as well as his personal sense of purpose; he sees
no reason behind events, but rather sees random, unconnected occurrences. He sees the
world as a clock, ticking along, with no one in control. It is an ironic speech given by
Graham, not because of what he says, but because of the events that are happening
around him. When he says, "We are all on our own," this is obviously not true in and of
itself, for the aliens that are invading negate this statement. Humanity is not alone,
especially with the pending alien invasion, but the irony once again works on a deeper
level. God is also with his creation, transcendent enough to actually participate in earthly
events and to be immanent, as the end of the movie demonstrates.
Graham's son, diagnosed with a chronic asthma condition, and his daughter,
paranoid about water contamination and constantly asking for a new glass of water and
leaving her half-filled cups all over the house, are signs in and of themselves. These
everyday quirks of his children end up saving their lives, once again indicating that things just don't happen randomly. At the end of the movie, an alien has worked himself into the Hess household and sprayed the son with a poisonous gas. Graham and Merrill stand there watching the invading creature hold the small child in his reptilian arms. Graham flashes back to the final words of his wife before she dies, and then he sees the signs.
Colleen had told him to 'See.' He now sees the signs that were so evident all along, if
61 only he had kept his faith, his hope, that there is a purpose for everything and that God is
in control of the details. Spotting the bat above his brother's head, Graham tells Merrill the words Colleen spoke to him, 'Swing away.' Merrill sees his old baseball bat, grabs it,
and swings, hitting the alien who drops the small boy. In the process, he also hits one of the half-filled glasses of water which litter the room they are in. The water in fact ends
up burning the alien, the result of some sort of allergic reaction for the strange creature.
Merrill notices this and keeps slugging away at the alien, spilling water on it, all the while
and before long, the alien is dead.
However, their joy quickly turns to concern when Graham turns his attention to his asthma-ridden son, who is not breathing. Graham takes him outside to try and let the
fresh air work out the alien's poison, and as he sits there, he prays to God:
GRAHAM: That's why he had asthma. It can't be luck. His lungs were closed. His lungs were closed, no poison got in. No poison got in. His lungs were closed, his lungs were closed. {Merrill puts a hand on the small boy's chest) Don't touch him, give him a minute, (no response from the boy) Give him a second. Don't touch him! Don't God!
With that, the small boy then opens his eyes and speaks. It is here where Graham has re-acquired his hope in God, by re-discovering his faith that miracles, not luck, but signs, and not arbitrary randomness, are evidence of God's being. Better put, by seeing purpose for the everyday detail and the everyday event and choice, one can see the workings of something greater than chaos theory. Signs portrays faith without immanence in a man who is obviously lost and the film weighs heavily between coincidence and purpose, in this case synonymous with 'a reason.' What Shyamalan is searching for and then portraying is meaning. Meaning for things in life that humanity does not understand indicates a higher cause and something beyond chance and greater
62 than meaninglessness and purposelessness - a God so transcendent that he can control
worldly events.
This film is a strong echoing of Shyamalan's own personal beliefs. In
Bamberger's book, Shyamalan recounts how in the film Splash, directed by the great Ron
Howard, the story revolved around a mermaid. "Now, two decades later, Night had hired
Ron Howard's daughter to play the part of what Night called a 'sea nymph' (in his movie
Lady In The Water). Night said that when he was writing Lady, he wasn't thinking of
Splash, and when he cast Bryce Howard, he wasn't thinking about the Ron Howard-
mermaid connection. But he liked how the pieces fit together. 'There are no
coincidences,' Night said echoing Freud."85 Put another way, what if everything that
happened had meaning? Would this not prove indicative of a higher being?
2.1.5 -THEVILLAGE™
Shyamalan's 'period piece' came in 2004 and was appropriately entitled The
Village, as the story revolved around a small village, which seemed to be set in the early pioneer days, when such villages were common and isolated from other settlements. No cars, no electricity, no money, and no means of communication made the villagers
dependent on their crops, their harvests, and their hard work to survive in what seemed
such a peaceful, quiet, developing village. Yet, as is with almost everything, there is more than meets the eye and this village carried a secret unbeknownst to most of the people living it.
Michael Bamberger, The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career On A Fairy Tale (New York: Gotham Books, 2006), 61. 86 The Village. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard. DVD. Touchstone Pictures, 2004.
63 Plagued by what seemed to be terrifying creatures that came from the surrounding
woods, known only to the villagers as 'those we don't speak of,' the people of the village
dared not ever enter the forbidden area, marked by the tree line of the forests, due to an
agreement between the creatures and the people - neither group would enter the other's
territory; the village was off limits to the creatures if the people refrained from ever
entering into the woods. However, as the story unfolds, this treaty is broken as a young
man named Lucius Hunt enters the woods one day, which in turn, causes the red-robed
creatures to enter the village at night, wandering around seeking victims, killing sheep,
and skinning dogs.
The secret kept by a handful of elderly villagers, who make up the town council
of sorts, is that the creatures of the wood are actually not real, but rather grotesque
costumes that the members of the council take turns wearing to scare the rest of the villagers away from entering the woods. Why do these few people wish to keep everyone out of the woods? The answer is because the village itself is a complete lie. The village is a human construction of these few individuals, not a natural location, and its purpose is to keep away the evil of the outside world in the twentieth century. They are not living in the eighteenth century, but rather the twentieth and the founders of this village (the elders) have seen the chaos, murder, and destruction of the innocent. Repulsed by the terrible features of the world, they have run away and built a barrier around them, to raise their children as if this village is reality. The village is strikingly similar to that of Plato's cave, where the majority of inhabitants are unaware of an outside world, which constitutes more reality than the artificially constructed village. The villagers are comparable to the prisoners of the cave, who "in every way believe that the truth is nothing other than the
64 shadows of those artifacts." The villager's perception of truth is based on a lie, in the
same way that the cave's prisoner's concept of reality is based on mere shadows of actual
objects.
However, things begin to fall apart for the villagers when a horrible attempted
murder happens in the small town. Noah Percy, a young man with a mental handicap,
becomes jealous of a blossoming romance between two young individuals, Lucius Hunt
(the man who ventured into the woods seeking peace with the creatures) and Ivy Walker,
the blind daughter of Edward Walker who helped found the village. Noah, who has
always had a strange, almost chilling, type of childhood crush on Ivy, becomes envious
when Lucius and Ivy announce their upcoming marriage to the village. In wrath and
confusion, the handicapped man, corners Lucius one day and repeatedly stabs him,
leaving him for dead. Fortunately, Lucius is found and cared for by members of the
village, but things do not look well because Lucius has picked up an infection from the
open wounds which cover his body. The local village doctor, after a thorough
examination, predicts Lucius will die soon if proper medicine is not acquired and
administered to the young man.
Of course this creates a dilemma for the elders of the village, for they cannot dare to risk revealing the secret they have so long striven to keep, yet medicine from the modern world, beyond the trees, is required for Lucius to live. Edward Walker, out of desperation, turns to his daughter, Ivy (Lucius' fiancee) and reveals to her the secret of the village. He sends her to travel through the woods and find the 'outside world,' and bring back medicine that will save Lucius' life. It should be noted at this time, that
Plato, "The Republic," in Plato: Complete Works, trans. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), 1133.
65 Shyamalan goes out of his way to exhibit the pure love that exists between Ivy and
Lucius.
This is accomplished by Shyamalan making his character, Ivy Walker, blind.
This deliberate choice eliminates physical attraction from this kind of love that is being
endorsed throughout the film. This purer love is reinforced again by Ivy's naive sister,
Kitty, who at the beginning of the movie, is also 'in love' with Lucius. The problem is, he does not feel the same way, and why should he, since Kitty never tells him until she
approaches him about marriage. In a humorous scene, with Lucius just standing there,
looking stunned, shocked, and confused, Kitty rambles on in an over-the-top fashion
about love:
KITTY: Good afternoon, Lucius. I wanted to tell you something. I love you Lucius. I love you like the day is long. I love you more than the sun and the moon together. And if you feel the same way, then we should not hide it any longer. It's a gift, love is. We should be thankful. We should bellow it out with all the breath in our lungs. Thank you. Thank you! THANK YOU!
Then, the next scene immediately cuts to Kitty in her house being comforted by her parents, crying loudly and dramatically, over Lucius's rejection. One would think it would take awhile for her to recover from this pain, but in a few scenes over (about a month in terms of chronology in the movie), Kitty is getting married to another young gentleman. Shyamalan creates Kitty, a character foil for Ivy, to deliberately draw a distinction between this superfluous love and the deep love that exists between the blind, yet thoughtful, intuitive Ivy and the quiet, shy, fearless, non-emotional Lucius, as is portrayed in one prominent scene between the two:
66 IVY: When we are married, will you dance with me? I find dancing very agreeable. {Lucius looks shocked as this is the first time she has ever spoken about marriage. He freezes.) Why can you not say what is in your head? LUCIUS: Why can you not stop saying what is in yours? (tearing up) Why must you lead, when I want to lead? If I want to dance, I will ask you to dance. If I want to speak, I will open my mouth and speak. Everyone is forever begging me to speak for them. Why? What good is it to tell you that you are in my every thought from the time I wake? What good can come from my saying that I sometime cannot think clearly or do my work properly? What gain can rise from my telling you the only time I feel fear as others do is when I think of you in harm? That is why I am on this porch Ivy Walker. I fear for your
safety before all others, (pause) And yes, I will dance with you on our wedding night.
This is not an overly romanticized speech like that of Kitty's, but rather a correct
portrait of true love - when the fearless become fearful for the one they love and when the
blind is madly in love with one they cannot see. This love, this purity and innocence of
love, is what allows Ivy, a simple blind girl, to venture through the forest to retrieve medicine to save her fiancee. Not only must she physically complete this task, but she also must live afterward with the knowledge of the secret of the village. During her travel she must also face 'the creatures', for although they are not real, Noah Percy has found the costumes hidden by the elders and dons it in an angry, confused assault on Ivy in the woods. The creature costumes, wart-hog like monsters wearing a red cape, serve more than a mere scare tactic created for the audience; rather they are a symbol for the dark side of humanity that allows individuals to kill, cheat, steal, and become consumed by greed. They are an echo of what the elders desperately tried to isolate from their village by creating a 'mini-world,' hidden from the reality of the ugly situation.
Yet, when Noah attempts to kill Lucius, the elders, especially Edward, see that it is impossible to be completely void of evil, regardless of how far one buries themselves in the backwoods, away from secular society. The dark side of humanity will always find
67 a way to crawl back, regardless of the geographical location. Similar to Thomas Hobbes'
conception of human nature, which is "brutish, nasty, and short,"88 the elders slowly learn
that it is not society that corrupts, but that the human is born corrupted. Luckily, it is this
love that purifies people like Ivy and Lucius and that allows them to conquer and defeat
this darker side of nature. This is reinforced by the fact that Ivy succeeds in retrieving the
medicine and saving Lucius' life.
After sending his daughter on this dangerous journey, Edward must answer to the
rest of the elders and explain why he decided to reveal their secret. In this moving scene,
with Edward standing before his peers, he must explain why he has chosen to break their
vow of silence on the true origin of their village. Shyamalan emphasizes the connection
of hope and love and how they can conquer the evil that is now in their village:
ELDER WOMAN: What have you done? EDWARD: He (Lucius) is the victim of a crime. ELDER WOMAN: We have agreed never to go back. Never! EDWARD: What was the purpose of our leaving? Let us not forget it was out of hope, out of something good and right... ELDER MAN: You should not have made decisions without us. You have gone too far... EDWARD: I'm guilty Robert! I made a decision of the heart. I cannot look into another's eyes and see the same look I see in August's (who lost his small boy to lack of medicine for a serious illness) without justification. It is too painful. I cannot bear it. ELDER WOMAN: You have jeopardized everything we've made. EDWARD: Who do you think will continue this place- this life? Do you plan to live forever? It is in them that our future lies. It is in Ivy and Lucius that this way of life will continue. Yes, I have risked. I hope I am always able to risk everything for the just and right cause.
Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan," in From Plato To Derrida, ed. Forrest E. Baird and Walter Kaufmann (Upper Sadie River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003), 468.
68 If we did not make this decision, we could never again call ourselves innocent, and that, in the end, is what we have protected here - innocence! That, I'm not ready to give up. ELDER LEADER: (pause) Let her (Ivy) go. If it ends, it ends. We can move towards hope, it's what is beautiful about this place. We must not run from heartache. My brother was slain in the towns, the rest of my family died here. Heartache is a part of life, we know that now. Ivy is running toward hope, let her run. If this place is worthy, she'll be successful in her quest. ELDER WOMAN: (turning back to Edward) How could you have sent her? She's blind. EDWARD: She's more capable than most in this village. She is lead by love. The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Shyamalan is commenting on hope, a theme which is more explicitly discussed in his next film, yet nonetheless important here as well. Ivy indeed is moving towards hope, but the propelling force behind her is love. The reason the world kneels to love in awe, is because the world does not understand how love has the power it does; how it can conquer the dark and unjust side of humanity. This scene is a wake up call for the elders, as they finally realize that it is not their village that protects the innocent, but rather it is love, untainted and absent from evil, that is the best weapon against the dark side of nature.
2.1.7 - LADY IN THE WATER 89
Shyamalan's seventh, and to date, latest film, Lady In The Water, was released in the summer of 2006. It derived its beginning from a mythical tale that Shayamalan conjured up and told his children before bedtime, which involves a mysterious female water-nymph named Story who has come to this world to release an 'Awakening.' This
'Awakening' is more precisely defined by 'a vessel,' (a human being) who upon viewing this water-nymph gives him the ability and courage to write his thoughts on the current
89 Lady In The Water. Dir. M. Night Shyamalan. Perfs. Bryce Dallas Howard, Paul Giamatti. DVD. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2006.
69 condition of the world and critique the intolerance, wrath, and injustice that causes oppression and pain. Story is able to predict future events and prophesizes how this particular writing will eventually change the world. In commenting on this part of the story, Shayamalan compares his plotline to the historical events that helped abolish slavery:
".. .Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811 -1896), she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin. (1852) It made you feel for the slaves. It's an amazing, amazing book. But in and of itself, it didn't change the world. Abraham Lincoln read it, became president, and ended slavery. That's what's going on here. A writer writes, and years later, somebody reads the books and gets inspired. The writer doesn't know he's written something important. He's just writing because he believes it."
Story is lucky enough to find Cleveland, a stuttering superintendent who has retired for the rest of his life to this apartment complex named The Cove. After his family was brutally murdered, Cleveland lost hope for his life and has since lived a dreary, pitiful existence. Giving up on life, he exists only in the context of the apartment building, as this has become his pit of existence. The Cove can be viewed as a spot where people go when they are lost and have given up, as can be seen in another resident,
Mr. Leeds who is a retired older man who sits in his apartment and communicates with no one. He is an older version of what Cleveland is slowly transforming into - that is, a man without purpose and one who has lost his hope. In one scene, involving these two characters, the thrust of the 'real' movie and plot, the restoration of humanity, becomes evident:
MR. LEEDS: Does man deserve to be saved, Mr. Heap? CLEVELAND: What? MR. LEEDS: Man.
70 CLEVELAND: (beat) Yes. MR. LEEDS: That's not the answer I expected. CLEVELAND: Why did you ask me that? MR. LEEDS: I know about your family. I looked you up when you started working here. I know someone killed them, but you can't give up. You can't hide here, son. You don't want to become like me.
Indeed it is here where the 'real' story revolves. Yet, it is a plotline that is
wrapped up in, and makes abundant use of, mythology - Story the water nymph, the
Scrunt (a grass-like wolf creature) who is seeking to destroy the water nymph, the Tartuic
(a three bodied being similar to the form a monkey with sharp spikes, whose role is
similar to that of the 'police' who carry out justice in this magical world), and the Great
Eatlon (a giant eagle that transports Story between the real world and her magical palace).
While it serves as a fictional account of nymphs and scary creatures, it more importantly
is about the reconstruction of humanity. It is the story of a man, Cleveland Heap, who has lost all, and is confused why these terrible events in his life occurred. The complete narrative and main plot is masked behind the mythical 'Story.' When Cleveland is asking about why the Tartuic (which could be a symbolic gesture towards the three persons of the Triune God) have not yet come to punish the evil Scrunt, he is indeed referring to his own life:
CLEVELAND: Where are the Tartunic? Why isn't he (the Scrunt) being punished? Where is the justice?
Much like the story of Job in the Bible, Cleveland wonders why such injustice could exist in the Blue World, the land from Story has come. He asks, not only in reference to his present context in this mythic adventure, but also to the loss he has
71 suffered in his complete life. Shyamalan uses this mythical account as a vehicle to
uncover and peel back the solution to man's salvation that Mr. Leeds spoke of in the
above quotation. These two answers are the main themes that are portrayed repeatedly
throughout the story - hope and its relation to purpose.
Hope is found throughout the movie, scattered amongst Cleveland's damaged past
and his participation in the current plot involving Story. He is a man who, in one respect,
is devoid of hope because of the brutality he has experienced in the real world. He longs
for his family and the pain he bears is a constant reminder for him of how powerless he
actually is. This is exemplified in his speech stutter; it is a physical weakness which
actually symbolizes his brokenness inside. However, his inability to speak clearly heals
itself whenever he is in the presence of Story. His physical ailment is oppressed, and his voice becomes stronger, but more importantly, so does his spirit. It is in Story, this mystical water-nymph, that Cleveland re-discovers hope and is finally able to tackle and deal with his haunted past. In fact, it is this very hope that ends up defining him as 'the
Healer.' When Story is injured by the monstrous Scrunt, she can only be cured by the touch of the Healer, one of the characters that exist in this 'bedtime story,' which is relayed to Cleveland through an elderly Korean woman who lives a floor above him.
According to the legend, the Healer is characterized by one who is usually surrounded by butterflies, but more importantly, one who 'is so full of hope that they can awaken the life force in all things.' As the plot unfolds, the characters and the audience slowly realize that Cleveland is indeed the Healer, which presents one with an interesting duality of one man being filled with hope and yet, at the same time, deprived of the life that hope brings.
72 Of course Cleveland eventually does face and overcome his past. This is done as
his hope is transformed. In his study, Bamberger recounts an interesting conversation he
had with Shyamalan while on a plane, which deals with this mysterious transformation
that happens in people. Bamberger and the director had just met with one of the plane's
stewardesses and began to take guesses about her life based on intuition alone - a skill
that Night prized and dearly hung onto.
'You know, if you and our stewardess were in a burning building and I could only save one of you, I'd save her,' Night said quietly. He says things like that, provocative, odd, interesting things. Amused and startled, I asked why. 'You already believe in something. All she's got is hope. No faith, just hope. She's trying to so hard. She's trying with her hair, trying with her makeup, trying with her smile. But life's beat her down. Her expectations are low. She's hanging on by a thread, but she's hanging on. Save her from the burning building, she'd have faith for the rest of her life.'90
It is this transformation of hope into faith that occurs in this film. As Story lies in his arms near the end of Lady In The Water, Cleveland begins to speak, in an attempt to
save this mysterious creature who has befriended him. However, his monologue is not directed to Story - it is intended for his deceased family. As tears begin to flow and his voice quavers, he prays:
CLEVELAND: I'm sorry I couldn't protect you. I should have been there. I am always going to regret just not being there. I miss your faces...they remind me of God. I'm so lost without you guys. I met this very nice lady and her name is Story. I think you would have liked her. I think she might be...an angel. But she has to go home....I love you all. I love you all so much.
As he speaks the words on his heart, through gasps of heartache, the wounds on
Story's body disappear and she is healed. More importantly however, Cleveland is healed. It is here, in Cleveland's personal life, that Shyamalan's real story becomes
Michael Bamberger, The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career On A Fairy Tale, 44.
73 evident. The 'Healer' has been healed from his own despair and that is because his hope
has been fully renewed. Much in the same way that Story is saved and taken home by the
Great Eatlon, Cleveland's hope turns into faith and he finds purpose and salvation, thus
completing the reconstruction of a broken man.
Once again then, the theme of purpose has surfaced in Shyamalan's work. Much
like his other films, he promotes a sense of purpose for his characters - a reason for their
existence. Of course, this purpose driven theme is a commentary on real life and this
nagging question that presents itself in philosophical inquiry and religious discussion -
"Why am I here?" This existential question plagues the characters in The Cove as they
frantically attempt to sort out the roles they need to play in this 'bedtime story.' Much
like the role of the 'Healer, there are other supporting roles which need to be filled - a
Guild of Seven, an Interpreter/Symbolist, and a Guardian. These people are meant to help Story get back home, but more importantly identify a sense of purpose for their own personal existence. However, in the frantic rush to find who these people are, Cleveland mis-identifies many of them and pegs them wrongly for these roles. When the characters discover this, it is through Mr. Dury, a secondary character who was first thought to be the Interpreter, comments on, what I believe, Shayamalan's main argument in this film to be:
MR. DURY: This world is about finding your purpose, right? And the only way to do that is to find your own voice. I don't feel like an Interpreter. Is it possible that that isn't my purpose?...Finding one's purpose is a profound thing; sometimes it isn't always what it seems.
Here again, as in his other films, Shyamalan is arguing that meaning and purpose justify existence. He is trying to demonstrate that without purpose and without a reason,
74 the world means nothing and people slink away into the dark, depressing disparities of
their lives, as Cleveland has done in The Cove. Shyamalan seems to be arguing a circular
relationship of purpose and hope. First, he seems to be asserting that when one finds
purpose, he or she also finds hope. In the same breath, he also conveys the idea that it is
through hope transformed that leads to finding a purpose- this is the reason for 'fighting
against death. In a more contemporary way, Shyamalan is saying what the poet Dylan
Thomas said years ago, 'Do not go gentle into that good night.'91
In a deleted scene in the film's Bonus Features, Shyamalan has placed a short clip
that unfortunately did not make the final cut. The shot involves Cleveland and Story.
She says a rather prophetic thing that summarizes the film's focus and Shyamalan's
ability to derive serious thematic overtones through dialogue. Story, with her back to
Cleveland, acknowledging the sadness and hurt he must feel from the loss of his family
says, "If I may say one thing? The moment a person finds his voice, is the moment his
life takes on grace."
2.2 - Summary
We may now summarize the themes - transcendence, purpose, love, and hope - that present themselves in the films. It is important to emphasize at this point, however, that Shyamalan is not overly systematic; that is to say, he does not treat his religious themes thoroughly, nor critically, but rather his themes jump around, making it difficult to narrow down any one specific, affirmative doctrine on each issue. Neither does he attempt to build a cohesive, inner-connective system that portrays how each theme interacts with the others. He merely states his case for each theme as it best suits each
91 Dylan Thomas, Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night, 1951.
75 film. For this reason, any one of his six films may omit a particular theme if it does not
fit into the overall story.
What is important to note, when attempting to summarize Shyamalan's
concentration on these four religious themes, is that they bring to attention important
contributions that should be thoroughly discussed and examined in a religious tradition,
such as that of Christianity. Transcendence, which often points towards a deity in charge
of all, is an issue Shyamalan brings to light and struggles with in films such as Wide
Awake, The Sixth Sense, and Signs. The concept of purpose in the director's eyes, best
described as a particular fulfillment in one's life, which differs for all people, but is the
completion of a higher being's plan, is outlined in films including, but not limited to,
Unbreakable, Wide Awake, and Lady In The Water. The powerful theme of love plays
out in different ways in all of Shyamalan's films, but the most notably is love that can
exist between people, regardless of the relationship. His portrayal of love is at its best
when it dives deep, past physical attraction, and attempts to demonstrate the power it can have in people's lives, as it shines past the ugliness of the world, as is shown in The
Village. Finally, there is the theme of hope, which is sometimes translated as faith, in a
film such as Signs. Usually however, hope is portrayed as a vital part of living, as a reason to continue onward when life becomes unbearable, as is the case of the main character in Lady In The Water.
These four themes, now having been identified in each film, are important not only to religion, but also to humanity in general. Transcendence, purpose, love, and hope are useful tools to the twenty-first century, as they can help dictate moral behaviour in the world. They can affect society as a whole, helping to dictate relations with others, or
76 they can serve to individually influence one's own life and beliefs. It is of no surprise, then, that someone outside of practical Christian living, such as Shyamalan, would focus so directly on such important themes.
77 CHAPTER3
To complete Johnston's dialogical methodology in the relationship of film and theology, one final step must be made. The first step was to allow the films of
Shyamalan to reveal and portray themes. With these religious themes - transcendence, purpose, love, and hope - deduced from the films, one is now able to complete the
second step. This phase involves the transference of implicit religious material into explicit Christian theology. It is here that theologians, Christians who specialize in ideological categories, such as transcendence, purpose, love, and hope, can provide helpful comparisons/contrasts on these religious themes. This process consists of what was spoken of in chapter one, where negative witness is transformed into a theological discussion, creating a positive witness.
Within Christianity itself, there can be many different opinions on these concepts, and thus it becomes necessary to try to identify certain 'types' of theological education regarding these themes. To achieve the broadest opinions possible, the theological input has been divided into three categories - from an Evangelical perspective represented by
Millard J. Erickson (1932-present), a Canadian Protestant perspective from Douglas John
Hall (1928-present), and a Roman Catholic opinion seen through the work of Karl Rahner
(1904-1984).92 The reason for examining the aforementioned topics through the lenses of these specific theologians is due to their consciousness of their surrounding context at the time of their writing. It seems only fitting for a thesis such as this to discuss theology with those who have written profoundly about the relationship between theology and culture. The specific theologians in each category, however, do not fully represent all
92 These three men represent the whole of Christianity. Rather, it is more adequate to acknowledge these individual's representation of Western Christianity.
78 other theologians who may be categorized in the same group. For example, not all
Evangelicals will agree with the ones presented in this thesis, so the purpose of this
chapter is not to invoke discussions amongst Christians. Rather, the goal of this chapter
is to take the religious themes identified by Shyamalan, someone outside the walls of
practicing Christian faith, and see how they are discussed from three different
perspectives, which have been distinguished by different flavours in Christianity. Thus,
we begin the theological dialogue, raised by religious inquiries.
3.1 — Transcendence
Transcendence is often used to describe a subject that is above and/or beyond the
natural restraints of this world. Etymologically, it comes from the Latin, meaning 'go
beyond.'93 In today's secular culture, people sometimes use the word to describe
something that is actually beyond worldly description, such as a wonderful taste, for
example. However, its origins are primarily located in relation to a conception of a
divine being who is beyond this world. From this premise, logic rationalizes that if this being is beyond the human planes of existence, it must be that this divinity is greater than humanity itself, for the human race has yet to prove and achieve existence past the human boundaries, except through death. One is left then with transcendence often referring to a being that not only is capable of going beyond this world, but a being that is greater than humanity.
The concept of the Christian God, YAHWEH, being transcendent can be found throughout the Bible, in numerous stories, letters, and poems. Examples range from both the Old and New Testaments, as one sees God's transcendence in prophetic material such
93 Alan Richardson, 'Transcendence," in A Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, Date Unknown), 343.
79 as the book of Isaiah. Isaiah 55:8-9 especially identifies this 'other worldliness' of God in very straight forward language - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Jesus, part of the Triune God according to Christian theology, confesses in John 8:23 - "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." Again, in
Philippians 2:9, one finds God's being above that of ordinary humanity - "Therefore,
God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name."
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Biblical evidence strongly suggests that God is transcendent, above all that is classified as worldly, including humanity.
To explore this concept of transcendence and how it manifests in a divine being such as God, one must turn to theologians who have explored this idea. As stated earlier, this chapter will present three different 'types' of Christian theological thought, that do not necessarily completely represent everyone under the umbrella categories of
Evangelicalism, Protestantism, and Catholicism, but rather serve as an example of the line of reasoning that is often associated with these categories.
AN EVANGELICAL UNDERSTANDING94
We begin with Millard J. Erickson, a Distinguished Professor of Theology at
Bethel Theological Seminary, and a highly regarded evangelical writer. In his systematic work, entitled Christian Theology (1983-1985), he addresses the issue of God's transcendence by examining different historical models. For example, he called attention
94 In this discussion, an Evangelical is being defined in the North American context, so that it is defined as one who regards Scripture as the primary authority in knowing God. Evangelicals also focus heavily on 'personal experience' of the Christian faith, in which a personal relationship is established between themselves and Jesus Christ.
80 to the traditional model of God's transcendence which is largely associated with the
Biblical model and refers often to spatial explanations. In the days of antiquity, God was
thought of as being physically 'up' or 'in the heavens.' However, with the advancement
of modern science and astrophysics, this concept of spatial transcendence began to fall
apart. When individuals realized the planet was not flat, but rounded and constantly
rotating, the geographical locations of 'up' became distorted. Theologically, the problem
with this model, is that it does not align with God's own nature. As Erickson points out,
"God is not a physical being; hence he does not have spatial dimensions of location and
extension. It does not make sense to talk about God as if his location could be plotted on
astronomical coordinates, or he could be reached by travelling long enough and far
enough in a rocket ship. He is a spirit, not an object."95
With this model no longer proving sufficient in the face of scientific advancement,
Erickson seems to support the model proposed by Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), but
not before dealing with the critique of Karl Barth's (1886-1968) early model. Erickson
argues that Barth's original concept of God as being completely 'other,' advocated for a transcendent deity that was so far removed from the earthly realm that would be
impossible for people to ever really communicate with the divine being in the first place. It is here that Kierkegaard's interpretation seems to help Erickson explain the transcendence of God from a twentieth century perspective that accurately accounts for the proper understanding of this transcendental 'otherness.' Kierkegaard's main argument involved the distinction of quality from that of quantity. He insists that, "God cannot be known by taking the highest and the best elements within man and amplifying
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 313-314. 96 Ibid., 314.
81 them. Being qualitatively distinct, God cannot be extrapolated from the ideas that man
has nor from the qualities of man's personality or character."97 What this means is that
regardless of epistemological modes, or how we come to know God, this can never really
account for His own nature, for it is too distinct and too beyond humanity. The
quantitative sum of information about God can never fully equal His ontological nature.
"We cannot reach God by adding more information or more works, for God is God, not
simply a superlative form of man."98 If this is true, then one is no better off than they
were with Barth's early model of transcendence, for it becomes impossible for humanity
to then know anything about their creator.99
It is here that Kierkegaard offered the explanation of'dimensional beyondness,'
which Erickson seems to promote. This argument differs from the traditional special
model, as it identifies a difference in quality of dimensions. Erickson compares the
question, 'What is God like?,' with the question, 'What color is middle C?'100 The
question cannot be answered, as sound and sight are two different senses which operate
in qualitatively different dimensions. Using another analogy, Erickson compares God to
that of a frequency. Radio frequencies exist around human beings all the time, yet are
only heard by humans when a shift in the quality of dimension, from the human ear to a
radio receiver, occurs. Similarly, God is present in the world all around us, "yet because he is in a spiritual realm of reality, we cannot get from ourselves to him by mere
97 Ibid., 315. 98 Ibid. 99 It is important to note that in regards to Karl Barth, that he did not only assert the transcendence of God. Barth advocated for salvation being attainable through special revelation. As special revelation is the initiative of God communicating with His creation through Jesus, via the Holy Spirit, then Barth could not have held a transcendent view that removed God from the world. Erickson's point about Barth's early model of transcendence is not so much a critique of him specifically, but moreso a critique of loading emphasis on the transcendence of God, thus diminishing His impact in the earth. 100 Ibid., 316.
82 geographical locomotion. It requires a change of state to make that transition, a change which usually involves death."101 Of course, the benefit of this argument is that it accounts for the flaw that is present in Barth's model and Kierkegaard's qualitative distinction, and allows God to be known to his creation, while still being beyond them.
This naturally flows into a discussion of the combination of immanence and transcendence, which will be addressed shortly.
The important factors from an Evangelical perspective, such as Erickson's, that should be noted though, are that God's transcendence is above humanity and that transcendence (as well as immanence) should not be regarded as attributes of God, but rather, as a descriptive term to explain the relation of God's characteristics to his creation.102 Due to this understanding then, God can never be fully articulated or known through human language, in the same way an ant could never express human emotion such as joy, depression, or anger. Instead, it is a descriptive term to explain the relation of God's characteristics to his creation.103 Emphasis on the point that God is considered beyond human capability of understanding leads to the conclusion that humanity is dependent on their creator, while the creator, God himself, does not need his creation to justify his own existence. This is indeed at the heart of the concept of transcendence in an Evangelical understanding.
A PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING
Douglas John Hall, a mainstream Canadian Protestant and former professor at
McGill University, acknowledges the transcendence of God in the second volume of his systematic work, entitled Professing The Faith (1993), yet he struggles to account for
101 ibid. 102 Ibid., 302. 103 Ibid., 302.
83 how this quality interacts with the personal immanence of God as well. He asks, "how
was theology able to retain the high picture of God presented in classical philosophies as
well as most monotheistic faiths and at the same time remain loyal to the fundamental
Christian belief that God is revealed supremely in the ignoble, sacrificial death of the
man of Nazareth?"104 At first in the beginnings of theology, Hall acknowledges that
many theologians used the transcendence of God Almighty as a type of 'mold' against
which all other characteristics were measured, including, but not limited to theological
doctrines such as the immanence of Christology. However, as theology has evolved and
denominations flourished, later emphasis has shifted more to the consideration of love
found in Christ, leaving many modern Christians as "victims of both unhappy traditions,
sometimes displayed simultaneously in curious admixtures of doctrinaire transcendence
verging on Deism and undialectical immanence verging on sentimental pantheism."
The resolution for this problem, for many Protestants, is found within the doctrine
of the Trinity, or as Hall calls it, the 'Triunity of God.' While not a direct Biblical term, this doctrine was created by the early church to help explain Biblical and theological understandings of how God the 'other,' could possibly also reveal Himself in human form. "As soon as the Christian community makes Jesus as the Messiah the center and foundation of its profession of faith, but without intending that Jesus should simply displace the God of Abraham and Sarah, the first and great stage of the Trinitarian enigma has been effectively introduced."106 Of course, the Holy Spirit is later added into this mixture of transcendence and immanence, becoming the third 'aspect' of the Triune
God.
104 Douglas John Hall, Professing The Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 53. 105 Ibid., 55. 106 Ibid., 58.
84 It is not this chapter's purpose to venture into Trinitarian doctrine. Rather, it is sufficient to understand transcendence as being part of a unity with immanence in
Protestant understanding. Hall himself offers no explanation of how the Trinity actually is, but rather points out the pitfalls that often occur in the North American twenty-first century church.
The relationship now identified in Trinitarian theology is better described by Hall as God wanting not to remain transcendent, or apart from His creation; the omnipotent
God wishes not to be a deity removed from what He has made. Rather, as Hall says,
"There is no law demanding of the Creator proximity to the creature. God's being with us is a matter of sheer grace.. .God's transcendence is not incidental to God's proximity, immanence, or presence. The above-ness of God, God's distinct otherness, ought not to be sacrificed to an undialectical immanence... the object of the Biblical God is proximity and not distance; and therefore while the divine transcendence qualifies the divine immanence by deepening it, it should not become the primary message of faith.. .That the essence of God is love - that God is love - does not translate into distance but nearness, nor does it court first the sense of undeservedness but rather gratitude."107 Again, similar to Millard Erickson, Hall is differentiating between physical distance and a spiritual nearness; God is other and above humanity in every sense, yet all the while, He is able to have relationship with his creation.
A CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING
The Roman Catholic understanding of transcendence, under the exploration of the
German theologian Karl Rahner, who was one of the leading contributors to modern
Catholic theology and influential in the Second Vatican Council, demonstrates a position
107 Ibid., 326-327.
85 similar to what has been recognized thus far as God being transcendent. It invokes the
classic definition of the word in a meaning of 'beyond,' or 'otherness.' As Rahner writes,
".. .by the very fact that God establishes the creature and its difference from himself, the
creature is a genuine reality different from God, and not a mere appearance behind which
God and his own reality hide."108
What is noteworthy and different from Erickson and Hall's understanding is
Rahner's claim that the human, too, is transcendent. Through the endless possibility of
questioning the mysterious world, a form of subjective experience, humanity has the
capability to become infinite, transcendent, in their existence. "In the fact that he
experiences his finiteness radically, he reaches beyond this finiteness and experiences
himself as a transcendent being, as spirit."109 Of course, this freedom to experience
transcendence is given through the grace of God,110 yet nonetheless is ultimately chosen
by the individual. For Rahner then, true transcendence is not mere theory, but rather a
way of life that is attainable through a priori experience. "Real transcendence is always
in the background, so to speak, in those origins of human life and human knowledge over which we have no control. This real transcendence is never captured by metaphysical reflection, and in its purity, that is, as not mediated objectivity, it can be approached
asymptotically at most, if at all, in mystical experience and perhaps in the experience of
final loneliness in the face of death."111
If part of humanity's nature can be interpreted as a type of transcendence, then history becomes the unfolding story of transcendence of both the individual and the
Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, trans. William V. Dych (New York: The Seabury Press, 1978), 78-79. 109 Ibid., 32. 1,0 Ibid., 34. 111 Ibid., 35.
86 collective whole of the human species. Transcendence therefore becomes intertwined
with history, for the human. To conclude the present discussion on transcendence, it is
best articulated in Rahner's own words when he writes:
The supernatural existential also has a history. If it is in this way that man is a being of subjectivity, of transcendence, of freedom and of a mutual relationship with the holy mystery which we call God; if he is the event of God's absolute self-communication, and if he is all of this always and inescapably and from the very beginning; and if as such a being of divinized transcendence he is at the same time a historical being both individually and collectively, then it follows that this ever- present and supernatural existential, in and through which he is oriented towards the holy mystery and towards God's absolute self- communication as an offer to man's freedom - this existential itself has a history individually and collectively, and this is at once the single history of both salvation and revelation.112
3.2 - Purpose
Purpose can mean many things in a Christian context. Two references that the
word usually encapsulates are the concept of a particular human vocational calling (an
example being a certain job or ministry), or it may refer directly to God's ultimate plan
for human creation as a whole. Ultimately, the two cannot be separated, for if God has a
plan for the entire race of homo sapiens, then it is not a complete stretch of the
imagination to conceive of each member of that race having been made for a specific task
or function. The common element that unites purpose in relation to the human species
and individual people is the recognition that God is the Creator and planner. This line of
Christian thought began in Thomas Aquinas' argument for proofs for the existence of
God, which was a modified version of the philosopher Aristotle's teleological argument.
Aristotle's reasoning was that humankind had a common telos, or end. This end was the reason for their existence: a final cause. In the acknowledgement of the final cause however, there was also a recognition of a first cause: a prime mover that existed in a
Ibid., 141.
87 realm of actuality independent of any other ontological thing and set everything that followed, including the end for humanity, in motion.
It is important to recognize that the Biblical writers do not hesitate to demonstrate that God's plan is in constant motion, never static or fully fixed.113 Countless stories of
God changing His mind can be found in Scripture, such as his sparing act of Ninevah, or in Jeremiah 18:8, where God Himself declares, "If that nation concerning which I have spoken turns from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
However, while Old Testament references demonstrate God's movement in history, His eternal plan is found in verses similar to Ephesians 3:11, when it says, "According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." God's ultimate purpose for humankind, Biblical evidence seems to suggest, is the salvation of individuals through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While this is a united understanding within all
Christian denominations, a closer look at the three types proves more in depth and insightful.
AN EVANGELICAL UNDERSTANDING
Erickson, an Evangelical, emphasizes God's purpose for his human creation as a whole. This issue is discussed at length in his systematic work, under the heading 'God's
Plan,' in which the focus is entirely on God's purpose for the entire human creation, as opposed to specific purpose-driven endeavours, such as natural gifts and talents. For
Erickson then, the best approach to understand God's purpose for humanity is to look at the historical movements of God's guiding hand over the human race.
113 O. S. Rankin, "Purpose," in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), 183-184.
88 While maintaining the consideration that God's purpose is for his creation to be saved from their iniquities, Erickson claims that this is actually only a means to an end.
The salvation of the human race is to serve a higher purpose - to glorify God. Indeed, this is Biblically supported as well, as Erickson makes abundant use of Scriptural passages. "The purpose of the whole plan of salvation is the glory of God through the good works which God has prepared for his people to do. (Eph.2:8-10) Jesus said that his followers were to let their lights shine so that men would see their good works and glorify their Father in heaven (Matt.5:16, John 15:8)."114 Erickson fully acknowledges God as independent of humanity, suggesting that people are created for the Lord's sake, and not for their own. This of course naturally leads to his conclusion that indeed the purpose for humanity is to recognize and administer due reverence and glorification for their maker.
When looking at the historical movement of the human race, Erickson treks through the different theories that have attempted to explain the procession of human history. He identifies beliefs that history is a series of repetitive processes consisting of cyclical reincarnations, beliefs that the world will one day be destroyed due to humanity's inability to take care of it, or existential beliefs of chaotic, coincidental randomness which derive no ontological meaning. Also among the various theories are concepts involving evolution, materialism, and Marxism. However, the one which the Evangelical often comes to rest at is best summarized in Erickson's conclusion:
Finally, there is the Christian doctrine of the divine plan, which affirms that an all-wise, all-powerful, good God has from all eternity planned what is to occur and that history is carrying out his intention. There is a definite goal toward which history is progressing. History is not, then, merely chance happenings. And the force causing its movements is not impersonal atoms or blind fate. It is, rather, a loving God with whom we can have a personal relationship. We may
114 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Volume 1, 352.
89 look forward with assurance, then, toward the attainment of the telos of the universe. And we may align our lives with what we know will be the outcome of history.115
To be sure, the benefit of the Christian outlook of history's future is that
Christians know what the future holds, and they understand what their purpose will be in the fulfillment of this event. For the Christian Evangelical then, the ultimate glorifying of the Lord is humanity's purpose, their reason for existing. No other so-called purpose outside of this final eternal telos matters, or if it does, it is a mere stepping stone to this undeniable finality of praising the Creator. From this position, a promise arises from the
Lord: a promise that claims that if we are made to bring God glory, then those who choose to do this, will be forever looked after by the Lord.
A PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING
Douglas John Hall takes the evangelical concept of human purpose with affirmation, but also carries it further than Erickson does. He confirms, that for humans, their own creation is not just the 'crown jewel,' of the earth, but that they are also their own worst enemy. Humanity is incomplete and thus needs to be restored to perfection, which is only completed through the grace of God in the living Christ. Hall also agrees with Erickson's dedication to the profession that God will not abandon His creation, but rather that He will continue to look after and care for those whom He has created. Like Erickson, Hall denounces doomsday philosophies and catastrophes that destroy the world and encourages individuals to think of future events as a consummation, for "to profess that the end is to be understood as consummation and not catastrophe is to profess that God is committed to God's creational project and will bring it to
115 Ibid., 363. 116 Douglas John Hall, Professing The Faith, 242-247.
90 fulfillment."117 Although Hall does not directly conclude that this final purpose for the
human species is to bring glory to God, he does acknowledge this doxological certainty,
but also elaborates that whatever this final telos may be, God will be there, looking after
His creation. This adds a human element to Erickson's argument, suggesting that while
praise for the Creator is one of humanity's ultimate purposes, another could be to simply
be cared for by their natural maker; in other words, Hall articulates that humanity's
purpose as a whole is to simply acknowledge their creator and exist, allowing themselves
to be dependent on God's love.118
Hall adds more human flavour to his argument, as he switches from discussion of
purpose for humanity as a group to specific purposes, or vocational callings, as
individuals. The doxological solution, that man's purpose is to glorify God, does not
explain why one is initially created away from God in the first place. Why were people
put on this planet and what is their purpose as individuals, while here? Some Christians
argue that the purpose for humankind is to help non-believers accept the grace of Christ
and convert to the religion, but this does not adequately address the issue of why God
allows non-believers to ever be and it falls into the same trap as the doxological
solution. Put simply, if the only purpose is teleological in nature and emphasizes being
in the next life, then "it is implied not only that this life in itself and as such cannot be
said to have a purpose but that it presents a certain barrier to the attainment of our ultimate goal."120
117 Ibid., 358. 118 Ibid., 359. 119 Ibid., 274. 120 Ibid., 277.
91 Over the years arguments have arisen to help avoid this quest for earthly purpose,
by equating being with meaning. The argument states that the purpose of humankind is
simply to be humankind: that the conversion from potentiality to actuality of existence
suffices the duty of humanity. However, as Hall indicates, that while this philosophy
may have worked in previous centuries, it no longer is sufficient for today. For while
there are instances when life itself implies a fulfillment of purpose, "there are other
occasions when being itself contains no messages whatsoever about its own purpose and
may, on the contrary, impart strong intimations of randomness or lack of meaning. Being
as such, for at least vast numbers of us in North America, does not automatically confer
meaning; on the contrary, for many, being is burdensome."121 Indeed, there are times
when life does seem conquering and the alternative, death, becomes an ever increasing
appeal option. With this issue evidently weighing on Hall's mind, he sets off to discover
if there is human purpose in this world.
Of course, Hall has hesitations and concerns in dealing with this subject matter,
for it often concludes in an omission of theocentricity and a heavy emphasis on the self.
"Whether through the soul's purification or through human self-fulfillment, the discussion of the telos of human life is still centered upon the self- and to the point that in both conservative and liberal versions of faith, it has always been difficult for
Christians, especially Protestants, to avoid the taint of religious egoism and to espouse communality. The appeal of self-interest is present, whether one posits that the goal of life is to get to heaven, or one thinks it Christian to create for oneself a heaven on earth." With this focus on the self, it becomes difficult then to embrace the Biblical
121 Ibid., 275. 122 Ibid., 279.
92 concept of love for others. Therefore, whatever is to be identified as purpose for this
earthly existence, must somehow contain the duality of self-fulfillment and love for
others, all the while being theocentric.123
Hall's solution to this is to acknowledge that human vocation is a representation
of God's authority. Using Psalm 8:3-8 as the biblical basis for his claim, Hall advances
the notion that God has given humanity dominion over earth to represent Him:
metaphorically similar to faithful stewards put in trust of something while the owner is
away. The fact that Jesus was given to the world in a fashion representative of the human,
demonstrates that God respects His creation. With this respect comes trust and authority
which has been given to the greatest creature on the planet - the human being. "In its
internal dominion the human creature is required to emulate God's own character and
manner of rule; it is to image God within the creational realm. God wills to be
represented concretely within the creation by one whose orientation toward God may
make it possible for that one to mirror God's own way with creation as a whole." This
representation of the Lord therefore must be done in a similar fashion as was seen when
God demonstrated respect for people - with sacrificial love and an attitude of stewardship
and suffering. The individual's purpose on this earth is to have 'dominion,' given solely
by God to His people, to serve as a representative to other creaturely beings and humans.
' It is important to note that Hall writes of theocentricism to some extent, although it is not completely relevant in this discussion. He suggests that not even the Bible promotes a theocentric God, in the sense that everything revolves around a particular deity. Rather, what the focal point of the Christian tradition is, is the "story itself- the whole, unfolding drama of God's venture, the creation, with its historical and natural dimensions, its diverse inhabitants, and the always surprising interactions of all its personages and components." (346) God does not allow things to happen around with Him in the middle, but rather becomes an active participant in the movement itself and if anything, places His focus on His creation - the human. Viewed in this context, the human condition can be then be viewed as a type of work in progress, as history progresses and humanity evolves. It is from this context, that Hall transforms the modern meaning of theocentricism into 'God's dominion' within the narrative of history. 124 Ibid., 350.
93 This authority and power is accomplished and lived out not in power, but by the same
sacrificial and loving characteristics of Jesus the Christ, as John 10:11 suggests.
While humans are to be the representations of God, humanity is also to represent
all other creation itself. "Here the human being, the speaking animal, comes before its
Creator with words. It is not there for its own sake alone; it is there on behalf of all the
others. It is the priest who represents them all before God."125 Before the Lord, the
human also acts as the representative of those creations that cannot speak. They bring to
God praise and a doxological gratitude that affirms what He has done is welcomed and
accepted. However, they also bring God the complaints of creation: the burdens that
exist naturally with the creation itself. In an un-redeemed world, creatures groan and
pain due to the evil that exists and the human (the speaking animal) represents all of this
suffering and sin, all the while continuing to praise the Creator for the opportunity to
exist.
Hall is thus professing that the individual human purpose in this life is to be representatives first and foremost of the Lord, and then secondarily, the rest of creation.
From this can originate many professions, whether they be in secular society or relate directly to Christianity, but in whatever the individual does and dedicates his or her life to doing, they are to be representatives in this dual sense. As Hall concludes, "Far from removing the human creature from the rest of creation, the stewardly, priestly, and poetic vocation of humankind as it is understood within this tradition presses toward an even greater sense of being-with in relation to the others. This sense is not one of merger, nor
Ibid., 352.
94 of undifferentiated union -difference is honoured here - but of the highest form of communion."
A CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING
Rahner barely discusses the matter of a specific purpose, but does tend to focus on humanity's responsibility, or purpose, being closely related to freedom. Beginning with the definition that "freedom is the capacity of the one subject to decide about himself in his single totality,"127 which is to say that freedom is an "openness to everything, to everything without exception,"128 Rahner asserts that by being the transcendent subject an individual can be, is to allow him to be free.129 If freedom is related to the whole existence of humanity, as Rahner argues, then the means to achieve this freedom is to come to terms and embrace the transcendental self, and the outcome of this action results in the accumulation of the Christian responsibility to accept his or her existence. Rahner defines this duty, or purpose, by writing, "The real and total and comprehensive task of a
Christian as a Christian is to be a human being... Christian life is the acceptance of human existence as such, as opposed to a final protest against it."130 In formulaic terms then, humanity is free to accept and embrace the self in a transcendent form by accepting the mysteries of a supreme being, thereby becoming a Christian, and thus making the duty of the Christian a simple act of being. This of course, in turn, gives the individual a certain amount of moral responsibility. Hall would disagree with this premise, as this particular theory equates being with meaning. Regardless of this later denial of being and meaning,
Rahner is adamant that, "if he (a person) really accepts himself without reservations as he
126 Ibid., 353. 127 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 94. 128 Ibid., 402. 129 Ibid., 97. 130 Ibid., 403.
95 experiences himself, he has already accepted himself as a free being with moral
responsibility."
3.3 - Love
Perhaps there is no greater characteristic applicable to the human being than the
capability to love and be loved. The practicality of love radiates in every human, in one
form or another, yet it remains one of the most mysterious concepts in the world. What
causes it and where does it come from? As little as humans know about the nature of
love, we feel its presence, or lack of presence, in daily living, all the time. It is an enigma
of undeniable power and the world usually takes notice of the effects that it has on people.
Within the real world, as with the imaginative world of mythologies, fictional narratives,
and poetry, love is usually a motivational force of the human condition, similar to none
other.
Love can reveal its masked identity in many forms and the Greeks differentiated between these forms by giving each type of love a different name. Eros, love of desire, was used to represent passionate, physical attraction between two individuals, while philia, love similar to affection, indicated a sense of neighbourly, kind-hearted affection.
The love that is predominantly focused on within the Christian tradition is agape. This ambiguous word often refers to "a love which loves despite even the repulsiveness of its object and is often contrasted with eros, which is the love that is elicited by the attractive qualities of the loved one."132 It also comments about the personality of the giver of this type of love, for it is not egotistical or self-fulfilling, as the lover is not concerned for what can be gained for himself, or about what pleasure it will fulfill. Synonyms often
131 Ibid., 407. 132 Alan Richardson, 'Love," in A Dictionary of Christian Theology, 200.
96 associated with agape, love as selfless giving, are the modern words, 'care,' and sometimes 'charity.' These attempt to illustrate the power of agape love and how it is not solely dependent on the characteristics or state of the benefactor.
In the New Testament, this type of love stems from God's redemption in Jesus
Christ. 1 John 4:8 is definitive: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because
God is love." However, agape can mean more than just a trait of God, as other biblical verses suggest. In Mark 12:29-30, Jesus informs the listeners that the first and foremost commandment is to love the Lord. Here is a presentation of agape love working in reverse order than in John 3:16. This time, it is humanity's love for God that is emphasized, rather than God's love for humanity. Finally, agape is used in one other way and that is to express love between individual human beings. Commandments enforcing this demonstrative love can be found in 1 John 4:20, Mark 12:31, and Romans
13:8.
With these three categories of love - God's love for humanity, humanity's love for God, and humans' love for one another - outlined with scriptural support, theologians pick up the discussion of these exegeses and elaborate upon them. While it could be argued that the first category predicates the second and third,133 it is important to distinguish clearly all three.
AN EVANGELICAL UNDERSTANDING
In discussing the first aspect of agape - God's love for humankind - Erickson explains that God's love for the human race can be easily qualified in the name of Jesus
Christ.134 The moral-influence theory of the atonement is an extraordinary example of
133 C. E. B. Cranfield, "Love," in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson, 135. 134 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 2, 817.
97 the love of God, for instance. Using this initial work of Peter Abelard (1079-1142),
Erickson explains how this approach to the cross portrays a loving creator, as it was
God's demonstration of love freely given to an undeserving creation.135 However, not all
hold to this theory as Erickson makes clear, yet it suffices for the purpose of this
conversation - that God loves His creation. To help demonstrate this, Erickson breaks
down the moral attribute of the love of God into four smaller components - benevolence
("the concern of God for the welfare of those He loves"), grace (not dependent on
worthiness or merit, but according to one's need), mercy (tenderness toward the
contemplation of grace), and persistence (continuing to love). These components are
littered throughout the scriptures and history and the accumulation of this data is the
character of a loving God.
The second category mentioned was humanity's love for God and to this subject,
Erickson does not actually speak much about this use of agape, similar to the scriptural
authors of the New Testament, especially the apostle Paul. Some have argued that
instead, Paul and others, used the wordpistis, or 'faith,' to explain humans' love for their
Maker. Whatever the reason for the omission of agape in this sense, it is important to
note the distinction between this category and the first. Rather than love for God as an
independent love, like that of God's love for humankind, it is often viewed as a logical response. "The purpose of Christ's death was to demonstrate the greatness of God's love
- he sent his Son to die. Shown this proof of God's love and impressed by this demonstration of its depth, man is moved to respond to God's love."138 This response is
135 Ibid., 785-786. 136 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 1, 292-296. 137 C. E. B. Cranfield, "Love," in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson, 135. 138 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 2, 767.
98 often a love for God, reciprocated back to the Lord, but not of equality. The human element of love can never reach the fullness or vast complexity of God's love shown in
Christ, yet it is all the human race can appropriately give back. Out of this love for God emerges the proof of this love, and this is the third category - love for one another.
As Erickson notes, "Jesus always displayed a strong love for humans. Note for example, his concern for the lost sheep of Israel, his compassion for the sick and the sorrowing, his patience with and forgiveness for those who failed." If one receives
God's love and in return chooses to love God back, then the next necessary step is to act in accordance with the greatest love of all - Jesus. To follow his ethics and value his moral behaviour concerning others is the acceptance and reciprocation of God's love put into action. Indeed, Jesus came to this earth with the wisdom from the eternal Father, but he also came with worldly actions and works which he did out of love and compassion.
This is a role that the church and individual believers need to take up, Erickson argues, for if no one does, then how can Christians call themselves followers of Christ? It is our responsibility "to perform acts of Christian love and compassion for both believers and non-Christians."140
A PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING
Hall attributes God's love for humankind as the single most changing characteristic of early Christian thought. Omnipotence had always been thought of as the chief characteristic of God within the early church, but this changed with the emergence of theological liberalism. With this new movement came a new conception of God, which was an antithesis of what classical doctrine had always depicted God to be.
139 Ibid., 514-515. 140 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 3, 1057.
99 Liberalism enforced the reality of a loving God; not the "masculine affair" that depicted
love in a "mathematical sort of way, with no tears in it."141 Love soon came to be
thought of as the primary characteristic of God, doing away with Barth's transcendental
model of a creator who did not engage His creation, and sat high above on His throne and
emotionlessly gazed upon the human race. Christians were beginning to embrace a
suffering, agonizing deity who sacrificed Himself for His people and hurt when they hurt
and rejoiced when they rejoiced. This newly identified interactive love from God,
running away from the older versions of love, became almost of a caricature, replacing
omnipotence.142 Love slowly became the single most important aspect of God.
In regards to human love for God, Hall theorizes that if God shows love to His
creation, then it is natural to assume that He wishes this same relationship with
individuals. This relationship however can be broken, and often is, but only by the
human.14 However, while God could easily repair the brokenness and depravity of the
human condition, He chooses to refrain and allow the sinner to acknowledge his
unworthiness and freely decide upon entering this partnership with the Most High. Hall writes:
While mutuality is obviously the being for which humanity is intended...it is not and must not be imposed upon the creature. The relation in question is not to be thought a necessary but rather voluntary one. It is our destiny; existence is a kind of hell apart from it; yet it is not heteronomously imposed. The imposition of such a relationship would immediately nullify its primary character and the ethical consequences thereof. For love, which is its primary character, cannot be forced.144
141 Douglas John Hall, Professing The Faith, 54. 142 Ibid., 55. Here again arises the tension of transcendence and immanence for many mainstream Protestants. How can God be equally all-powerful all the while containing such a human emotion as love? Hall addresses this issue as has already been demonstrated with the helpful doctrine of the Trinity. 143 Ibid., 225. Simply put, while God's omnipotence could force human beings into
relationships with Him, this action would eradicate agapaic love, as free choice is
removed from the equation, leaving only coercion. It is imperative therefore that man
freely choose to reciprocate God's love back to Him, for anything else is not love anyway,
From this foundation, Hall builds his ethical point on loving one another. When
Hall identified the issue of humanity's purpose as being representatives and being given
dominion over the earth, he makes it clear that this dominion, this responsibility, is one in
which would involve "resisting the temptation to 'lord it over' the others; it would have
to mean a long suffering, compassion, solidarity, mercy, grace, edification; it would have
to mean servanthood, selfless stewardship of creation; it would have to mean love -
sacrificial love, agape."145 Indeed, this is a call for Christians to demonstrate the closest
type of love that God gave for the world. To care for, assist, and love those around
oneself, in a world of need, suffering, and sin is what Jesus expects of His beloved
children. This love is what composes 'essential humanity,' as Hall calls it, and it is given to humankind so that they may give it outwardly to fellow creatures.146
Hall concludes by summarizing the importance of love in Christianity in a provocative and thoughtful manner. He writes, "Every aspect of Christian theology is in the last analysis a midrash on the theme of love: God is love. Jesus Christ is the beloved
Son, whom God sent into the world because 'God so loved the world.' Love is the fruit of the Spirit. The whole of Christian ethics - the law and the prophets - is summed up in the command to love God and one's neighbour. Love is not only a way of articulating
Ibid., 350. Douglas John Hall, Confessing The Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 426-427.
101 the foundational ontology of this tradition, it is the way. No philosophic language - certainly not the language of being - can improve upon the language of love."
A CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING
Rahner's concept of love, like many of his doctrines, rests primarily on the concept of the transcendent self. In reciprocating the transcendence of God, love is included in this reflection, along with other positive Christian traits and ethical behaviour.
"The transcendentality of human beings in knowledge and freedom, as it reaches up to absolute being, the absolute future, the incomprehensible mystery, the ultimate basis enabling absolute love and responsibility to exist, and so genuine fellowship (or whatever other presentation we may like to make in fuller detail of this transcendentality of human beings), is at the same time the condition which makes it possible for subjects as such to experience themselves and to have achieved an 'objectification' of themselves in this sense all along."148 The traditional concept of love, in other words, that exists between
God and the individual and the individual and the neighbour is acquired only through the binding act of experiencing God and experiencing the self.
Rahner continually stresses the importance of viewing the love between humanity and God and the love between fellow humans as one mutual process. Similar to how the experience of the transcendental self and the transcendental God is of a unified nature, so too is love of God and love of others one complete love. Dire to make his unified approach to love known, Rahner pleads, "Only if we recognize this can we say that love of neighbour is the fullness of the Law... Only then can we saw that human beings discover themselves or lose themselves in their neighbour; that human beings have
147 Douglas John Hall, Professing The Faith, 323-324. 148 Karl Rahner, "Experience Of Self And Experience Of God," in Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, ed. Geffrey B. Kelly (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 177.
102 already discovered God, even though they may not have any explicit knowledge of it, if only they have truly reached out to their neighbour in an act of unconditional love, and in that neighbour reached out also to their own self."149 For Rahner, there are no multiple categories, or relationships, as was mentioned earlier: rather, there is one single category which includes all of these relations.
This love that Rahner endorses is the moral responsibility that was identified when exploring Rahner's conception of purpose. To freely embrace life as it has been given, is to fulfill human purpose which enacts a certain responsibility from the human race. This responsibility to love one another, or as Rahner refers to it, 'to be in communion with brothers and sisters,' is to love God, and is the "totality of the task of the whole human being and of Christianity."150
3.4 - Hope
Hope is an important element in Christianity, although it is often lost in the over emphasis of 'belief Some Christians are hesitant to use the word, and are more prone to use terms such as 'faith,' for the modern understanding of 'hope' seems to indicate a certain level of uncertainty. Nevertheless 'hope' is a term that has utility and should be embraced in Christian theology.
Not emerging prominently until the writings of Paul, the concept of hope was little used in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel writings. Hope found in the Old
Testament generally indicated a sense that Yahweh was in control of Israel's destiny, as is found in Jeremiah 14:8 and Psalm 130:7, while the references to hope in the Gospels usually depict an old covenantal trust in the Lord, as is seen in Matthew 12:21. However,
149 Ibid., 179. ,5° Karl Rahner, "Who Are Your Brother And Sister?," in Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, 307.
103 when the Epistles are written, after Jesus had been resurrected, hope became more common and was transformed into something greater and something of futuristic indication. This timeline of the word meaning makes logical sense as it is now, after the death and raising of God's Son, that hope becomes "grounded on the Resurrection of
Christ."151 The final act of salvation is when the dead in Christ shall rise, and it is in this eschatological event that hope is placed. 1 Timothy 1:1 makes this very clear, as does
Romans 5:1-5 and Romans 8:5. This event holds the final key to unlock death, the penalty of sinful nature, and it is here where Christian hope is found. To be sure, this hope is different than that of "secular optimism. It is through and through eschatological, always bearing reference to the return of the Lord Jesus at the end of the age."
There are many different eschatological theories within Christianity, let alone three varied belief systems such as Evangelicalism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.
However, this discussion will be limited only to the concept of hope present within these eschatologies, and in some cases, how it relates to previous subjects that have thus far been explored.
AN EVANGELICAL UNDERSTANDING
It is important to explain a rather recent movement, referred to usually as the
'Theology of Hope,' which Erickson does not necessarily endorse, but considers it important enough to discuss. Created and advocated by Jurgen Moltmann, a German theologian, a theology of hope is dedicated to acting in a manner to attempt to eradicate the evil in the world. Rather than sitting and theorizing about the justification of God and
mAlan Richardson, "Hope," in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 108. 152 Ibid., 109. why He allows evil to occur, a theology of hope converts theory into action.
Moltmann himself writes, "we are construction workers and not only interpreters of the
future whose power in hope, as well as in fulfillment, is God. This means that Christian
hope is a creative and militant hope in history. The horizon of eschatological expectation
produces here a horizon of ethical intuitions which, in turn, gives meaning to the concrete
historical initiatives."154 To achieve future fulfillment, hope requires action. Of course,
from this position, the action spoken of, could easily harkened back to the third category
of love for fellow humankind.
Erickson also makes the connection of the Christian hope with the discussion of
transcendence earlier. A theology of hope looks ahead to the future, to eschatological
unfoldings of planned history, which implies that the God of the future is transcendent to
humanity. For what would differentiate man and God if God could only act based on
past events and reacted to present situations based on past events? If God is truly a
divine deity, then He must be above man, as the emphasis of hope is placed on what God
will do and not entirely what He has done.155 "Instead of thinking of God's relationship to the world in cosmological terms, the theology of hope uses instead an historical model.
God's transcendence is eschatological, not spatial. He does not simply live in the past
and work from past events. Nor is he simply immanent within the present occurrences.
Rather, he appears on the frontier of life with its openness to the future."156
Erickson, in attempting to connect different themes and doctrines, also fuses
Christian hope with human purpose. Drawing upon Viktor Frankl and his thought-
153 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 3, 1162. 154 Jurgen Moltmann, "Hope and History," Theology Today 25, no.3 (October 1968): 370. 155 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 1, 275. 156 Ibid., 317.
105 provoking book, Man's Search For Meaning, which is based on Frankl's experience of living in a concentration camp, Erickson concurs with the war prisoner's conclusions - that hope and purpose are often the same thing. "One who has hope, who knows the
'why' for his existence.. .will be able to bear almost any 'how.' In a very real sense, the why, the purpose, of existence is related to the future, to what one anticipates will occur."157 Indeed, individuals who recognize a purpose affirm also a hope for the fulfillment of their reason for being. What this purpose is has already been taken up in previous discussion, but it is important here to conclude with Erickson and Frankl's consensus of how purpose and hope are co-partners which compliment and fulfill one another.
A PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING
There are several important factors regarding hope that Hall wishes to clarify.
While not the first chronologically in his systematic work, but probably most important is the realization of hope found with Jesus Christ. Often it seems that the world alone is a meaninglessness rotating globe, and that the history that plays out on it has no impact and is random. Yet, this is not what Christian hope, nor biblical thought signifies. Rather, for the Israelites, hope was a practical and strong historical category, completed only with trust in Yahweh. In the New Testament as well, the thought that history was meaninglessness was countered by Jesus being brought to this earth, suggesting that the events on this planet are valid to place hope in. The fact that God sent His only Son to save the entire creation of humanity serves as adequate proof alone that hope can be
157 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology Volume 3, 1151-1152. Part of this is statement is quoted by Erickson from the following source: Viktor Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning (New York: Washington Square Books, 1963), 127.
106 placed in history.158 It is important here to note however, that this is not to place hope in
the category 'history' alone. The hope in historical process is necessitated only because
of God's love for His creation. As Hall writes, "For biblical faith, history does not itself
produce and nurture the teleological principles that drive it; but that telos (purpose, aim)
is continually being introduced into history and pulling historical time toward itself.
Christian hope does not lie in the process as such; it lies, rather, in God. But since it is
hope in a God who loves the world, who is determined to redeem it, it is also historical
hope."159
Hall also treats hope's relation to the individual quite seriously, claiming that
hope without the involvement of the self is merely pointless theorizing. This is not to say
that personal destiny is the entire focus of eschatological events (for that would be
entirely selfish and self-centered), but that the outcome pertaining to the individual is as
important as the outcome of the whole of creation.160 Hope for one's eternity and where
that eternity will be, is part of eschatology, and from that specific doctrines such as
Heaven and Hell, the Tribulation, and the pending judgement of the Lord Almighty.
While the discussion will not proceed into these eschatological doctrines, the extraction
from visiting these areas to be gained is that while hope for God's reign should be the
Christian priority, there accompanies that a hope regarding the self as well.
Hall goes to great lengths to identify the ontology of hope and not just cliched
examples of it. As he points out, often church congregations mistake hope for optimism.
They will grab hold of the word alone, without the proper understanding attached to it and confuse it with cheerful optimism and an attitude that 'everything will turn out
158 Douglas John Hall, Confessing The Faith, 485. 159 Ibid., 497. 160 Ibid., 499. alright.' The reason Christians are apt to do this, Hall suggests, is because, "our
optimism is defensive, and what it seeks to defend us from is truth... We are all attracted
to hopeful personalities, just as, conversely, we are repelled by gloomy ones. But
cultivated hopefulness is also a pathetic and sometimes a very dangerous proclivity - the
mania of maintaining that everything is well when we are wretched. (Voltaire)"
Christian hope can never lose the element of the sin that exists in the world, as well as the
pain, sorrow, and heartache. It is always, as Hall maintains, "hope against hope: that is,
the hope that is the future dimension of faith in Jesus Christ will resist every preliminary
suggestion of the too quickly hopeful spirit, because it will recognize the lack of truth in
it."162 Where though, can one find this kind of hope that is not cheap, but is sufficient in
its very nature? Hall believes the source for this can only be found in the Gospel: not the
written word, which is called the Bible, but the story of the gospel - literally, in the 'good
news.' "Only gospel will offer a love that transcends sentimentality, a faith that can live
with doubt, and a hope that is able to confront despair."163
There is a difference between cheap, optimistic hope and substantial hope and
Jesus on the wooden cross is what provides man with the authentic Christian hope for
eschatological, future events that involve the Messiah's second coming. It is not a hope
for the betterment of things that will get better in this life, but rather provides one with an
eternal peace founded only in Jesus. No better conclusion can be offered, other than
Hall's own definition - "Christian hope is 'hope against hope.' It is hope that knows and dialogues with its antithesis, despair. It is the very opposite of hope understood as a
Ibid., 466-467. Ibid., 466. Ibid., 468.
108 character trait or 'natural' aptitude. It is the consequence not of nature but of grace. Sola gratia."16*
A CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING
Once again, hope for Rahner is built upon the transcendent self. Similar to Hall's differentiation of hope from optimism, Rahner believes one who embraces the fullness of human experience, whether it be joy or sorrow, frustration or contentment, is one who can only find the transcendental self. This acceptance of the complete package of life, the good and the bad, "can be done only by someone who believes and hopes that the totality of the life which we can experience is encompassed by the holy mystery of eternal love."165 Indeed, the eschatological element of hope is part of experiencing the transcendental self.
However, Rahner also deals with eschatological hope in a method that is not immediately present within the works of Erickson and Hall. This concept involves hope as being closely related to 'secular life,' which Rahner often refers to as 'culture.' More precisely, he expresses the opinion that hope is, or at least should be, the primary motive behind changes in this 'secular life.' As he writes, "Though the absolute future is not in human beings' cultural activities: Christians hope through creating culture and vice versa.
They fashion the future of the world by hoping for the absolute future."166 Of course, this statement comments about the nature of hope, as Rahner views it as not just a stalled, passive theory, but rather an actively involved praxis of human society which evolves from the theoretical. Hope in God, viewed as an activity, allows for the ethic of love to
164 Ibid., 459. 165 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 405. 166 Karl Rahner, "Faith and Culture," in Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, 303.
109 be furthered on this planet, forcing Christians to embrace their culture in order to promote
the message of the Gospel. For, as Rahner himself writes, "Hope is the absolute future of
God who is the eschatological salvation does not justify a fossilized conservatism which
anxiously prefers the safe present to an unknown future; it is not a tranquilizing 'opium
for the people' in sorrow; it is, on the contrary, the authoritative call to an ever-renewed,
confident exodus from the present into the future, even in this world."
Any cultural change, inherently Christian in nature or not, always comes with a
certain amount of risk, and Rahner is not ignorant of this fact. Indeed, risk occurs when
the believer attempts to implement a new cultural activity or change a traditional cultural
activity so that it is more oriented to the Lord's will. This risk however, regardless of the
outcome, is part of truly accepting the reality of the world and thus in turn, is accepting
the transcendental self. To be able to risk change in culture is part of the responsibility of the Christian and it all begins with hope.
This hope commands individual Christians as well as Christendom to risk these ever-new decisions between the defense of the present and the exodus into the unforeseeable future. And hope can do this, for it has already done the greater thing. Through it humans beings have abandoned themselves into the eternal absolute over which they have no power. And in the power of this greater hope they also possess the lesser hope, which is the courage to change the secular structures of their lives, as the council says. The greater hope is realized in the lesser, and eternal life in the creation of ever-new forms of culture.168
Ironically enough, within past years, Christians (especially of the Catholic faith) have been stereotyped as those who wish to constantly maintain the existing structure; but, as Rahner argues, this is not how Christians should be viewed and must do what is necessary endorse their hope.169
167 Ibid., 304. 168 Ibid., 305.
110 3.5 - Summary
We have placed the themes of Shyamalan's films - transcendence, purpose, love,
and hope - in dialogue with Christian theologians. Identified in chapter two, these four
topics of discussion have now been presented in the realm of Christian thought. With
scriptural support, and theological input, one can begin to comprehend why these four
areas are important within Christianity and begin to recognize the discrepancies that exist
between the different approaches to the topics. There is much more deliberation about
these themes in the Christian realm from other theologians, and in no way does this treatment of these subjects exhaust the possible discussions that are acquainted with each.
That being said, this preliminary treatment of the themes in Shyamalan's films, is a
crucial starting point and mandatory requirement in connecting theology with a secularly religious context.
Ill CONCLUSION
As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this project was to engage the film
maker, M. Night Shyamalan, in theological dialogue. This was accomplished by
examining the six films that he has made, to date - Wide Awake, The Sixth Sense,
Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and Lady In The Water - and then interacting with the
ideas presented, through three representative theologians. For each film, the dialogue
was allowed to speak so that it could be seen how Shyamalan explored four main
religious themes - transcendence, purpose, love, and hope - within the context of his
films. These four themes appear in all of the movies, sometimes interrelated, and at other
times treated individually. Once the sufficient textual proof, to indicate how Shyamalan
embedded these themes into his films, was produced, in chapter three we undertook the
task of exploring these concepts in a different context - that of historic Christianity.
To do this, three Christian theologians, each representing a particular facet of
Christianity (Evangelicalism, Canadian Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism), were
utilized, in an effort to shed light on how these themes are comprehended within
systematic doctrine. First, careful consideration had to be given to the task that lay ahead.
In chapter one, after noting how important this type of study has become in a changing
culture, Robert K. Johnston established a worthy methodological approach to film,
appropriately entitled 'Dialogue,' which became the approach utilized in chapters two
and three. This dialogical method was used to analyze the films of M. Night Shyamalan to offer their perspective on certain human issues that are typically classified as 'religious concerns.' While not particularly Christian in nature, the dialogical methodology
112 allowed Shyamalan's opinions of the previously mentioned themes to be heard, and then
interacted with in the Christian context.
With Shyamalan's development of these topics displayed in chapter two and
Christian theologians' thoughts explored in chapter three, one can now truly begin to
enter genuine dialogue, with one foot planted in the secular films, and another grounded
in Christian doctrine. This discussion has the capability to branch off into many different
areas, incorporating more fields of study into the conversation, such as philosophy,
psychology, and the sciences, but the proceeding comparisons will be limited to
Christianity's treatment of these religious elements identified by Shyamalan.
In the discussion of transcendence, one can begin to witness and comprehend the
comparisons and contrasts between Shyamalan's treatment of the religious theme and the
Christian theological understandings of transcendence. From the start, it is imperative to
point out a main difference that exists between the film presentations of the theme and
that based on Christian thought. We found that for Shyamalan, transcendence does not
always necessitate a deity, while transcendence within the Christian context will always be used to describe YAHWEH. To be sure, in some instances, Shyamalan does intend the concept to be applied to the religious conception of God, yet in others, there is no indication that he is referring to such; that is to say that in some of his films, there is no indication of any religious conception of a particular transcendent being. For example, in the film, The Village, there is no explicit or implicit conception of a transcendent deity, but rather the very village itself is a fulfillment of transcendence. The monsters in the film also portray a type of transcendence that is unrelated to any kind of deity. It is difficult for the context of the word 'transcendent' in Christianity, however, to relate to
113 anything other than that of God's nature. While this is an important distinction to make
between Shyamalan and the theologian, it is equally important to note that the vast
majority of time the film maker explores transcendence, there actually is confluence with
the Christian, confirming transcendence as a character of a being higher than the human,
and not just in the context of special relation.
When Shyamalan does attribute transcendence to a deity, he explores the relation
of this transcendent being with the world. In films, where a religious, transcendental
deity is implied, such as Wide Awake, The Sixth Sense, Signs, and Lady In The Water, the
human creation can eventually come to an understanding of this being, unlike theologian
Karl Barth's model where comprehension of the transcendent God is impossible.
Shyamalan creates the worlds of his films intentionally filled with spirituality: invisible, yet active forces in worldly processes. Whether this is explained by Millard J. Erickson's
'dimensional beyondness,' Douglas John Hall's concept of a revelatory triune God, or through Karl Rahner's 'transcendent self,' most Christians would concur with Shyamalan that the transcendent God does allow Himself to be known to his creation. This is to say that both Shyamalan and Christian theologians agree that God is transcendent, yet is also revelatory and allows humanity to glance upon the transcendent being, as paradoxical as that may seem.
The next religious theme we examined was purpose. What differences and similarities exist between Shyamalan's opinions and classic theological doctrine, concerning purpose? To explore adequately this question, one must compare
Shyamalan's thoughts on this subject with all three of the different confessional categories used in chapter three. If Shyamalan's portrayal of purpose was to be
114 compared to Millard J. Erickson's understanding of the theme, it would be difficult for
much dialogue to relate to one another for the very fact that the Evangelical Christian
conception is heavily focused on the purpose of humanity as a whole, and Shyamalan
does not seem to speak to this idea of purpose. Similar, is the case with comparing Karl
Rahner and Shyamalan, for while the Roman Catholic emphasis is placed on the
argument that 'being is meaning,' Shyamalan wishes to look at specific human purposes
that are often accomplished in a certain, unmistakable action, or series of actions (e.g., a
vocation). For instance, Shyamalan's argument in the film Unbreakable is not that the
main character, David, should glorify God to fulfill his purpose, nor should he simply
live out his dead-beat life, but rather the thrust of the story points to David's existence for
a specific purpose - to use his natural abilities for a cause, and that cause is to help protect people when no one else can help.
The closest theologian to Shyamalan's interpretation of purpose is Douglas John
Hall. However, even as a Canadian Protestant, his perspective was that the duty of humanity, or the purpose for their creation, was to be representatives of God and also of fellow creation. While at first, this does not seem to parallel with Shyamalan's thoughts, perhaps by phrasing Hall's conclusion another way, one can begin to see how the two could be conversant. Hall's theory of human purpose as being representatives of God and of creation can best be summarized by saying that humanity's purpose is to exercise stewardship of the earth. When put this way, it is easy to see the connection of the character of David in Unbreakable with Professor Hall. David, through the gifts God gave him, looks after, helps, and saves his fellow creatures, thus representing the promise
115 God made to look after His creation and also fulfilling the commandment given to all
humankind - to 'do unto one another as we would have done unto ourselves.'
The third of Shyamalan's themes to be in dialogue with Christian thought is
perhaps the theme which holds the most in common with classic Christian doctrine - love.
While the first two themes, transcendence and purpose, had similarities and differences in
Shyamalan's context and the Christian context, this religious theme of love seems to
almost be identical in both portrayals. In all of the films examined, love is a primary
theme. For the majority of the films, the aspect of love displayed on the screen exists
between individuals. As seen in chapter two, Shyamalan goes to considerable lengths to
portray agapaic love in his stories; he does not waste his time discussing immature or
selfish love unless it is to draw a foil for another relationship. In this sense, Shyamalan
portrays the Christian altruistic ethic of loving one another in such a way that the
Christian community should recognize.
What is of perhaps greater interest is how Shyamalan does not attempt to deal with the love that exists between a transcendent deity and humanity. This is possibly because Shyamalan is not sure how to articulate a deity's love in a narrative style.
Whereas a human character could say he loves someone, or performs an action to demonstrate that love, it is difficult to demonstrate the love of someone who is not a character, and cannot be personified on the screen. However, when God is identified and brought into the discussion of the film, such as in Signs or Lady In The Water, Shyamalan does portray the characters' love for God. This love is expressed through vivid language in certain scenes, and also through certain actions of the human characters.
116 In chapter two, we saw that Shyamalan believed love to be a mystical, powerful
force that makes the world bearable; it shines past the darkness embedded in human
nature. It was also portrayed as a positive character trait, if the individual acknowledged
a transcendent God and then chose to love and follow that God. This is also an admirable
quality for any Christian, but the missing element from Shyamalan's portrayal is
Christology. What Shyamalan found so difficult to express on film, is expressed fully in
the Gospel message through the sacrifice of God's Son, as classical Christian theology
would articulate it.
While love is the theme that shares the most in dialogue with Christian theology,
hope is a theme which contrasts the most sharply between Shyamalan's portrayal and the
Christian theology. In the films we have considered, characters are often found deprived of hope, notably the sorrowful lead man, Cleveland, in Lady In The Water. Cleveland has lost almost everything in his life - his job, his family, and his hope - and this causes him to struggle through life.
By the end of the film, Cleveland has prayed for a renewal of his hope and is given it from God. This restoration is a product of God's mercy, something Christians would agree with, and what is even more surprising is that this character closely follows
Douglas John Hall's thinking on this subject. Like Hall, who deliberately differentiates between the two, Cleveland does not confuse hope with optimism, but rather embraces the unfortunate fact that sorrow and heartache do occur in this life. Not trying to ignore the ugliness of the world's state, or twisting the pain into something more bearable,
Cleveland faces the sorrow head on and accepts it. It would seem that Professor Hall would be pleased with such a portrayal of hope: a hope that is not mere optimism.
117 However, a radical difference occurs in the omission of the eschatological element within Shyamalan's portrayal of hope. Shyamalan does not force his character into a realization of where true hope is found. For while the character, Cleveland, realizes how evil the world really is and that hope is to be restored in God, there is no mention of why this is so, thus diminishing Shyamalan's projection of it. It is in Jesus' parousia, Christian theologians argue, that true hope can be found. Without the eschaton, hope does not rest on any futuristic ground, thereby making it, even when acknowledged to have come from God as Cleveland does, grounded in nothing. Without the notion of parousia, when all will be made whole again and justice will be served, then Cleveland's hope becomes exactly what Hall cautioned against - a cheerful lifestyle.
Because Shyamalan fails to recognize a future correction of pain and sorrow, the hope that he works so hard to establish is ultimately grounded in little. At best, he seems to suggest that death is an alternative, where the pain of life can no longer reach humankind. This however goes against everything Shyamalan stands for in his exploration of purpose and he would likely not concede that the ultimate purpose of life is death. Where then, can hope be centered? It is a particular issue such as this, where one observes the widest difference between Shyamalan's opinions expressed in his films and Christian theology.
Important as they are, Shyamalan does not offer a completely cohesive account for the religious themes explored. This could be attributed to the fact that these are not classified as 'religious films,' but instead mere cultural experiences that incorporate religious themes. Rather than one film feeding off the previous contributions to the topic, each film stands alone, independent of the others. Due to this, Shyamalan is limited to
118 bits and pieces of religious themes that only sometimes correspond to one another; at
some points, the pieces fit together well and at other instances, not at all, from a
theological perspective. Yet, the benefit of this study now comes to fruition, as one can
take a comprehensive Christian doctrine, and offer it in dialogue with the religious
themes when these themes cannot be adequately understood in relation to one another.
These themes, while unconnected in the films, are successfully brought together into a
cohesive, comprehensible unity, when the films engage in dialogue with a religious tradition, such as Christianity. With the aid of Christianity, the proper understanding, which Shyamalan appears to be searching for in his films, can be clarified in a way that accounts for all four religious themes explored.
The intent of this thesis, however, is not to bring disrespect to the director's opinions. Rather, it is to engage the films of M. Night Shyamalan and the religious themes brought forth in a way which seeks genuine conversation between a secular entertainment medium and Christianity. By comparing and contrasting the religious themes of Shyamalan with classical Christian doctrine, one is presented with two benefits.
The first is a focused, elaborate understanding of a prominent Hollywood film maker and his understanding of religious themed films, compared and contrasted with Christianity.
In other words, one rewarding feature of this undertaking is a theological discussion of religious themes presented within the films of M. Night Shyamalan.
The second benefit of this study lies in a broader understanding of this work. We have explained how one can transform a 'negative witness,' like that of secular film, into a 'positive witness,' which can be used as a Christian apologetic. The realm of film can be an adaptable playing field for Christians to venture out into and interact with culture.
119 As was seen in the case of M. Night Shyamalan, religious themes found within the
created context of the film maker's world can be further explored with the use of
Christian theology and should be done so more frequently.
In closing, it is important to remember that while Christian doctrine does not align
itself always squarely with Shyamalan's thoughts on certain issues, this is not to dismiss
his important contribution to the religious inquiries of the human world. He is attempting
to make sense of themes that every person struggles with in their lives, which is in
essence, what Christianity offers - an account of these themes. Is there a transcendent
God? What is the purpose of my life? How does love make the world better? Why
should I have hope? Questions like this are embedded within the psyche of the human
mind, connecting humans regardless of race, sex, and culture. Shyamalan acknowledges their importance in life as he builds his films around them, attempting to offer his opinion.
Christian thinkers also offer an understanding of these subjects, and this project has
engaged the two partners, so that a useful conversation about these issues might emerge.
Indeed, conversation has occurred and from this, a fuller appreciation and understanding
of transcendence, purpose, love, and hope have evolved.
120 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bausch, Michael. Silver Screen, Sacred Story. Washington, D.C: Alban Institute, 2002.
Boyd, Malcolm. "Theology and the Movies." Theology Today 14, no. 3 (2006): 359-375.
Cavell, Stanley. "The World Viewed." In Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 67-78. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Cranfield, C.E.B. "Love." In A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson, 131-136. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1951.
Cunningham, David S. Reading Is Believing: The Christian Faith Through Literature and Film. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2002.
Desmond, John M., and Peter Hawkes. Adaptation: Studying Film and Literature. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2006.
Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
Eliade, Mircea. The Quest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1969.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, Volume I. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.
Christian Theology, Volume 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
. Christian Theology, Volume 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.
Ferlita, Ernest, and John R. May. Film Odyssey. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1976.
Frankl, Viktor. Man's Search For Meaning. New York, NY: Washington Square, 1963.
Gabler, Neal. Life The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
Grosberg, Lawrence, Ellen Wartella, D. Charles Whitney, and J. Macgregor. Media Making: Mass Media In a Popular Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.
Hall, Douglas John. Thinking The Faith. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989.
. Professing The Faith. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.
. Confessing The Faith. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.
121 Hanson, Karen. "Minerva in the Movies: Relations Between Philosophy and Film." In Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 391-396. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Hobbes, Thomas. "Leviathan." In From Plato To Derrida, ed. Forrest E. Baird and Walter Kaufmann, 447-488. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Hurley, Neil P. "Hollywood's New Mythology." Theology Today 39, no. 4 (2006): 402- 408.
Jarvie, Ian. Philosophy of the Film. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1987.
Jewett, Robert. Saint Paul at the Movies: The Apostle's Dialogue with American Culture. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1993.
Johnston, Robert K. Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Kozlovic, Anton Karl. "Superman as Christ-Figure: The American Pop Culture Movie Messiah." Journal of Religion and Culture 6, no. 1 (April 2002); available online at http://www.unomaha.edu/irf/superman.htm
Kraemer, Christine Hoff. "From Theological to Cinematic Criticism: Extricating the Study of Religion and Film From Theology." Religious Studies Review 30, no. 4 (October 2004): 243-250.
Kupfer, Joseph H. "Film Criticism and Virtue Theory." In Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 335-346. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Light, Andrew. Reel Arguments: Film, Philosophy, and Social Criticism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003.
Matties, Gordon H. "On Movies As Spiritual Disciplines." Direction 34, no. 2 (2006): 270-286.
Middlemas, Jill. "Ecclesiastes Gone Sideways." The Expository Times 118, no. 2 (2007): 216-221.
McClendon, James Wm., Jr. Witness: Systematic Theology, Volume 3. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000.
Mercadante, Linda. "Using Film To Teach Theology." Theological Education 42, no. 2 (2006): 19-28.
122 Moltmann, Jurgen. "Hope and History." Theology Today 25, no. 3 (October 1968): 369- 386.
Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ & Culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1951.
Plato. "The Republic." In Plato: Complete Works, trans. John M. Cooper, 972-1223. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Pungete, John and Monty Williams. Finding God in the Dark: Taking the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius to the Movies. Ontario, CA: Novalis, 2004.
Rafferty, Terrence. "Everybody Gets A Cut." In Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures, ed. Noel Carroll and Jinhee Choi, 44-48. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith, trans. William V. Dych. New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1978.
. "Experience of Self and Experience of God." In Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, ed. Geffrey B. Kelly, 172-183. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992.
. "Who Are Your Brother and Sister?" In Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, ed. Geffrey B. Kelly, 305-319. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Rankin, O.S. "Purpose." In A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951.
Richardson, Alan. "Love." In A Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson, 200-201. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, Date Unknown.
—. "Transcendence." In A Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson, 343. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, Date Unknown.
"Hope." In^4 Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson, 108-
109. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1951.
Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.
Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. London: Mackays of Chatham PLC. Shyamalan, M. Night, dir. Wide Awake. Perfs. Joseph Cross, Rosie O'Donnell. DVD. Miramax Films, 1998.
123 . The Sixth Sense. Perfs. Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment. DVD. Barry Mendel Productions, 1999.
. Unbreakable. Perfs. Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson. DVD. Touchstone Pictures, 2000.
Signs. Perfs. Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix. DVD. Blinding Edge Pictures, 2002.
The Village. Perfs. Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard. DVD. Touchstone Pictures, 2004
Lady In The Water. Perfs. Bryce Dallas Howard, Paul Giamatti. DVD. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2006.
Stone, Bryan P. Faith and Film. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000.
Thomas, Dylan. Do Not Go Gently Into That Good Night. 1951. Available online at http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Various/Thomas.html
Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.
Wittung, Jeffery and David Banner. "From Superman to Braham; The Religious Shift of the Matrix Myhtology." Journal of Religion and Film 10, no. 2 (October 2006); available online at http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/VollONo2/WittungBramer_Matrix.htm
124