Point/Counterpoint: Faith/Atheism
Eyes Wide Shut: Reading Our Beliefs into Film

This originally appeared at the Online Film Critics Society in October 1999, back when I was still a member; my cohort Michael Elliott still is. The article seems to have disappeared since the OFCS joined forces with Rotten Tomatoes.

How can a single film be interpreted in such widely divergent ways? It all depends what we as viewers bring to it, as Michael Elliott and MaryAnn Johanson discover.

"To The Christian Critic-- You need to stop reviewing films as if you were a regular film critic. Somebody who reviews a movie with an altierior [sic] motive is not a real film critic. You do not look at how good a movie is, but how Christian a movie is. If you think your [sic] being a film critic for Christian filmgoers, your [sic] not, because there are none."
So begins yet another example of the type of "fan mail" I receive. Surprisingly (to me anyway), this individual is not alone in his opinion. I've received many such letters, a large proportion coming from churchgoing people, who, agreeing with the above letter writer, appear to believe that the movie industry and a spiritual viewpoint are mutually exclusive. Obviously, I do not agree with that assessment.
There is something upon which I think all of us can agree. Namely, the fact that the films which have the greatest impact upon us are the ones which have the ability to reach us on multiple levels. Films can challenge our intellect, causing us to consider deeply the various issues or events we see unfolding on the screen. They can also engage our hearts, evoking emotional responses from us as we vicariously experience and react to the story and its characters. They can tickle our "funny bones," entertaining and amusing us in a way that few other mediums are able to achieve. And for millions of us, there is yet another level to be reached. For those of us who believe in God and His Word, there are certain films that can inspire our souls and cause our spirits to soar, reminding us of His higher plane of existence.
It is obvious that, by having a URL address of www.christiancritic.com, I make no secret of my spiritual beliefs. Those beliefs, as the framework within which my opinions and viewpoints are shaped and honed, will invariably influence my enjoyment and/or appreciation of a picture.
I am not unique in being influenced by my personal beliefs. Don't all of us bring to the theater our own background experiences, accumulated knowledge, and pre-formed opinions by which we process, evaluate and judge all new stimuli?
Will not a teacher identify with and therefore appreciate a film that accurately casts his profession in a positive light? MR. HOLLAND'S OPUS, DANGEROUS MINDS, and LEAN ON ME come to mind as examples. Won't a historian, who makes his life's work searching for the true facts regarding transpired events, have a different level of appreciation for period films, dependent upon how rigorously each adheres to a strict code of historical accuracy?
My position is no different. The films which reflect the truths and standard that I spend much of my time studying and applying in my life will admittedly earn my appreciation more than films that ignore or contradict that standard.
The two films suggested as possible triggers for discussion lend themselves quite obviously to a spiritual examination. While, on the surface, they may appear to deal with disparate subjects, I find the spiritual analogy to be quite similar in nature. CONTACT tells the story of Ellie, a SETA astral observer, who makes contact with a being or beings outside of Earth's boundaries. THE TRUMAN SHOW is about a man whose life is, unbeknownst to him, a globally televised event. All he has ever known has been manipulated, filmed and transmitted without his knowledge.
The similarity comes from the common desire of the movies' respective central characters to obtain an understanding which exists outside of their sphere of physical awareness. Ellie looks beyond the stars and wonders what else might be there and how she might fit into the fabric of the universe. Truman looks at his world and begins to suspect that there might be more to life than what he can see or touch. In both films, the characters long to get a glimpse of the world beyond their reach.
Spiritually, we deal with the same longings. I've heard it called a "God hunger." It is a recognition that some element is missing from our lives. Many of us begin our quest for spiritual truth in response to the desire to fill that perceived void.
At the end of THE TRUMAN SHOW, Truman walks through a door to another reality that was there the whole time, just waiting for him to discover it. At the end of CONTACT, Ellie's trip to a place beyond our earthly realm was being denounced and ridiculed by most everybody... Everybody except the spiritual representative in the film (played by Matthew McConaughey) who believed her. A genuinely spiritual man or woman can more easily grasp what others may deem incomprehensible because he or she is accustomed to recognizing and believing in unseen realities.
Can CONTACT or THE TRUMAN SHOW be enjoyed and appreciated by nonspiritual or nonreligious people? Of course! As I said in the beginning, films are able to reach us on multiple levels. Certainly, both films mentioned demonstrate excellent technical skill, have compelling stories, and offer humor, pathos, and well-crafted characterizations. But for the God-respecting person, they offer that extra something special... They feed us the spiritual truth that says we are not alone. They reaffirm our belief that we are part of something bigger than ourselves. To quote Mr. McConaughey's character in CONTACT: "I wouldn't want to live in a world without God." I am thankful that I don't have to.

Atheists, agnostics, and other nontraditionally religious people are probably among the most misunderstood people in our culture. Admittedly, we are a tiny minority -- at least in the United States, where more folks are regular churchgoers than in other Westernized countries -- and tend to be clustered within specialized disciplines, like science, that are also not well understood by the general public.
The consensus among the faithful seems to be -- as I've discovered in my experience as an out-of-the-closet atheist -- that those of us who do not hold religious beliefs are somehow less than human; concerned only with base, materialistic matters; lacking any sense of wonder; and not to be believed when we say it is possible to be moral without religion.
This is not the place to debate the relative merits of philosophies at variance with one another. So what could movies possibly have to do with any of this, when they only infrequently touch on religious conviction, and even then rarely do a good job of it?
Movies are part of our common literature (for lack of a better word) today, made to speak to large numbers of people -- indeed, they must speak to millions of people if they're to make money. Often enough this agenda results in throwaway junk aimed at the lowest common denominator that ends up pleasing few people. Sometimes the formula works to produce films that are both popular and profound. And sometimes those profound movies speak to both believers and nonbelievers alike.
One recent example is THE TRUMAN SHOW. I saw Truman's struggle to free himself from the narrow boundaries of his artificial world and from the stifling "protection" of Christof, the creator of the TV "Truman Show," as a powerful metaphor for an individual's shrugging off the intellectual confines religion places upon the mind. (I'm not looking to raise anyone's ire with that statement and those that follow -- I'm merely expressing how I saw my beliefs reflected in the film.) When Truman at last escapes into the darkness beyond the fishbowl of Seahaven, I was startled by the similarities with the freethought conceit that it's far preferable to deal with the real world, however unknown and frightening that may be, than to take comfort in childish superstition -- such as the belief that a benevolent, loving deity is watching over us. Truman rejects Christof and the false serenity of Seahaven in favor of reality, harsh though it may be. Truman rejects the idea that God is necessary in one's life. In my review, I called THE TRUMAN SHOW "the most strongly humanistic movie in years," knowing full well that "humanistic" is in the minds of many people, synonymous with "atheism."
Contrast that with the reader wrote to me recently to say that -- completely the reverse of my reading of the film -- he saw his fundamentalist Christian belief endorsed by THE TRUMAN SHOW. The film "truly 'blessed me,'" Lavell L. Neal wrote, "because of the fact that God doesn't put us in a box and not let us know what's going on," unlike the godlike behavior of Christof. "He 'sets before us Life and Death' and encourages us to 'choose Life.'"
If two people at opposite ends of a spectrum of belief can take encouragement from the same film, can see their philosophies validated by the emotional and physical journey of escape taken by a misunderstood and misused character, then does that not suggest that those who believe in a god and allow religious tenets to guide their lives are perhaps not all that different from those who rely on themselves and are guided by their hopes for humanity?
CONTACT -- which in a review I called "one of the most 'religious' science fiction movies ever made" -- demonstrates very well that the gulf between the faithful and the atheistic isn't quite as large as we've been led to believe. The philosophical conflict between astronomer Ellie Arroway and theologian Palmer Joss -- between her atheism and devotion to science and his belief in God and distrust of technology -- forms the core of the film. But what it ultimately concludes in the end is that religious and nonreligious people are all looking for the same thing: a sense of something larger than ourselves, a reason not to feel alone. We only find it in different places: Ellie in the belief that humanity is not the only intelligent species in the universe, and Palmer in his belief that humanity has a benefactor in God.
There aren't many movies we atheists can claim as speaking for us. Should we see it as ironic -- or as completely natural -- that the faithful find those same movies speaking for them, as well?

MaryAnn: I find it interesting that, in your essay, you suggested that only people who believe in God can find something meaningful to appreciate in CONTACT or THE TRUMAN SHOW (you wrote that "But for the God-respecting person, they offer that extra something special..." as if they don't for those who are not "God-respecting"). Now that you've read my take on TRUMAN, in particular, do you still stand by that statement?
Michael: Yes, I do. Spiritual perception requires spirit to perceive. The number one key to receiving spirit is that one must believe. While those who choose not to believe in the spiritual reality of life can still find something meaningful to them in the films they watch (I did not intend to suggest otherwise), they have closed off an entire plane of existence which is what I referred to as being that "extra something special."
What I found interesting is that our two opposing views led us to two very different impressions of THE TRUMAN SHOW, which both of us held in high regard. You saw Truman breaking free from religious confines and moving into the real world. I saw Truman as discovering a world beyond the "reality" with which he was presented. To my way of thinking, Christof was a spiritual adversary bent on keeping Truman blind to that unseen plane of existence. Truman's departure at the end was not a rejection of God but a rejection of one who wanted to be a god (ie. Satan). That's quite a difference. And something that speaks loudly to those with spiritual views.
MaryAnn: Let's talk about a subject that CONTACT raised. In that movie, there was a spirited (pun intended) debate over who should travel in the alien machine to represent humankind. Ellie's attempt to be that person gets derailed when Palmer Joss forces her to confess in public that she does not believe in his God. He says they need someone to represent everyone, implying that Ellie cannot because she doesn't believe in Palmer's Christian God. Well, here's something that has always bothered me about that argument (and it does tie in to how I use my atheism to interpret films, if you'll bear with me for a minute): Someone who professes to believe in a Christian God cannot be said to represent everyone. A huge percentage of the world's population is Buddhist, and they don't believe in any deity. Huge percentages of the world's population are Moslem and Jewish, and their Gods differ from the Christian God, too. My question is, Wouldn't it make more sense to have someone who doesn't believe in any god represent mankind to another intelligent species? Many or even most atheists have no problem with the fact that others hold religious beliefs, but many or most religious people do not accord the same respect to other religions that they give their own. So, an atheist, with her remove from religion, could say, On my planet, people hold many different beliefs, including X and Y and Z. But a Catholic or a Jew or a Moslem would likely say, This is the truth, though others profess to believe other things.
I say this because as an atheist and also as a student of comparative religion and mythology, I can appreciate a film in more ways than through the perspective of just one religion. Some people were up in arms over Anakin Skywlker's apparent virgin birth in THE PHANTOM MENACE, for example, because all they know is their own religion's mythology. But when you look across the mythologies of many cultures, you see that virgin births are a recurrent theme throughout the world's religions. I saw the rich mythological heritage of the character of Anakin, while others saw only a slight to their beliefs.
Michael: With all due respect, I think that any spiritual person or group, regardless of their religion, sect, or denomination, would have a problem being represented by someone who believes that their deeply held belief is "childish superstition" (a phrase quoted from your essay and if I recall correctly, one of the winning points raised by Matthew McConaughey's character in the onscreen debate.)
But in reality, this is a debate which is relatively meaningless to the biblically oriented mind. If you want to represent mankind to anticipated alien beings, it is okay with me... because the standard by which I form my beliefs and opinions convinces me that there aren't any aliens. It is one of the benefits to having a standard for truth outside of one's own self... fantasy need not be confused with reality and error need not be mistaken for truth.
Many of the messages or viewpoints that are reflected in today's movies can confuse or at least distract a mind which is not rooted or grounded on a firm and steady foundation. The scriptures, which serve as my foundation, tell us to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." This is how I use my faith when processing the messages of the films that I see.
MaryAnn: Your belief may preclude the existence of aliens, but let's stick to the context of CONTACT -- in that film, the existence of aliens has been proven and some one person needs to be chosen to represent humanity. You may not want an atheist representing you in particular, but would you accept a Buddhist? A Jew? A Moslem? A Catholic?
My mind and my beliefs are also rooted and grounded on a firm and steady foundation. In the particular example I was trying to get you to respond to, I referenced a cross-cultural knowledge of religious stories. Are you saying that that is not a firm foundation upon which to approach a film that is created with those ancient stories in mind?
Michael: In your hypothetical example [keeping in the context of CONTACT], I think we can safely agree that there is no one person who can serve as a microcosm for all of humanity. We are a diverse bunch. Even if we found some person whose religious ideology was agreeable to all people (an impossibility), we haven't begun to discuss other possible points of contention: race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, etc...
I don't know. Maybe the answer is to simply search the back issues of supermarket tabloids and choose from those who have met the aliens before, been invited onto their ships, and have been the subject of their experiments. At least they already have the beginnings of a relationship.
As to the other issue... I wasn't ignoring your examples. I figured we'd get back to them. Certainly the virgin birth has been seen in various mythological accounts and pagan beliefs. So has the idea of a resurrected savior, a triune deity, and other religious icons that are revered by many in our day (whether they be spiritually right or wrong). But I don't quite understand your point. Great works of art are copied or forged with alarming frequency. That doesn't devalue or lessen the impact of the genuine article. It just makes it harder to find at times.
What I mean by a "firm foundation" is a standard of truth that allows one to sift through various accounts, beliefs, opinions, philosophies, and, in our cases, movies, without being "blown about by every wind of doctrine" or deceived by imitations of truth. Personally, I was no more offended by the virgin birth reference in THE PHANTOM MENACE than I was by Keanu Reeves being "The One" in THE MATRIX.
MaryAnn: The point of my PHANTOM MENACE reference is, by way of another metaphor, that someone who has seen many examples of portraiture is better able to discuss the merits of a new portrait than someone who has only seen the Mona Lisa. One may believe the Mona Lisa represents a pinnacle of portraiture, and that is the only standard against which new paintings in the same vein need be judged, but it does limit one's point of view.
Atheism fits your definition of a "firm foundation." Atheists are not "blown about by every wind of doctrine," nor are we "deceived by imitations of truth." Since atheists hold that religion does not represent truth, its many incarnations and variations do not sway us one way or the other.
Okay, so you weren't offended by THE MATRIX or THE PHANTOM MENACE. What about THE PRINCE OF EGYPT? How did that film strike you?
Michael: Instead of having a point of view that is limited, I prefer to think of it as one which has a sharper focus. Movies reflect all aspects of life. The scriptures address all aspects of life. To my way of thinking, there is no better frame of reference to have. To paraphrase myself (from my home page): "Art imitates life... The Word of God IS life."
I'm not knocking the accumulation of knowledge. A broad-based education is vitally important -- especially to those in our occupation (or avocation, as the case may be). I too, enjoy studying other cultures, other times in history, etc. My question to you is how do you process all that accumulated knowledge to form your unique perspective of life (and therefore the films that reflect life)? Upon what do you base your concepts of morality, ethics, good and evil, right and wrong...? Are there certain films that offend your sensibilities?
Regarding PRINCE OF EGYPT, I thought the animation was first rate. I appreciated the technical skill involved in the making of the film. But since I consider the Old Testament records to be historical accounts written from a spiritual perspective, I did take issue with a number of additions and omissions. I understand why the filmmakers took artistic/dramatic license with the story, but knowing the record as I do, their choices weakened the experience for me rather than enhancing it. I suppose that a Civil War buff would have the same objection with a film that misrepresented the recorded facts regarding the battle of Gettysburg.
MaryAnn: I like your sharper focus metaphor, even if I do prefer a wider view myself.
Getting into the basis of my morality is getting beyond the scope of the discussion a bit, but the simple explanation is that I follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. I don't kill, I don't steal, I don't hurt people because they are wrong: wrong because I wouldn't like them done to me, wrong because they are hurtful to the larger good, and wrong because those actions only cause more problems than they might solve. Religions encode morality, as secular law does: neither religion nor law create morality.
My reactions to life, and hence to film, are filtered through that net: Are people being hurt? Do certain films offend my sensibilities? Yes. I have problems with movies like THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, which pokes meanspirited fun at retarded people while pretending to champion them (Mary adores her retarded brother and wants a man for herself who will also be a friend to the brother, but the brother is the butt of many a joke). I have problems with movies like STEPMOM, which seem to be trying to recodify the idea that women should be mothers first, while fathers can go their merry ways.
I loved THE PRINCE OF EGYPT, by the way, though of course I saw it as grand myth rather than a historical re-creation.
Michael: Religion was meant to be an aid to faith... Not a substitute for it. Although more and more that is what it has become for many people. You're right to say that religion doesn't "create" morality. Nothing man-made ever does. Religions are born from man's attempts to interpret God, instead of allowing God's Word to interpret Itself. It is similar to how our conflicting beliefs led us to two different "interpretations" of THE TRUMAN SHOW.
MaryAnn: Well, I disagree somewhat that "nothing man-made" creates morality: I think morality arises naturally from a society, and hence not consciously created by humans but not created by any supernatural being either. And I think humans create religions and gods as a way of interpreting the natural world.
But again, we're drifting away from film. I think we've covered a lot of ground -- shall we shake hands and call it a draw?
Michael: Since we both appear to be firmly set in our respective beliefs, I agree. Thank you for the invitation to participate.

[home] [archive]
[oscars] [afi100]
[articles] [faq]
[reader mail]
[links]

[cinemarati.org]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com