My buddy Mike and I watched "Children of Men" this weekend. We are both of the opinion that watching movies should not (generally) be a passive experience, but rather one in which we actively examine the themes and ideas. As a Christian, I naturally look for or identify with salvific themes and experiences portrayed in film. Film is clearly a powerful medium as it stimulates in each of us emotional reactions to the experiences of particular characters and situations, which brings a sense of "sharing" in the art form. "I get that!" "I relate to that!" "That perfectly expresses what I felt when..."
All this being said...
It bothers me when people claim a movie is a direct allegory for a particular experience or belief. It's one thing to say that a film draws a parallel between (or clearly illustrates) a certain idea or experience; it's another to say this film is an allegory for this idea. Case in point: Children of Men. There are certainly parallels that can easily be drawn between the message of the film and faith. The main character is pursuing the boat "to the promised land" on pure faith. A child alone holds the key to the "salvation" of humanity. These are helpful themes to notice and my experience as a Christian will certainly evoke such messages.
Based upon a couple of articles I had read, however, some people remain convinced that this movie is actively and actually an allegory for these Christian stories. In other words, some are certain that the director was purposefully and intentionally using this movie to present the Christian story or ideas through allegory. It's not. I did not draw all the same conclusions about the movie's themes in the first place, but that's beside the point. Mike and I had our ideas, bounced them off each other, then watched the commentary special feature on the DVD. Unless you thought the director's vision revolved around the dangers of globalization, you were wrong.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be over critical. Part of the beauty of film is the fact that we bring to the table our own ideas and experiences and we connect with the art in a meaningful way. It's important to recognize salvific themes and indeed they are abundant. I just think it's crucial to extract these ideas as opposed to hoisting them upon or trying to hijack a film to fit our experience or agenda.
For a further thought: JRR Tolkien explicitly claimed his Lord of the Rings trilogy was absolutely not an allegory for WWII (the man apparently despised allegory), yet there are still those that remain unconvinced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey Craig-
What license do you give to the interpreter? In other words, can a viewer of a movie (or a reader of a book) find something in a work of art, be it a message or an organizational theme that, though the author may not have intended it, it still is a correct interpretation? How much is a given work the property of the author once he or she puts it into the public square?
Jackson: Great point. I do think the license is broad as far as interpretation goes, such is the nature of art, though this has it's limits as well. I would have no qualms about telling someone they are wrong if they argue that Good Will Hunting is actually the story of Bruce Wayne transported to Boston (though Vicki Vale and Skyler share striking similarities). I'm not arguing against interpretation or relation, rather expressing concern when people's reasoning follows: this movie is an allegory for fill in the blank (without taking into account that their particular world view may be different than the filmmaker's). I'm not arguing against extrapolating meaning, but rather suggesting that our interpretation should be weighed against the intent. I think there's a difference between saying "I see characteristics/similarities between this character and Christ" and saying "that character is supposed/intended to be Christ in this story". If the author (hypothetically) has never heard of Christ, the similarities still exist between the character or story, but that character, in actuality, doesn't represent Christ.
I would go further and say that in terms of public art there is no 'correct interpretation', nor would the artist desire so. Francis Shaeffer mused about art reflecting reality or creating it, and this delves into that theme. Once an artist creates and releases a work he/she knows that the audience will play their own background, experiences, emotions, etc.. into that work.
It is that very thing that makes art infinitely enjoyable as two pairs of eyes can see 5 different things. I agree with you, though, Craig. I am also a huge Tolkein fan and would reject the Lord of the Rings as an allegory of WWII or the Christian faith. As a believer, there is much in LOTR to be praised and redeemed and used as an illustration of elements of Christianity, and I have that right as the receiver of the work. But to claim that is what was intended to be transmitted is outside the bounds of reason.
(Side note: In the case of a Christian artist, such as Tolkein, there will always be a Christian influenced worldview behind the art. In Tolkeins case, it is the clearly drawn lines between good and evil.)
Post a Comment