(Movie Review)I've been taking advantage of my brief stay back in the U.S. to catch up on a lot of movies which haven't come out in Japan yet. And this one also fits into that category.
Via the magic of the Internet, I saw a lot of previews for this movie.
For a time, comedy central was plugging ads for this movie off of their webcasts. So every time I wanted to see the new episode of the "The Daily Show" (a show I watched off the internet religiously while I was in Japan)I would have to sit through an ad for "The Invention of Lying".
It looked pretty funny. And, I've been a big fan of Ricky Gervais ever since some British JETs introduced me to "The Office". So I decided to check it out once I got back to the States.
The film's premise (a world where no one can tell a lie) is a pretty cute idea. At first I wasn't sure if they would be able to stretch it out into a whole movie or not, but I was mildly entertained.
I was also surprised by all the cameos in the film. I hadn't been expecting it, but I had fun playing "spot-the-cameo" with all the famous actors they got to appear in this.
Then the movie began to satirize religion, and this took me completely off-guard because I hadn't been expecting that from the previews. But I really enjoyed it.
I had known that Ricky Gervais was an atheist from his stand-up comedy on youtube. If you're a youtube junky like I am, you've probably already seen it. But if you haven't, it's worth checking out. Philosophically he doesn't really break any new ground, but it can be pretty funny. Check out for example "Ricky Gervais on the Bible and Religion" (youtube link here)and "Ricky Gervais-Bible/Creationism" (youtube link here).
I'm not an atheist myself. Rather I consider myself an agnostic. In short, I believe that both the atheist and the religious person are claiming to know things that they really can't know, and claiming certainty where there is no certainty. (Although like most human beings, my views on religious matters are far from set in stone, and I'm likely to give you different opinions depending on which day you ask me.)
But I do appreciate it when someone makes me think about these issues. And Gervais's movie does just that.
Like his stand-up material, he doesn't necessarily bring anything new philosophically to the table. But in a humorous way he does bring up again some important issues.
Is religion, and the idea of an eternal paradise, simply a form of wish-fulfillment for human beings who desire to escape death? It's worth thinking about, and the movie does a good job of showing how desperately people latch onto the idea when presented with it for the first time.
(Of course I suppose the other side of that is to ask why we human beings are created with such a strong desire to escape death in the first place. And why does our biology dooms us to die?)
When Ricky Gervais's character is asked "how do you know all this?" he simply responds, "The man in the sky told me."
Of course it sounds silly when you say it like that, but this is the essence of all religion when it is stripped down to its bare essentials. All the sophistication of all the forms of theology must inevitably trace back to some form of divine revelation.
Although the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops predictably gave this film a scathing review (link here)the sensible response of religious people should be not be simply knee-jerk reactionary anger, but rather to engage the arguments raised in the film.
But theology aside, the parts of the film were Gervais is explaining heaven to the assembled crowd, and dealing with their various questions, are just really funny as well.
It's a shame the film didn't stick with this angle, because they were really bordering on brilliance here. Instead, the film decided to veer back towards a typical Hollywood cookie-cutter movie by spending the last half hour dealing with a sappy romantic story.
I know there are always studio and marketing pressures when doing a mainstream film, but I would have liked this film a lot more if they had gotten rid of the sappy love story all-together and just concentrated on the religious satire.
As it is, this is a film which flirts with genius, but then settles for banality.
Still, over all more than enough laughs to justify a rental. And as a bonus it will even make you think a little bit.
Link of the Day
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS !!! NOAM CHOMSKY COMMENTS
The Invention of Lying: Movie Review (Scripted)
8 comments:
This just in: Christopher Hitchens doesn't think I'm a Christian.
I don't know what your thoughts on Hitchens are. (Refresh my memory, have you written about him on your blog?)
As for myself, I got addicted to listening to his speeches and debates via youtube, et cetera, whilst in Japan. I spent more hours than I care to admit listening to him talk while doing some sort of mindless task. Mainly just because I like his style of speaking, and the eloquent way he can turn a phrase even if I don't agree with him all the time.
Basically I'm a big supporter of lots of his early leftist stuff (against Kissinger, et cetera).
I'm a big opponent of him on the Iraq war. And, as Chomsky has accused, I suspect Hitchens himself doesn't take his own arguments in support of Iraq seriously half the time, but that he is just like those kids I knew from high school debate class who like any excuse for an argument, and will often switch sides if they think it will stir up the pot more.
That may be just reading my own biases into it. But even though I at times doubt his intellectual integrity on some issues, I still love listening to him.
As for his thoughts on religion: I don't agree with everything, but I do find him thought provoking. A number of the things he's said in the religious debates I've watched have left me turning them over in my head for several days afterwards.
I agree with the article you linked to that Hitchens does seem to like to pick straw men for his debating partners (such as the article mentions, Douglas Wilson). And when he debates someone with a more complex view, he does sometimes attempt to bully them into a box he can manage them in.
And yet I think he does have a point that religion is either based on some sort of Divine revelation, or it's not. And people who try and take the Bible ala carte are using their internal mechanisms to to determine truth, instead of what is in the Bible. In that case you have to ask why you even need to rely on the Bible.
Should you have the time or inclination, I thought this discussion on youtube between Hitchens and another athiest about what is considered religious and what is not to be good food for thought:
Edd Doerr vs Christopher Hitchens (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYEQoCkGpHA&feature=related
“switch sides if they think it will stir up the pot” — I don't think that's where Hitchens is coming from, re: Iraq. I'm persuaded he is entirely in earnest. He is quite aware, for instance, that his writings have had a direct influence on events, and he takes responsibility for it. That is an aspect of his character that I very much admire.
As for his arguments re: religion I have pointedly avoided engaging them, having expended too much energy on that business when I was in my 20s. Digested response: surveying the collateral activity generated by the atheist-theist argument over the last two hundred years it would be generous of me to say the jury is out regarding atheism's benefits to humanity. But then it may simply be a matter of it being “too early to say” (to borrow from Zhou Enial, as pragmatic an atheist as we've seen in the 20th Century).*
Hitchens' metaphor of Aladdin's Cave certainly resonates with me, and if you want to really reach me you'll employ metaphors as adroitly as possible. My closest atheist friend is fond of saying, when it comes to religion, “It's all metaphor.” Again, he and I are in agreement. I think where we differ is in my suspicion that some of those metaphors might fall closer to the police-court facts than either of us cares to consider.
Getting back to my youthful pursuits, I absented myself from the argument because the tools and tactics involved were doing more harm than good in the collateral arenas (or “spheres,” if you were ever of a Calvinist bent). My aikido sensei at the time was also a devout Zen Buddhist, and at one point said, “Stay with a religion until it ceases to be of use.” I originally thought she was encouraging me in my efforts at apostasy, but the more I meditated on it the more persuaded I became that these efforts were premature.
That remains the case, so here I am with vaguely pantheistic Christian leanings — peppered with plenty of contradictions, of course. Should the Epicurean point of view prove to be the most accurate, I won't mind.
*This guy says it better. BTW, it's probably too late for you but if you come across a copy of this issue I encourage you to buy it. I suspect you'd really dig it.
Well, there's a lot to chew on in those links obviously.
First of all, I hadn't read that Hitchens article on the dead soldier before, and you're right, it does appear to be extremely heartfelt.
I guess what I can't get past is how a guy like Hitchens, who knows his history, and who knows about the sordid history of Imperialism and the various guises and excuses it takes (and is famaliar as well, presumably with the historic failure of European nations trying to colonailize Islamic ones) can be so stupid as to support the Iraq War. But then again, human beings are often unpredictable.
As for religion:
Without getting into my whole religous history, for years I tried to seperate off what I considered to be the more negative aspects of Christianity (non-believers consigned to hell, homosexuals abominations, women not allowed to have authority, ethnic cleansing in old testament, et cetera) and still hang onto the faith. After a while, it began to feel like I was just making it up as I went along based on what felt good to me.
Once I moved to Japan, I was removed from the powerful reinforcing influence of the Christian community I had grown up in. When everyone around you believes something, on some subconscious level it feels like it has to be true even if intellectually you have problems with it. But when you remove yourself from that reinforcement for a couple years, suddenly you wake up one morning and discover you're really not sure what you believe.
And that's where I still find myself now.
I understand what you're saying about sticking with a religion if it works for you. And there are days when I long for comfort and purpose religions seems to give life, but I find it's hard to force my mind back into the old mode now that I've moved out of it.
I'm not an atheist (but I'm intellectually open to the possibility they might be right). Some days I consider myself some sort of Deist.
Theism strikes me as...., well like you said, the Alladin's cave metaphor seems particularly apt. Out of all the religious choices out there, how can one possibly choose with any confidence.
(I usually define a Theist as someone who not only believes in the existence of God, but someone who thinks they know what religion is true and what God wants. I'm not sure if the guy in the Lapham's article you linked to is defining it the same way.)
There are days when I find the uncertainity of it all a bit depressing. But more often than not, I enjoy the philosophical give and take of religious debate, and find it gets me thinking a lot. (Hence, I guess, my addiction to watching Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. on youtube).
But if you feel like you've already put in your time with this debate, I respect that.
(And while we're defining our terms, what does a pantheistic Christian mean? Would that mean you also consider other religions valid?)
Re: The Debate — if both parties are persuaded that “knowledge of God” is finally a subjective matter (my take and, I suspect, yours as well), then there isn't going to be much of a debate. Pieties, on the other hand, are something we could probably parse over.
In my case I have to negotiate how best to carry various genetic and historical burdens. The Bible is the single common literary reference, not just in my family's history but in Western Civilization, so any attempt I make to ignore or evade it comes at considerable cost. The Reformation and its torments also loom large. To pick only one example, the awareness that at some point I've had a family member whose tongue was ripped out and whose mouth was stuffed with gunpowder before she was finally tied to a ladder and thrown into the village bonfire haunts me, and I think for worthy reasons. Depending which side of the family you explore, my ancestors either hewed closely to their faith (and its pacifism), or caused endless mischief and not a little grief. “Servants of the Lord,” or sozzled soldiers: do I have to choose one response over the other, or might there truly be that fabled “Third Way” the Mennonites love to tout? Throw in this business of “the numinous” and I am compelled/impelled toward a larger, communal apparatus, if only to give me a playground where I can beat up my imaginary foe(s), or give consideration to something that might engender a little humility or reverence.
I can't speak for you, Joel, but the words that strike me are, “comfort ... purpose ... uncertainty ... depressing.” It sounds like the religion of your childhood is no longer useful (neither is mine). So what next? Speaking for myself, an exclusive fixation on debate contributes much to uncertainty and depression and little to comfort and purpose. I don't eschew debate, but it is imperative to strike a balance wherever possible. I usually find comfort and purpose by sharing meals, in my home or someone else's. Hippies are my favorite people, next to Quakers. Meditation always helps. So does housecleaning and performing acts of charity. If you don't mind, I recommend those as the cornerstones from which to build the rest of your pious apparatus.
As for Hitchens, if I read him correctly, after 9/11 countering the spectre of “Islamo-fascism” took precedence over other ideological concerns vis a vis the West's foreign policy.
Oh: Christian Pantheism — you'll get better answers if you Google it. I'd recommend reading Meister Eckhart, except he was adamant that that was not what he was espousing, so I'm obviously not reading him correctly. It follows that consulting or trusting me any further on this subject is extremely unwise.
- Darrell
Personally I find the debate fascinating. In my childhood religion, the answer was always set, and the philosophy was just a matter of arriving at a pre-determined destination.
However liberated from those constrains, I enjoy listening to debate and feeling free to try and contemplate the nature of the universe with no predetermined conclusions.
But this obviously comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you don't find the debate appealing, I can't fault you for that.
And I do agree that since the debate doesn't have the ability to arrive at a definitive answer, it essentially something you have to let go of at a certain point. I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time, but I think the obsession with it can be counter-productive.
...Actually that's pretty much what you're saying as well, isn't it?
(And this maybe semantics, but I do think that objective truth might be out there somewhere, I just don't think we humans have the capacity to get these matters of the divine with any certainity).
I appreciate your advice. Certainly it's hard to imagine going wrong with a religion based on acts of charity. And I probably could use some more house-cleaning in my life. (Did you mean that house cleaning as literal or metaphorical? )
"Metaphorical"? Ha -- no, I was preaching to myself, actually. It was time for me to shut down the machine and focus on what had to get done around the house. But I suppose if I'm going to generate an alternate religious movement, housecleaning as a metaphor might be the place to start.
ah, yes. I'm reminded of the Japanese proverb, "The god of happiness only comes to clean places." (This was often said to me in disapproving tones after surveying my apartment.) But it does seem to be true that a certain level of organizing skills is a prerequisite for an organized life. Maybe housecleaning (as either metaphorical or actual) wouldn't be such a bad place to start.
Post a Comment