 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/6/2002 6:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hope you guys don't mind, but I want to repost this as a new topic here, because I'd really like to hear people's thoughts on this movie:
SIGNS
Wow. Doc, have you seen this yet???? Kaia and I saw it Sat. night and loved it. Not only is it a very intriguing and suspenseful story, it involves a rather interesting discussion of the problem of evil. In my opinion, it comes out on the spiritual warfare side at the end. Very good stuff. I won't give away any more of the story, but let me know what you guys think of it.
Kaia says the many close-ups of Mel Gibson aren't bad either.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JCsites.com
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 169
| Posted 8/6/2002 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | I haven't seen the movie yet, but did you see that the Director was last week's cover of Newsweek?
I learned a lot about this guy. He also wrote the screenplay for Signs.
He's sort of a "roll your own" religion kind of guy.
JCsites guy
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/7/2002 4:41 AM (GMT -6) | | We saw signs a couple of days ago. It was great. I was laughing out loud one minute, and scared the next. The theological theme very well done.
-Springs
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. - Prov. 9:10 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/8/2002 2:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I said a word about Signs on our movie review thread, but I'll repeat it here. LOVED the movie. How rare to have a sci-fi thriller with depth of character and a meaningful plot (faith). How rare to have a movie construe religious faith in a postive light! How rare to have a movie explore the bottomlessness of life without faith. The Hitchockesque style of the movie was superb. And as Springs noted, it beautifully combined poignancy with humor. A truly great movie.
AND YET, we find in this movie once again the assumption of the blueprint worldview and the simplistic dichotomization of faith with chance. EITHER one has to believe that "nothing happens by chance" "there are no accidents" "theres a purpose for everything" -- this is equated with believing in God -- OR one has to believe that everything happens by chance, there is no purpose for anything, and we are "totally on our own."
Why can't the world be a combination of the two (as Forest Gump almost suggests at the end of that marvelous movie). SOME things are just the result of chances, or decisions by people, or aliens or whatever. OTHER things are the result of a divine influence. And even some the things that may be due to chance or free decisions are USED by God to bring about latter "kingdom coincidences."
I think reality is always more complicated than our thoughts about it, and this is a classic example. Only when we insist that its all-or-nothing one way or the other do we create insuperable theological and existential problems for ourselves.
Still, I give this movie ***1/2 (three and a half stars).
See you at the movies!
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/8/2002 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Do you guys think that "Signs" is one of those movies that will be like, "Star Wars?" Talked about for years to come? Is it one of those kind of movies?
quote:
I think reality is always more complicated than our thoughts about it, and this is a classic example. Only when we insist that its all-or-nothing one way or the other do we create insuperable theological and existential problems for ourselves.
Ditto, ditto and dit-to uuh-gin!
(Thinking 'bout Greg's writing in "Satan and the Problem of Evil" and the many, many, many variables factor. We don't even know where to begin! This affects this, this affects that...)
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War
Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/08/2002 08:41:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/8/2002 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | WARNING: DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE
Doc said:
quote:
AND YET, we find in this movie once again the assumption of the blueprint worldview and the simplistic dichotomization of faith with chance. EITHER one has to believe that "nothing happens by chance" "there are no accidents" "theres a purpose for everything" -- this is equated with believing in God -- OR one has to believe that everything happens by chance, there is no purpose for anything, and we are "totally on our own."
Wow. I came away with the opposite impression. In my mind, Mel Gibson had lost his faith BECAUSE he assumed a blueprint worldview. He regained his faith when he discovered that God was actually working good out of the pain and suffering---in battle AGAINST it, so to speak. His wife's death was tragic, but in death, she spoke those prophetic words that saved their lives. His son's asthma was painful, but it eventually prevented him from dying. I felt that by the end of the story, the Mel Gibson character had realized that God was working on his behalf in the midst of the suffering.
It's interesting that you felt differently about the movie. I guess I can see how it could be interpreted either way. Hmmmmmm. . .
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
JimmyGgp
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 8/8/2002 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | I absolutely loved "signs"! M. Night Shyamalan is fast becoming my favorite film maker. All of his movies are well made and thought-provoking. I love how he takes these fantastic events and injects them with a sense of reality. "Signs" was really funny at times, too.
Here's something that will bake your noodle, it does mine: If aliens were really to land on this planet, would it have an effect on your view of God? I mean, I don't think the Bible mentions anything that would lead me to believe we are not alone in the universe, and aliens invading could certainly be considered the most significant event in history since the resurrection. Could you witness to an alien? If God created the universe, then certainly an invading alien army would also be of his creation, right? If there are a;iens out there, is this situation something he would allow?
Ok, so maybe this post is a sure indicator of chronic boredom creeping into my life, but I have thought about this from time to time.  Here is my thought: I wouldn't change my view of God if something like this were to really happen, because, however he may or may not deal with other beings in the universe, he chose to reveal himself to US through Jesus Christ, and that is what I would hold on to.
So, to sum up:
Signs: Great movie
Aliens: Probably not invading anytime soon, but fun to think about when I'm bored.
Jesus Christ: Still my Lord and Saviour. Always will be.
Your thoughts?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/9/2002 2:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Welcome aboard Jimmy G. I don't give a hoot about aliens. They are as interesting to me as the yet undiscovered bateria at the bottom of the ocean. But I must confess that if aliens took over the world and cultivated us for food or scientific experiments (what exactly were the aliens trying to do in Signs?), this would shake my faith a bit.
To BJS, interesting read on signs. Personally, I suspect its a bit too sophisticated for Hollywood. But maybe possible. Want to argue the case?
The best argument against your interpretation is that the all-or-nothing mindset is never retracted, qualified, or anything. It looks to me like he lives in the option that either there are no accidents and chance, in which case God exists, or theres nothing but accidents and chance. At the end of the movie (don't read if you haven't seen it yet) he discovers theres a purpose for the mothers odd statement, and a purpose for his son's asthma -- they weren't accidents. This suggests the wife was right in thinking it was "her time" to die, which further presupposes it was the drivers "time" to fall asleep at just that moment (as the driver himself testifies in despair).
As I interpret it, the whole metaphor of the movie hangs on this. The "signs" to the alien invaders is a metaphor for "signs" in the world that point to God. The exact time the man fell asleep to kill the mom is a sign. The fact that she was pinned in such a way she could live long enough to say "swing away" is a sign. The fact that the boys asthma saved his life is a sign. The fact that there was a baseball bat, that the brother was a former home run king, etc. are ALL SIGNS. There are no accidents or mere coincidences. Its all part of a grand design.
And now I'm wondering why I liked the movie so much.
Okay lawyer man, make your case that I'm wrong.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/9/2002 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: quote:
To BJS, interesting read on signs. Personally, I suspect its a bit too sophisticated for Hollywood.
I don't think M. Night Shymalan necessarily appreciated all of the theological and philosophical intricacies of the providence issue, but I do think that in telling the story, he may have (perhaps somewhat intuitively) arrived at a spiritual warfare perspective.
Doc:quote:
The best argument against your interpretation is that the all-or-nothing mindset is never retracted, qualified, or anything. It looks to me like he lives in the option that either there are no accidents and chance, in which case God exists, or theres nothing but accidents and chance. At the end of the movie (don't read if you haven't seen it yet) he discovers theres a purpose for the mothers odd statement, and a purpose for his son's asthma -- they weren't accidents. This suggests the wife was right in thinking it was "her time" to die, which further presupposes it was the drivers "time" to fall asleep at just that moment (as the driver himself testifies in despair).
It seemed to me that he rejected God because he believed that God killed his wife as part of some arbitrary exercise of power. What he seems to discover in the end is that no matter what God is actually causing to happen, or what He is not causing to happen, His actions are always intended for our good. God is actively engaged AGAINST evil forces (in this case, hostile aliens from outer space  ). He is ON OUR SIDE. Why else would he have re-embraced his faith at the end of the movie? If he still felt that God killed his wife, or at least that God killed his wife for no greater good, why would he think of God as good again?
Now the movie certainly doesn't explain enough of his thought process to know exactly why he returns to God, but in my mind, there was no reason for his character to love God again unless he began to understand what the spiritual warfare model of theodicy provides: we cannot know with particularity which occurrences of bad stuff are orchestrated by God and which are not, but we can be assured that whatever actions He takes are in opposition to the enemy for our greater good. The "signs" are that God is GOOD, and He is always acting on our behalf (which is necessarily AGAINST that which is NOT on our behalf).
What do you think, kemosabe?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/9/2002 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Jimmy G. Wondering what a Martian looks like? Well, if we take a cue from Marvin The Martian, we can conclude that a Martian wears a Roman warrior's helmet, a gladiator's skirt, and oversized tennis shoes. Marvin is a head shorter than Bugs Bunny, his hands are bigger than his chest, and he speaks in a distinctive, aristocratic voice.
If anything, I hope real aliens are not as smart as these two guys,
Hopefully all we'll need is water to kill them like in the movie "Signs." Cause the earth is made up mostly of water anyhow. Of course, water may be all they'll need to invade our planet.
But I agree with Greg. I think if some alien's came and ate my kids? I'd be a little shaken by it…to say the least. I'd go bezerk and kill 'em…if I could. I mean, if I had ray gun or sumt'n like that?
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War
Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/09/2002 1:16:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/9/2002 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I saw the spiritual warfare motif too. I would argue it was just as present as the other two views and was offered as an alternative explanation to the belief in "either/or;" God or chance. The aliens symbolized demons. There were various reactions when their ships disappeared and yet were still somehow present. I thought the line explaining how they operated was telling. Something to the effect that the poison gas was administered just a little bit at a time. Sorta like the insidious way evil infiltrates our lives. I enjoyed all the symbolism in the movie. Here are just a few of my observations.
I thought the little girl was supposed to be an angel or at least in some sense innocent and divine. This was conveyed through her clothes, being attacked by the demonized dog and even her gossamer blankie. She was the one responsible for saturating the house with the Holy Spirit. (the water)
The hit and run driver drove his demon into a closet instead of confronting it. He instead sought out the rumor of a less painful or risky remedy. This demon was also Mel’s demon, (the missing fingers) probably due to the fact that this demon was responsible for the accident that killed the wife and screwed them both up.
The demon rattled the door instead of busting it down. Fear is their modus operandi, and we have to invite them in. I thought Mel was having a crisis of faith as he held the door against the demon, but then I realized He had decided to have faith in himself. Later as he held his struggling son in his arms and exhorted the boy to put his trust in him, the words he uttered became a prayer of faith toward God for the brother. (Who later had to face his fears in order to fight for his brother.)
When Mel faced his demon his worldview shifted and he interpreted his wife’s last words from a different perspective.
All right, I’ll stop. But there was no lack of symbolism. I’d be interested in symbols other people noticed. (Ariel view of the cross in the geography etc.)
Although in the end Mel got his faith back, I think it was only the beginning. We’ll have to wait for the sequel to see whether he eventually becomes an open theist or a theistic bootlicker. hee hee.
-Springs
Everybody just calm down... eat some fruit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/9/2002 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | SPRINGS! Most impressive. Way to see more of the symbology than all of us combined. I LOVE that analysis.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/11/2002 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Very good, though somewhat flawed movie. Springs, you are definitely an example of someone who sees the "signs." Me? I thought that part was too simplistic. There should be a third catagory: those who believe in signs but don't see them in every little thing that happens.
Protecting your children without weapons? Weak! The alien build up and then defeated in one day WHEN they apparently had been here before AND knew much about our planet was very weak. The movie would have been better if it simply dwelled on the internal conflict in Mel Gibson's life. But then it wouldn't have made all the movie it did.
The good part was the humor, which was abundant. I like Mel in anything and he was good.
2 1/2 stars, because of Mel, humor and the touching scenes with his children. Take aways for the build up and let down of aliens which lacked basis common sense.
The movie "Aliens" was much better. Harold
PS. I do have to say, Springs, after rereading your view of "Signs," I'd been interested in your view of Revelation. I mean if you can get THAT much from Signs...
Edited by - writerdad on 08/11/2002 8:36:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/11/2002 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Brett! 
Did you see that the driver was played by the director?
Yeah Writerdad, you're right...
quote:
Springs, you are definitely an example of someone who sees the "signs." Me? I thought that part was too simplistic. There should be a third catagory: those who believe in signs but don't see them in every little thing that happens.
I "interpreted" the movie according to my theology. I think the movie was called Signs because you can see miracles in coincidences, and lttle things that happen. When Grahm first talked about his wife's dying moments his voice was filled with disdain that at such a time as that, God was silent. He was after all a preacher and she the preacher's wife. How could God have been silent then. We've all heard about death bed revelations. Why didn't he get one. Later seen through the eyes of faith he understood her mudane dying words were directed by the divine. Perhaps even prophetic.
quote:
Springs, after rereading your view of "Signs," I'd been interested in your view of Revelation. I mean if you can get THAT much from Signs...
heh, well, guess what, there's more. The younger brother had looked up to Grahm his whole life for spiritual direction, but on that dark night, he embraced the faith for himself. All across the world other saints were crying out to God also, that's why the enemy was repelled. Did you catch the line about the first success against the aliens being accomplished in the Middle East? Hey... maybe it was Armageddon!
Springs
Everybody just calm down... eat some fruit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/11/2002 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | It certainly isn't my intention to debate with you, Springs, over what I consider a little above average movie, but
his brother didn't come to faith in anything but his brother having faith (I don't want to see that look in your eyes again)
many people going to churches is not crying out to God (and wasn't just churches, but synods and mosques, so, apparently, crying out to any God is pretty much okay). Many people went to churches after 9/11 but the world has not really changed...mentioning the Middle East as the first place can be opened to a wide range of interpretations...and isn't Christ suppose to come back after the big one? Where was THAT in the movie?
Springs, I thought you were an open theist? Doesn't open theism allow for random happenings?
As I said, the movie would have been much better if the aliens were gone and the movie just focused on the spiritual crisis...the aliens simply distracted from it. But then it wouldn't have made as much money.
Alas, it was a movie I wanted to like bad. Mel Gibson is a favorite and any movie where we battle aliens is cool...but the movie didn't know which direction to go and didn't go either way...
In the end, we all see what we want to see...
Edited by - writerdad on 08/11/2002 11:59:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/12/2002 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Did you see that the driver was played by the director?
Yeah, he had a small part in "Unbreakable" too. Kinda like Hitchcock used to do.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/12/2002 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It certainly isn't my intention to debate with you, Springs,
I beg to differ. You have repeatedly addressed me.
quote:
his brother didn't come to faith in anything but his brother having faith (I don't want to see that look in your eyes again)
Sez who? Can I use one of your favorite lines? …. “prove it.”
quote:
many people going to churches is not crying out to God (and wasn't just churches, but synods and mosques, so, apparently, crying out to any God is pretty much okay).
They made a pluralistic movie for mass consumption in a multicultural society? Tsk.
Maybe I should complain because the preacher was a Catholic. You couldn’t even make a movie just for Christians without ticking somebody off. Movies are art. Artists don’t pin interpretations of their work next to their creations for a reason. By presenting theologies that lay-people are familiar with, the movie opened the door for discussion to everyone
quote:
mentioning the Middle East as the first place can be opened to a wide range of interpretations...
You mean besides hinting at some sort of religious breakthrough, or the battle of Armageddon?
It could have meant something else? Wow. Cool. A wide range of interpretations. Hmmm I wonder why I didn’t think of that.
quote:
and isn't Christ suppose to come back after the big one? Where was THAT in the movie?
I guess if they would have taken out them dang aliens they could have made room for that.
quote:
Springs, I thought you were an open theist? Doesn't open theism allow for random happenings?
Yeah… I believe in random happenings. I see God move and speak in them sometimes too. Does that disqualify them from randomness?
quote:
As I said, the movie would have been much better if the aliens were gone and the movie just focused on the spiritual crisis...the aliens simply distracted from it. But then it wouldn't have made as much money.
They threw the aliens in just to make a buck? Who knew? I thought the aliens were the catalyst for the crisis. I thought the fear factor was an integral part.
quote:
In the end, we all see what we want to see...
Now you are preachin’ to the choir. That’s what art is for.
It’s also true that, we all don’t see, what we don’t want to see, too. Like God moving in the coincidental and mundane.
If Signs is to be faulted for a Universalistic theme then let’s not forget the anti-establishment message in Aliens. We do agree on one thing though. When rating aliens you can’t beat Aliens! Plus you add in all the blood, gore, rocket launchers, flame-throwers and Sigorney Weaver in her underware, and you can make an honest buck without any theological errors.
Love ya WD,
Springs
Everybody just calm down... eat some fruit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/12/2002 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | The preacher was Catholic. Hmmm, I didn't know priests could get married...(he was an Epis...priest not a Catholic priest). I am thoroughly surprised that a person with such attention to detail would miss such a thing...but then again that may just be the univerisal appeal of art...or may be it was a sign...
Edited by - writerdad on 08/13/2002 01:07:20 AM
Edited by - writerdad on 08/13/2002 01:15:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/12/2002 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Springs: one of the problems is you are at the same time saying it is a movie with universal themes and also applying Christian themes to it. Sure you can do that, but I can also say you are totally wrong and that is not at all what the picture is about and we are both right. Because the movie is so universal that there is nothing to ground it.
I mentioned the alien part for this very reason: the movie made 60 million its first week. What if the ads had only mentioned Mel Gibson, the death of his wife and his lost of faith. How many people would have gone to see it? I can count them on one hand. The director, if nothing else, is very smart. He knows how to make commerical movies with messages. I just think he somewhat failed on this one.
Aliens had a theme? YOu have GOT to be kidding. Aliens was a simple excuse to watch cool special effects and ugly aliens get blown up by that master of cool movies James Cameron (Terminator 1 and 2, The Abyss, Titanic). It had no message whatsoever.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 8/13/2002 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | While I haven't seen the movie yet, it was filmed about 10 miles from my house. I've been told that everyday folks would line up to get a glimpse of Mel.
peace and love, don
"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/13/2002 2:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd stand in line to see the aliens
but not Mel
Greg
"swing away"
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/13/2002 3:31 AM (GMT -6) | | So Doc, have Springs and I convinced you of the movie's spiritual warfare motif yet?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/13/2002 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | WARNING: THIS REVIEW GIVES AWAY ALL MAJOR PLOT POINTS
Doc said:
I said a word about Signs on our movie review thread, but I'll repeat it here. LOVED the movie. How rare to have a sci-fi thriller with depth of character and a meaningful plot (faith). How rare to have a movie construe religious faith in a postive light! How rare to have a movie explore the bottomlessness of life without faith. The Hitchockesque style of the movie was superb. And as Springs noted, it beautifully combined poignancy with humor. A truly great movie.
Semeia:
Once again it seems I go against the grain of prevailing opinion. I do not think this is a great movie at all. The expert cinematography, the perfection of mood, the tight editing, the creative if somewhat derivative camera angles (Hitchcock and Spielberg), the spot-on dialogue, the superb acting, and the overall brilliance of the directing cannot hide the fact that this is a message movie with a mushy, forgettable, trite, and completely unworkable message.
And it is all the more disappointing because all the elements were there in the brilliant execution of the film to produce greatness, if only it weren’t empty at the core. There are scenes that are so finely tuned in their weird, playful accuracy that the subject matter is transcended as we feel that thrill of recognition: like when Gibson sits down with the kids (who are wearing tinfoil hats to keep the aliens from reading their minds) and pages through the book on UFO’s. It is such a fine moment that it isn’t even completely spoiled by the idiocy of coming across the picture of “their” house, and the figures lying on the ground appearing dead (an adult and two children, of course). And later when we see Gibson’s brother sitting in the middle of the kids wearing his own tinfoil hat it seems not only plausible but poignant and hilarious at the same time.
I am a big fan of Joaquin Phoenix (although I can’t look at his face without a moment of grief for River, who was such a heartbreaking talent), and it is hard to believe that the loose, easy-going, big-hearted screw-up in this movie is played by the same person who made such a convincingly corrupt Caesar in Gladiator. If only Mel Gibson had that kind of range! In fact all the acting (with the possible exception of Shyamalan’s portrayal of the driver) is mostly without misstep. The scene with the woman cop at the table volleying back and forth with Phoenix about the Olympic Amazon woman is a classic. It gives us the feeling that this movie will have a sense of humor about itself (ala Fargo) which unfortunately it abandons by the time we reach the irksomely earnest ending.
The scenes in the cornfield were beautifully done. In the early scene where Gibson is searching for the kids we feel his controlled panic, his managing of his emotions to act quickly and do the right thing in a crisis. (We see this throughout the whole movie, and in fact the consistency with which all the characters are written and played is one of the great strengths of the movie. The slightly-nervous-while-trying-to-be-tough Joaquin doesn’t suddenly turn into a Bruce Willis style action hero, for example.) And in the later scene where Gibson searches through the cornfield, and we feel a sense of growing dread that culminates with the sight of the alien’s leg – causing even the stoic Gibson to run in terror, although back at the house he once again reigns in his emotions to do the right thing for his children.
So what is so bad, you ask? Why the disappointment? As Owen Gleiberman says in his EW review (the only review I’ve read that doesn’t bow down to Shyamalan – he actually gives the movie a B-):
[The movie is a ] “doomsday vision built almost entirely around our sense of anticipation, and that's both its strength and its weakness. Set in the clear-skied American Gothic farmlands of Pennsylvania, the movie is all tricks and premonitions; it plays on our primitive desire to see what's coming next in a way that proves a lot more compelling than what actually comes next.”
What actually comes next, considered from either the perspective of a mindless sci-fi thrill ride or as the “message” movie it purports to be, is really quite silly. From either perspective it is both banal and unconvincing.
Even if we look at the film as pure sci-fi fun, it leaves a lot to be desired. Using crop circles as a main plot device is the first problem. As Shyamalan must be aware, crop circles were proven to be a hoax and the people involved have long ago confessed. He tries to get around this by the it’s-happening-all-around-the-world-too-fast-for-it-to-be-organized routine, but that of course does not explain why aliens would happen to have the same method and symbolic “language” as alienated oddball humans playing pranks in the seventies. (Of course the real reason he chose crop circles as a device is because they are preternaturally evocative and beautiful to look at. If he had exploited the potentially rich associations they held as signifiers to culture, alienation, will to suspend disbelief, deception, delusion, trance, and the meaning of meaning, I could forgive the choice. But in spite of the title, the movie has nothing at all to say about the signature image it employs.)
And although I am quite happy to enter into the magic of a movie, and believe, for example, that dinosaurs have been brought back to life ala Jurassic Park, or that a good-hearted alien being hidden in the kids’ closet needs to phone home ala ET, and all the accompanying bamboozling that goes along with those movies (because I really like sci-fi as a genre), I am able to enjoy it because Spielberg among others is good at avoiding the glaring lapses in logic that most of these films depend on. It seems in this movie Shyamalan spent about five minutes thinking about what the aliens would be like, what their motives would be, and what possible scenario couldn’t have holes poked in it by your average ten year old. We are asked to believe that these aliens who have the advanced technology to travel to another planet, for crying out loud, a planet made up mostly of a substance (water) that is deadly to them, that these brilliant aliens don’t have the foresight to put on a wetsuit or so much as a windbreaker or a hefty bag, even though their landing sites are out in the middle of cornfields, which are generally not known for their desert-like qualities. (The aliens’ whole plan for world domination to “harvest” human bodies could have been foiled in an instant if the irrigation sprinkler systems had happened to go on, or by a typical summer cloudburst.) I had a glimmer of hope that the movie might have a meaningful message when Phoenix is watching a news flash in the closet that reports that the aliens are leaving because people have figured out a way to defeat them. For a moment I thought the movie might pull it off at the end with a message about the transforming power of faith (which a FAR more profound movie, The Matrix, delivers with dazzling ingenuity) but NOOOOO, we soon find out that this decisive, world-saving technique comes down to splashing them with a glass of water.
And I haven’t even gotten to my main objection to this movie.
Everyone seems to agree that this is a movie about faith. What amazes me is that a website that has more than its share of open theists would enthusiastically endorse a movie that, as I said to Iconoclast on our way out of the theatre, is an “Ode to Calvinism and determinism.”
What kind of “faith” does Gibson recover?
Shyamalan doesn’t leave us wondering. All of the “signs” lead to the conclusion that “nothing happens by accident” and everything unfolds according to blueprint. I suppose you could argue (like Brett has) that there is a spiritual warfare aspect, in the sense that, for example, their house (as prefigured in the UFO book) did not catch on fire, and the father and two children (as prefigured in the UFO book) did not die. But this would be to miss the underlying determinism behind those images appearing in the UFO book to BEGIN with – which suggests far more plausibly that the images are there to bring about GOD’S chosen (predetermined) future in which the father and children LIVE.
As Doc said:
The best argument against your [Brett’s warfare] interpretation is that the all-or-nothing mindset is never retracted, qualified, or anything. It looks to me like he lives in the option that either there are no accidents and chance, in which case God exists, or there’s nothing but accidents and chance. At the end of the movie (don't read if you haven't seen it yet) he discovers there’s a purpose for the mother’s odd statement, and a purpose for his son's asthma -- they weren't accidents. This suggests the wife was right in thinking it was "her time" to die, which further presupposes it was the driver’s "time" to fall asleep at just that moment (as the driver himself testifies in despair).
As I interpret it, the whole metaphor of the movie hangs on this. The "signs" to the alien invaders is a metaphor for "signs" in the world that point to God. The exact time the man fell asleep to kill the mom is a sign. The fact that she was pinned in such a way she could live long enough to say "swing away" is a sign. The fact that the boy’s asthma saved his life is a sign. The fact that there was a baseball bat, that the brother was a former home run king, etc. are ALL SIGNS. There are no accidents or mere coincidences. It’s all part of a grand design.
And now I'm wondering why I liked the movie so much.
Semeia:
I was wondering that myself…
Furthermore, Shyamalan leaves no room for a “warfare” interpretation. If you recall, Gibson says quite explicitly that his wife’s last statement was nothing more than the “random firing of synapses” of her dying brain, signifying nothing. He lost his faith because in the senseless death of his wife he lost his faith that God even EXISTS – and he again makes that explicit when he describes to his brother the two types of people in the world: those who believe in a higher power that is “with us”, and those who believe we are on our own (essentially BELIEVERS and NON-BELIEVERS) and he puts himself in the latter camp. His son cries out that he hates his father NOT because his father believes in a cruel God, but because his father has LOST HIS FAITH IN GOD ENTIRELY – which could not have been made more clear.
Brett said:
It seemed to me that he rejected God because he believed that God killed his wife as part of some arbitrary exercise of power.
Semeia:
See above. His statements are quite explicit, and exclude the possibility of this interpretation. His wife’s last statement had no meaning (according to him) because when she was half in this world and half out she was simply dying, into nothingness. His conversation with his brother shows clearly that he lost his faith in ANY God, and saw himself as ON HIS OWN in the world. There were no statements whatsoever railing against God – as if there even was a God that had anything to do with it. All of Gibson’s statements presupposed that there was NO God.
Brett said:
What he seems to discover in the end is that no matter what God is actually causing to happen, or what He is not causing to happen, His actions are always intended for our good. God is actively engaged AGAINST evil forces (in this case, hostile aliens from outer space). He is ON OUR SIDE.
Semeia:
No. What he discovers at the end is that God exhaustively predetermines everything, so that even things that appear to be meaningless (like his wife’s last statement) have a specific purpose. When he says “Oh, THAT’S why he has asthma!” what he means is that God gave his son asthma because God knew that at a certain point an alien would be attempting to force poison up his nose. And how would God know this? Because the world is predetermined and unfolding according to, as Doc says, a detailed blueprint.
And in this detailed blueprint, not only does his wife’s last statement have meaning, but also the brother’s career as a minor league strikeout king. Everything has to line up in a predetermined way for it to all work out. Nothing is left to chance.
Now is this all illogical? YESSSSS!!!!!! And that is why this is such a bad movie. Because a predetermined, Calvinist, blueprint worldview is illogical, inconsistent, and unworkable. Because if God exhaustively lays out the blueprint, and free will and chance are an illusion, then why would God “create” Satan and aliens and asthma and horrible accidents to begin with? But if free will and chance are NOT an illusion, why would the filmmaker suggest that the asthma, the fatal accident, the wife’s final words, the brother’s career, the baseball bat on the wall, the daughter’s dislike of the water, and on and on and ON, are NOT chance occurrences at all? That these things are in fact designed by God?
If there were only a few of these “signs” I might agree that perhaps they indicated God’s interaction with the world. But Shyamalan makes it crystal clear that he is talking about predestination, because the signs are ubiquitous throughout the movie, and involve entire lifetime patterns to work.
Brett said:
Why else would he have re-embraced his faith at the end of the movie? If he still felt that God killed his wife, or at least that God killed his wife for no greater good, why would he think of God as good again?
Semeia:
Exactly. Stupid movie.
Brett said:
Now the movie certainly doesn't explain enough of his thought process to know exactly why he returns to God, but in my mind, there was no reason for his character to love God again unless he began to understand what the spiritual warfare model of theodicy provides: we cannot know with particularity which occurrences of bad stuff are orchestrated by God and which are not, but we can be assured that whatever actions He takes are in opposition to the enemy for our greater good. The "signs" are that God is GOOD, and He is always acting on our behalf (which is necessarily AGAINST that which is NOT on our behalf).
Semeia:
You’re right, there’s no reason for him to love God again. Stupid movie. There is no warfare motif in this movie. The dilemma is between THERE IS NO GOD and GOD HAS A BIGGER PLAN THAN WE KNOW. It wasn’t their quick wits that saved them; it was God lining up the dominos, from the brother’s strikeouts to the son’s asthma to the mother’s final words to the daughter leaving water all over.
I understand why it is difficult to see this in the movie, and why you would want to insert the warfare motif to make sense of it. But Shyamalan explicitly endorses the predestination, predetermined view to the point of saying, “There are no accidents.” Which turns a potentially great movie into mush.
Springs said:
I enjoyed all the symbolism in the movie.
Semeia:
I agree that there is plenty of symbolism in this movie; however, I found it to be contradictory and ill thought out.
Springs said:
I thought the little girl was supposed to be an angel or at least in some sense innocent and divine. This was conveyed through her clothes, being attacked by the demonized dog and even her gossamer blankie. She was the one responsible for saturating the house with the Holy Spirit. (the water)
Semeia:
Shyamalan is one of the best kids’ directors out there, and he does get a wonderful ethereal performance out of this little girl. She does have a prophetic dream of the brother having a life-threatening asthma attack, which she misinterprets as him dying. To symbolize an angel I would have expected her to use that prophetic dream in some more powerful way.
And if the girl is an angel or divine and the water is the Holy Spirit, why would Shyamalan have her refer to the water as “contaminated”?
Both dogs went berserk at the aliens. If the dog’s were “demonized” and the aliens were demons, wouldn’t the dogs be “one of them” and therefore acting in concert with them rather than being against them? This is very standard sci-fi / horror film fare, to have the animals be the first to recognize danger, and then go berserk.
Springs said:
The hit and run driver drove his demon into a closet instead of confronting it. He instead sought out the rumor of a less painful or risky remedy.
Semeia:
Good observation. This symbolism made sense to me, he certainly ran from his fears.
Springs said:
This demon was also Mel’s demon, (the missing fingers) probably due to the fact that this demon was responsible for the accident that killed the wife and screwed them both up.
Semeia:
Here you are suggesting that the demon (the alien) caused the accident out of free will.
This is a huge leap for which I find no evidence. The whole point of the movie is that the accident “couldn’t have been an accident” (as the driver, Shyamalan himself, explicitly states). [Aside: there is powerful symbolism in the fact that Shyamalan, the director, plays the role of the driver. Because as the director/writer of the movie it is Shyamalan who is really playing God. It is Shyamalan who is the deus ex machina, who is “determining” the outcome of events. Which is exactly what Shyamalan is suggesting that God is doing.] If it is no accident because free-willed aliens (demons) MADE it happen, then how did God know to “give” the son asthma ten years in advance of the accident and the invasion in order to prevent the poison from getting into his lungs? How did God know to create these pre-existing conditions to fight the aliens, if they were free-willed beings? That is nonsensical. And yet Mel states, “Oh, THAT is why he has asthma!” and it is that awareness (that it is really God behind everything) that gives him his faith back. Is it stupid? Yes. But we can’t overlay it with our own interpretation in order to make it make sense. If the free-willed “demon” caused the accident, then why did the asthma, the distaste for water, and the strikeout career all take place before the accident? Why would God give the boy asthma for an event that may or may not occur a decade later? Or do millions of people have asthma just in case an alien tries to put poison up their nose? And what about the rest of us? Why doesn’t everyone have asthma to protect them? The only way Mel’s statement and the rest of the movie make sense is if one believes that the future can be exhaustively foretold because it is in fact predestined. God knows in advance that the alien will grab the boy and not the girl, so he gives the boy asthma. Period. That is Shyamalan’s point of view. Everything happens for a reason. The illogic of course is that why would God make the aliens to begin with if not out of a desire to make free-willed creatures? But if there is free will, none of the “foretelling” and pre-existing conditions make any sense. And if God is “selectively” intervening, why not intervene against the aliens to begin with, instead of intervening to give people very painful (dying words, asthma) resistance to the aliens? Those things are severe limitations of free will. If He’s going to do that, why not limit the free will of the bad guys instead? Or bring about a thunderstorm or two to defeat the aliens? It makes no sense at all.
Shyamalan in this movie is in fact suggesting that it is God who caused the accident as a sign for Mel to be able to defeat the alien. Just like God gave the boy asthma so that the boy wouldn’t die.
Springs said:
I saw the spiritual warfare motif too. I would argue it was just as present as the other two views and was offered as an alternative explanation to the belief in "either/or;" God or chance. The aliens symbolized demons.
Brett said:
I don't think M. Night Shymalan necessarily appreciated all of the theological and philosophical intricacies of the providence issue, but I do think that in telling the story, he may have (perhaps somewhat intuitively) arrived at a spiritual warfare perspective.
Semeia:
I find it very interesting how easy it is for us to project an “open view” interpretation on top of a “deterministic” view. We naturally presuppose an open view because this is how we actually live – it is like breathing – we are mostly unconscious of it. Thus when a deterministic view is presented we automatically filter it through our open view presuppositions. We basically fill in the logic holes just like our brain fills in the blind spot in our vision. I am convinced that this is the why so many people still hold to Calvinist thought.
And yet in holding to Calvinist thought something essential is missing – our heart and our mind are not fully congruent. It’s not that we don’t actually operate of an assumption that we are morally responsible, because we do. The real problem is that it blocks a progression to further insights about the amazing way God really operates. It blocks us from a full appreciation of God’s providence and how our participation in it actually affects God, and allows us to be affected by God. It precludes us from continually discovering deeper meaning in the relationship, either between God and us, or between us and the world.
For those of you who loved this movie:
What is the nature of the type of “faith” it presents? What kind of faith is it that says that everything happens for a reason? That God brings about car accidents and asthma as signs?
And if these aliens can be defeated with a garden hose, why does the mother have to die and the boy have to have asthma, etc.? If the girl can have prophetic dreams, why doesn’t God give her a dream about sprinkler systems and thunderstorms?
What is the “message” of the movie? That there are “signs” all around us? That’s true enough. But do you really want to take this as far as Shyamalan does? That everything that happens to us is a sign from God? Even things like a child’s asthma, and a disappointing career?
I agree that God can use terrible events and bring good out of them. But nowhere in the movie does Shyamalan suggest this is what is happening. The entire movie is predicated on the belief that things are set in motion long ago because the future is exhaustively foreknown by God.
PART TWO: RECOMMENDATION FOR A FAR BETTER MOVIE ON FAITH ALSO INVOLVING SUPERNATURAL EVENTS IN A CORNFIELD:
FIELD OF DREAMS
For a movie that really does explore the meaning of faith, and how both faith and meaning can be altered depending on the perspective we take on different events in our life, see FIELD OF DREAMS. Not scary at all, but beautifully filmed and acted, it explores how our free-will decisions can dramatically change the course of our life.
It was especially powerful for me because, like the Burt Lancaster character, my father had a brief but tantalizingly promising career in the major leagues (with the Brooklyn Dodgers, on the dream team of 1953) which he gave up for a variety of reasons, including the need to support his growing family. He was one of the Boys of Summer, a near mythological intersection of talent and hope, and for my father the fulfillment of a childhood spent playing stickball on the back sandlots of Brooklyn dreaming a dream with an almost mystical leveling force: the ballfield held as much promise for the son of Italian immigrants as it did for the bluest-blooded boy of privilege. And in ’53 he played with the likes of Duke Snyder, Gil Hodges, Pee Wee Reese, and greatest of all, Jackie Robinson. And all that that sort of experience meant, and all that it didn’t mean, is beautifully explored in the movie Field of Dreams.
“If you build it they will come” powerfully evokes the relationship between action and faith. The life we create, the life we live, is dramatically changed according to both the actions we choose and the subsequent meaning we give to them. And frequently the present (or our interpretation of the past or the future) blinds us to the bigger picture, because we lack a “God’s eye” view. Only faith allows us to be open to the possibilities, allows us to open ourselves to God showing us the wider perspective.
When Kevin Costner sees his father as a young man, full of athletic enthusiasm and hope, it alters forever his perspective on who his father really is. When Costner’s daughter starts choking on the hot dog, we see the ballplayer step off the “magic” field, and step into his aged body, the startling transformation from youthful ballplayer to aged physician. And as he kneels to heal her, the gift he gave up pales next to the gift that he chose, and all the lives that were changed as a result. And the transaction that had earlier seemed like a defeat, like a giving up, turned out to be an unimagined victory.
What is the “Field of Dreams”? It is nothing less than the open place in our heart into which we let God speak to us, calling us to the true perspective of love.
And if we build it, WHO will come? Only the people in our life re-interpreted with the eyes of love. And the mystery of the past that haunts us is revealed, through God’s support, emerging out of the hidden region in all its complexity: a life viewed with love.
If only any of us could see our parents with all their youthful hopes and dreams, before life’s disappointments encumbered them. The movie suggests that we can, if we act in faith by opening our hearts to God.
And best of all: it’s all about FREE WILL.
PART THREE: SIGNS, CHARLES PEIRCE, AND NLP
There is a concept from NLP and Charles Peirce and David Bohm, about how one “sign” interprets another, and meaning only takes place through the second sign, or “interpretant.” “Interpretant” is Peirce’s term; David Bohm calls it “soma significance.” What follows mostly uses NLP terminology.
There are three domains: the past, the present, and the future. All meaning takes place in the present. Which means a past event, when called up in our mind, is given meaning only in the present.
How do we give something meaning in the present? Language. We language it in the present. To change the meaning of a past event simply means to re-language it, or say it differently in our heads. We are re-presenting a past event in our head when we call it up; we re-present it through language; and when we do this we actually re-experience it here in the present. This only happens through language.
Same thing with a future thought: something that might happen. When are we experiencing that? We are experiencing it right now in our language in the present. When we language it in a certain way we may feel scared. If we change our language, we can change our experience and change our feelings.
For example, one can say: “Right now things are going well, but I’m afraid things are going to get worse in the future.”
Or, one can say: “I’m concerned about what’s going to happen in the future, but right now things are going very well.”
The change in language changes our experience and thus changes our feelings in the present.
We always experience things only in the present.
We are always re-presenting and therefore re-interpreting a past event in the present. This is why when Gibson’s wife says “Swing away” and he gives it the meaning that it is a “random firing of synapses” as she is dying it causes him to lose his faith. Alternatively, he could have decided that it was a sincere message to his brother to keep trying in his baseball career. Later he regains his faith when he re-interprets her words as a message from God sent in order to save him from the alien.
Shyamalan uses this idea of “re-interpretation” to good effect: suddenly all these “signs” take on new meaning from the perspective given by the alien invasion. Unfortunately, the “re-interpretation” he gives is a deterministic, Calvinist one, which, for me at least, spoils the movie.
His reinterpretation that it was a “message from God” is entangled with the idea that it was “meant to be.” Rather than: “It was NOT meant to be, but God can bring good out of bad.” All of the “signs,” from the failed career to the asthma to the daughter’s distaste for the water to the accident itself, were “meant to be” in service to the greater good: to defeat the aliens and save the boy. What it leaves unanswered, as does all Calvinist thought, is that if it is all determined anyway, or mostly determined, why doesn’t God eliminate the bad stuff to begin with?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/13/2002 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
You are my hero. This is one of the all time great movie reviews. Any review that mentions Peirce(!!!) has to be up there anyway, but you also gave a great reading of the movie! (Now if I can get you to move one step further away from philosophy to actually reading Rhetoric books....)
The only thing I'd disagree on is the "contradictory" nature of the symbols in the movie. Like M. Night's other movies, there is misdirection in this one. Unlike 6th sense and Unbreakable, the plot holes in this movie are big enough to drive a truck through. I'm also not sure it makes sense to reference Perice and interpreting signs and then say that some of the signs ARE (as in there's only one correct interpretation) contradictory.
Now I want to go back through the movie thread and see what else you've reviewed.
Thanks for making me smile and think.
Terry
"Be God's"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/13/2002 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Writerdad,Yeah, it’s a sign I wouldn’t know an Episcopal priest if he bit me in the a$$. And your response is a sign that you are having way too much fun busting my chops.
What is the symbolism behind the fact that the aliens were chameleons? Does the interpretation for the invisibility of the ships pertain to the aliens also? Were they chameleons to signify that demons can enter into our physical domains yet remain hidden from human view? Does it suggests that they blend into our mundane surroundings and that we usually become aware of them only when we see them hiding in someone else’s pantry first?
Or is it that the aliens blending into the background has nothing to add to the story.
Is it possible that the special effects department just had a huge budget to play with, given the crop circles, Mel and the aliens, so they just added the ability for the aliens to mimic their surroundings as a way to make the aliens more interesting? Or could it be that under the ever present demand that they make a buck they used this special feature of the aliens to lure movie go-ers into taking in the film a second time so they could search for barely detectable aliens in the backgrounds of scenes? (For instance in the first panoramic shot of the living room before the alien appeared in a reflection on the TV.)
-S
Edited by - Springs on 08/13/2002 11:23:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|