Showing posts with label scapegoat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scapegoat. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Despised, rejected, and acquainted with grief, the road to Calvary.



This film starts with a quote from Augustine.

Do not despair, one of the thieves was saved. 
Do not presume, one of the thieves was damned’.  

We might think that this is therefore about redemption, but it is much more complex than that.   John Micheal McDonagh, who wrote and directed it, must surely know that this was one of Samuel Beckett’s favourite quotes.     McDonagh himself says it is part of his suicide trilogy.   I think it is one of the most arresting films I have seen for some time.    I saw it 24 hours ago and have not stopped thinking about it since.

I last saw Brendan Gleeson in McDonagh’s film The Garde.   In his new film Gleeson plays another West Coast Irishman, another loner, another maverick,  and again the smartest man in the room, but how different the priest in Calvary is to the Garde.   He looks different, and it is not the priest’s beard that does it, it’s all in the eyes.   

This priest, Father James Lavelle, is the classic scapegoat.  He will pay the price for the sins of the community, those of the Church and of his parishioners.  He is described at the start of the film as an innocent man, carefully chosen as a victim because he is innocent.   But he is not naïve.  One of his parishioners says he is just a bit to smart for this parish.   And he is not innocent like a lamb.   In some ways he is more like a goat.   He is a powerful and assertive man, willing to confront his ‘sheep’ if he thinks they are straying, and to correct them if they show insufficient respect for Christianity or the Church.  And he is no saint.   He is not without sin, not without falling short.   When push comes to shove he is willing to shove back, hard.

The Sligo landscape in which this film is set is dominated by a huge square, squat hill (I think it’s Mount Knockarea), its former towering heights now crumbled, and its flat top surrounded by a ruin of fallen rock.    Is this a deliberate visual reference to the state of the Church in Ireland?   It still dominates the landscape, but its former glory has decayed, its moral power is diminished.  Its current priests live in its shadow, and too many of its victims still live in darkness. 

At the start of the film I assumed that this was to be the story of Father James’ Calvary, but by the end we see that most of the film’s characters are carrying their own heavy crosses.   They are hurt and angry.  Calvary is concerned with anger, its roots and effects,  particularly people’s anger at the Church that allowed so much abuse to happen and then go unacknowledged, unpunished and often unapologized for.   Calvary is concerned with the way the past sins of the abusing priests have distorted their victims lives and still impact on those around them.    And these sins are not only those committed in Ireland.   The historical cruelty of Christian missionaries in Africa is also referenced.     This is a film about anger, but it is not an angry film.  Its last, wordless, scene is surely about forgiveness.   It ends literally on a grace note.

We saw some of the cast in The Garde, including Pat Shortt, Gary Lyndon and the diminutive Michael Og Lane.    In Calvary we also see how Chris O’Dowd can play straight.   Domhnall Gleeson (Brendan’s son)  plays a cameo, and I did not recognize him - even though I enjoyed his work in True Grit,  Anne Karenina and About Time.  This was   not because he was heavily made up, he was not.  He simply played his character so convincingly I didn’t look past the ‘persona’.

Kelly Reilly, who I last saw as Mrs. Watson in the two Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes Movies, plays Father James’s daughter (his wife, her mother, died before he was ordained).    Hers is a quiet, understated, yet crucial performance.  

Dylan Moran plays a less convincingly written character, representing the financiers who’s criminally irresponsible behavior brought about the ruin of the Southern Irish economy, and yet walked away unpunished.    Unpunished, but not content.  At one point he pisses on a painting.  It is  Hans Holbein’s The Ambassadors, with its famous anamorphic skull.   He is trying to impress the priest with his indifference to his own wealth.   The priest is unimpressed,  but the painting itself is a reminder, amidst the pomp and power of the political world, of our common mortality. 

Some other characters are emblematic, and McDonagh acknowledges this himself within the film.   One of them, Dr Frank Harte, tells us he is ‘the atheistic Doctor, it’s a clichéd role.’

Calvary is a serious film, unflinching yet essentially humane.   It pulls no punches in order to make its point, and maybe it tries to land too many of them.   But it is held together by the strength of Brendan Gleeson’s central performance, one of the most convincing portrayals of a priest I have seen on screen.    I also admire Mr. Gleeson’s commitment to Irish cinema.     He has played in many big budget movies, including Braveheart, Michael Collins, Lake Placid, Mission Impossible  II, AI, Gangs of New York, Troy, and The Kingdom of Heaven, Harry Potter.    He could so easily become Hollywood’s Irishman of choice, but he keeps a home on Galway Bay, and his presence and considerable gifts have made movies such as The General, The Butcher Boy, In Bruges The Garde and Calvary successes.

Xan Brooks recently wrote in The Guardian, that Gleeson “plays God’s servant as a recovering alcoholic with an impossible task, variously fuelled by rage, reason and sadness.  Here, at least, is a Christ we can relate to” and  “How refreshing it is, in the wake of Darren Aronofsky’s lumbering, self important Noah, to see a spiritual saga that is smart enough to take route the less traveled, the low road to glory.  Calvary touches greatness.  It crawls clear through the slime and comes out looking holy.”

I could not say it better myself, so I wont try.  

Monday, 17 March 2014

A study pack for The Dark Knight.


I have been asked to write a study pack for Individuals or Congregations on the Chris Nolan movie The Dark Knight.   I have added this to my previous review, which can be found  on this blog archive for  August 2011.  

There are similar articles on The Life of Pi and Apocalypse Now! Redux dated October 2013, and Zhang Yimou's film Hero also dated Aug 2011.  This last has not yet been recast as group questions, but I will do so when I get time.     Terrence Malik's Tree of Life seems to be a very deep well of meaning and interpretation.   The last time I showed it (the 14th showing, I think)  was to local friends who included a psychologist and another theologian, and yet more aspects were revealed.   Maybe I will pull together my three (or is it four?) articles on this film. 

The Dark Knight is at one level simply a piece of entertainment.   It is the kind of film that costs more than a hundred million dollars to make - and must therefore attract a huge audience to recoup its costs.    These are sometimes called ‘tent pole movies’.   But the British Director,  Chris Nolan, who studied  English Literature at University College London,  has never been content simply to entertain.    
I hope this little study opens a few windows on its serious intent; its concern with private morality and public ethics; individual and corporate responsibility;  the ambiguity of heroism and violence,  good and evil, power and vulnerability, the temptations posed by ends that justify means;  the human and moral cost of ‘collateral damage’;  the role of the scapegoat in society and our own psychology;  the personification of evil;  the nature of ‘Christ-likeness’ and the possibility of human redemption. 
It also illustrates my conviction that ‘tent pole’ movies can have serious artistic, philosophical and even theological intent and content, and that films have a central part in 20th and 21st century literature.  
   
How could you use this pack?  Obviously it can be used for individual reflection, but a group discussion is a much richer stew.   Even if group members have already seen the film I suggest it is good to see it again together, maybe a week before the discussion starts.   There may well be enough material here for a number of sessions, particularly around the final question, is The Joker Satanic?