The wife and I just returned from the Tinsletown movie complex at the Southern Park Mall, south of beautiful Youngstown, Ohio where we took in Denzel Washington’s latest movie, The Book of Eli.
On about six different levels The Book of Eli is the finest film ever made, though I’ll require a couple of additional viewings to come up with a comparative analysis between it and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. While it would not be appropriate to discuss the film in depth, simply because there’s a “surprise” factor (or two, or three) involved with this film, I can say the plot, the acting, the cinematography, and particularly the music are unmatched in cinema history.
If I were to reduce the film to a simple sentence I would quote St. Francis when he said, “Preach the Gospel at all times, if necessary use words.” This film is a brilliantly executed symbol that expresses the tension of the experience of Infinite Being in metalepsis with being at the eschaton. Brilliantly written and beautifully executed the film reflects the effects of Original Sin on the nature of man, where man is moving to that point where he no longer remembers the Logos or seeks the redemption and salvation of Jesus Christ.
See this film as soon as you can. Take your wife and a box of kleenex…it is truly “moving,” it is the finest film ever made.
January 16th, 2010 | 7:25 pm
So just to be clear, Bob, are you saying you liked the movie?…….I plan on seeing it this weekend……….
January 16th, 2010 | 9:18 pm
It was a superb film..Im not sure I would call it the “Finest ever made, but it was in the top one hundred, and one of the best films of the milennium
January 17th, 2010 | 8:33 am
[...] Joyner | Sunday, January 17, 2010 PoMoCo’s Robert Cheeks just saw “the finest film ever made.” No, not Highlander, which reportedly won the [...]
January 17th, 2010 | 12:18 pm
While I don’t agree that it is the “finest movie ever made”, I enjoyed it more than I expected and it is much more thought provoking than I expected. In fact, it promotes discussion on many levels, artistic, political, social, and religious.
I guess I should not be surprised that the reviews are mostly unfavorable, rendering it as right-wing conservative, religious droll (my words, not of anyone else).
At least your review is positive!
I will be watching it again, and waiting for it to come out on DVD for my collection. It ranks up there for me with SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.
January 17th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
[...] Robert Cheeks at Postmodern Conservative: On about six different levels The Book of Eli is the finest film ever made, though I’ll require a couple of additional viewings to come up with a comparative analysis between it and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. While it would not be appropriate to discuss the film in depth, simply because there’s a “surprise” factor (or two, or three) involved with this film, I can say the plot, the acting, the cinematography, and particularly the music are unmatched in cinema history. [...]
January 17th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
Bob, To think I passed up the finest movie ever made for Youth in Revolt or whatever it was. I will get to it as soon as possible. I assume you’ve seen every movie ever made.
January 18th, 2010 | 12:05 am
I just went and saw the movie based largely on this blog post. I don’t see how this assessment can be serious in any way. Maybe the author can give some explanation?
January 18th, 2010 | 8:52 am
Ivan, I’m looking forward to your comments (blog?) re: The Book of Eli. Ms. Yvonne and Mr. Harder I’m pleased you enjoyed the film and I hope you see it again.
Peter, my insistence that The Book of Eli is “the finest film ever made,” isn’t predicated on my review of all the films that have ever been produced, rather its established on a revelatory experience, where the act of revelation is marked as one of the many basic experiences related to our specie. Revelation, I think, is no longer viable for many humans because they’ve been overcome by an anxiety and an unrest
(secularization) that have overpowered our natural “spiritual sensitivity” (here the FRPers have it on the PoMoCons) and derailed folks into a “closed existence” system.
Specifically, this “revelation” was along the lines of a series of pneumatic illuminations (insights) that continued to fire any number of synapses during and following the film. The sad truth is that there are going to be a lot of people who will fail to understand this remarkable film because they are no longer human beings. Although things continue to get “better and worse.”
Also, Martha and I watched an excellent movie last night you may enjoy starring Dennis Quaid again titled, “Smart People.” It’s about a college Lit professor at Carnegie Mellon.
Donald, thanks for your comments and I’m sorry you don’t share my enthusiasm for this film. At a rudimentary level the film portrays what Bergson referred to as the openness of the soul toward transcendence, a recognition and an openness to the Ground of existence that as I’ve mentioned above has steadily been eradicated from our culture. People have lost the symbols and in many cases we have lost the will to seek new symbols which culminates in the scenario, the utter spiritual desolation, we saw in the film. This phenomenon is discussed at some length both here at PoMoCon and at our friendly competitors, The Front Porch Republic.
Carnegie, the villain, wanted the “Book” because he understood the ordering power of God’s Word. He desired to capture and institute “homonia” in the community for his own aggrandizement, though his particular perversion was doomed to failure simply because he was not substituting the essence of the “Book”, the Logos of Christ, for the Aristotelean transcendent nous as reason, but rather to dominate a disordered mob whose only “consciousness of kind” was based on survival and nothing more.
The above, I think, answers your question if you are a atheist or an agnostic. If, however, you are a practicing Christian I’ll need you to expand the question.
January 18th, 2010 | 7:25 pm
is this movie as deep as the sixth sense! i have to see it again because although ther are clues about eli I still would have liked to have had a flashback at the final scene to make eli,s surprise easier.I think it is one of the best films about gods relationship with man i ever scene.but i wish there was more background.please email me if you,ve scene movie i need to talk about its meningsBLACKMANROSES@AOL>com
January 18th, 2010 | 10:05 pm
I just saw it yesterday Bob. I found it mildly entertaining and did find a couple of parts effecting though obviously as an agnostic squish I probably didn’t find it as moving as you (I was utterly unmoved on a mental level for instance by Gibson’s snuff film outside of a vague curiosity as to whether I could in good conscience ask the theater for my money back).
The twist at the end was clever and I would say that for the involving people with that particular disability so centrally I thought the movie was very clever and fresh. The parallel between Eli and the disabled woman (you know who I mean Bob, I’m being vague to avoid spoilers for others) was elegant and definitely allowed me to forgive the film for its conceit that a bunch of post apocalyptic survivors could have any hope of scrubbing the world’s most prolific tome from every motel room in the country.
Outside of those thundering chords at the beginning and end of the movie I didn’t notice the music and I very much approved of their realistic portrayal of the horrors of cannibalism. My time spent in the movie was well spent but it didn’t move me as it did you. Still I don’t feel any need to reproach you for your recommendation.
January 19th, 2010 | 3:12 am
Specifically, this “revelation” was along the lines of a series of pneumatic illuminations (insights) that continued to fire any number of synapses during and following the film. The sad truth is that there are going to be a lot of people who will fail to understand this remarkable film because they are no longer human beings.
I’m not a regular reader, so I’m not completely confident … but you must be joking, right?
January 19th, 2010 | 9:30 am
Bob, Good answer or at least totally pneumatic answer to my unseemly scoffing.
January 19th, 2010 | 10:16 am
Peter, I’ve noted your qualified compliment in my diary, thank you!
And, while I can’t imagine that you’ve participated in “unseemly scoffing” since the obligatory freshman pranks, I am dismayed that one of America’s leading thinkers would differentiate the tension of existence in terms of immanence and transcendence?
Please note that I am sincerely anticipating your own insightful comments re: Eli.
Joe Z., you’re busting me, right? If not, allow me to refer you to Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists, Augustine, the Bible, Aquinas, Husserl, Stein, Plantinga, Lawler, etc., et al, and on and on, and Vols. 6,10,11,12, the complete Order and History, and the History of Political Ideas found in the CW of Eric Voegelin.
North, thank you for your insightful remarks and your discretion re: the integral element of the leitmotif of the movie, that’s class man, and I appreciate it. I am, however, heartbroken that you didn’t share my spiritual joy but I want you to know I haven’t given up on a kind, intelligent, and sensitive friend. I hope you won’t mind that I pray for you?
Cj, I share your desire “for more background.” Alas, the movie is based on a screen play that was changed and altered during the filming. Perhaps they’ll make a prequel and then we’ll know. But, we know one thing cj, God loves us with his entire Being.
Since viewing the film I’ve been in conversation with several people involved with the movie and I intend to pass along some additional info. The erudite Rimwell has written a delightful and penetrating critique of my comments and the film here:
http://whirlpoolsrim.blogspot.com/2010/01/book-of-eli.html
January 19th, 2010 | 7:01 pm
Bob, one of the great joys of thoughtful agnosticism as opposed to the bleak certainties of atheism (or the atrocious harping of evangelist atheism) is that it affords me the opportunity to attempt to graciously accept offers of prayer on my behalf without any inconsistency re: my intellectual beliefs. Indeed if the original mover does indeed move around somewhere out there beyond the ken of us mere mortals I’d be grateful if one of his peeps in the know would put in a good word for me.
For my part I promise that if Old Scratch shows up to carry me off to the celestial bar-b-que in punishment for my life and my love then I’ll be sure to let him know that apart from a tendency to (only occasionally) preach instead of argue and aside from a certain fondness for Maker’s Mark; Bob Cheeks is not his man.
January 19th, 2010 | 10:42 pm
Thanks, Bob. I’m looking forward to your subsequent posts on the movie, particularly the promised comparison to The Passion of the Christ. My faith in the movie falters a little over its stark witness to Revelation, but perhaps, as you point out, it is appropriate for the “eradication” that is the fundamental situation of the genre. I suppose I would prefer to watch a sequel in which Solara returns home to finish what she began when she attempted to pray with her mother and in which Eli is the stuff of legend (on that note, I expected a lot more, something demonic maybe, from Carnegie’s “Amen”). — Rimwell
February 17th, 2010 | 12:59 am
Well, when you call it the finest movie ever made you know you’re inviting an argument. I went with my wife to see this movie a few weeks after it had been released, so I knew something of what it was about, so let me give a more objective review: On about six different levels, this is the finest movie ever made.
I had tears in my eyes at about three different points. I was riveted at the message which the Hughes Brothers magnificently would not compromise upon. It is artistically fully realized. It has twists like “Sixty Sense” and a sense of affection for movie history that Tarantino would admire.
There is so much to write about this movie, but I want to focus on just one part, which shows the depth of the screenwriting and thought that went into the movie. Eli – a post-apocalyptic Saul of Tarsus – runs his race and keeps the faith and delivers the Bible to safety. And with that, the Bible sits on a bookshelf, exposed to no one, just another “great book” to be saved. It is Solara, who Eli doesn’t want to accompany him, who cannot read, and who begins as a helpless “slave,” who is destined to spread the word of God. The last scene, with Solara resembling Linda Hamilton’s character from Terminator II, taut, wired, focused, completes her transformation. She is not returning to her home to save her mother; she is returning to her home to save the world. And it all starts with a simple, religious and civilizing event: Eli has her say Grace with him before they eat. Solara’s delight in such a simple, gracious act lights a fire in her. For all the violence and action, this is a movie of great nuance and subtlety. And it’s got Tom Waits! So it’s even more great.
July 7th, 2010 | 11:45 am
Just saw the movie this weekend. Had to watch it a second time. It was really good. A lot of people don’t seem to get it though.
July 8th, 2010 | 9:54 am
[...] agrees with my reading of the film, to say the least. For instance, consider Robert Cheeks’ review. He found the film deeply moving, even revelatory, and proclaims it the ‘finest film ever [...]
July 27th, 2010 | 9:25 am
I read this review six months ago, and have just gotten around to seeing the movie.
If I may opine to the contrary, this is one of the stupidest movies ever made. It’s Waterworld in the desert.
Let me repeat: Waterworld in the desert.
Not to mention the glaring holes in the plot:
(i) In this post-apocalyptic nightmare state, how did people who can barely form cities manage to eradicate nearly every copy of the most-printed book in the world?
(ii) Decoding Braille is a trivial task. It’s hard to imagine a literate person giving up so easily, especially if that person had the least sense of what was in the book.
(iii) Plot twists: only effective if they have some implication for understanding the rest of the plot. Shyamalan at least understands that. What is so shocking about a blind man, if it’s a blind man who can shoot birds out of the sky with a bow and arrow? How would the movie have been different if (as I had been expecting), Eli had just cut out the pages?
And I’m not a nit-picker, but these elements added insult to injury:
(i) When Eli kills the would-be rapists, he leaves the arrows in the body, uselessly.
(ii) Braille books are always much larger than printed books, because the paper is thicker. I doubt you could fit the New Testament in the book he was carrying.
(iii) (Production quality): the Alcatraz setting hints at modest creativity, or at least a desire not to rip off Fahrenheit 451 too directly. Fine. But take your actors out on the water. In a lot. Anything. Don’t just have them wave their oars around in front of a green screen, and expect us to buy it.
The only success that I can see here is the success in luring a Chrisitian audiences by offering a few throw-away references to the Bible.
August 9th, 2010 | 1:06 am
I have just recently watched this artful and poignant movie, now several times this weekend and, in my opinion, I offer up these thoughts:
Name “Eli” = Translates in literal definition the actual word, “God.” Therefore, the movie’s title literally is : The Book of God
Story of God’s promise of Restoration = Ultimate message; God will protect His Word and restore new covenants with his people which consistently happened time after time as man is so flawed and egotistical and ultimately filled with sin; God intervenes through events and people that are brought into our lives to minister us if we listen – key point: if we listen.
Eli = Which was his name as stated on his Bible copy; probably a reference to Paul or Saul of Tarsus – a Christian missionary who authored several books in the Bible; a masterful and proud teacher who received his call (or experienced a ‘conversion’) to follow Jesus as Messiah and take the gospel to the Gentiles; the blind messenger led by God to show he indeed literally “walks by faith and not by sight” which he wasn’t truly blind as Carnegie is shown at the end who was actually blind to the Word
Marvin Gaye song = I can think of younger days/When living for my life/Was everything a man could want to do/I could never see tomorrow/But I was never told about the sorrow/And how can you mend a broken heart?/How can you stop the rain from falling down?/How can you stop the sun from shining?/What makes the world go round? – Eli was blind which the song references (foreshadows this revelation at the end of the movie), as well as, referring to the creator via questions
Cats = Were believed to be agents of the devil, and to possess magical powers. Egyptian and Asian households worshiped as animal as being godlike; most likely why we see Eli’s first action in the movie slaughtering a cat since we see he could have easily eaten rodents and birds for survival
Carnegie = Most probably indicative of the evil of man who uses temptation to achieve his goals which is not unlike being led by the Devil; we are introduced to him as he is reading about Mussolini wearing a cross buried beneath gold medallions; representation of the ego of man who uses for personal gain which is not unlike a industrial/capitalistic/Marxist misuse of power by man to have control over other men by eliminating God’s gift of Free Will; a theory that seeks the eliminating the idea of private property in order to gain control of the economic “means of production” by stealing it; at the end people who once “were too scared to say his name” were now fighting against him
Claudia = Name first used in the New Testament – derived from Latin meaning “lame, crippled”; a very rare Christian name; I believe when Carnegie pushed the Bible to her it was opened within the New Testament possibly even at a point of the discussion of the Devil; Carnegie was crippling man who himself ended up crippled
Solara = Possibly to mirror Mary of Magdalene who was described as sinful woman and also identified as a repentant prostitute (Carnegie as her “pimp”) to which Jesus healed her/delivered her from evil spirits; she received truth directly from God and became a follower of God which again mirrors Solara seen walking the path of God at the end of the movie
Martha = Name from Aramaic meaning “lady, mistress”; she was the one to invite them in and offer them human flesh; cannibalism separates these people from their humanity
Religion = Stated to have been the reason people believed the war began in which all the Bibles were destroyed with purpose by burning.
Man = The basis of Original Sin; the ultimate determination of warfare not religion – as God gave us Free Will, we choose to meander off the path He lays for us time and time again; think of parenting: we know what can and eventually will happen even with the rules set out
The Bible/Christianity = Constantly under attack and through history and ultimately had to be protected as people sought to destroy it (i.e. the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran cave) – many times the Logos (or word) of God was taught verbally and re-written (the parchment, which was written on animal skin, sheep skin to be exact, and like all paper, it falls apart) a practice still done today in Jerusalem; the Bible went through many revisions and additions – new scrolls/books added over time
Alcatraz = Genesis, the beginning; the island protected them from the cannibals in order to start the teachings from the old world, to teach the uneducated, to bring to light the beauty that existed and provided by the Lord; Eli and Solara were shown a structure that was “more than a museum” and that the “spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” which is why God led Eli there
Printing Press = Changed the world in spreading the word of God; invented in the 15th Century, it was significantly cheaper than a handwritten Bible that could take a single monk 20 years to transcribe; the King James version was the first bible translation to be mass produced/published first edition in the 17th Century; ultimately the most printed book in the world
Cannibalism = barbarism; a sin from the 10 Commandments: thou shall not murder; Pagans, through a number of stories, involve cannibalism (i.e. Greek Mythology); historically, this act challenges what is or is not acceptable human behavior and is equated with evil and savagery; one could make a point that in the Christian tradition, cannibalism is believed to be undertaken in the form of communion and the Eucharist, however, this is used with bread and wine and not human flesh
Water = Baptism is the means of entry, and the defilement of human sin is removed as the initiate enters into communion with Christ’s act of salvation; Carnegie had control over many watering holes which show the control over Free Will – Paul had converted from Judaism to Christianity through baptism
Earth = The representation of barren salvation – “the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep”; once West you see that God has started restoration visually as the land shows new growth by green pastures; rich and full of color in contrast to the sepia tones that were used before they reached the West
Alcatraz Library = Held many books: “Saints on the Seas”, “A History of the Jews”, “The Torah”, “The Tanakh”, “The Holy Quran”, “Hymns of Praise, Numbers One and Two Combined”…I couldn’t make out others, however, I am positive that they would be history on these cultures and regardless Judaism, Catholicism and Muslim were the first religions of humanity that formed from the Word of God
February 20th, 2011 | 12:28 pm
I saw The Book of Eli for the first time during January 2011. I have seen it four times. Movies worthy of our time must be seen often to obtain the nuances and details to understand the movie fully. I must confess that Eli’s blindness escaped me: how could Eli be so effective without sight, although he often said he walked by faith and not by sight. The names of the characters have meaning, as was pointed out by the writer of the last comment: Solara can mean sailor or wanderer; George and Martha lived in a white house: George and Martha Washington lived in the White House?; therefore, George, Martha, and their white house symbolized America; the music Martha played was infantile, which was possibly a comment how decadent American culture had become; George had an ample supply of weapons, possibly a comment on how even a well-armed American military can not escape inevitable pagan decline; George and Martha were cannibals, possibly a comment on the amorality of America; Carnegie was the name of a major American industrialist, and in the movie Carnegie wanted to use the Bible for money, a grievous sin. Eli was intelligent, strong-willed, focused, brutal when he needed to be, and faithful. The movie, for an unexplained reason, never mentions Jesus of Nazareth, a major failing of the movie. The Bible is about Christ as the Creator, the Man, the Judge, the Ruler, and the Savior. In my opinion, the Book of Eli has merit, but it falls far below Ben-Hur and Jesus of Nazareth starring Robert Powell. As an aside, there was no need for the vulgar language and the rape scenes.
December 24th, 2011 | 1:32 am
This was such a good movie I loved the scene in the bar when denzel took everybody out
Loved It
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact