It has now been a full two days—by modern standards a generation—since Robert Cheeks released his review of The Book of Eli, which I suppose allows us to begin to engage in commentaries without ruining the film for others. Indeed, I almost never go to the movies, but on the strength of Cheeks’s review I did so, going even so far as to pass up the second half of the Jets-Chargers game, which was the only decent contest of the whole weekend. And lo and behold, the theater was nearly full, a result no doubt of the throngs who read (religiously) the Postmodern Conservative blog. Either it was that, or it was the disappointed overflow of those who could not get into the showing of the blockbuster Avatar, referenced (but not seen) in my own last posting on “America’s theological-political problem.”
Now given this interest in the theological-political problem, I was most taken with the character played by Gary Oldman, the petty tyrant. He wanted Scripture not for the sake of his own spiritual salvation, but as a textbook of political science. With Scripture in his hand, he tells others, he would have the tool to spread his hegemony from the one petty town he ruled to a much larger empire. He does not say whether he planned to do so by taking the literal Biblical teaching and using it to create a theological state, or by learning the techniques of rhetoric by which to move and manipulate mankind (in his case for evil ends). All of which reminds us, as Coleridge and others have pointed out, that the Book can serve many ends.
Which brings us to rhetoric. The Greek sophists and philosophers wrote many fine books on rhetoric, some going overboard in extolling its powers and possibilities. (Plato and Xenephon, while providing excellent examples of popular oratory in their writings, nevertheless taught their readers that the art of persuasion had its limits, and that one needed the force of law as well as speech to govern.) So be it. But it struck Machiavelli that the Greek thinkers never fully plumbed the power of speech. Their techniques, impressive as they were, were like child’s play next to the power of persuasion that was introduced into the world by the prophets and the Gospels. Biblical language set up tropes of persuasion of a force never hitherto seen. The use of these techniques for man’s salvation has been a boon, one might even say a godsend; for his political life sometimes a curse.
There is good reason to study the Bible for an understanding of rhetoric. As it turns out, the very day of Cheeks’s review was the one for the reading of “va-era” from the Book of Moses, which is one of the early teachings on rhetoric. The portion begins in Exodus 6. The Bible at this point is rather closer to the Greek teaching. Moses is told by God to speak, but he demurs, claiming (correctly) that he is not so gifted a speaker. Even with God as his speechwriter (something no Greek orator had at his disposal) Moses is convinced that he will fail. God allows Moses to enlist his smooth-talking brother, Aaron, for the cause (convincing Pharaoh), but even Aaron falls short. One must always accompany rhetoric with something more (in this case, the plagues).
But on the same day as the reading of va-era, the passage read from the later part of the Bible (Isaiah) modifies or amplifies the teaching. Now, with God still the speechwriter, we witness a rhetoric of a much greater force, one that speaks of “the new heavens and the new earth.” It no doubt in the end still needs force and law to be completed in the world in which we live. And that return us to the age-old problem of the dangers of rhetoric in the political world.
The Book of Eli ends on an optimistic note. Oldman, the tyrant, dies without learning the master science he seeks. Eli (Denzel Washington) dies having transmitted his message to posterity, with a (very hot and well-armed) disciple ready to carry it to the nations. I came home from the movies uplifted by the message, only to learn (alas) that the Chargers had gone down.
January 19th, 2010 | 12:40 pm
whoah, put spoiler alert in the subject line.
January 19th, 2010 | 12:51 pm
I just realized I gotta pat on the back from Dr. Ceaser!! First, he went to the movie based on my recommendation-missing the Jets/Chargers scrimmage-and second, he was “uplifted!”
I was fascinated that you found Carnegie so interesting, but what of Eli???
I thought The Book of Eli made Avatar look like what it is,….a cartoon!
January 19th, 2010 | 4:13 pm
[...] James Ceaser at PomoCon Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Superbowl UpsetEli’s Coming…No [...]
January 19th, 2010 | 7:09 pm
Saw the movie last Saturday evening, always like Denzel so I was going anyway but Mr Cheeks’ post supplied the juice to go Sat p.m.. (During football, indeed! My gal was somewhat surprised.)
Sent this e-mail to my film-maker/teacher brother:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:22 PM, sshields wrote:
Just saw “The Book of Eli.”
Terrible beauty. Shot in over-exposed high, high light. So washed out, at times Denzel looks white as the crushed concrete and desert. The landscape and dwellings are dust. The people are dust. The light kills.
The way it was shot tells as much of the story as the scenes – dialogue almost unnecessary to the narrative. (A deaf person could follow the story.)
Best I’ve seen in some time. Who are the Hughes Bros?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aesthetics and technique aside, my take-away was: “Follow the path, follow the path, follow the path.”
I think I can use that, imperfectly, going forward.
Thank you for the tip, Mr. Cheeks.
January 21st, 2010 | 8:45 am
Saw the movie, mostly based on the endorsement in PoMoCon. Certainly didn’t think it was the best thing ever, but it was pretty good. I see a trend of older, successful Hollywood actors making movies with kinda quaint moral messages. As I was leaving the theatre, some kids were talking to each other and I overheard “I bet you didn’t think this would be a religious movie.” Was it?
A couple things struck me. First was the scene where Eli is talking to the young Solara and she asks what life was like before things fell apart. He pauses to think and then says, “Everyone had more than they needed.” In light of the action leading up to that scene, it was quite a point of reflection for our culture.
Second, I think the movie is an example of GK Chesterton’s idea that Christianity can only be seen for what it is when it is seen from the outside. It is impressive that Hollywood made a movie showing what life would be like without Christianity – more could have been done on this theme, but it was impressive nonetheless.
To be honest, I would wait for video. Good movie, not great, and for the price of a trip to the movies you could buy several arrows to save for hunting cats after the apocolypse.
January 21st, 2010 | 2:17 pm
The beauty of literature is that it allows us to see different things. I saw it as an anti-religious message because “the book” had caused the apocalypse (presented without argument in the movie) and the “book” was placed with all the others (religious indifference/deist thought?); message to us seems to be “why don’t you live by what you preach?” The content of the book never entered the story, and the name of Jesus was never mentioned.
However, as a loving tribute to post apocalypse action movies (clue: poster of “A Boy and his Dog” in first house scene), it scores highly.
January 21st, 2010 | 6:40 pm
Mark, I don’t know that the book was presented without argument as cause. As far as I can remember it was Eli himself who recalled that the opinions of many had been that it was the cause (hence the destruction). The question of the power of the book is clearly important but it seems odd to me to suggest that the movie actually blames the book or that it does so without argument.
As far as the content and the name of Jesus goes, I think Bob covers that in his new post about Eli “living in the pneumatic order of existence.” His quotation of the Bible, the cross on its cover, and the tension between reading and living suggest that Bob is right that the “pneumatic order” is related to Christ.
I think you make a very good point, however, about the Bible being placed on the shelf among the others. Perhaps that is part of the reason for Solara’s rejection of the offered “safety.”
February 17th, 2010 | 12:43 am
I couldn’t believe how much I loved about this movie. My wife said that I had tears in my eyes at one point. Well . . . maybe, but they were MANLY tears. I enjoyed the references to other apocalyptic movies that the Hughes Brothers made. Especially the end when Mila Kumis’s character looks exactly like Linda Hamilton’s character from Terminator II: taut, wired, unafraid of what she must do. I must disagree with “Mark” though: it IS a religious movie. That the keepers of knowledge on Alcatraz place the Bible on a book shelf only means that they as secular activists are preserving a historical document. It is Kumis’s character Solara who is the Bible’s disciple, and the inheritor of Eli’s misson. She isn’t leaving to get her mother; she is “going home.” Solara will not be returning. Her mission is to spread the word of God off of the Rock and to the dark and troubled world. This is a magnificent movie.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact