“I have hidden your Word in my heart,” Psalm 119:11
The above quote gives us the leitmotif of the movie, The Book of Eli. Eli is the messenger of God, who carries the Logos in his “heart” and represents the last hope of mankind. As the movie opens mankind has engaged in what the Stoics referred to as “apostrophe,” a turning away from the ground engendered by the “event,” leaving man in a condition where the tension toward the divine ground no longer exists. The Stoics described the intrinsic condition of man either in the state of order and disorder, as predicated on categories of “turning away” or “turning toward” the ground. While we are fascinated by Carnegie and the performance rendered by Gary Oldham, particularly noting his libidinous longing to achieve the status of the New Christ while portraying the constant problem found in the transfiguration of history, it is Eli who rejects the Hegelian notion existing in the modern state of alienation, which ironically, is the condition that will distort the “modern” viewer’s comprehension of the film, e.g. many people have rejected the truth of the Logos, embraced the perversion of self-salvation, and exist as being seeking the “truth of history.”
“But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.” 2 Corinthians 12:9
I can not convince myself to reveal Eli’s “weakness,” you must see the film for yourself. Suffice it to say he exists because God wills it. And Eli, in the manner of any number of both Old and New Testament figures accepts the fact that he has been chosen by God and consequently has submitted his will to God’s will. For thirty years he has moved ever westward and his faith in his God has been sufficient. He is not an evangelist, his purpose is not to call people to God. He is the last copy of the Word of God that sustains man and the world and creation, and if man is to exist, then the Logos must be saved. There is no stratification of his call to God and the Gospel; he is not an ‘apostle’, rather he is the prophet (messenger), the wanderer in “desolation row” and his focus is singular; he knows exactly what he is, there is no question of identity or responsibility. Eli must be read as a man who lives in the pneumatic order of existence, he dwells in the Parousia of the Christ. And, here we must note the powerful performance of Denzel Washington who portrays the man of God, the servant, who knows the true self even as the horizon of order is collapsing into violence, debauchery, and ignorance. For Eli, there is no question of mortality and immortality, he does not fear death. For Eli, as for all men, death is life. Denzel Washington has related how the screen play was altered during the filming. One example he cites, and he says that it just came to him (insight, pneumatic illumination??), was the scene where Carnegie has just gut shot Eli and places his face just a few inches from Eli’s and says, “Pray for me.” The question then, is this a demonic remark, a mocking of God’s order as Rimwell intimates, or an acknowledgement of the tension in existential order moving toward a condition of being beyond, an attempt by Carnegie, who inherently knows he exists in a state of sin and for whatever reason can not recognize the Christ, yet seeks some way to obtain safe passage into the state of aphtharsia (imperishing)?
“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-having a form of godliness but denying its power. Having nothing to do with him.” 2 Timothy 3: 1-5
The movie portrays the above condition. Man finds himself in reduced circumstances. The consciousness of the eschatological expectation, the ordering force of human existence, has been extinguished. Yet, in this condition where the myth is dead, God has not rejected man. He still allows Eli, the protector-champion of the Logos, who is shrouded in a mysticism that exists in concert with the theophany of the Christ and is grounded in the existential experience, to endure the salvific journey.
“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” Hebrews 1: 1-3
Dr. (Edith) Stein writes in her magnum opus, Finite and Eternal Being, “Either as a charismatic gift of grace or as an eternal reward in the life of glory the soul may obtain a share in the sovereign ruling power of Christ. The division between the soul being (i.e., the body-bound being) and the spiritual being (i.e., the God-centered being) of the human soul is found in the soul’s very essence or nature. This is why the Word of God may rightfully be called more penetrating that a “double-edged sword,” for it “extends even to the division of the soul and the spirit.”” Eli, in willfully surrendering his will to the will of God receives the Logos itself. The soul of Christ, Dr. Stein writes “…has full command over its plenitude of life, even in making this plenitude efficaciously actual in other souls.” Denzel Washington understands that Eli is the servant of the Lord, the bearer of the Word, and that it is the word that “sustains” creation. Washington’s spiritual maturity is what makes this film what it is, nothing less than art conceived as an act of worship.
January 21st, 2010 | 9:51 pm
Bob, I agree entirely with your characterization of Eli’s way of being as living in the “pneumatic order of existence” and that he is more like a prophet than an apostle. If I have a disagreement it is with the question of what Eli knows and feels about the hidden-ness of the Word in his heart. By this I do not mean to counter your statement that Eli “accepts the fact that he has been chosen by God and consequently has submitted his will to God’s will” or to lessen the power of Eli’s calling and witness. I mean, rather, to suggest that even in the context of that acceptance and the actuality of the calling, he is not entirely at ease–and that he has (communal) work to do before he can be at ease. I have commented before on the possible meaning of the distance and time of his wanderings and its relation to his possession of the Bible. To that I would add the audience’s recognition of a kind of anxiety in Eli when he happens upon a murder and rape and says to himself something like, “Do not stray from your path.” And his desire to teach prayer. Even his stop to charge his battery suggests that, as with other prophets, the “confidence of God” ebbs and flows.
On another level, I wonder whether there isn’t a third possibility (for the situation of man at the end) between Eli as event (in the sense of “recognized as one called by God”) on the one hand, and history as god or locus of truth on the other–a possibility such as the situation depicted in The Road, in which the message of God and the event of that message is not so obvious and, perhaps (though I don’t think so), not even there. We must grapple with fact that the situation of The Road is much more plausible as history, as something we could actually believe and experience; however, that need not lead us to the inevitable critique that McCarthy rejects the possibility of a repetition of the Word, but maybe to the thought that miracles may not, in the end, appear as miracles.
I would also (forgive my inability to be brief) draw your attention to Kevin’s complaint, in the 5th comment on James Ceaser’s post, that the Bible is finally placed on a shelf as one among other important religious and cultural texts. To me this suggests the importance of the path and of the wandering (which I think you cover well here) for the sustenance of both the Word and the “pneumatic experience.” Hence Solara’s return to the road and her home. One could imagine that Alcatraz will simply enter the rise and fall history as another civilization to eventually face its own Time of Trouble. In other words, if Eli “dwells in the Parousia of Christ” it is possible for others to occupy the same territory and not dwell in it in the same way.
January 22nd, 2010 | 8:43 am
Bob, Great use of Edith Stein and the movie’s publicists need to know about you.
January 22nd, 2010 | 9:05 am
Peter, now you are turning my head! Also, I have every intention of exchanging emails or a phone call with Denzel. The wife and I have spent a considerable sum on his movies over the years and I figure he owes me an “interview” which will appear on these august pages!
I do hope you go and see the movie even at the risk of being sharply critiqued.
Tony, I’m working on a response. I”ve bookmarked the Whirlpool but I’m to stupid to “comment.” My email is “robertcheeks@core.com” …drop a line!
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Tony, thanks for your erudite and thought provoking comments.
You write: “To that I would add the audience’s recognition of a kind of anxiety in Eli when he happens upon a murder and rape and says to himself something like, “Do not stray from your path.” And his desire to teach prayer. Even his stop to charge his battery suggests that, as with other prophets, the “confidence of God” ebbs and flows. “
Eli as a man, lives in the tension of existence defined by the poles of immanence and transcendence. While he is a man of God, he is still a man and he experienced the propositional deformations of the symbols of the philosophers and prophets, doctrinal distortions, and the rise of perverse ideologies. Indeed, he’s experienced the collapse of society. Yet, because of God’s revelation and Eli’s epistrophe, his turning toward the divine Ground, he has overcome the alienation of modernity, the destructive passions of the libido dominandi, and the hypostatization of the immanent pole of existence, e.g. specifically he lives within the tension of existence as being seeking the love of Infinite Being. As some Christians are want to say, Eli is a “new creature in Christ.”
And, that phenomenon explains Eli’s consciousness, his awareness of self as being-in-God that contrasts nicely with Heidegger’s “Das Dasein ubernimmt sich selbst” which can be accurately translated as “existence overreaches itself,” which Voegelin argued it did “…when it takes charge of itself.”
My impression of Eli, as portrayed, was that by this time in his epic thirty year journey he was totally dedicated physically, intellectually, and spiritually to completing his mission, to obeying the command of God. He is the new Paul, albeit with a different mission. And, your point re: the audience’s “recognition of a kind of anxiety” is spot on except I see it as our cultural inclination to interpret the appearance of a true “Christian” by some outward sign (the fellow who goes about with a hallo above his head) when in fact the “true Christian” may very well live as Eli did in obeying/loving God, loving his fellow man, and acting on his responsibilities.
The scene where Eli demands that Solara “sit down” and eat brilliantly symbolizes the near total social collapse and lack of civility (these people lacked the social graces of a clan of chimps) while simultaneously illustrating Eli’s effort to recapture reality, probably for himself as much as the girl who would have no clue why one should sit down when eating. As you know he didn’t have to teach or pray with the girl. It wasn’t required by his mission, but as you point out he is a man and in Eli’s case he remembers and yearns for the good of the old days: the civility, community, the order.
You write: “On another level, I wonder whether there isn’t a third possibility (for the situation of man at the end) between Eli as event (in the sense of “recognized as one called by God”) on the one hand, and history as god or locus of truth on the other–a possibility such as the situation depicted in The Road, in which the message of God and the event of that message is not so obvious and, perhaps (though I don’t think so), not even there. “
Your speculation, if I understand, is interesting. The problem arises in your comment about “…history as god or locus of truth on the other..”
Specifically my criticism would follow Voegelin’s related to Hegel’s choice to substitute an imaginary “absolute pole” within the existential tension of man, not as “transcendent” but rather as the creation of an ecumenic “organization of mankind under the idea of history.” Voegelin argued, quite correctly I think, that this was a “cognitive” deformation though it incorporated a surprisingly intelligible interpretation of Hegel’s required Second Realities, the result of which is we find portrayed in the movie.
Re: Cormac’s The Road, I found it a powerfully spiritual book and I’m anticipating the movie. In fact as the wife and I were driving to see Eli, I was wondering allowed if Denzel was jumping on eschatological bandwagon created by The Road. Well, the wife was quick to come to Denzel’s defense, arguing that he wouldn’t participate in a knock off of another movie…soon to be released, and one that was made not far from me in western Pennsylvania. Cormac may be the best writer alive today, he’s certainly one of the more spiritual/philosophical, an American Dostoievski, although I don’t know if that’s his intent. The message of The Road, is absolutely Christian….Father and Son..existence, together in the communion of love…overcoming the darkness..seeking the light! I have a review of The Road I did sometime ago and if I remember I’ll sneak a post up and we can critique that.
“In other words, if Eli “dwells in the Parousia of Christ” it is possible for others to occupy the same territory and not dwell in it in the same way. “
My imperfect understanding informs me that man though created imago dei does not “dwell” in the Christ in the same way. God, in his wisdom, has made us, each, a different being, which God must find fascinating. And, in creating us as a unique individual we move toward God, and the love of God, uniquely. For example, an Eli, surrendering all to the Lord, and experiencing the love of God, is explicated, spiritually and in terms of his soul, by Dr. Stein: “…and, in this sense the spirit is given to the soul “according to its measure.” But the spirit of God is beyond all measure, and when he gives himself, he does not bind himself to the measure of the being to whom he gives. Although it is true that the comprehensive capacity is strengthened by that which is imparted to it, so that the limits of its being filled and being elevated are not restricted to any finite measure.” I would argue that Eli as a man, certainly experienced the “transformation of the soul” and existed in the constant and perfect love of God.
January 22nd, 2010 | 1:49 pm
Maynard Ferguson’s version of “Eli’s Coming”
http://www.ilike.com/artist/Maynard+Ferguson/track/Eli%27s+Coming
January 22nd, 2010 | 7:01 pm
I’m looking forward to seeing this movie and for reasons that I can’t mention at this time, I must not write anymore.
God knows what He’s doing. Would you not agree?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact