Bergman and God
Saturday August 4, 2007
Categories: Culture
In his Times column today, Peter Steinfels reflects on the relevance of filmmakers Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni -- both atheists -- to religious believers. Excerpt: The godless world portrayed by both directors was bleak, to put it mildly. Along...
Filed Under: God, Ingmar Bergman
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Big questions indeed, Rod, and well worth asking!
I think we do Bergman a disservice to consider only the dour, bleak aspects of his work -- the dark night of his soul, if you will. He was quite capable of exploring joy & wonder & the mysteries of identity as well.
Was he admired more than watched? Perhaps. He demands much of a viewer. As Walt Whitman once said, a great poem demands a great audience. Great art is not a passive experience. It depends on what the individual brings to it, as much for Bergman as for, say, Dante.
But to your larger topic about films & art that deal with those Big Questions. I'm down toward the other end of the politcal/cultural spectrum, Rod, being a 53 year old liberal, lapsed Catholic, but I read your blog regularly. As you've said elsewhere, meeting in the middle instead of simply defaulting to black & white enemy mode is the only way for humanity to survive in the long run.
I'd point out that Bergman never said, "I have the answer." His films posed questions, possibilities, bewilderment -- but demanded that the viewer engage in them. That's a good start, I think. What mars a lot of religious art today, it seems to me, is the need to place message first, art after. It doesn't have enough faith in its audience to let them entertain doubts, questions, fears, uncertainties.
Let me add that when art which lines up with my own political/cultural beliefs does so stridently, or one-dimensionally, I resent it & reject it immediately. I can't pretend that my viewpoint is right for everyone; I can't even be 100% sure it's right for me. Certainly it changes with time & experience, as our lives do. And I think art should reflect this.
OK, I'm really rambling, with too much to say all at once! And frankly, I'd much rather hear what others have to say right now, especially those with different viewpoints. So I'm looking forward to the upcoming posts here.
Tim,
I agree with what you say about much of religious art/movies today. A lot of it comes off as propaganda rather than a good movie. Though I'm not an expert in these areas, I think that while it is certainly well and good for a religious art to come from a certain perspective, it should pose questions and allow the audience, as you said, to come to their own conclusion and explore the subject matter deeper.
I think that a lot of milktoast art we get comes from the creators having an overly rigid view of the world, as if there is a definitive way to act in every situation that is perfectly knowable and self-evident. That's just not true. Note that while I am not equating this mentality to belief in dogmas, we worship the person of Christ, not the subject matter. I think that is where some people get caught up.
I can suggest one oldie that grapples with the survival of religion, the under rated "Mosquito Coast" with Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren.
Good afternoon! Thanks for bringing another great conservative perspective to the web. I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (gophub.com) and thought you might be interested. Anything you can do to help get the word out would be awesome, plus you can post any articles you write on your blog on it, and help get a few extra visitors here on your blog. Take care and have a great weekend!
For more perspective on Christian engagement with the arts, I would recommend Calvin Seerveld, beginning with Rainbows for a Fallen World.
I haven't seen "Mosquito Coast," but the themes of G-d and man, and the intersection of the religious and the secular, are constant in the work of Peter Weir -- perhaps more than any other current Hollywood director.
My favorite Weir film is "The Truman Show" (which makes some sense, I guess, given my view of a distant, perhaps benevolent but also mischievous G-d). "Witness" and "Dead Poets Society" are obviously the stereotypical examples (albeit very good ones), and "Fearless" is chilling in light of the events this week in Minnesota (or, for that matter, events six years ago next month in New York and Arlington, Virginia ...).
And though I haven't seen it, most film critics will tell you his Australian film "Picnic at Hanging Rock" is both his greatest film and his greatest contemplation on these matters.
Bergman's films were often visually beautiful, but on the whole, pretentious, slow, and boring. This view almost got me ostracized by a whole coterie of young academics, back in the day, but I didn't change my mind.
>The godless world portrayed by both directors was bleak, to put it mildly.
There seems to be this idea that a godless world has to be literal minded. 'Nature red in tooth and claw'. Evolution doesn't care, as long as it helps reproduce. Not just 'might makes right', but charm, flattery, lies, religion, nobility, etc..., it's all grist for evolution's mill.
I thought "21 Grams" by Alejandro González Iñárritu might fit the bill for this kind of film. No sentimental "cheap grace" here. It is difficult to watch, both due to the confusing non-linear editing and the compellingly harsh portrayals given by Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro. The film has flaws a-plenty, if you want to nitpick. But it's not easy to approach these questions in a compressed narrative space without some questionable plot contrivances.
Lars von Trier's Dogville (2003) is very tough to watch, but extremely interesting as an exploration of depravity, purity, forgiveness and the nature of grace. (Some anti-American ax grinding is present but easily ignored, given the fine acting and fascinating dialogue.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.