Aronofsky's Noah, Not PG-13

 First I'd like to give a hat tip across the pond to Matt Page of Bible Films Blog for all of the incredible work he does on his blog; I highly recommend his page for any and all Bible film news. I've been following Darren Aronofsky's Noah Project for quite some time and it finally seems he's getting around to making it. He's working on a 4 part graphic novel sci-fi adaptation entitled Noah which he would like to adapt to film once he secures a studio (he's currently working on The Wolverine). You can read the full story here and here.



So what is Darren Aronofsky's Noah like? If you're familiar with his previous work Darren does not shy away from troubled protagonists. No, this Noah will not be the Noah we've grown up with in Sunday school, this troubled Noah turns to the bottle (err...the vine) to help him deal with his survivor's guilt. And how can you blame him, his entire world was taken out by a massive flood and all that's left of the human race is him and his family. Of course if and when this film releases there will be protests, boycotts, and counter-films for displaying Noah as more human than Evangelicals remember him in Sunday School. Hopefully this would inspire the faithful to actually read the book they consider divinely-inspired.

Creation

I recently got the chance to see the 2009 biographical drama, Creation, based on the life of Charles Darwin surrounding the death of his eldest daughter, Annie, and his struggle to write On the Origin of Species. Although it is a partly fictionalized account of Darwin's life it humanizes Darwin who is often demonized by Creationist for his elevation of scientific inquiry over the belief of God's Providence over all of creation. I admit I know very little of Charles Darwin as his books are on the bottom of my booklist (not for any particular reason though). I thoroughly enjoyed the interplay and inquisitiveness of Charles Darwin with his daughter but I connected the most with his struggle to balance his beliefs and scientific research with his love for his family and neighbors who felt threatened by his life's work.

All of nature is a battlefield...

Played by Paul Bettany, Charles Darwin is a man drawn to the beauty of nature. As he traverses gently through the woods with his children, he presents to them the struggle for life which is constantly happening all around them. And like nature, there is a struggle within all of us: a struggle in knowing our own mortality, a struggle to love and be loved, and a struggle to discover meaning within nature's battlefield. This is not a film toting the superiority of science over faith, but one man's struggle for balance between a search for truth unwrapped by the senses and truth felt by the heart. Is this an accurate historical portrayal of Charles Darwin? I'm not sure (it is a film), but I do know it is a human portrayal of a man who suffered from the death of his children, impacted most of all by the death of his eldest daughter, Annie. Is it wrong to question the Will of God when that same God takes your children from you? Is it wrong to to question the church's view on the nature and origin of man when our senses give us contradictory data? In the film, Darwin doesn't fear the questions but the implications which may come from people losing faith in God, the Constant behind the chaos. At the time, the world relied on the belief that everything moved within the power and guidance of God. Darwin who witnessed the balance of life and death in the natural world could not balance the savagery of the cosmos with a compassionate God.



Tell me a story about everything...

Darwin sought not to destroy God, as his friend Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley) would have liked (or as he's portrayed in the film), but to tell the story of everything: our origin, our evolution through history, and what the future may hold for us. He wanted to tell of the beauty and wonders of nature not bring society to its knees. Telling this story nearly killed him since he knew what it would mean for the ones he loved. Coming out to the world with the truth studied by our senses would crush truth accepted by the heart. To Darwin, there is no compassion in the universe which does not come from an outside source, it is all survival. This sense of accepting reality for what it is and the sense of despair which may come accompany it is summed up in his question, "Suppose everyone stopped believing that God had any sort of plan for us?" What then? Who or what do we turn to for strength, where do we go when the chaos presses in from all sides?

You have finally made an accomplice of me...

There is no dramatic twist at the end, Darwin finishes his book which has reshaped how we view the world. It may seem that the core of the film is about religion vs. science but that's too clichéd for my taste. The film is about our story, the human story, and all of its complexities and intricacy that comes with being human. We each have a story that we cling too, but cling too tightly and we ignore the big picture, the human story. As a species aware of its own mortality we fear the unknown, and as we stare into the unknown we struggle with what it all may mean. Life itself may not have any inherent meaning except that which we give it. This line of thinking is too chaotic for some and understandably they may turn to religion for strength as did Emma Darwin, played by Jennifer Connelly, after the death of their eldest daughter. Charles Darwin was not afraid to pull back the curtain of the unknown as he sought to learn the story of everything, yet he feared what may happen if he finished his book. The story may frighten us but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue telling it because we have each other to turn to, to lean on. Embracing our shared fear should inspire us to boldly continue because life continues. Life was here before us and will remain after us evolving into all manners of new life.

I must say that although many people, especially here in the States, may find it uncomfortable watching a movie about Darwin (a biographical drama based on his life) I highly recommend watching it.

An Outsider's Perception of Christianity

Rabbi Rami canceled his classes on Thursday, I'd wish he sent out an email so I could have stayed at home. Although the day wasn't a total waste since I got a chance to dialog with some of my fellow students who showed up unaware of the cancellation. I sat down with two different classmates and as we shared our life stories I realized the importance of simply being an ear for our neighbor.

Without plummeting into the spiraling trap of stereotyping Christians, consider what we as Christians are doing wrong to give ourselves a bad wrap. We should be known as agents of unconditional love, extreme emphasis on the should. Yet we gather in churches every week to worship and praise God while the pastor rehashes the same sermon on turning away from sin. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, yet when we exit the sanctuary into the real world do we feel any different, and more importantly do we make a difference in the world? I know I'm painting with an extremely broad and negative brush yet it's more than just a couple sour apples fallen from the vast tree of Christianity which has soiled the faith. A new documentary by Dan Merchant entitled Lord, Save Us From Your Followers tackles the issues, impact, and perception outsiders have of Christians.




Lord, Save Us From Your Followers had a limited theatrical release last fall and is being released in DVD format on April 20. The film can be enjoyed by anyone but the target audience are Christians. The official website even encourages churches to hold public showings of the film in their church followed by discussion and dialog. The film covers a lot of ground but doesn't go into great detail because it is meant to primarily raise discussion on how Christians are viewed by outsiders. It's NOT a Christian bashing film since Merchant, the writer and director, states that he is a Christian.

Should we even care how non-Christians perceive us? What then should guide us to become better more loving people? Should we stick to our Bibles and beliefs disregarding how we may come across to those whom we seek to convert? (Again I'm speaking in generalities since I don't attend church nor do I wish to convert anyone.) One of the more challenging concepts Christians may have with this film is that Non-Christians are more open-minded and knowledgeable about the Christian worldview than Christians are of Non-Christians. Regardless of the statistical validity of the statement I believe the point is that we should transcend what we think we know of the Other and actually get to know them. What is the danger of sitting down and getting to know the Secularist, Atheist, Liberal-Progressive, and even believers of other faiths? Christians would say that the beliefs of the Other may cause us to question our faith poisoning our "pure" beliefs. I would argue that the actual fear Christians have in getting to know outsiders is that they might see them as human and might actually love them! An enemy is easy to demonize and condemn when they're kept separate and distant. But bring them close enough to touch and the stereotypes, criticism, and hatred begin to fade. When we sit down and actually get to know the person behind the beliefs they become increasingly harder to hate. Well, unless they're a jerk, then we have to work that much harder to love them.

The Fountain Revisited- Part 2: The Road to Awe

The Fountain is by far my favorite film of all time. I thought it was a beautiful film the first time through but the second round just blew my mind. The film is vague in it's meaning and ending leaving the audience to come up with their own conclusions. This series will take a second look into my revised thoughts on the film's spiritual and religious themes.

[Mayan Priest guarding the narrow path to the Tree of Life]

Warning: Spoilers there be!

---

The Western mindset has us think that if we can only skip over or even avoid death that we may enter into an existence free of pain and aging. Thomas, and at times Izzy, play out this mentality in the film but eventually find that only by accepting the natural order of the human experience will they come to find peace.

In Izzi's book, which captures her emotional and mental struggle with cancer, 16th century Tomas sought the Tree of Life to rescue Queen Elizabeth and Spain from the cancerous growth of the Inquisitor's lust for power. They tried to avoid the inevitable without fully realizing what they were seeking. Tomas' men are trapped and killed by the Mayan's as they approached the hidden temple and take Tomas to their priest.



The Priest guarding the path to Life challenges Tomas to join the fate of First Father who sacrificed himself for the Tree of Life. For the Mayans, and for all three incarnation of Thomas, eternal life is found only by first experiencing death. Death is the road to awe. It is through this mortal experience that we can enter into and become a part of the cosmos, a part of eternity. Not to confuse this with the universe itself which, in my belief, has not always been, but the creative and eternal Spirit of Life which has been since the beginning. When we die, we not only pass on that creative Spirit to those who are still alive but we join together and become a part of that Spirit.

As Tomas greedily drank from the Tree of Life he experienced a vision of Xibalba and collapses as flowers exploded and burst from within his body. The individual Tomas no longer exists but his death brings forth new life and a part of Tomas lives eternally through that new life. Tom, the 26th century space monk, stayed alive for 500 years as he traveled with his beloved Izzi (her essence "grew into the wood") in hopes of being reborn in Xibalba. His efforts in avoiding death only twisted Tom into a fearful and obsessed creature haunted daily by the Izzi that once was. His 500 year quest ends with the one path he had avoided, death as the road to awe.

During the last few months of my wife's pregnancy with our first child I had literally thousands of questions racing through my head. One of the them being how does the child know when it's "time"? My wife attempted to explain to me something about chemicals or hormones which her medical explanations always fly right over my head. Yet in the end the baby follows the instinctual instruction embed in their genes, they just know. Why is it that we follow our instinct during our introduction into the world and fight tooth and nail to avoid our "exit"? If we accept death as naturally as the rest of the animal kingdom would we begin to enjoy every minute of the NOW instead of worrying our lives away about the future? If death is truly the road to awe then we can rest in peace knowing that through our death new life can emerge, flourish, grow, love, and experience all the wonders and beauty of life.

The Fountain Revisited- Part 1: Paradise Lost

The Fountain is by far my favorite film of all time (and it's the only movie I allow myself to cry in front of my wife). I even wrote a paper on the religious and spiritual themes of the film for my Religion in Popular Media class. When it was released in 2006 it got a few bad reviews mainly because of the vague and confusing ending which is why I recommend watching it twice. I thought it was a beautiful film the first time through but the second round just blew my mind. The film is vague in it's meaning and ending leaving the audience to come up with their own conclusions. This series will take a second look into my revised thoughts on the film's spiritual and religious themes.

[Promotional poster for The Fountain, Copyright Warner Bros. 2006.]

Warning: Spoilers there be!

---

This film can get quite complicated and highly confusing to a first-time viewer, especially the ending. Yet, it is in this confusion that each viewer can carve out his or her own interpretation and meaning from the film. The film revolves around the core theme of life from death. Each of the characters wrestle with the fear of death in hopes of escaping the inevitable yet it is only when they accept death as an intricate part of the human experience are they freed from their mortal cages and earn true immortality. Most Westerners envision immortality as a prolonged existence in this life wherein we decide our moment of death. We struggle all our lives in avoiding that specific experience as we overlook the joys of the present.

You can read my synopsis here but to quickly summarize our main characters, Tommy and Izzi Creo, battle with death in all three ages: the 16th, 21st, and 26th centuries. The film is set in the 21st century where Tommy, a research oncologist, races against time to cure his wife's brain tumor. Meanwhile, Izzi is writing a book set in 16th century Spain where the two main characters, Tomas and Queen Elizabeth, race to find the Tree of Life in the new world. The film flashes back and forth between these two centuries and one set in the distant future. In the 26th century Tom, the space traveling monk, is headed towards a distant dying nebula traveling with an aging tree in an ecospheric spaceship. He is traveling with a Tree of Life, which is carrying Izzi's essence (or soul), to Xibalba, the dying nebula representing the Mayan underworld. Although the main plot of the film is set in the 21st century, the story is told through the eyes of the space traveling Tom recalling the events which set him on this journey.

Unfortunately, although 21st century Tom discovers a cure it is too late and the viewer learns that it is Izzi's tragic death which causes Tom to travel to Xibalba, the Mayan underworld where souls go to be reborn.



Hours before her death Izzi shares a story with Tom about Moses Morales, Izzi's Mayan guide on a trip she took to research her book, and the death of his father. Moses said that if they dug his body up he would be gone. They had planted a seed over his grave and that his father became part of the tree. "He grew into the wood, into the bloom. And when a sparrow ate the tree's fruit, his father flew with the birds. He said, death was his father road to awe." At the end of the film you see Tommy planting a seed over Izzi's grave then look up into the sky at Xibalba. The tree in the ship is the same which Tommy planted 500 years prior. This was my original interpretation and understanding of the film: Tommy loses Izzi and then travels through space to be reborn together in Xibalba. I had interpreted the film with a "literal lens" and lost the meaning the film was desperately trying to present.

I knew that Tomas and Elizabeth were fictional characters in a book, yet I interpreted the trip through space as literal when it is a symbolic representation of Tom's inner journey from pain and suffering towards peace and acceptance. And it is through this acceptance that we begin to see, hear, and experience life more fully. The fear of death governs our lives, and as it inches closer we wrestle, claw, and fight tooth and nail with the mortal and immortal powers which have kept us alive thus far. We demand for more time calling God unjust for creating us mortal. Why can't we just live forever? Maybe we can although not in the literal sense. All we can do is try to enjoy the eternal moments we have NOW instead of worrying about the lost moments we won't have later. If we truly enjoyed the NOW then the it won't matter if we lived 20 years or 70, what is important is that we lived, loved, and connected with one another.

Hell House

"A part of Salvation is being afraid of going to Hell." Youth Pastor Tim Ferguson

In 2001, director George Ratcliff came out with his documentary entitled Hell House, on Christian haunted house attractions bearing the same name.

"Hell Houses are a distinctly American phenomenon which began in 1990 just outside of Dallas, at the Trinity Assembly of God Church. The original Hell House was conceived as a modern-day fire-and-brimstone sermon. Today, this religious ceremony of sorts is replete with actors, extensive lighting equipment and full audio-visual tech crews." (Hell House Site)

But the vampires, ghosts, and demons of a traditional haunted house have been replaced by scenes of family violence, suicide, abortion, drug and alcohol use. Instead of scaring kids with Freddy Krueger their using real life situations and the fear of eternal damnation to spook them into salvation. Is Christianity really about being afraid of Hell? Is their any room for fear in a message of Love? What do we do with this message of Fear?

---

Back in 2006, a coworker invited me to attend a Christian haunted house and I gladly accepted. At the time I had recently begun immersing myself into studying all kinds of religious beliefs so I thought it would be interesting to see how Christians would pull off doing a "Haunted House".

The church was packed! It was a 45 minute wait until I got to go through this Christianized haunted house attraction. They moved us in groups of 15 from room to room (with Demon guards yelling to keep moving) as we watched the events surrounding a troubled family: suicide, abortion, drug use, you name it. Demons and angels argue and battle over the family throughout the attraction representing the struggle within the character, with short monologues by the forces of good and evil explaining the plot. As the events climaxed half the family had died in sin, the other half repented. The Hell House I went through did not comfort nor support the sinners. Yet those who repented even on the verge of death were granted eternal life. After walking through the Hell scene with sinners trapped under plexiglass clawing, begging for escape we entered into through the gates of Heaven to be welcomed by Jesus, angels and the saved. The production was phenomenal, the acting was great, but the plot along with all of its assumption was downright frightening.

At the end of this judgmental house of horrors we were invited to sit and talk about what we experienced. Out of a group of 15 only 6 of us stayed for the do-you-know-where-you're-going-after-you-die speech. After a 5 minute crash course on salvation found through the blood of Christ the speaker gave us two options. 1) Those who know their saved are welcomed to leave and 2) those who are unsure about their salvation are encouraged to stay. In retrospect, I'm now curious to know what was said to those who stayed. Yet, I did not want to get into an argument, so I smiled, got up, and left. There would be no benefit in pointing out the lack of compassion, and contradictory message of love and fear that they were sending out. The most I would have received would be a prayer for my salvation, and if things got heated, an escort off the premises.

The Hell House I went through is almost exactly like the one seen in Ratcliff's documentary. Here is the trailer to George Ratcliff's 2001 candid documentary, Hell House.




No earthly redemption is found for the drug addict, the pregnant teen, nor the abusive father. The crowd receives the message that those who suffer in this life will also suffer in the next. My heart went out to those in Hell because they were condemned for losing hope. They lacked the strength to bear the errors they made in this life, so they are punished for not reaching out to the divine. The suicide who lost the will to live, the teen trapped in the world of drugs, the pregnant teen who aborted her child, and the father who found little solace at the bottom of the bottle. All these people are condemned without a loving embrace or a hand of encouragement. They are portrayed as unrepentant sinners in the hands of an angry God. But why exactly are the hopeless damned? Is it for theological reasons? Is it because they made the wrong choices? Is it because they are sinners and as sinners they MUST seek out Christ? The church would respond with an emphatic YES! But are these not the very same people that the gospel claims Jesus came to comfort, rescue, and love? Are these not the disenfranchised, the outcast, the sinners, the hopeless, and the unloved? Are we not responsible for reaching out to the downcast not by striking them with the Fear of God but reaching out with the Love of God? There is no love found in fear, and setting up an attraction of fear to encourage a message of love may bring in the curious but will push away the seekers.

If you haven't seen Hell House I highly recommend it. If you have a Netflix account they are now streaming it over their site. Or if you're feeling adventurous go and visit a local Hell House and experience it for yourself.

Can We Be Scared into the Sacred?

I've known about this film for awhile, and even added it to my Amazon Wish List. I sat motionless and with a fractured heart after watching this film last weekend. Scared Sacred produced, written, and narrated by Velcrow Ripper is an immensely moving film in search of hope during our darkest times. I highly recommend watching it; click here to watch the entire film online.

Canadian filmmaker Velcrow Ripper sets out on a 5 year journey (1999-2004) seeking out a glimmer of hope in the dark and troubled corners of our planet. He is on an anti-pilgrimage, not to the sacred places of the world but to the places which have suffered, mourned, and live with the scars of their suffering. One would think that all you would find is pain and suffering in the war torn, and scarred populace, but Velcrow does find that glimmer of the sacred peeking out through the scared. From Bhopal and Bosnia, to New York and Hiroshima at every stop in his journey the story is the same: people have died and suffered, but there IS hope. Without it these people would die. Yet I know that living in America, I might never experience anything as horrible as the people interviewed in the film.

Would I have enough hope to survive? Would I blame God for my woes? Would I find the sacred in the scared? I do not know, and that is what I found so moving about the film. It speaks on the vulnerability of humanity, and in our soft spots the sacred speaks to us, comforts us, and brings us together. On September 11, 2001, the U.S. came to a screeching halt and was hurled into the presence of the sacred. Some were angry, most were scared, but in that fear we were awakened to the soft spots that were buried and forgotten in our media bombarded, workaholic lives. My heart goes out to the suffering, yet I might never experience suffering of the same degree. The best I can offer is that whenever I come across others suffering that I face it and do what I can to ease their suffering. Even if it means taking some of their suffering upon myself. Only, I pray, I hope, I am strong enough to carry the burden.

Let Us Hate, as our Father in Heaven Hates

Homosexuality is a topic I rarely touch, not because of it's controversy but because it is a subject I know little about. I can't even begin to understand what it means to be gay anymore than I can begin to understand being a woman (a subject that my wife reminds me on a daily basis). What I do understand is that our sexuality is a part of our identity. It is part of our humanity and therefore part of our culture and society. It is not something that we should hide and lock up in the closet (no pun intended) nor is it something we are comfortable flaunting in public like animals (although many would agree that we are quickly becoming more comfortable with sexuality in the public sphere). Yet, there is no harm, nor should there be any fear in talking about sexuality in general and more specifically, homosexuality. What do we have to lose by simply talking? Do we really have to hate as our Father in Heaven hates? And will we transcend the fear and the hatred we have for those who may be carry the slightest differences?

Directed by Daniel G. Karslake, For the Bible Tells Me So is a 2007 documentary about the issues and struggles between homosexuality and Christianity. Can someone be a Christian and a homosexual? Does God really hate them? I first saw this film about a year ago and regardless of your views I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. The video is up on Youtube in 9 parts, so watch it while it's still up.





"You have to think when you read the Bible. Which is why before the Reformation perhaps the Roman Catholics were right in saying that ordinary people shouldn't be reading the Bible cause they usually get it wrong." We assume that based on our understanding of God and the Bible that we know that our interpretation is correct. Yet we constantly forget that these texts weren't written directly for us. In my humble opinion, keeping the context of the scripture in mind is the only way of avoiding the pitfalls of prejudice and justified hatred that Christianity has stepped into almost willingly.

"There about 6-7 verses in all of scripture that speak to even remotely of what we may call homosexual activity or homosexual conduct." This may sound like a small factoid from the Reverend Peter Gomes but it demonstrates the anxiety and fear people have when it comes to homosexuality by overemphasizing the importance of these verses as opposed to verses on poverty. Homophobes may have stronger arguments if there were 30 verses scattered throughout the Bible, but a stronger argument doesn't mean that it's morally right to persecute anyone.

"I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, the Bible does." This is by far the scariest quote of the film (from the West Wing clip) because not only do people actually think like this, but it rests the burden of morality on something else instead of ourselves. We let something (or someone) else think for us, reason for us, choose right or wrong for us, and in the end this form of thinking is used to justify denigrate and subjugate people who do not believe like we believe. The reasoning that "if God hates it, then it's okay for us to hate it as well" is monstrous and absolves us from loving one another.

Should not the Church be moved to heal the damage its teachings have inflicted on LGBT people? When did the Church overwrite the teachings of Christ's universal love with teachings of hatred? Forgive me if I paint the Church with a broad brush, there are some progressive and liberal churches that are welcoming and willing to heal the damage caused by some of Christianity's teachings. But the issue still at hand is that Christianity is still overwhelmingly against homosexuality based on a handful of verses. Where is the outcry against poverty, the hungry, the sick? How many people will starve to death by the end of this film? Yet, we worry about and preoccupy ourselves with what two people may do behind closed doors.

For those in Bible study groups or anyone who would like to hold in depth group conversations about this film there is a study guide available for download (PDF file, 77 pages) created to accompany the film. You can find it here. And if for some reason this film is no longer available on the internet then I highly recommend renting it.

Bored on Sunday?

Well if you woke up too late to go to church today and want to make up for it somehow you can always sit back and watch a few religious documentaries online. They may not be for everyone (I'm a documentary junkie) but they are interesting too watch and completely free, if you know where to look. Warning: Depending on the Copyright holder these films may be taken down at any time, so watch them while you have the chance.

---

Religulous. Bill Maher's irreverent look at religion in general from an agnostic point of view. Not for the faint of heart, watch at your own risk. Don't write me angry comments for posting this since you've now been warned. I do happen to agree with his questioning religious views, and even though this film slants more towards mocking believers instead of dialoguing with them, I still think this film is worth watching. There is strong language and nudity. Now you've been warned twice.

Jesus Camp. Film about a Pentecostal summer camp for kids and which follows three children and their beliefs: Levi, Rachel, and Victoria. Personally this film scared me halfway to Gehenna. The most heartbreaking moment for me was the kid who prayed for help in believing in the Bible.

Muhammad-Legacy of a Prophet. A beautiful film on the life and struggles of the Prophet Muhammad. Breathtaking, informative, and a must see for Christians.

Children of Abraham. A three part series which takes a look into Abraham and the three Monotheistic faiths which claim him as their founder. Part 0ne, two, and three.

There are plenty more out there worth watching, including one I'll be posting tomorrow on homosexuality, but this should be enough to keep the curious entertained for now.

Peace and blessings.

The Spirituality of Dinosaurs?

My son loves dinosaurs. So much so that we've been watching The Land Before Time daily for the past week. It was one of my favorites when I was young and I hope it becomes one of his. The Land Before Time is a 1988 animated film about a group of dinosaurs, led by Littlefoot (an Apatosaurus), fleeing famine in search of the Great Valley, a Utopian dinosaur paradise.

[Though odd, comical, and completely unrelated, as far as I've researched this was a serious picture that was posted on the Dinosaur entry on Conservpedia and has since been taken down. Read more about Dinosaur riding Jesus here. There is another picture floating around the internet of Jesus riding a Dinosaur that is fake and meant to mock creationists.]

---

The Land Before Time is a moving film and has always been a favorite of mine and my sister while we were growing up. It is an inspiring film which teaches young children the value of courage during hardship, the importance of friendship, and tackles the issue of prejudices.

While trekking towards the Great Valley, Littlefoot's mother is fatally injured by a Sharptooth (T-Rex) attack. Littlefoot, distraught at the loss of his mother, encounters Rooter, an aging Sauropelta, who appears briefly in the film to comfort him over his loss. Here is the film script.

Rooter: Hey! What's going on here?

[Littlefoot cries]

Rooter: What's your problem? You're not hurt.

Littlefoot: It's not fair! She should have known better! That Sharptooth... It's all her fault!...

Rooter: All who's fault?

Littlefoot: Mother's!

Rooter: Oh... I see. I see.

Littlefoot: Why'd I wander so far from home...?

Rooter: Oh, it's not your fault. It's not your mother's fault. Now, you pay attention to old Rooter: it is nobody's fault. The Great Circle of Life has begun, but, you see, not all of us arrive together at the end.

Littlefoot: What am I gonna do? I miss her so much.

Rooter: And you'll always miss her. But she'll always be with you, as long as you remember the things she taught you. You'll never really be apart, for you're still a part of each other.

Littlefoot: My tummy hurts.

Rooter: Well, that, too, will go in time, little fella. Only in time.

To most, this may seem as a routine Hollywood comfort scene meant to lighten the mood while avoiding mention of the Big 'G' or even 'G' junior (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). It's short, sweet and, to a child with a short attention span, quickly forgotten. But after taking a course in Religion in Popular Media by the inspiring Rabbi Rami, I can't watch a movie without analyzing it for its religious and spiritual symbolism.

Rooter: It is nobody's fault.

No one (not even higher powers) caused Littlefoot to lose his mother. It is nobody's fault. This is one of the most powerful lines in the film which addresses the loss of a loved one to young children who often seek to blame themselves (or others) for deaths, divorce, or parental abandonment. In a tender period in their lives it is comforting to know that when someone close dies, it is nobody's fault, not even God's. These things just happen.

Rooter: The Great Circle of Life has begun, but, you see, not all of us arrive together at the end.

Here is where we get into the nitty gritty. This can be interpreted as a water down explanation of the Monotheistic afterlife but the phrase Circle of Life implies that those who pass on will return maybe even in a different form, but return none the less as if caught in a circle. The Circle of Life was popularized by the 1994 Disney animated film, The Lion King. In essence, the Circle of Life describes the interconnectedness of all life and that the Spirit shared by all living beings stays intact even after the death of the physical body. This is a Pantheistic (and even Panentheistic) concept which I have found best described in Hindu terminology: there is but one spirit/reality (Brahman), and all that exists has this spirit deep within themselves. Conscious creatures like ourselves can seek out and uncover this universal, cosmic spirit by peeling back the layers of our ego to reveal our Atman, our True Self. Our individual bodies may die away but our core is still intact. Eventually, when we fully realize our true state (according to this belief) we break free from the circle, moksha. There is no 'end' in a circle so one could say that Rooter is describing Pantheism (or Panentheism, although I have yet to fully study the differences between the two). You can even go so far to say that Rooter is a Pantheist, but of course I'm sure the film makers were trying for more of a comfort instead of a spiritual scene.

Rooter: You'll never really be apart, for you're still a part of each other.

Another line that restates that they share the same source (Brahman) but their egos keep them from fully realizing that they are a part of each other. Of course this could all be rubbish and I'm probably making a big deal of out of nothing but I love analyzing religion in film and tv.

The theme of life from death (the circle of Life) is best illustrated in my favorite film of all time, The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky's 2006 sci-fi film about one man's quest to save the woman he loves. I wrote a paper analyzing the spiritual and religious symbolism on the film for my Religion in Popular Media class. It can be found in three parts, here. I plan on writing a new updated version that correlates with my current views.

Although poor old Rooter had a tiny part in the Land Before Time, his comforting words echo throughout the film. No matter what Littlefoot and his friends had to endure they never had to endure alone. This I believe is the heart of the film: though life may be tough at times, there will always be someone there to guide and comfort you.

Jesus: The Living Parable or That's Friggin' Religulous Part 2

Back in May on the very last day of my Judaism, Islam, and Christianity class we watched and discussed Bill Maher's new film, Religulous. If you haven't seen it then I recommend watching it because it might introduce you, the viewer, to new and (maybe) challenging views on religion. I wrote a post describing my thoughts on Religulous back in November before I got a chance to watch it. Bill Maher's point is not to abolish and ridicule religion but to ask serious questions on what we consider sacred, although, to me, it did seem like he was ridiculing the faithful. Should we question the sacred, and if we come up with answers that challenge our current beliefs how do we then live with them?

[Bill Maher talking with Jesus at the Holy Land Experience in Religulous]

---

Try Googling "Jesus Pagan gods" and you get over 700,000 results on this very controversial topic. Do myths and deities of "pagan" religions share similarities with the unique Son of God? You can get lost quickly in the garbled debates of the unique nature of Jesus but outside of the biased canonical texts,which believers claim have been protected and guided by the hand of God, there are no existing 1st century original copies of ANY manuscript that describes Jesus in detail, divine or not. All we have are stories, and if those stories share similarities then it is because those similarities speak clearer to the human heart than any other elements of storytelling.

Did Jesus actually exist as the Bible portrays him? I believe that he did indeed exist but his portrayal in my protestant Bible was skewed to fit the theology of those who won the bible battle during the history of the early church between warring Christianity sects. Is Jesus then a mishmash of ancient deities and myths? A question like this is only challenging to those who put Christ on a pedestal above the message he brought to humanity. I believe that Jesus the man, Rabbi, and Jewish prophet very well could have existed but we have no contemporary outside sources to verify his existence outside of a brief and questionable reference by Josephus.

We ended class with our professor, Rabbi Rami, asking what we would say to Bill Maher's statement that Jesus is a mythical character made up of deities that predate him. The class was speechless, nobody said a word, including myself. Rabbi Rami's response in a nutshell is that the Jesus story is just one of a long chain of other myths that have spoken to the inner core of the human spirit. There is nothing unique about the Jesus story since elements of it have been told in other religions. This does not mean that Jesus is a fictional creation of the early church but that the story of Jesus should be more important than the historicity of the man the story is based upon.

Those who heard Jesus tell the parable of the good Samaritan would not have been outraged if Jesus told them that the characters of the story never existed. The moral of the story which speaks to humanity's inner spirit is what should be held sacred and not the characters who take a part in the story. Jesus is more of a symbol, a finger pointing to the moon, who points beyond himself to something greater. Christ's message, which is the heart of Christianity, becomes untouchable, an eternal flame, when divorced from the pointless battle over the historicity of the man. The finger may be broken, bent, replaced, or even cut off but the moon will still remain.

What Maher is saying is that we have the lessons and no longer need to keep anything that keeps humankind from progressing forward. This is not a move away from God but a leap and a stride towards it. His view is that organized religion is detrimental to the progression of man since it's views are static and works to keep men in the dark. All Bill is doing is asking whether or not these symbols still work for man in our enlightened age. Are we able to stand on our own feet and say "I will serve my fellow man for the greater good" without an external source prodding us to do so? Until humanity instills the lessons that Jesus and others have brought we will continue to rely on them for guidance. This is why I like to describe Jesus as a walking, talking, living parable: he is a manifestation of what humanity yearns for more than anything else: Love.

The Prime Directive

Thousands of Trekkies are probably foaming at the mouth in anticipation of the new Star Trek film (May 8th!!!) directed by J.J. Abrams (co-creator of Lost), and I have to give it them, the trailer looks pretty intense. I never really got into Star Trek except for Voyager. I watched every single episode of Voyager, loved it! One concept in the Star Trek universe that has always caught my attention is their beloved Prime Directive.

"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation."

I am not a Trekkie, although I do love Star Trek, so I can only assume that the Prime Directive is the Federation's moral foundation to any interaction with alien life to protect any evolving sentient life to continue their "normal cultural evolution" even if they're meant to become extinct. Any unintentional, and at times intentional, violation of the Prime Directive is equivalent to playing God. Too bad nobody told God about the Prime Directive.

---

Do we really need God to tell us not to kill each other? Would mankind have figured out morality without God violating the Prime Directive by sending down His Word down through prophets and revelations? I was just wondering how mankind would have fared without any communication with the divine. If God had not revealed himself in any way would we have progressed this far? God could not have communicated to all people throughout history because that would mean that all religions would have a sliver of truth, and we can't have that now, can we.

If God has not revealed himself to ALL religions then all but a few, or even one, must have sprung up naturally. We would first have to figure out WHICH religions have not communicated with God and then measure the level of morality they have obtained naturally. If no morals can be found whatsoever, nothing, zilch, then we can say that it was good that God taught us to behave. (We have been bad little boys and girls ever since Eden.) This is not the case because religious and non-religious people across all faiths have the same capacity to commit the most heinous to the most loving acts towards one another. I don't believe that any one faith has a monopoly in morality, let alone a monopoly on truth.

I also can not believe that our ability to reason is limited to the point where we need God to tell us not to kill each other. I believe that man's morals along with our view of God has evolved throughout history. Now that we live in a global community we have to think on a global scale. It's not about which tribe's ethics will dominate but how can we keep our GLOBAL tribe from committing suicide. Man can not be completely dependent on the divine for morality or else Atheist would be the most immoral people on the planet for rejecting all things divine. And I really don't see how a lack of belief in the divine leads to any immorality. Atheist share a similar belief using reason as a guide to morality, except they do away with God and faith altogether.

In the end mankind chooses what ethics and morals to follow regardless of the source. I believe we have the ability to evolve without God although I don't believe that God would ever disappear from man's heart (or even mine for that matter). Faith is part of what makes us human. Even Atheists have faith: faith in love, compassion, reason, justice, and the human spirit. So even if God did violate the Prime Directive and decided to meddle with humanity's evolution to cause us to be more loving, respectful, and compassionate to our fellow man, does it really matter? As long as we are headed in the right direction does it matter if God gave us a helpful nudge or not? I don't know. I can't imagine a world without faith. It seems that man naturally yearns for God even in pagan religions. On the other hand, man has committed the most horrendous atrocities in the name of God throughout history. To take a pinch of wisdom from South Park, even without religion man would find other reasons to fight his brother. Are we doomed? No, not yet, I'm sure someone from the Federation will time travel back to save us from complete annihilation, but of course this would be a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive. Oh well.

Live long and prosper.

---

Also: Check this recent post on The Spirituality of Star Trek over at the Science Fiction Gospel blog.

The Noah We Don't Knowa

Darren Aronofsky has filmed and written several challenging stories like a genius mathematician in pursuit of a number that will predict stock market picks and one man's 1500 year quest to save the woman he loves. Most of his films haven't been as financially successful as major studio films but he makes up for it as a great storyteller. Now, Darren wants to tackle a story of biblical proportions.

[The Drunkenness of Noah, Sistine Chapel ceiling (fresco), 1509, Michelangelo Buonarroti]

The story of Noah has been done before, of course who can forget the 2007 film Evan Almighty, which took the Noah story in a more comedic direction. It was the most expensive comedy film produced at the time, but you do have to spend money to make money. Darren wants to film the Noah that history has forgotten, a dark and tormented Noah, a side of Noah that most people wouldn't imagine a Bible character having.

Darren Aronofsky told the Guardian in April of 2007:

"Noah was the first person to plant vineyards and drink wine and get drunk," he says admiringly. "It's there in the Bible - it was one of the first things he did when he reached land. There was some real survivor's guilt going on there. He's a dark, complicated character."

And recently elaborated a bit more with Ifilm in September last year:

"Yeah, I would hope so. It’s a really cool project and I think it’s really timely because it’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist. He’s a really interesting character. Hopefully they’ll let me make it. Oh that’s right I forgot I told you that whole religious thing."

And in December he mentioned to Rope of Silicon that they will first be releasing it as a graphic novel.

So what do you think of a dark, environmentalist Noah who suffers from survivor's guilt? It can't be any more controversial than Martin Scorsese's 1988 film, The Last Temptation of Christ (which I own but have yet to see) but if it comes to fruition I expect it to get boycotted like any film that carries views, stories, or beliefs that conflicts with certain forms of Christianity (oh yeah, and don't forget that Noah, or Nuh, is also a prophet in Islam). If it is filmed in the context of a local flood instead of a worldwide flood this will open up a whole other can of worms between Creationist and Evolutionist. But there is one thing that most people forget about films, they're just stories! It doesn't matter if they're factually correct or if they portray certain characters that contradict with tradition and text. What matters is what YOU get out of the story.

How does it move you? What emotions are stirred? How does Noah's personal suffering speak to you about the human experience? We use stories as a means of communicating our deepest emotions that mere statements have difficulty properly reproducing the desired emotion. I can tell you that I feel sad or I can tell you my heart-wrenching story that caused my sadness. Storytelling is what helped Christianity rise to the top and spread throughout the world. Christianity's success has nothing to do with proper belief, ritual, and theology but the heart of Christianity lies in the story of Jesus who, because of his infinite and all encompassing love, suffered for the sins of the world to redeem it and become joined with the Father. It is the story which speaks to the heart, not the minute details of fact. Does it matter if 2000 years from now historians get the details of 9/11/01 wrong (3 instead of 2 planes hit the Twin Towers) or that it was a dark day for humanity as millions of people around the world mourned the tragic event? When has the details of a story become more important that the stories message? More importantly, what is the story telling you?

The Fountain: A Quest for Immortality Part 3

This is the conclusion to my three part blog series on my paper The Fountain: A Quest for Immortality. Rabbi Rami's comments are in black and my responses/comments are in reddish brown.

Part 1
Part 2

[Warning: The following text contains plot spoilers.]

---

A viewer could have an atheistic view on the film describing it as an endless cycle of energy and matter tracing back to the Big Bang. Another could view it as reincarnation, cycling through different Incarnations until one achieves Moksha. Even Christians could view Tommy and Izzi as representing Adam and Eve trying to find their way back to Eden and that only through the sacrifice of Jesus (First Father) can we obtain eternal life. At first I also tried to give the film an interpretation but every time I watched it I found myself revising my view to the point that I don't even try at all. This film can have dozens of different interpretations but they all share a common fact: bodily death is a part of life.

Rami: If you have given up trying to make sense out (of) the film, as opposed to coming up with multiple meanings and learning to live with ambiguity of multiple "truths" has the movie failed? Is there a difference between forcing one meaning and killing all meaning?

I think I want to keep trying to make sense out of the film even though it hurts my head when I try, but at least for me the movie hasn't failed. When I was doing research on the film I spent a few days reading movie reviews and I got that people either hate it or love it. It's not that the people that hate the film don't understand it (it's confusing enough in the first place) but I guess they wanted a more concrete ending. You know, with a Michael Bay explosion or a couple kissing while the camera spins around them to the sound of a romantic orchestral piece. A good American film not some bald guy hugging on a tree floating in a bubble in space.

I believe that forcing one meaning kills all meaning. If you say " The meaning of this movie is___ ___ ___" then it destroys the beauty of the film. The director, Darren Aronofsky, meant for this to be an open-ended film so that not only can the audience take something personal away from the film but also that it doesn't taint or give any clear answers to Life and Death. Now in regards to "forcing one meaning kills all meaning" in a religious context I believe it stunts Humanity's ability to grow. If you say the meaning of life is found here or the answer is found there it hinders our creativity, imagination, and exploration. Some religions might not have changed their core beliefs but they had to reinterpret it over the centuries to keep up with society. If it chooses not to then it'll go the way of the Dodo bird or the 8 track player (and soon the VCR! Gasp!).

The very last scene in the film shows Tommy burying a seed, possibly from the Tree of Life, over his wife's grave. He says his final goodbye and takes one last look up at Xibalba. It is unclear as to if he then decides to journey to Xibalba or if the whole space travel experience is just the last part of Izzi's unfinished book she asked Tommy to finish. Either way it does not matter because that's not the focus of the film. The focus and beauty of this film lies in the fact that it doesn't try to pose answers to life's questions but presents the questions and teaches us that it is possible to live with them.
Rami: Ok. This is good. Does living with the questions means never positing answers or does it mean never ceasing to posit answers? Does it mean there are no answers or that all answers are temporary? Is there truth in this film?

I believe living with the questions means living with the question mark. The question mark will always be there but the questions will change form. All the answers AND questions are temporary until we find answers to some of our questions, that will in turn provide us with new questions. The world wasn't always round (at least our perception of it) but when it became round new questions about our surroundings arose. And in asking questions Humanity as a whole grows and evolves, this I believe is one of (if not) the Truth(s), that the film is trying to portray. (Maybe. Philosophy tends to give me headaches.)

That no matter what background you may come from that the answers that religion supplies are just Man's best attempt to calm ourselves of our fears of the unknown. By overcoming their fears of and accepting Death as a natural process both Izzi in the 21st century, and Tom in the 26th century embraces "Death as the road to Awe" and earn true immortality by becoming a part of the Universe.

Rami: Is this the answer: Death as the Road to Awe? What might a religion look like that took this idea as its core idea?

For Tom and Izzi, yes this is the answer (of course that's what I think). They both struggled and fought with death but their battles only became easier when they accepted the inevitable. Izzi accepted this much sooner (500 years sooner) than Tom but they both came to the same conclusion. I can't begin to imagine (or know) a religion that is so focused on death as one of their core beliefs. I don't think anyone today would willingly die for the greater good of the community (or humanity). I'm not talking about matyrdom or even dying in the service of your country but I mean knife to your throat "our blood shall feed the Earth" sacrifice like in the film. I don't know much about Mayan's or their religion (except that most people think the end of their calendar is the date for the end of the world) but I do know that the director studied their culture heavily before making this film. He incorporated a lot of Mayan mythology into the film and this might be one of their core beliefs. I don't know yet but I intend to find out.

The Fountain: A Quest for Immortality Part 2

This is the continuation of my three part blog on my paper The Fountain: A Quest for Immortality. Rabbi Rami's comments are in black and my responses/comments are in reddish brown.

Part 1
Part 3

[Warning: The following text contains plot spoilers.]

---

There are Christian, Mayan, Hindu, and Buddhist religious themes and symbols present in the film. The fact that there is no one overwhelming religious presence in the movie and that it deals with mortality, a topic that most if not all religions deal with, leaves it open to interpretation by the viewer from any religious background.

Rami: Is this the Post-Modern aspect of the film? No one religion has it right? Why are you drawn to a text (in this case a film) that invites you to decide for yourself what is real? Why are others drawn to texts and traditions that do not invite personal speculation but rather demand acceptance of the "One Way"?

Yes, this is the Post-Modern aspect of the film although you can also say the entire film is a Post-Modern view on life and death. In fact, I was going to break it down even further in the presentation I did for class pointing out how Tom represented a different view for each era: The 16th century Tom saw the world (and Death) in a Traditional, Pre-Modern view, the 21st century Tom saw it in the Modern, Scientific view, and the 26th century Tom saw his world in the Post-Modern view.

The 16th century Tom saw and explained his world in a Traditional worldview. Although at first he doubted the "pagan yarns" of the Tree of Life, he truly did believe after the Queen explained that the Tree of Life exists because it is mentioned in Genesis. On faith, he fought the pagans knowing that " through her command we shall live forever." His entire journey is based on following a myth but he believes this myth to be factual. There was a Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden and God hid it from the world. Even at the end of his journey when he drinks from the Tree of Life he believes that he has become immortal when he has a vision of Xibalba and then dies.

The 21st century Tom saw and explained his world in a Modern, Scientific view. As I recall he does not pray, believe in miracles, and struggles with his wife's acceptance of her looming death. All he knows is science. With science he can cure his wife, and when he failed he vows to defeat the disease called Death with science.

The 26th century Tom saw and viewed his world in a Post-Modern view. This one was a bit harder for me to explain (that's why I left it out) but I'll try. In this era, Tom travels not in search for answers but for relief from Life and its questions. He knows that the Traditional and Scientific views can not explain or comfort him in anyway. He is completely surrounded by questions on his quest. He knows that he's going to die someday, but he's afraid of dying. He journeys for hundreds of years living with and tormented by these questions. In the end he learns that if he just accepts death for what it is he will overcome his fears of it and realize that the questions (and answers) of life are irrelevant.

Why I'm drawn to this film that invites you to decide for yourself what is real is because I have recently realized that I have a choice in deciding what's real or not. I grew up thinking that there was only one reality and therefore no choice. The denomination I was raised in was the complete truth. Period. But that's a whole different topic I am reserving for a future blog. Others, I've realized, do not invite personal speculation of their texts and traditions because since their reality is firmly based on those texts and traditions any questioning (or doubts) will destroy that foundation. And without a firm foundation to ground their view of reality they find themselves lost in space.

The Fountain:A Quest for Immortality Part 1

Even though I probably shouldn't post a paper that I've written online out of fear of theft I am posting it anyway. Whatever I post online could get stolen anyway so why not. I had to write a paper and make a presentation for my Religion in American Pop Culture class at MTSU on a tv show, film, or book that contained religious themes. I chose Darren Aronofsky's 2006 film The Fountain. Now I know I talk about The Fountain a lot because it is such a beautiful, thought provoking film so I just couldn't resist making this my topic of choice.

Our professor, Rabbi Rami (you can read his blog here), returned my paper with comments ("questions really") and I thought I would post it all in its entirety and respond with a few comments of my own. Rami's comments will be in black and my responses/comments will be in reddish brown since the red I was using were hurting my eyes.

Part 2
Part 3

[Warning: The following text contains plot spoilers.]

---

The Fountain: A Search for Immortality
By Eruesso

There are dozens of products out there in the market that promises a longer life span or a younger look: creams, makeup, vitamins, and herbal products. When used, all of these may promise that you might feel and look younger but outside of daily exercise and a healthy diet none of these can really extend your lifespan. And even if you could delay death, it can't be defeated; at least, not yet.

Rami: What if it could? What would that do to society, morality, family systems, etc?
I cannot begin to imagine the impact this would have on the world. This would shake the foundation of some major world religions and even some new ones might be created. Let's assume that death still occurs with severe mortal wounds. Of course any eternal life product or medical breakthrough would only be available to the rich nations first. After the jubilation is shaken off the world then would turn to overpopulation. With no death people would continue living and consuming resources at astronomical rates. Birth control laws (including abortion laws) would have to be imposed to control overpopulation (sounds eerily like China maybe?) to buy us enough time to start colonizing other worlds. If humanity does not develop it's technology to keep up with the overpopulation, and if it does not destroy itself by means of a global nuclear war over evaporating resources it must still struggle to keep its soul. For by removing death from the human experience we lose a part of our humanity causing us to evolve into something beyond human. If we make it that far.

Models and actors in magazines and films show us that with a little help from plastic surgery we can look 35 at the age of 65. These modern day gods hope to live forever on the lips and memories of mortal man by earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or being immortalized on the Silver Screen. But even these stars eventually burn out and are replaced with new ones. There is an unspoken fear in American Pop Culture that nurtures this drive to delay death as long as possible. Religion tries to calm that fear and explain what happens when we die. Although some religions require strict adherence in leading a morally upright life, the results of giving up the pleasures of this world, including life itself, helps to get you into a paradise-like afterlife. The Fountain struggles with this concept of accepting death and the fear of what may or may not happen afterwards.

Rami: Where does this fear come from? We say we are afraid of the unknown, but that is impossible. If we do not know something we cannot be afraid of it. What we fear are possible futures, but these have no bases in fact. We fear our own fantasies. Why? Who benefits from our fears? Follow the Money. Follow the Power.
I just started reading Alan Watts' book The Wisdom of Insecurity and it focuses heavily on the subject of how Man is preoccupied with the uncertain future. Man's desire for security is so overwhelming that he wastes his life in the present while his eyes and heart are fixed in the future. So yes, I agree that not only is Man afraid of possible futures but also afraid of anything (including death) that might threaten the security of the future he dreams about. When you envision yourself in a future event do you also envision a slightly older version of yourself or you in your present age (even though we're aging by the second)? Death returns us back to the state we were in before birth,nonexistence. And since we can only dream of a possible future in a life beyond the grave we can not confirm it.

As for who benefits from our fears I too agree. Churches can ease our fear as long as we attend every week and give a voluntary donation, guns can keep us safe as long as we continue to buy bullets, and you can forget your fears when you bite into a Little Debbie ("Unwrap a Smile"). Commercialism feeds off of that fear, "You live in a miserable, unsafe, fearful world so buy our product and it'll make you feel warm and fuzzy inside until you forget your fears".


In The Fountain Tommy Creo battles with death in all three time periods: the 16th century as a conquistador, the 21st century as a research oncologist, and in the 26th century as a space traveling monk. In each period Tommy defeats death and reaches immortality in ways beyond how we may define immortality.

In the 21st century Tommy Creo, as the research oncologist, is desperately trying to find a cure for his wife, Izzi Creo's, brain tumor through animal testing on rhesus monkeys. Even though she dies before he is able to save her he vows to rid humanity of the disease called death. At this point there is no room for acceptance, just a goal, with the help of science, to eradicate death from the Human experience. Religion’s role in the American public sphere is to help pacify fears of death and, for the most part, not seek to suppress modern science from improving our health and extending our lifespan like the Grand Inquisitor when he hunted down the heretics for pursuing the Tree of Life. Even though Tommy does indeed discover a cure from mortality he does not understand the consequences that mortality is a part of the natural process and by removing it we remove a part of our humanity.

In the 16th century Tomas, as the Conquistador, is sent by Queen Isabel to find the Tree of Life to liberate the world from tyranny. Although doubtful at first, Tomas fully believes that the Tree of Life would make him and Queen Isabel immortal. The Mayan priest tells Tomas during their confrontation that, "First Father sacrificed himself for the Tree of Life" and when the priest recognizes that Tomas is an incarnation of First Father he offers himself as a sacrifice stating that "we shall be immortal. Our blood shall feed the Earth." By drinking from the tree Tomas gains immortality not by living forever but by dying and releasing his essence to create new life. This is far from the Western description of immortality which is more about personal self gratification and greed than willingly giving up your life so others can live. But also, at the same time, Humanity does hold on to the principles of caring for those of the next generation. Just about everything in society is done to help preserve and keep Mankind from extinction, so that our actions and work live on through the next generation after we pass on.

In the 26th century Tom, the space traveling monk, is headed towards a distant dying nebula traveling with an aging tree in an ecospheric spaceship. He is taking a Tree of Life, which is carrying Izzi's essence (or soul), to Xibalba, the dying nebula representing the Mayan underworld, so that he and Izzi will be reborn. I believe although Tom, who eats from the tree to keep him alive throughout his 500 year journey, has achieved immortality he wants to die. He is tired of living and wants to be reborn with his wife when the nebula explodes so that their essence becomes one with the Universe. By doing this they will truly live forever but he fears it. Tom represents Man's fear and awe of death knowing that if he does not conquer death it will claim him. He can delay death for 500 years but in the end there is only one avenue of salvation for Tom and that is to calm his fear, finish his mission and accept death, both that of his wife's and his own.

Rami: Very clear synopsis, by the way. It is a complicated film but you map it out clearly. Thanks.

It is a complicated but a very beautiful film. I recommend it to anyone that hasn't seen it yet.

Evilution

Right now I'm in the middle of watching the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted by Ben Stein that came out earlier this year. I've watched the first hour and my impression so far is that it seems a bit one sided. Until they mentioned Hitler.

My first reaction was, "Are you serious?"

First I have to mention that I am not a film critic and I know as much about science as the average 24 year old college student.

Mitochondria: The power house of the cell.

Anyways, the first half of the film talks about how Intelligent Design is pretty much laughed at by real scientist and if, as a scientist or teacher, you mention Intelligent Design not only could you lose your career but you could also be blacklisted. Harsh. So then the film continues as to how real scientists that promote evolution go on the attack on Intelligent Design because they have some ulterior motive to sneak God back into schools.

"Okay, that's kind of pushing it but moving on..."

And then out of the blue David Berlinski, a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement, raises the claim that Darwinism influenced the Nazis.

And that's when I had to stop watching (i'll finish it in a moment) and start blogging. At first the film sounded a bit one-sided, then it moved to a hint of propaganda, and then it took a swan dive into a festering pool of conspiracy theories.

---

My personal views on Intelligent Design? I see no reason why Intelligent Design can't at least be given a chapter alongside all the other scientific theories in a high school science book. I see nothing devious by just mentioning that some people believe that a Designer out there may have had a hand in designing this incredibly complex Universe we call home. I also believe that if there is a significant amount of evidence that supports a certain theory then I see no reason why that theory can't be taught. I believe evolution can work hand in hand with a First Cause God. So yes I have no problem with Evolution. Evolution DOES NOT lead to the Holocaust. Here's an example as to what the film is implying.

---

Darwin-->Theory of Evolution--->God does not exist-->Religions are fairy tales with moral teachings--->No need to be moral--> Heil Hitler!

Talk about a serious case of Six degrees of Adolf Hitler.

---

Now, Ben Stein does say that Darwinism does not equate with Nazism. But he then goes on to say "If Darwinism could inspire such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalize similar initiatives today?"

Darwin--> Theory of Evolution--->God does not exist-->Religions are fairy tales with moral teachings--->No need for moral--> Heil Hitler!-->Abortion, euthanasia, etc.

There's a whole list of controversies you can read up on about this film, but there was one particular highlight that I did enjoy. They showed a short clip from this 3d animation made for Harvard's Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

The Inner Life of the Cell