Before the Dawn

On Monday we had a thing. An event. A thing we invited people who were interested to come to. An event. We held the thing in a classroom. Or maybe it was just a study room. It lasted about an hour. We had hoped (or maybe just I), that since the thing, the event itself, was being held in a university setting, the thing would attract a young skewing audience. That didn't so much happen. But it did happen; it did go through, us and those who came each. All of us together.

The line from The Dark Knight runs through my mind often, "The night is always blackest just before the dawn." I wander if that is true. Conceptually and practically. Is the night really most bleak just before dawn strikes? That doesn't seem likely. But I don't study such things. I cannot say. Is it also true, I ask, if things in general are most bleak, most insurmountable, just before the uprising, before that which was previously inconceivable becomes surmountable? Is that true?

For Jesus and the greatest story ever formed, it seems like it is true. And if that is true of our Lord's story, then perhaps He has fabricated the world to pivot on such an axis as that. Perhaps.

No matter the case, the dawn and dark analogy is too murky for me to comprehend well...

At the thing on Monday, the event, a elderly woman's phone rang. Like so many other similar public occasions, the kind lady was full of embarrassment while she scratched through her purse desperately to put a quick end to the repeating annoyance. The funny thing was, that as she unburied the phone, as she brought it out from the cavernous depth's of a woman's purse, the noise got louder. At the same time, of course, as the noise got louder, the expectation was that the noise would cease all the sooner. I learned there and then that cell phones are loudest just before they are turned off.

------

I feel like it's been awhile since I have been enraptured by a profound thought. At this moment I am of the mood to seek out and interact with such things. I've stumbled over a few prospects, but nothing seems to be hitting as of yet. As of yet...

The Inception of Love

Caution: Spoilers Abound for All Christopher Nolan Films

To begin, let me say this: 

I want to live in love. I want love to rule my life, to define my actions. 

Always. 

There are very few aspects of The Dark Knight that I personally will acknowledge as possible flaws in the creation of that fantastic story. One of those few that do appear to me as legitimate is that of the lack of emotional torque in Bruce Wayne's character... or rather, the lack of time we the audience are given to invest in the emotional state of the Batman himself. In some manner, the death of Rachel Dawes feels more like a plot device to convince us that Bruce is troubled than anything else. We are told to believe that Bruce loves Rachel, but are we ever really sold on that?

Nolan's films have this odd tendency to sell us short on the love spectrum -- hmm -- perhaps that statement is not quite right. Rephrase: Nolan's films never show true love fulfilled; met.

Remember Hamlet? We never say him act out his love towards Ophelia until she rested in the grave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GsPhKVjFlc&feature=related

HAMLET
I loved Ophelia: forty thousand brothers
Could not, with all their quantity of love,
Make up my sum. What wilt thou do for her?

A quick look back at romantic love in Nolan's films is quite revealing.

--------------------

 

Following: Our protagonist seems to fall for a young blonde that he recently robbed. As it turns out, the protagonist's friend (whose name happens to be Cobb, the very name our lead in Inception claims for himself) and the blonde manipulated this 'love' so as to frame our protagonist for murder. The end, of course, is slightly more complex, as Cobb kills the blonde and frames our main dude for that murder. 

Conclusion: Love is a shame/Love is manipulation.

Memento: Leonard had a wife. He had a love. But she was raped (murdered?), and ol' Lenny is blessed with the inability to love anyone new (due to the whole memory making problems situation, you see). We are led through most of the film to believe that love was killed by force, by death, but the interpretation that I think answers the most questions has Leonard's wife surviving the rape. In this scenario, it would be Leonard's mind that in the end killed the marriage. We are also served a good deal of betrayal in Memento. Both Leonard's copfriend and his ladyfriend turn out to be utilitarians in the sense that they abuse Leonard's memory to work towards their own gains. Finally, let us recall that we never see Leonard happy in this film. All the thoughts of loved are trapped as unlivable memories.

Conclusion: Love ends/Love is too fragile/Compassion is manipulation.

Insomnia: There is no love story here. There is, however, a death of love. After Detective Will Dormer shoots (on accident?) his partner to death, he is burdened with the heavy task of informing his fallen comrade's wife about the death. This is done over the phone. We never see the wife's face. We only ever hear her sorrow. There is, of course, one other potential pair of lovers. Our main murderer, played disturbingly instinctual by Robin Williams, tells Dormer that he loved the girl he killed. It was some form of embarrassment and/or jealousy that led him to do the brutal thing he did. 

Conclusion: Love is fragile/Love ends/Love is a conduit to extreme anger or sadness.

Batman Begins: Bruce loves Rachel. Bruce happens to be a vigilante. We get one kiss at the end of the film. Hooray! But then Rachel has to go and spoil it seconds later by saying: Your real face is the one that criminals now fear. The man I loved - the man who vanished - he never came back at all. But maybe he's still out there, somewhere. Maybe some day, when Gotham no longer needs Batman, I'll see him again. Loved? Past-tense -- so again it happens that we still never see our protagonist in a state of love. It was in the past, and, according to the denouement of Batman Begins, maybe in the future. Great. I happen to know how that one turns out. Oh, and let us not be too hasty to forget Batty's ol' pop. He and Mama presumably loved each other, and Daddy was renown for his compassionate character. Yep, they get popped. Dead via murder. 

Conclusion: Love ends/Love is fragile/Compassion is manipulation/Love is a conduit to extreme anger or sadness.

The Prestige: This one gets us from moment one! We have a happy couple! Look, Hugh just kissed her ankle! Oh they love each other so! And then our inciting incident occurs. She's dead. Great. That happiness lasted what, a good six, maybe seven minutes. Yep, and then, 90 minutes later, Christian Bale's girl goes and kills herself. Oh joy!  And Scarlett Johannson is mostly just leveraged as a manner of manipulation by our dueling illusionists. Jee-whiz! What fun we have with love!

Conclusion: Love is fragile/Love ends/Love is manipulation/Love is a conduit to extreme anger or sadness.

The Dark Knight: Well, in one of the Joker's infancy stories, he tells us he had a wife. She was physically mutilated. Our dear Joker tried to make her feel better, so she abandoned him. More tangible is the love-triangle of Dent-Dawes-Wayne. As it turns out, Dent wins. Rachel Dawes agrees that she'll marry District Attorney Harvey Dent because ol' Bruce will never be able to hang up his cape. Sucks to be Batman! And then she dies that very instant. Murdered. As soon as she speaks her love into existence, she is taken from us. The result for Bruce is one depressed scene. For Harvey Dent, the destruction of his love creates a new madness. His love eradicated, Harvey becomes the antithesis of love; a becomes a super-villain. Then he dies. The end.

Conclusion: Love is fragile/Love ends/Love is a conduit to extreme anger or sadness.

-------------------- 

And with that we are brought to Inception, the most romance infused entry in the Nolan-verse. We have a love story that extends over five decades. This feature really is the consummate Hamlet-sode. We have illusions and the effects of a deep love unfathomable, but we are never able to experience it in action. We have only its memory, made wretched by guilt and Poe's raven, flapping about madly with his lamentation of 'Nevermores'. 

And, also like Hamlet, we have our ladylover end herself. 

What does it mean? 

After being stabbed in the dreamscape by Cobb's ghostly reminiscence, Ariadne storms out of Cobb's presence. He then comforts his coworker in her absence: Reality won't be enough for her now.

Nolan's films are heavy on beliefs. Leonard's conviction that he still needs to seek revenge on John G. gives him solace through meaning. Will Dormer's belief as to whether he purposefully killed his partner or not will define him for the rest of his life. 

The Dark Knight begins with a (when you think about it) strange declaration by a shotgun wielding bank manager:

BANK MANAGER
Oh, criminals in this town used to believe in things. 
Honor. Respect. Look at you! 

What do you believe in, huh? 
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
 

Nolan extols belief as that which leads to action. And though we never see love in action, we see its consequences relentlessly poured out. Love, and perhaps as well its destruction, is the most dynamic force in all of Nolan's creation. It fuels movement. It is the life-force behind our greatest actions.

Hmm... that makes me think... Remember Christ's words:

There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends (John 15:13 NLT).

But there's more! 

Why is love never realized in Nolan's world? 

Answer: It can't be.

Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."

Not only is love fragile, but it is rationally, actually, workably: impossible. 

Why?

Answer: The world's not enough. Put it another way: Reality won't be enough for [us] now.

Nolan's characters yearn for a world that can't really be... not in this generation, not on this damaged soil.  Many have presumed, probably correctly, that Christopher Nolan is an atheist. Whether that is true or not may just turn out to be irrelevant, for his films are desperately seeking an answer to life's most enigmatic question: why are we never fully satisfied?

There's gotta be more to life than this. 

It's never enough. I say again, it's never enough.

When will it be?

Fractals and Subplots

The dragon is hungry.

Subplot

I don't have any ill will towards Pontius Pilate.  I think the Gospel of John presses implicitly that we should not pity Judas Iscariot, but I still wonder about this Pilate fella.  What a fascinating question to ask: what is truth? (John 18:38)  For a man in Pilate's position, that seems like a fair question to assert, no?  And who better to ask this question of, then the King of Kings!

I am reminded of my 7th grade reading of an abridged version of Beowulf.  I distinctly recall, after a follower of Beowulf betrays him and ultimately is destroyed (perhaps by Grendal's mother?), all the town's people were slamming the dead man's memory.  Beowulf is asked to say a few words, and only a few words he uses; He was a man to be pitied.  Does Pilate belong in that camp of pitiable men as well?

I often wonder what happened to Pilate after those three days.  Surely he would have heard of Jesus' undeath.  Surely.  Christ's brothers didn't believe him during his ministry, yet James the brother of Jesus ended up martyred as the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.  Perhaps Pilate's question of truth led him to the Truth.

This thought wells within me not because I question what truth is, but because I am ever so curious as to understand what the main plot of my life is/will be.  What does my plotline consist of?  What is that truth?  Consequently, this also leaves me pondering, 'What are the subplots in my life?'  How can I decipher between what shall/should be center stage, and what is sufficiently contained as a footnote?

Recently, I was asked to make a video for Avant Ministries, proclaiming in some manner what it is I am bringing to the table uniquely as a witness to the good news of Jesus Christ.  I came up with this: watch here now!.

(I will pause now as you watch said video.) 

.

.

.

Annnnnnnnd, we're back.

But do I believe it?  Do I believe these words that slip out of my mouth?  Of the many Biblical mysteries I have struggled to bear, the compositing of James' words on faith and works with that of Paul's has never bothered me.  It seems straightforward enough to me: true faith (or belief) by necessity, bears fruit.  This fruit will be seen often by the human observer as action.

Do I believe it?  Do I hold to the words I say?  Yes.  Yes I do.  Assuredly.  Absolutely.

BUT!  I, being amongst the number of the chiefest of sinners, remain ever ready, at almost all times, to cause what must be my chief end in life, to fall to the realm of mere subplot.  My actions convict me.  I do not in earnest seek, in all moments, to worship my God and spend all my effort glorifying His good Name; that name which has been too sacred to even be uttered by the lips of us sinful mortals. Remember how Isaiah, in his great vision had his lips burned and cleansed before he could offer to serve the Lord (Isaiah 6:6-7)?  Do you remember?  Do you really?

I am a slow learner.  Daily I need to be reminded (I must remember!) to put that which must remain in focus at the center of my vision.  Nothing comes first, but Christ alone.  Oh, but how I forget!

These are pleasing words, but it paints a picture that is crisper than life.  Words can be unscrambled and set in assembly in such a way as to draw the eye towards a pristine, HD image of a perceived truth.  But life is much more like a Monet -- a later Monet -- a going blind Monet.

Each day, as I make room to accomplish certain tasks which seem good for me to fulfill, how am I to discern what avenues will lead to major plots, and which are subplots?  To put plainly, what paths are inspired with meaning, and which roads are just roads, for the sake of being roads? (All clear now, right!)

As a Christian, I strive to be earnest in my pursuit of obedience to my Father.  What does daily obedience look like?  Is obedience related to micro-managing?  Is choosing to watch one film over another a moral disposition of obedience or defiance?

Fractal

Another question that has been laying eggs in my brains, is that of evil.  Google's work slogan has famously been published as, "Don't be evil".  That sounds nice, especially for an all absorbing entity like the google monster, but in practicality, how is it done?

Sister Aloysius says to her struggling sister in Doubt: "When you take a step to address wrongdoing, you are taking a step away from God, but in his service."

Is that true?  Adam and Eve, when they were still good, knew nothing of evil.  They were naive of its being.

To desire to glorify God, should I wash myself clean of all evil, so as to once more become naive to its very presence?  How am I to interact with that?  Can I touch it, see it, hear it, without being some sort of conduit?  The good Lord renews all things.  He is in the process of redeeming the whole earth.  After our lips are burned, what part do we play?

I have long felt right in viewing many films, many books, and many lives -- I felt that I could do this chiefly to mine what is still fragrant within them.  I still can hold to the conviction that this is a good, honorable task, for our Lord Jesus Christ hung out with the scum of Israel society, and yet he brought salvation.  "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good... to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)  Is this power held only with the Messiah, or can we too access it?

When speaking with conservative minds that wish only to do the Lord's biding, Philippians 4:8 is frequently quoted to me. "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."  This is recited to me as some sort of proof against smutty films.  My only response is that I see the hope of beautiful things in films like Even Dwarfs Started Small.

Over the weekend I indulged my filmatic mind by intoxicating my brains with the Red Riding Trilogy.  These are three films released last year that focus on a series of crimes in Yorkshire, England in the years 1974, 1980, and 1983 (each film covers a year).  The tagline for the films:

Evil Lives Here

Catchy, no?

Primarily, the films deal with the absolute corruption of the Yorkshire police.  It's like 5 hours of insanity.  No one is kind to anyone else, ever.

I barreled through these films.  One problematic,  grim scene after another, the themes of greed and sheer evil soaking slowly through my scalp hour by hour.  And then a miracle.  In the last ten minutes of the last film, there is this thing of absolute beauty.

I won't describe it.  That would do the scene an immense injustice.  After five hours of dread, this light floods in, and a song is sung in comfort through tears.

Ah, the salvation therein!

There are no words for such moments.

Five hours of loving people followed by that scene would have produced nothing.  I would have been numb to goodness.  Only in this world of filth and sickly detestable creatures does a moment like that barrel through the body.  It pummels the heart.  You can't hold it.  The scene is but a few seconds long, but it is all I can remember now.  What bliss!

What bliss.