Forget Christopher Hitchens on Iraq. The author of the "controversial" "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (9 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list, now at number 2 -- but only among people who buy and read books) has misplaced his delusional faith in the Rumsfeld / Cheney / Bush version of Mess 'o Potamia for too long. When he writes or speaks about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he is as unintelligible as someone speaking in tongues. Which, essentially, he is.
But when it comes to god, Hitchens is not similarly faith-based. To decide not to profess faith in a personal god in America these days -- when even militant Islamists acknowledge Muslims, Christians and Jews as "people of the book," fellow believers in Abrahamic religion -- is one of the few remaining Politically Correct taboos. Theistic concepts of god are everywhere: on our money, in our Pledge of Allegience, in White House pronouncements from our Televangelist-in-Chief... There are no self-identified atheists ("non-theists") in Congress [correction: one, as of 2007: Rep. Pete Stark], and some state laws prohibit nonbelievers from running for public office -- the "no religious test" provision of the constitution notwithstanding.
So, it's rather surprising for a change to find a small breath of fresh air emanating from Hitchens, who is better known for his stale, flammable whiskey-drenched halitosis. Some of his anti-religious arguments are as irrational as his Rumsfeldian ones (and the religious beliefs he savages), but at least his atheistic provocations lack the overwhelming sense of self-justification that overburdens his ex post facto rationalizations about Iraq.
Responding to a Washington Post piece by Michael Gerson (What Athiests Can't Answer"), Hitchens poses a challenge:
Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.Which got me thinking: I can think of many, many religious movies (from silents like "Ben-Hur," through the biblical epics of the 1950s, the Christian parables of Ingmar Bergman, up to "The Passion of the Christ" and "Dogma"). But can you think of some movies that are explicitly atheistic, that argue against belief not just in religious dogma but in theism itself? Even "Monty Python's Life of Brian," though a satire of religious history and religious thinking, specifically confirms (in a tongue-in-cheek way) the New Testament version of the birth of Jesus in the opening scene, when the three wise men withdraw their gift-balms from Brian's manger and re-gift them to a child in glowing swaddling clothes nearby....Essentially conceding that philosophy and secularism do not condemn their adherents to lives of unbridled selfishness, and that (say) the Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay, and also that we could not have evolved unless human solidarity was in some way innate, Gerson ends weakly by posing what is a rather moving problem.
"In a world without God," he writes, "this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution but designed for disappointment." Again, he substitutes the wish for the thought. We very probably are, as he admits, not the designed objects of the Big Bang or of the process of natural selection. But this sober conclusion, objective as it is, is surely preferable to the delusion that we have been created diseased, by a capricious despot, and then abruptly commanded to be whole and well, on pain of terror and torture. That sick joke is one that we can cease to find impressive, that belongs in the infancy of our species, and gives a false picture of reality that we would do well to outgrow.
If you were programming an Atheist Film Festival, what titles would you include? I'm drawing a blank at this moment.
P.S. Back to that first paragraph: If you want to see a shining example of Hitchens' intellectual dishonesty and Rumsfeldian rhetoric, check out the hilariously evasive questions he lobs to himself (who else?) in the preposterous "So, Mr. Hitchens, Weren't You Wrong About Iraq?" (Can you guess his answer?) If you throw yourself the right softballs, you can easily knock 'em outta the park! My favorite: "Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?" Oddly, Hitchens doesn't even answer it. Of course, the significant question would be more like: "Was it not known by Western Intelligence and the news media that the Bush administration was exaggerating the extent of its knowledge about Iraq's stockpiles of WMD?" Simple answer: Yes. It was known. And it was even reported (by a few stalwart souls, like Knight-Ridder). But it didn't make the evening news or the front pages, so few paid attention...
That's easy: Freddy Got Fingered. A movie that unequivacably proves that there is no God.
What exactly do you mean by "Christian fables" in regard to Ingmar Bergman films? Through a Glass Darkly seems pretty atheistic to me. Two films that come to mind are Crimes and Misdemeanors and its "remake" Match Point. How'bout March of the Penguins?
To me it seems one must start with Woody Allen. In most of his movies there are clearly statements of atheism, rarely statements of belief. In Crimes and Misdemeanors the one faithful character, the Rabbi played by Sam Waterston, is slowly going blind, both literally and figuratively. His advice to Jonah on Jonah's affair is useless and misguided to the end.
Then there are other statements of disbelief in Allen's film's such as the opening of Husbands and Wives. Allen is watching television as an interviewed scientist is quoting Einstein as saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe," to which Allen replies, to the t.v., "No, he just plays hide and seek."
And Hannah and her Sisters has the Allen character seeking different religious faiths in a search for life's meaning only to come up empty-handed, until seeing the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup.
So for me Allen is the obvious starting point. Then of course there's Bunuel. While Viridiana assumes religion exists (as it does) it certainly does not assume any kind of god exists.
As for rounding out a festival with something hi-tech, special effects filled and less inclined to be dismissed as "artsy" there's Contact based on a book by an avowed atheist and clear thinker, Carl Sagan. Religion in it's most watered down form is presented as acceptable, religion at its most fundemental (the terrorist who blows up the first contraption) is seen as obscene. But Ellie is given the last word throughout the film and she is clearly atheist, making the film atheist for me.
I have to go right now or I'd write more (lucky you). I have more I have thought of that I will bring up later.
All the best,
Jonathan
Crimes and Misdemeanors, definitely. But then again, I would consider many Woody Allen movies to be "atheist". Crimes in particular though is a direct rumination on morality and existentialism more overtly than any of his other movies. And I think it's his best.
What's funny to me is how most people will associate atheism with bleakness and nihilism, which is wholly untrue of the "atheist experience" as I see it. Crimes in part is about this notion, coming to terms with a universe without god and its implications for how we live in a very theistic world.
"There are no self-identified atheists ("non-theists") in Congress..."
Except for Rep. Pete Stark, who self-identified earlier this year. That makes him the first in the 218 year history of the Congress.
Another thought: 2001. Kubrick's film clearly places the evolution of mankind at the hands of a designer, yes, but certainly not a biblical one. 2001's designer seems to arrive on the scene late, some four billion years after the planet forms, to nudge the primates along. It seems to me to be a curious higher intelligence, curious where humanity will lead if prompted, but not a god.
Of course that doesn't necessarily make it an atheist movie either, I suppose, just a non-biblical one.
Kundun centers around a character that is at odds with all deity-centered religions. As far as a believer is concerned Buddhism and atheisism are two sides of the same coin.
Then of course there are the Soviet propaganda films that clearly come down on the side of disbelief - or else. Outside of the pure propaganda films of the Soviet Union there were others like Potemkin and Alexander Nevsky that, again, while perhaps not promoting atheism explicitly, definitely showed religion in a bad light. In Nevsky, the German invaders go through an elaborate "blessing" ceremony before their charge. This was enough in the eyes of Soviet citizens to equate religion with evil.
Although, I suppose if you are equating belief with incorrect thinking, misguided actions or just downright evil then I think that, yes, you are actively promoting atheism.
Jonathan
Piggybacking on an insight I first came across in Danny Peary's magnificent Cult Movies books, why not a double-feature of 2001 (one of your favorites, yeah?) and Quatermass and the Pit? God and the Devil as alien invaders.
And, you know, Bunuel, of course.
How about Mike Leigh's Naked? Though it is a pretty explicit passion story, though to a quite different end...
I guess maybe I should put a SPOILER ALERT on this, since the films haven't even come out yet.
But I am interested to see what will be done with the atheist conclusions in the films based on His Dark Materials that begin coming out this year. I was quite surprised to see these ideas coming out in fantasy fiction geared towards children. I'm not sure how many people read them, so it may be a bit of a surprise for some parents coming up soon. :)
These are terrific ideas -- keep 'em coming!
I suppose you could make an argument that a personal god -- one who looks after people -- is present in films like "Hannah and Her Sisters" or "2001," even though that god is not an Abrahamic one.
DVC: I probably should have used the word "parable" instead of "fable," when referring to Bergman films like "Winter Light," "The Virgin Spring," "The Seventh Seal." It's not that Bergman himself (raised a Lutheran) is necessarily a believer or a non-believer (his films, especially of this period, tend to be explicitly about that struggle), just that he expresses himself in Christian terms. Bergman described "Winter Light" as "a wrestling match with God" -- but any god you can wrestle with (even if it's to determine if that god exists) is by definition a theistic one!
Bergman described "Winter Light" as "a wrestling match with God" -- but any god you can wrestle with (even if it's to determine if that god exists) is by definition a theistic one!
Jim, I would say that this struggle is pretty clearly decided in favor of atheism. If you deny the struggle from your definition of an atheistic film, then how exactly would you define an atheistic film unless it is a film that doesn't even mention the notion of god.
JE: I concede your point. It's been so many years since I've seen those films. You pose a valid question. I was thinking of them as being dramatizations of doubt coming from a position that postulates the possible existence of god ("OK god, prove to me you're there!"), rather than from the assumption of the absence of god (in which case that particular challenge wouldn't make any sense, since there would be no god to address it to). While a movie that struggles with belief vs. nonbelief certainly can, as you say, come down on the side of the latter, I was thinking more of films that go beyond the admission of doubt (which I would assume to be the default position between faith and lack of faith). As I said, I don't remember the films very clearly, but would you say they deny the existence of god? I'm not doubting YOU! But I'd love it if you could cite some examples, if only to jog my memory...
Documentaries haven't been touched on yet and every festival should have a doc or two. Brian Fleming's The God Who Wasn't There is explicitly athiest although, cinematically, under feature length and stylistically random, alternating between static videotaped interviews and MTV-like video riffs.
Perhaps instead of searching for explicitly atheist movies a focus on films critical of religion might be more rewarding. Hollywood may be known for its political liberal secularism but they have always gone for the safe bet when selling tickets. So rather than be outright atheistic they can criticize religion and most everyone in the audience can nod approvingly and say, "Well that's not me they're talking about." Films like The Rapture come to mind, or outside of Hollywood, something like Hail Mary by Godard. And of course, as mentioned before, practically every Woody Allen or Luis Bunuel film.
How about Inherit the Wind, where the Bryanesque Creationist winds up looking more foolish than the Darrowesque Evolutionist?
Jonathan: I'm so glad you mentioned "The Rapture." For while it does follow the Christian concept of a rapture and an afterlife, the really subversive thing about it is that Mimi Rogers' character asserts her own free will in the face of god and says, "NO!" I'm in awe of that moment. Though she's been a believer, in the end she refuses to grant her faith to such a bad-faith god, even after the rapture!
Also, you reminded me: I've long said that, if there's a god, I think that god finds its most perfect expression in Kenji Mizoguchi's "Sansho Dayu." But I love the scene you mention in "Hannah and Her Sisters," where Woody Allen finds god (or something as good) in "Duck Soup." AND the other movie poster by the theater box office is also a "religious experience" for me: Wim Wenders' "Kings of the Road" (or "Im Lauf der Zeit" -- "In the Course of Time").
I think it's the wrong question. The default state is atheism: any film not overly concerned with religion is atheist. Hitchens' argument is held up particularly well by the many, many films where characters find the kind of spiritual fulfilment traditionally provided by religion, but find it elsewhere.
As for movies that repudiate religion more explicitly, hmm. I'd say that "Sunshine" is atheist, but pantheist might be a better description. "The Wicker Man"'s juxtaposition of paganism and Christianity isn't intended as complimentary.
Find me one quote that shows Hitchens to be a supporter of Donald Rumsfeld.
JE: I didn't say he was a supporter of Rumsfeld (as in a personal fan of the man himself), but that nearly everything he's written about Iraq has been consistently supportive of the Cheney / Rumsfeld / Bush positions on Iraq-- from the decision to invade in the first place, to Rumsfeld's "go to war with the army you have" rationalizations, to supporting and defending Ahmad Chalabi. Hitchens doesn't seem to particularly like or disike Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld personally, but describes himself as being "on the same side as the neocons" (especially their fellow war architects Perle and Wolfowitz) when it comes to the prosecution of the war in Iraq.
From his piece against the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group ("James Baker is the last guy we should listen to about Iraq," Nov. 20, 2006), in which he uses the resignation of Rumsfeld to accuse the Bush administration of preparing to "cut and run":You can find plenty more support for the Iraq arguments promoted by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush (and precious little criticism of them) in his columns archived at Slate.
The film doesn't explicitly rule out the existence of a higher power, but the original Wicker Man is a pretty damning take on the effects of religion. Then again, the remake is so atrocious that, viewed sober, it almost rules out the existence of a God simply on principle. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo
"How'd it get burned? How'd it get burned!? HOW'D IT GET BURNED!?!?!"
How about every film noir ever made?
I'd have to give it some thought, but one thing occurs to me right away: since a director (or, more generally, auteur) is a movie's creator, the concept of sentient, creator-God is almost bred into the notion of film. So to some extent I wonder if an atheistic film would somehow be an internal contradiction.
Films that come down on one side or the other of the debate, such as the ones mentioned, might be a different story, but even something like "Inherit the Wind" or "Life of Brian" just points out the foolishness of unbending religious belief, not the concept of belief itself.
Bergman and atheism.
Bergman made many films about the absence of God in mortal man's life, true, but I would also say they can be considered being about the effect that the absence of a God has in one's life; the challenge of man living without a direct relationship with God or attempting to live with a God that is too complicated for us to understand. Many of his films, like "Cries and Whispers" deal with characters that live with the absence of love, but they never conclude that love does not exist. I would postulate the same about "Crimes and Misdemeanors", though I can't remember what the person who the Allen character is documenting says, but to base the idea that it's an atheistic film simply because of the rabbi's blindness could be a mistake, as it simply could mean Landau's choice to ignore his beliefs in his religion or that his religion is failing his situation.
In Bergman's films we see that there is a God, just not the kind of God we want to have. In "Through a Glass Darkly", God does exist in the end, but what she sees coming out of the hole in the wall isn't a loving and caring God, but a cruel God that takes the form of a spider (an amazing performance ensues.) "The Silence" is about man's struggle with a God that won't intervene, for him not to intervene or not say something, he has to exist in the first place, and then "Winter Light" ends on an almost optimistic note (hardly an atheistic note), when the Pastor holds service, regardless of the fact that only one person is there. Here's a nice piece on youtube in which a very smart British gentleman (Peter Cowie) speaks about "Winter Light" (this might refresh your memory Jim.) http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYT7LsRXrOc
And this is just plain brilliant...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8ninFjxj_DQ&mode=related&search=
If we follow the logic that all an atheistic film needs to contain is one main character that choses to not believe in a God then "La Dolce Vita" might fall under that heading. A man who choses to be an empty shell as opposed to something with meaning. Visually we see his struggle throughout the film; following the Virgin Mary in the beginning by helicopter, then seeing the two children give an almost unheard giggle as hundreds of believers follow them through the rain while they proclaim to see the Virgin (later the boy dies.) But again, the character choses to live without meaning, it doesn't mean there isn't meaning.
To me an atheistic film might be the Romero zombie films, in which there is no place else for the dead to go, but to arise. This to me speaks directly against God, heaven and anything biblical in nature. Or the movie "Marquis de Sade: Justine" with Klaus Kinski...an awful movie, don't watch it, it merely came to mind.
Or a movie that says there is religion, but no God ("Contact"), and not visa versa like "Life of Brian" in which their problem isn't with God, but the way people choose to believe in God. Or perhaps movies that are more humanist in nature, than religious.
Here are some other possibilities..."Inherit the Wind", "Wise Blood" (based on Flannery O'Connor's book - I've read the book, haven't seen the movie), The 5th Star Trek film, "Cider House Rules", "Quills", there's another Marqui de Sade film I've read about - it's Italian - banned all over - don't know the name, "Clockwork Orange" has some atheism in it's undertones, "The Wizard of Oz" perhaps in which we see the man behind Oz is merely...a man (a stretch perhaps, but one that makes me smile)..cripes, I've written too much, I have to go work on my own entries!
Ooo, ooo, thought of a few more.
"Angels in America" (the Mike Niccols HBO version), "The Graduate" (in the end he disrupts a wedding, the sanctimony of God and steals away the bride) and then "Midnight Cowboy".
Slightly afield, I thought "Kinsey" was a great portrait of a scientist (admittedly an eccentric one), who's fascinated by the natural world, discovers some uncomfortable truths, and finds himself attacked.
I think the thriller "Cube" (1997) presents an atheist worldview, albeit obliquely; there's a lot of argument early on about who built this massive killing machine, and to what purpose, and it is suggested that there's no one in control—as one character puts it, "Big Brother isn't watching"; the cube is a self-perpetuating system. And ultimately, philosophical questions about the origins and purpose of the system are less important than practical human questions of survival.
My own pick from Luis "Thank God I'm an Atheist" Bunuel would be my favorite, "Nazarin". Lots of religion, with no god in sight (unless you believe in the divine power of pineapples).
Or you could see Sansho Dayu as the ultimate humanist film, in which there being no god, we develop our own morality (which we do) and empower ourselves. It's been a long time since I've seen it and thanks to your comment I now want to see it again. Aside from Ugetsu Mizoguchi has always taken a backseat to Kurosawa and Ozu which is unfair. His films should be better known.
Another film that celebrates humanism would be Fight Club and although Tyler is no Sansho, the narrator is definitely willing to subvert his ethics for a "better" life with Tyler until desperately trying to escape by the end. Okay, that's a pretty pathetic match-up but the same themes of creating one's own morality and then empowering oneself are there and if secular humanism qualifies as atheism, I'd have to put this on the list.
Jonathan
"The Spy Who Came in From the Cold." It's, for the most part, simply nihilistic. But it does end with a selfless act, signaling some kind of redemption, but nowhere near a religious one.
"The Silence" (1963)
The title comes from the idea of an unresponsive, silent God. The film basically deals with human suffering and frailty while implicitly containing the suggestion of a world/universe without a creator or benevolent figure.
"I Heart Huckabees" (2004)
A bunch of existentialism and no Kierkegaard, so there is basically no discussion of Christianity as a valid explanation for the meaning of the characters' lives. I'm pretty sure the only time God really comes up is when Mark Whalberg's character talks smack about him and tells an adolescent girl that Jesus "hates" her.
"Stroszek" (1977)
Basically an argument for the anti-God proof of human loneliness in an uncaring, cold world. I mean, if anything could sap a person of any hope for a benevolent creator, it's the dancing chicken and Bruno going around dead on the ski lift.
"Au Hasard Balthazar" (1966)/"Pickpocket" (1959)/"Diary of A Country Priest" (1950)
While most consider Bresson quite the pro-religion director, I've always interpreted his films as explosively atheistic. There's a great essay written by Gary Indiana about Bresson's atheism in the DVD booklet for the Criterion edition of "Pickpocket." You can read it here http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=314&eid=450§ion=essay
Hitchens would object to this thread. As you alluded to in your piece, classifying things as atheist should not be necessary, just as there is no word for a non-astrologist. There are many movies that have nothing to do with god or religion, and therefore would not be theist. The Sound of Music is half-populated with nuns, but I see no religious aspect to this movie... there is no indication that Captain von Trapp has ever been to church, but he knows Nazis are evil.
How about 2004's excellent Touching the Void? In that, the mountain climber Joe Simpson said that he had long since stopped believing in God, but wondered that, if faced with a life-or-death situation, he might start praying...And, when he falls, horribly breaking his leg and kneecap and facing almost certain death, he said he still did not believe and even goes as far as to say that if he had believed in God, he would have been more likely to give up.
What about John Hillcoat's "The Proposition?" The main thesis of that film seems to be that civilization and all its pieces--including religion--are but cushions that make the truth of our animal natures easier to swallow. Certainly there is no god to speak of to be found anywhere in the film.
Jim, as far as a specific example from Through a Glass Darkly, Karin (who is mentally unstable) awaits the appearance of God, but when he appears (clearly only in her mind), he is a giant spider. To me, Bergman was showing that faith is not only misguided but ghastly.
However, to your point, here is a quote from Bergman on the film's Wikipedia page: "These three films deal with reduction. Through a Glass Darkly — conquered certainty. Winter Light — penetrated certainty. The Silence — God's silence — the negative imprint. Therefore, they constitute a trilogy." So, I guess you would be right in saying they are more about doubt than atheism, but I think they are clearly meant to challenge the potential faiths of the viewers. I guess, to me, a movie that starts from the standpoint that there is no god, without addressing the struggle between belief and unbelief, sounds either didactic or boring. Christian films made by filmmakers completely sure of their faith are generally not very interesting, but films like, say, The Last Temptation of Christ or The Mission, which try to examine the struggle are far more watchable. I guess my question would be, if you are addressing the reality of unbelief but not allowing your characters to engage in a struggle with doubt, then what are you doing--other than proselytizing a la Hitchens? Maybe that's why you are having a hard time coming up with movies for your Atheist Film Festival.
Speaking of Hitchens, as to his first challenge, I'm not sure a rational nonbeliever would ever have advocated loving one's enemies.
Huh. I always thought Crimes and Misdemeanors to accept the existence of a Hebrew god, and about what people do when they realize the simplistic version we hear about in popular culture (do something bad, get struck down by Him) is not what really happens. That this is in fact a childish, broken conception of morality and its consequences.
The Landau character specifically decides morality no longer applies to him because of this realization, though he struggles with it mightily. That, to me, is not a filmmaker's argument that there is no God -- just that some people make the wrong decisions and, sometimes, get away with it. (At least, so far as we know.)
Match Point, on the other hand, seems much darker and more nihilistic. In that movie there is no struggle over what is right and what is wrong, only moves and countermoves to stay one step ahead, in order to stay alive -- no matter how miserable the life being protected can be due to that person's actions. I think C&M and MP are companion pieces, and they speak to a true and definite loss of faith in their author.
To those who say that, in "The Wicker Man", the juxtaposition of Christianity and Paganism is not meant as a compliment to Christianity, I have to ask: what, exactly, is Edward Woodward's sin? Yes, he's got a stick up his ass, and he's a prude, and all of that, but beyond that? He's on the island in the first place because he's trying to find a missing child. Later, when he thinks he understands what's going on, he's trying to save her life. Meanwhile, the Pagans are trying to get him in the right place and the right time to burn him alive.
The unpleasant aspects of Sgt. Howie's character almost seem to me to be the logical outgrowth of a plot device, the plot device being that the character had to be a virgin. I'm not saying that making him a Christian was just a convenience, and I might actually buy into the idea that movie is atheistic, but the idea -- which is very prelevant -- that the film is saying that Christianity and the brand of paganism it depicts are comparable is ridiculous. Howie is not only the only character in the whole movie trying to do a humane deed, he's actually also the most rational one.
Hitchens, who is better known for his stale, flammable whiskey-drenched halitosis
Ouch!
You've been on fire lately, Jim. Very enjoyable and thought provoking post and comments. Scanners has rapidly become my favorite movie blog. Thanks!
I would argue strongly against the fact that Bergman's films are atheistic, especially his trilogy "Through a Glass Darkly", "The Silence" and "Winter Light". In "Through a Glass Darkly" we witness a God at the end, though it is not the God she was hoping for. It is a malicious God that takes the form of a spider. "The Silence" is about dealing with a God that doesn't talk back, that doesn't intervene, for a God not to intervene or talk back it seems logical that there has to be one in the first place. And finally in "Winter Light" the Pastor struggles with whether there is a God or not, he questions it, but there are others in the film that do not - the hunchback believes fervently in God - how can a man with so many sins believe he's worthy of having a God? In the end though, he carries out the service even though there is one person there. It's an optimistic end, we're left with a little hope. If he can reach one person, it's worth it. (For more specific examples there's a wonderful youtube in which Peter Cowie speaks about "Winter Light" from the 2003 Criterion Edition, and while you're there check out the SCTV Bergman sketch...brilliant!)
Most of Bergman's films deal with people in flux, or struggling to understand the concept of God or of love, most often his characters lack these elements and try to struggle without them. "Cries and Whispers" the characters live without love, but they realize it exists. In "Shame" the characters try to live without peace, even though they know it exists. In "The Passion of Anna" when the lonely hero finally pushes away Anna he's left literally disintegrating on camera, he has no love, no God, nothing. It is the ultimate Bergman moment in which we see what happens when a man denies everything with meaning - but that doesn't mean there isn't meaning.
I would also argue that the blind rabbi in "Misdemeanors" merely represents the Landau character's choice to leave behind his faith to solve his situation, and not that there isn't a religion he could go to...though I can't remember what the professor Allen interviews talks about.
I would say that the Romero zombie films are closer to atheistic films than Bergman's films. There's nothing Abrahamic about people rising from the dead in such a manner, it goes against everything biblical. "Wise Blood" I imagine has some very atheistic themes, though they could just be anti-religious as "Life of Brian" is. I would stretch and say "The Wizard of Oz" is atheistic (though I do so with a grin) as we see there is no Wizard, but a man behind a curtain. "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country". "The Marquis de Sade: Justine" with Klaus Kinski is strongly atheistic, also really bad, don't watch it!
You mean Hollywood isn't the bastion of evangelizing atheists I have been led to believe?
It's interesting to see Contact here because I saw that with a very religious (protestant, evangelical) friend and he was not pleased. I reminded him that he had complained often that movies didn't address religious ideas and here was one that did. Just not the way he wanted it to. It's pretty obvious that it's much safer to avoid the topic completely, since the religious right can't seem to muster a boycott of the entire industry, only a stray film here and there. Remember when good church people simply didn't watch wicked Hollywood films no matter what they were about?
Anyway, how about "The Birds" for the list?
Interesting points, Ken. Crimes and Misdemeanors, to me, seems to accept the inevitability of an idea of god and that this idea has structured our moral thought, but it seems to me that the film is arguing that it's an illusion, but a necessary one.
Your points about Match Point are dead-on, I think. You raise the important point that it is a different movie than Crimes. I think many people notice the same plot points and automatically think they're the same. It is a companion piece of Crimes, definitely, but a very different movie, I would argue.
How about STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER?
Spoilers ahead: A terrorist religious zealot on a mission to find God hijacks the Enterprise. The terrorist brainwashes most of the crew into aiding him on his quest, only to find the being he is seeking has God-like powers, but is by no means God -- just a powerful alien trapped on a planet, who needs access to a starship so he can escape his prison and presumably use his powers for evil. So, the Enterprise crew is forced to destroy the God-alien, the terrorist zealot realizes his quest was misguided and kills himself fighting the God-alien, and the movie ends with McCoy and Spock wondering if God really is "out there" somewhere. Kirk says no, God is "In here," and points to his heart.
It has been mentioned once, but I think it bears repeating (in fact, the article should probably be edited.) There is at least one non-theist congressman. Representative Pete Stark of California agreed to openly announce his lack of belief earlier this year after being contacted by the Secular Coalition for America, a group which lobbies Congress on non-theistic issues of science and church/state separation.
http://secular.org/news/congress_110.html#stark
JE: Thanks, Christopher -- I meant to add that.
Wow, no mention yet of L'Age d'Dor, probably the most notorious blasphemous film ever made.
I'd dispute whether 2001 is an atheist film. Kubrick said in two separate interviews:
"The God concept is at the heart of this film. It's unavoidable that it would be, once you believe that the universe is seething with advanced forms of intelligent life."
"I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but
not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don't believe in
any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can
construct an intriguing scientific definition of God "
But then listen to how Kubrick responds to some of the negative reviews:
"Perhaps there is a certain element of the
lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and
Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad
mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema"
In any case, the film is accepted by some Christian circles in the same spirit as The Chronicles of Narnia. It was blessed by the Pope, and screened at the Vatican not long after Kubrick's death.
Looking thru the list, I find it interesting that both _2001_ and _Nazarin_ were mentioned... are also on The Vatican Film List (http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/vaticanfilmlist.html#vfl). I also find it interesting that the greatly admired Luis Bunuel, according to imdb, had a religious conversion nearing the end of his life.
As for atheistic propaganda movies, I believe "The English Patient", "Frailty", "The Crucible", "They Might Be Giants", "The Dreamers", "Election",
"Frida", "Going All the Way", "Levity", "Corrina Corrina" and "Play it to the Bone" all had characters spouting their declarations of non-belief... but without seeing those films in context, I do not know the characters' arcs, so buyer beware.
That said, I find God to be very real, and atheism to be most illogical. That Hitchens is tying the existence of God to personal morality, and not based upon the height, depth and breadth of scientific discovery--juxtaposed with "mere chance"--along with the testimonies of centuries of individuals who have had an encounter with the Almighty, from Abraham to the disciples, to Juan Diego to Martin Luther King Jr to Mother Teresa. It's all too easy to lump negative portrayals of various religious fanatics into one big melting pot but I'm not buying it.
"You mean Hollywood isn't the bastion of evangelizing atheists I have been led to believe?"
Not as such, no, but there's also very little praise of any specific religion. The Gospel according to Hollywood seems to be that the act of believing is more important than any particular thing that you believe in, which is of course nonsense. A belief is either true or false. If it is true, well. If it is false then the sooner this is discovered, the better for all concerned.
"That said, I find God to be very real, and atheism to be most illogical."
I agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that atheism is by definition 'anti-logical.' Which is ironic, considering how many atheists are proponents of reason and clear thinking. The problem is, of course, that if reason arises from nonrational sources, it is invalidated. Some people are willing to admit that it is therefore not valid (but is still useful as a mechanism for survival), but to do such a thing renders the search for knowledge into the braying of monkeys, allows for no real discoverable facts (why should we believe that anything we can infer with our now discredited rationality has anything to do with what reality is really like?), and undercuts the very foundations of the Sciences.
As far as actual atheistic films go, has anyone considered 'Logan's Run?'
The relevant quote I can think of off hand would be, "Life clocks are a lie! Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!"
Someone already mentioned "Quills." It's filled with hypocrites wielding the power afforded them by religion, and has lots of great lines from the Marquis such as "Why should I love God? He strung up his only son like a side of veal. I shudder to think what he'd do to me." I don't think the idea of God's existence is necessarily rejected, more just made fun of.
My problem, speaking as a theist, is that I tend to sift all my experiences (including my analysis of art) through the "lens" that God does exist and any ideas to the contrary are mistaken. Thus, when a character says that he/she doesn't believe in God, I interpret that merely as the character saying it and not necessarily the film/filmmaker saying it. I realize that Ingmar Bergman's and Woody Allen's movies pose the possibility that he doesn't exist (or at the very least they question his existence) but to me that's different from concluding his non-existence. Personally speaking, the concept of a universe without a creator is just incomprehensible to me. So, I don't know that I'd be the best person to select an entry for an Atheist Film Festival... or even, quite frankly, that I'd really want to
Chocolat? May not be strictly stating god doesn't exist, but comes out pretty strongly against conservative religion.
That said, I find God to be very real, and atheism to be most illogical.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that atheism is by definition 'anti-logical.'
Atheism, like religious faith, is empirical by nature. (At least when it's not used as an excuse by teenagers to rebel, or whatever.) What a person defines as "empirical" is of course where the problems lie, as it differs from person to person... Some look at the world and question the need for a Higher Power. Others look at the world and can't see how there wouldn't be one. I guess you'd have to call it subjective empiricism.
As for talk of atheist "propaganda" films and the like -- the thing that's anti-logical to me is why the two 'sides' feel they must be antagonistic. "Live and let live" is pretty easy to do, at least in a country as privileged as ours.
If I were the program director for the Atheist Film Festival, I would focus on films that promoted reason over superstition, not necessarily movies that simply portrays religious zealots as villains.
My top 5 atheist movies:
1. Contact (natch!)
2. Inherit the Wind
I consider both of these as "classics" of atheist film. They don't portray a godless world as a dark and nihilistic place, but a hopeful and inspirational place.
3. Cool Hand Luke
Luke rebels against progressively higher authorities until he bucks God himself. Ironically, this causes his cell mates to think of him as a sort of Messiah.
4. In the Name of the Rose
5. Brotherhood of the Wolf
These two are in the "Scooby-Doo" genre of thriller where supernatural events prove to have mundane causes when reason is applied (and they would have got away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!)
As Salman Rushdie pointed out on Bill Moyer's Faith and Reason PBS special, "atheists" are obsessed with God.
Well, that only makes sense, Dan. You're defining whole human beings simply by their regard to deities, so naturally the only thing you'll see about them is that they don't believe in God.
Like saying Sox fans are obsessed with baseball, or something... though that might be a bad example.
"I guess you'd have to call it subjective empiricism."
Which is why empiricism is not enough, and reason is necessary as an arbiter between conflicting experiences.
"The thing that's anti-logical to me is why the two 'sides' feel they must be antagonistic."
The reason the two sides feel that they must be antagonistic is that they are, in fact, antagonistic. Two mutually exclusive alternatives cannot both be correct. If 2 + 2 = 4, then 2 + 2 cannot equal 7. One is correct and the other is not. As long as this disagreement remains within the realm of morally acceptable behavior, all is well.
Dan: You're right -- atheists are obsessed with god! And you get at why it's so difficult for me to articulate what I mean by an "atheist film." Damian gets very close to it, too.
See, I assume that the default position with regard to any belief would initially have to be non-belief. That's simply because you have to create something to believe in before you can believe in it. (This is why I would never trust a member of the clergy who has not experienced doubt or a crisis of faith, and would never trust a nonbeliever who had not at least tried to believe -- if only just to understand what it's like.) But maybe I think this way because (following my Protestant belief period in my early teens) I cannot see how god could possibly pre-date man. Man, being (as far as we know) the only creature on Earth available to conceive of such things, invented god as a way of trying to understand the world and mankind's place in it. That's the way I see it, anyway. But in America in 2007 (and many other parts of the world, too), the default position is belief in some god or religious system. Which makes sense, I guess, because most people are taught to believe when they are children. I believed in god for one very simple reason: Adults told me there was a god -- a Christian one, as described in the Old and New Testaments of the bible, long before I was even capable of reading them. Naturally, I trusted adults to tell me how the world worked. My family went to church (at least on Easter and the occasional Sunday), and at my public school we recited a pledge to the flag that conflated god and country ("under god"). It was as easy for me to believe in Jesus as it was to believe in the President or Santa. (And all of them were on TV -- sometimes in close proximity.) Later, when I learned to read, I noticed that "In God We Trust" was even printed on our money (the other god most adults seemed to believe in so strongly!) -- so god must exist! I may have developed some kind of belief in a god-like power on my own, but I was presented with an entire (Protestant Christian) belief system from the time I could understand language.
I have no desire to assume the impossible task of trying to prove or disprove the existence of a theistic god. But I'm trying to think of what makes a film (or some other work of art) an expression of nonbelief (as opposed to disbelief). In other words, not one that says "no" to the question, "Does God exist?" but that doesn't even see why the question is worth asking.
The reason atheists are obsessed with god is that we live in a god-dominant culture, where it is assumed that everyone believes in some god unless they say they do not -- just as we in the U.S. tend to assume that everyone is a meat-eater unless they say they have chosen to be vegetarian. So, for these reasons I think the prevailing assumptions about god are cultural ones first, religious or philosophical ones second (or third or fourth)...
Which is why empiricism is not enough, and reason is necessary as an arbiter between conflicting experiences.
Except we're right back into the loop again. What I mean by subjective empiricism is that what a person will define as reasonable and valid is subject to their own beliefs -- the same evidence can be used to "prove" different points of view. (Hence my example of two people looking at existence and coming to two entirely different conclusions.) "Reason," as you're defining it, would be subject to those same differences... it's not an objective, neutral ground.
The reason the two sides feel that they must be antagonistic is that they are, in fact, antagonistic.
I used the word "antagonistic" to point out the mutual hostility. There's a difference between simply disagreeing and being hostile. It's the hostility specifically that I do not understand.
"You mean Hollywood isn't the bastion of evangelizing atheists I have been led to believe?"
Paul, you answered my rhetorical question but (apparently) missed my point that Hollywood is afraid of approaching religion except in a generic cultural way because sweeping condemnations don't threaten peoples' jobs the way boycotts of or demands for apologies from specific films and makers might. If the world of organized religion backed off we might find both a lot of atheists and a lot of surprisingly devout people in Hollywood but there's no good reason for the mainstream to test those waters very often.
And I second Jim's comment about why atheists are God-obsessed but would also add that its just a plain fascinating topic for brain-bending. (as witness the number of responses to this post.)
I should have put Rushdie's words in quotation marks, but if this illuminates any, here's the full context of what he said:
BILL MOYERS: I also have in my file something you told NEWSWEEK almost 15 years ago. You said quote, "To try and find the spiritual life without mentioning the name of God is a stupid thing to do."
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yeah, it's because we don't have a vocabulary for it. You know, I mean if you look at the way in which our languages have developed so much of our sense of the transcendent, our sense of ourselves beyond our physical being is, has always been, expressed in religious terms. But it's actually very hard to find the vocabulary to go in that direction. You know, what do we mean by the word soul for example if we're not religious? And yet whether we're religious or not, we have some relationship with that word. We think it means something, you know. And I've been trying all my life in a way to try and find a language to express our sense of what is not material, you know, without having recourse to the ready made ideas of religions.
BILL MOYERS: But you say it's stupid to try to do that without using the word God.
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well, it's stupid as a novelist because, you see, frankly if I'm writing about a place like India it doesn't matter that I'm not religious because all the people I'm writing about are, you know. So for me to create those people believably as characters I have to recognize who they are and what they believe, you know. So it becomes irrelevant in a way what I believe. You become servant of your characters. And if your characters are religious you have to deal with god.
BILL MOYERS: But wait a minute--are you looking to define what you call a spiritual life only as a writer, or are you ever seduced, tempted--
SALMAN RUSHDIE: No, no, no.
BILL MOYERS: --into thinking that for yourself?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: No, no. Oh, no.
SALMAN RUSHDIE: I'm a hard-line atheist I have to say.
BILL MOYERS: I know. But what 100 percent dyed-in-the-wool atheist saying you have to invoke the name of God to--
SALMAN RUSHDIE: I know.
BILL MOYERS: --get to a spiritual life.
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yes, atheists are obsessed with God you may have noticed.
BILL MOYERS: I think the best arguments about God come from atheists.
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yes, there's a famous, the great Spanish film director, Luis Bunuel, once teased his friends by saying that he wanted his epitaph on his tombstone to read: "Thank God I died an atheist." And they were all so upset that he had to tell them he was just kidding.
BILL MOYERS: I was in New York's marvelous Riverside Church on Sunday. The music was so powerful and majestic and transcendent to use your term that I thought of something you delivered many years ago in Kings College Chapel.
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: In England. You said quote, "To stand in this house is to be reminded of what is most beautiful about religious faith. It's ability to give solace and to inspire. It's aspiration to these great and lovely heights in which strength and delicacy are so perfectly conjoined." More recently you said religion is the poison in the blood. So which is it? Poison in the blood or the muse of inspiration?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well, it's both. Of course it is. It's both. And religion at its best builds Kings College Chapel. It builds the great masterpieces of the gothic arts. And I was at Kings College Cambridge, so it was a building that I looked out on from my window every day for three years, and had a deep affection for. And I know it very well. And the idea of being asked to speak there was very moving, you know. And I do believe that religion at its best has given people profound solace in the travails of life. And--
BILL MOYERS: And at it's worst?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: And at its worst it murders people.
JE: Thanks, Dan. Very stimulating exchange. (There was a great one last week on Moyers about how impeachment is the only, necessary answer to the constitutional crisis in the United States, not the cause of one.) I always wonder what people really think they mean when they say they're not "religious" but they're "spiritual." I think they're usually claiming they don't follow any organized religion but believe in some kind of "higher power" (in the 12-step sense, I guess). And sometimes I just think they're idiots.
I haven't noticed a mention of Planet of the Apes.
Jim, I sympathize with your difficulty in defining what an atheist film is. For me, there’s a dichotomy between films that take an active atheistic stance (through dialog, plot, visual symbolism, etc) and those that simply fulfill the basic definition of atheism—a-theism, without-God. What fascinates me are the films in the later category, quite possibly because I’m a clergy-person myself and, much like Damian, see things through a theistic filter. In the without-god category, I’d nominate Jules et Jim for a complete absence of God (is Catherine a God-figure in the film? Certainly the title characters’ belief-systems revolve around her . . .) Another film in this vein (without God) might be La Règle du Jeu.
Bergman’s films (at least the ones I’ve seen) seem to be drenched in spiritual/theological musings. In my favorite, Cries and Whispers, the dying Agnes takes on the “sins” (lack of love/understanding/fellowship) of her dysfunctional family system and “atones” for them by dying a terrible death. What sticks in my mind the most, and still sends chills down my spine, is the devastating pietá of the maid/Virgin cradling the dead sister/Christ in her arms. And Agnes’ act of “atonement” seems to work, at first, as the surviving sisters connect with animalistic ferocity on the eve of her death. But, in the end, it is for naught, as they return to their loveless ways. That seems to be an overall theme in the movie . . . the ineffectuality of the entire Christian enterprise. The scapegoating/atonement of the Christ figure doesn’t work, the remaining sisters are not redeemed.
By the way, Jim . . . I guess you can trust me, because I experience doubt at least once a day.
My "obvious" choices would be the Godfather series. Not so much Part II, maybe Part III for its treatment of Vatican/Mafia collusion. Part I is the real clincher for me, starting with the way a religious title took on a more sinister meaning. Then there's the closing sequence: taking part in the baptism of your new child, making all those vows of piety, while snuffing out your enemies... showing the hypocrisy of religious observance, and the phony legitimacy it confers on those who take part and make all the right noises.
Also:
- Schindler's List: the atrocities perpetrated by soldiers with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belts.
- The Usual Suspects: Keyser Soze is not just a hoodlum, but a religious concept.
[i]"What I mean by subjective empiricism is that what a person will define as reasonable and valid is subject to their own beliefs -- the same evidence can be used to "prove" different points of view."[/i]
Ah, I see. I misunderstood your point. My bad.
[i]"I used the word "antagonistic" to point out the mutual hostility. There's a difference between simply disagreeing and being hostile. It's the hostility specifically that I do not understand."[/i]
Again, my bad. Now that I understand what you mean, I agree with you wholeheartedly. While I have no problem with a person saying that he is right and I am wrong, I also maintain that people have every right to disagree with each other, and that who is right and who is wrong is nowhere near as important as treating others as you would wish to be treated.
Come to think of it, a lot of STAR TREK is atheist. Even when religious characters are introduced, they’re viewed through the atheistic prism of the Starfleet characters, who are tolerant of other cultures but usually refer to religious beliefs as “mythology.” It’s refreshing how many of the characters take the non-existence of God for granted. It’s also refreshing how believers and non-believers alike can agree to enjoy this popular form of entertainment, probably because of how inoffensive it is on its surface: there’s very little bad language, not much violence, not much sex, and for the most part, the stories are morality tales. This glosses over the fact that most of the heroes worship science instead of God.
I mentioned STAR TREK V earlier because this discussion was about movies, and it was the first STAR TREK movie that jumped to mind that dealt directly with the idea of God. The movies don’t get as involved in the subject as some of the TV episodes do.
However, it occurred to me that I overlooked STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. Spoilers ahead:
A Voyager probe launched in the 20th century is lost in space. A society of living machines finds the probe, gives it consciousness, and sends it out to find its Creator. When it arrives back at Earth hundreds of years later, it has a hard time accepting that mankind, who it views as an inferior infestation, is actually The Creator. The crew of the Enterprise is eventually able to convince the probe that mankind is The Creator, but the probe decides that is not enough – the probe now wants to merge with The Creator in an attempt to evolve to a higher plane of existence – after all, the probe has completed its original programming, which was to travel space and record all that it encounters. It has also achieved its goal of finding The Creator. So, what else is there to live for?
This plot is paralleled with Spock’s character arc: at the beginning of the film, Spock is on the verge of attaining a state of total logic, which is the goal of the most devout Vulcans. But, a mysterious consciousness is calling to him from space and the Vulcan high priestess tells Spock he has not yet purged all emotion, and his answers are elsewhere. It turns out that the mysterious consciousness calling to Spock is the Voyager probe, and Spock is fascinated by the fact that the Voyager probe seems to have attained a state of total logic. Despite his usual attempts to remain emotionless, in the end Spock can’t help but be touched that Voyager turns out to be a lost being searching for the meaning of life, only to find that it needs a dose of humanity in order to evolve. Spock eventually comes to realize that his combination of human emotion and Vulcan logic was actually more enlightened than a state of total logic and realizes he had already attained the enlightment he was searching for.
The thing is, the movie is from the point of view of the human characters. It eventually turns out that the God being searched for in this case was the human characters all along. So here we have a movie about the search for God, from the point of view of a God who doesn’t realize he’s God and ultimately has to admit to his creation that he doesn’t have any answers. The being in search of God decides this means it is time to evolve. God agrees.
I'll apologize in advance for ranting a little. It's the most efficient way to make my point. I'm actually a Hitchens fan, especially of his anti-theist polemics, which explains why the following little paragraph strays off into pompus pontification. I'll leave it as is for the sake of brevity.
I would list "Grizzly Man" as the film that I know that best argues for atheism. For me, Herzog is arguing that nature is indifferent and violent, and our efforts to humanize it so we can understand it and "commune" with it are Quixotically heroic at best, absurd and dangerous at worst. Theism is just a big, organized effort at putting a human face on nature. Believe in an ordered universe all you like, but in the woods, you'll get eaten. "Grizzly Man" argues that the universe simply does not care about us.
Jamie: Ditto on "The Birds". People brought up on the biblical epics of DeMille sometimes think of the movie in terms of plagues and retibution (if I remember correctly) but it strikes me as all about, as you said, "indifferent, violent nature." And I would add: inexplicable. Which, of course, could be a religious statement but I'm voting for not.
How could I forget "Deliver Us From Evil", on the documentary side? The indifference of the church hierarchy is chilling, and certainly dissolves the idea that religous belief -- or even adopting a religious career -- guarantees ethical behaviour.
"The Second Coming", a TV miniseries written by Russell T. Davies, stars Christopher Eccleston as a man who disappears for a few years and then returns, claiming to bring a new message from God. And it turns out that he really is.
Would most of the Japanese Cinema (from Mizoguchi to Miike) be considered "atheist" given that it comes out of a Buddhist tradition that is traditionally an atheistic religion?
If we're allowing for The Birds and Grizzly Man, then perhaps Spielberg's War of the Worlds also fits.
It is so painfully limiting and shallow to say a movie is merely "athiest" or "Christian" or "Catholic," especially if they are movies that have a whole lot more going on in them.
Sure, you could say it about certain films by Bergman or Bunuel or Antonioni or Allen, but that may well be the least interesting thing about them.
Take Bunuel's films, for example, like "Viridiana" or "Nazarin," both of which involve Catholic servants who find their faith tested against harsh reality. "Viridiana" is the story (in part) of a kindly novice who opens her newly-inherited home to beggars, who take brutal advantage of her good intentions.
"Nazarin," similarly, involves a radical priest whose every effort at doing the right, decent, moral and Christian thing proves disastrous.
But is Bunuel attacking Christianity -- or sentimental liberalism, even secular humanism, for that matter? Is Bunuel really saying faith is for the naive and the innocent, or is he saying that "doing the right thing" is for the birds -- that it is useless to trust anyone or help anyone, that all good intentions are for nought? Questions like that touch more than just the faithful.
From an interview:
Interviewer: As a film, Nazarin seems to me strange and ambiguous.
Bunuel: You say ambiguous. I agree. The style is ambiguous and that's why it interests me. If a work is obvious, as far as I'm concerned it's finished. As for the religious problem, I'm convinced that the Christian in the pure and absolute meaning of the world has no place on
this earth.
Interviewer: But why not?
Bunuel: Because in a world so badly made, as ours is, there is only one road -- rebellion.
Interviewer: It's always the rebels who interest you? The doubters? People who are looking for something?
Bunuel: Mystery interests me. Mystery is the essential element of every work of art. I will never grow tired of repeating this.
Another thought: ever seen John Huston's film adaptation of Flannery O'Connor's novel "Wise Blood"? It's a devoutly Christian novel about an atheist nut who becomes a street preacher for the Church Without Christ (something of a crude template for the Harris-Dawkins-Hitchens tag team) and who basically winds up condemning himself to his own hell, and it was quite faithfully filmed by a staunchly atheist director. That's kind of a triple-crown of ironies, isn't it?
Brandon Colvin, thanks for that Bresson link. I absolutely agree: Au Hasard Balthazaar was the first "atheistic" film that came to my mind. Whatever the director's intentions were, it always strikes me as a deeply nihilistic picture of a world completely, utterly empty of every trace of the divine. Even the innocence of the girl and the donkey is a dumb beast's innocence, not the saintly sort. It's ex-Christian atheism--the worst sort--since it suggests that a world without god is a lost cause.
Bergmann's The Seventh Seal might be read in a similar way.
It's not a film, but my top vote is for the "God is dead" sketch by the Kids in the Hall:http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9ESphZkANc
Ultimately, I think the best atheist themes in artworks are usually not in works that try to endorse atheism, but in ones that thematize the conflict between faith and doubt. Doystevsky's Brothers Karamazov is the obvious example. (I think these are, in a way, more truly atheistic in spirit, since the real atheist rejects the dogmatism of faith, rather than countering with a counter-dogma.)
So on this interpretation of atheism, I'd propose:
Dreyer, Ordet
"The Birds" has an explicitly anti-rationalist perspective. Think of the ornithologist in that movie, the one who scoffs at the idea of birds attacking people; the movie, in turn, mocks her reliance on what we can know about nature. The birds attack for no reason and they cease for no reason, and the movie gives no hint that the scientific method of investigation will offer you any hope in this regard. Indeed, people wouldn't still be discussing it if it did.
I don't buy the idea of "Grizzly Man" or "Deliver Us From Evil" as being atheist films, either. The fact that either of them has a person expressing that point of view doesn't make the film itself atheist. The latter also has a solid renegarde Catholic priest in it, who is on the side of good. I am amused at the notion that the "indifference of the church hierarchy is chilling, and certainly dissolves the idea that religous belief -- or even adopting a religious career -- guarantees ethical behaviour."
Wow, stop the presses. That's like saying "The Godfather" "dissolves the idea that the Mafia are non-violent."
Rodney: I don't quite understand what you are saying regarding "The Birds". That's it's not atheist because it's "explicitly anti-rational"? This may explain why it wasn't a controversial film like "Inherit the Wind" but to me the fact that it takes glee in deflating the explanations of science doesn't automatically put it on the side of the believers. Yes, many people here have been taking the rational vs. emotional or scientific vs. spiritual faith approach to this subject but the bottom line is about the existence of God, not about one particular way of deciding that existence. People can be atheists for as many reasons as they can be believers. Probably more, since there is no "book" to follow.
Rodney: You are right on in your skepticism (your doubt about the atheistic nature of some films), and that's the intention of programming exercises such as this -- to juxtapose films around one theme and see how this sparks discussion or reconsideration of those films in this light. One way of doing it would be with a simple double-bill, not announcing what the common element might be, so that the audience makes connections themselves: "Citizen Kane" and "All the President's Men" being an easy example.
But when programming a series, there's usually a theme, a thread that runs through all the films selected (films by a certain director or writer; film in a particular genre; films made at a certain time; films made in a certain national movement [Italian Neo-realism; New German Cinema], amd so on...). So, for example, if you program George Miller's "Mad Max" and Peter Weir's "Picnic at Hanging Rock" in a series of films from the New Australian Cinema, nobody's saying that their Australian-ness is the most pertinent or interesting thing about them. It's just an organizing principle. The juxtaposition of these films gets you to thinking about how they treat the "existential void" of the outback, for example, or contrasts a world dominated by men with one dominated by women.
The "theme," then, is not intended as a mere label, but as the starting point for critical discussion -- and, of course, that's just what you've done in your excellent, thought-provoking posts above. The challenge is to discuss why or why not a film might be considered "atheist" in its philosophy -- not because that's the most interesting thing about the film, but because that provides just one way into it, one way of discussing it that may lead to others.
I liken it to the approach taken by Errol Morris's "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control." The film itself consists of four components or sets of interviews, but doesn't announce what they're all doing in the same movie called "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control." You have to figure it out as you watch it. Why a topiary gardener, a lion tamer, a naked mole rat studier, and a robotic scientist? Well, they all have something to do with "animal"-like creations, but is that all there is to it?
In my post above, I tried to find some distinctions between films that might express an "atheist" sensibility and those that were nihilistic, or that were simply against some existing organized religion. There's been a lot of back-and-forth about the religious nature of certain Bergman films.
Anyway, I think this is a really interesting discussion and I thank you, and everybody here, for adding to it.
P.S. Here's Bunuel on "Nazarin" from his autobiography, "My Last Sigh":
Of all the films I made in Mexico, "Nazarin" is one of my favorites. Despite the misunderstandings about its real subject, it was reasonably successful. At the Cannes Film Festival, however, where it won the Grand Prix International, it almost received the Prix de l'Office Catholique as well. Three members of the jury argued passionately for it, but, happily, they were in the minority. Also, Jacques Prevert, an adamant anticleric, regretted that I'd given a priest the leading role. "It's ridiculous to worry about their problems," he told me, believing as he did that all priests were thoroughly reprehensible.
This misunderstanding, which some people referred to as my "attempt at personal rehabilitation," went on for quite some time. After the election of Pope John XXIII, I was actually invited to New York, where the abominable Spellman's successor, Cardinal Somebody-or-Other, wanted to give me an award for the film.
Maybe I'm confusing atheism with nihilism here, but my nominee would be Funny Games by Michael Haenke.
I guess if I'm honest with myself, a lot of my belief is based on fear. I'm a believer and I can't help but see a world without God as bleak. It's not a strech for me to see this film as reflective of a godless world: characters who operate with absolutely no moral code or conscience, who seek only instant, sadistic gratification; victims who have no escape, no hope of a savior, who face nothing but torment and despair, then darkness.
Also, I admit I'm scared of death. My father died at age 65 last March. I don't take any comfort in the idea that he had just 65 or so short years, much of it in poor health and discomfort and then . . . nothing. Plus, the fact that random, basic elements on a rock set out in space would somehow randomly mix together so perfectly that they would create LIFE just seems too fantastic to me to believe it all just happened by chance. I just feel (and hope) that this is all part of something bigger and that there might be something "beyond the infinite."
To use one of Ebert's all time favorite movie moments, from Gates of Heaven:
"There's your dog; your dog's dead. But where's the thing that made it move? It had to be something, didn't it?"
I'm double-posting this under both Atheist Film Fest topics:
I was talking to a friend this afternoon and she suggested that perhaps an ideal "atheist" film would be "Nashville" -- a film that acknowledges and celebrates the randomness, messiness, humor, tragedy, glory and wonder in a world with no discernable god.
Two things: Some of the characters are church-goers, but in the Sunday morning montage the activity is seen as more of a sociological (almost anthropological) one than a religious one. We see how certain characters gravitate to certain services. And others don't.
As my friend observed: The closest thing to god on earth is the director of a movie, whose vision informs everything within the world of the film. Some see the world as being determined by fate or guided by an "unseen hand." Others, like Altman in "Nashville," present a world of random connections and missed opportunities that's awesome regardless of anyone's claims on behalf of the supernatural...
Jim, thanks for the comments, and I see your point more in this discussion, which is to contrast films in what might possibly be called a dialectical (is that the right word?) fashion and to consider films that operate in a world where God is not a concern at all.
I've actually thought about this matter rather a lot, and I'm almost inclined to say it applies to most films, in some way, or most modern films, as they tend more or less to operate outside of a spiritual realm, or are antagonistic to it. That may be why films like "The Apostle" or "Junebug" or "Diary of a Country Priest" -- or novels like "Gilead" or "Brighton Rock" or "Anna Karenina" -- may seem more alive to me than a lot of others, although that's only because I see more of my own life, background, or spiritual concerns represented in them.
So "Nashville," likewise, can be seen as an atheist film, but in this regard it makes it no different from a lot of other films. I don't think religion really much interests Altman. It's a film I would regard as nominally godless, but not really specifically godless in the way you suggest.
I do not see it as a film about "randomness, messiness, humor, tragedy, glory and wonder in a world with no discernable god." By way of explanation, let me offer another interpretation of "Nashville" -- not as an atheist film, but as a blasphemous film, if for the sake of argument we can think of sentimental nationalism as a religion.
I'm reminded that Pat Buchanan actually reviewed the film once, and called it "slander on celluloid." From his position, he's probably not wrong.
First of all, I'm never all that inclined to think of Altman's great ensemble works as really being all that random. Yes, they involve people from a lot of different backgrounds who are thrown together, but in "Nashville" they all have a fairly common concern: they are all (mostly) attracted to the country-music capitol as a promised land which will deliver wealth, happiness, fame, access to fame, or, in the case of presidential candidate Hal Philip Walker, votes.
Part of what makes Nashville (the city) a promised land is that it bears a certain message, a "gospel" of patriotism ("we must be doing something right to last 200 years"), family values ("for the sake of the children we must say goodbye") and the kind of screw-you indifference that passes itself off as righteous independence ("you may say that I ain't free/But it don't worry me.") All of these sentiments are, of course, completely contradicted either by the people who sing them, or the
events themselves.
In other words, the music itself is a skein of nothing but feel-good lies, and yes, it's a notoriously reductive view of country music, which in truth is as rich and raw and varied as any other. (There are no Johnny Cashs or Lefty Frizzells or Hank Williamses in Altman's view, no hard-core realists, just Charley Pride and Roy Acuff and, in Barbara Jean, a somewhat looney-tunes version of Loretta Lynn.)
Still, this viewpoint serves the film rather well, and could be applied to a lot more than just country music -- as Hollywood itself (a frequent Altman target) sells just as many happy homilies as Music City.
The one person who is different, the one who doesn't buy the contract, of course, is the assassin Kenny, whom we might call the voice of dissent, the lone unbeliever who is supposedly intent on snuffing out Walker (for reasons known only to him) but who instead focuses on Barbara Jean, whose heartfelt song about Momma and Daddy is so far from Kenny's experience that he feels he has to snuff her out.
And this is, really, what brings down, if only for a moment, the whole house of cards on which Nashville is built. A film that begins with Haven Hamilton proclaiming the BiCentennial glories of the nation ends with a celebrity murder, where Haven desperately addresses the crowd by proclaiming "This isn't Dallas! It's Nashville!"
What's true in that great final scene is what is true of so many of the characters in the film, who see their dreams dashed or corrupted or who find themselves exploited: the land of milk and honey has turned out to be a desert, a promised land with no promise.
Michael Tolkin's "The Rapture." I think every A-hole should see it.
About ''Nazarin''
Actually Bunuel's response to the reaction of ''Nazarin'' by the Catholic Church was fairly ambivalent. In an episode of ''Cineastes-de-notre-temps'' available on the Criterion Collection of ''Viridiana'' he says that he would have loved to have won that award by Cannes.
He also said that he really liked the main character of ''Nazarin'' and said that what he wanted to achieve in that film was a moment of doubt on the part of that priest which is why he initially rejects that fruit offered by that lady only to make that double take and accept it.