"There is no god!!!"

I think "Amadeus" would make a worthy addition to the Atheist Film Festival, at least for the scene with Salieri cursing his God and denouncing his faith out of jealousy and subsequently throwing his crucifix on the fire. The idea that talent is not divination but rather pure luck or skill seems to hit home for me anyways.

Finally, some love for Psycho III!!!!!!!

I'll echo the call in the last post for Stroszek, that movie renders life utterly hopeless. I completely sympathize with Ian Curtis for killing himself shortly after watching it.

I don't get all the talk about Crimes & Misdemeanors. I mean, not a bad choice, but that over Love & Death???

And I vote for Winter Light out of Bergman's trilogy:

Algot: The passion of Christ, his suffering... Wouldn't you say the focus on his suffering is all wrong?
Tomas: What do you mean?
Algot: This emphasis on physical pain. It couldn't have been all that bad. It may sound presumptuous of me - but in my humble way, I've suffered as much physical pain as Jesus. And his torments were rather brief. Lasting some four hours, I gather? I feel that he was tormented far worse on an other level. Maybe I've got it all wrong. But just think of Gethsemane, Vicar. Christ's disciples fell asleep. They hadn't understood the meaning of the last supper, or anything. And when the servants of the law appeared, they ran away. And Peter denied him. Christ had known his disciples for three years. They'd lived together day in and day out - but they never grasped what he meant. They abandoned him, to the last man. And he was left alone. That must have been painful. Realizing that no one understands. To be abandoned when you need someone to rely on - that must be excruciatingly painful. But the worse was yet to come. When Jesus was nailed to the cross - and hung there in torment - he cried out - "God, my God!" "Why hast thou forsaken me?" He cried out as loud as he could. He thought that his heavenly father had abandoned him. He believed everything he'd ever preached was a lie. The moments before he died, Christ was seized by doubt. Surely that must have been his greatest hardship? God's silence.

Hey, just quickly, before getting to the atheist part, anyone else here like Inside Moves? It was on HBO all the times in the early eighties and I must've watched it every time it was on. I would've guessed at the time that John Savage, David Morse and Diana Scarwid would all one day have Oscars in hand. Now you'd be lucky to find a yound filmgoer who's even heard of them. Too bad.

Okay, anyway, since I already made several suggestions in earlier posts I was just wondering if there would be a place in the festival for films in which the absence of god is "revealed" by the main character taking on the role of god. I can think of a few but the first to pop to mind are Fitzcarraldo and The Stunt Man.

Rob said, "The idea that talent is not divination but rather pure luck or skill seems to hit home for me anyways." Or as Eastwood says in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." That line has always comforted me. I'm serious. From my earliest days of watching Cosmos and realizing the universe was much more awe-inspiring than anything religion could teach me, and that we are all a part of it but that it has no individual plan for us - that always made me feel better. I never wanted to live in a universe where a godhead had a plan and I was just a part of it. I'd rather know that the plan is up to me and the universe will use my composite atoms after a die to some other purpose. To understand that all of us, and every heavy element contained in our planet and our bodies, are only here because of supernovae occurring throughout the universe's history gives me a sense of connection with it.

That Jim, I think, is what people mean when they say they are spiritual but not religious. The problem of course is the very word "spiritual" which implies an other-worldly presence. And if you say you feel a "connection" to all things people will probably assume you're into crystals and astrology which would also be an unfair assessment. So I don't know what to call myself other than "Atheist." I just want believers to understand that when I say that it doesn't mean I believe I live in a cold dead universe. I live in a vibrant ever-changing one that is all the more awe-inspiring to me because there is no god telling me it is static and unchanging.

Well I should shut up now. Hey, in between showing films the festival must have music in the lobbies and lounges. Now there's it's much easier. Aside from the obvious Lennon stuff I've always preferred Randy Newman's "Old Man" ("Won't be no god to comfort you, you taught me not to believe that lie") and "God's Song" (though that assumes his existence, just that he's evil.) and "Louisiana", a modern day flood parable where there, of course, is no plan just nature and the indifference of man.

Jonathan

Although I hated the movie, and it makes me feel ill to suggest it (and I certainly don't recommend that anyone actually view it), it occurs to me that 'Chaos' might be a good example of an atheistic film. Of course, it's also completely nihilistic, disgusting, utterly lacking in any kind of value whatever (and seems to deny that there is even such a thing as value), and, if I may quote Roger Ebert's review of the film in question: "... denies not only the value of life, but the possibility of hope."

So, while it's arguably as atheistic a film as you'll find, it's also not the sort of film you would want to inflict even on people you particularly dislike.

The first two films I thought of were "The Rapture" and "The Silence." Of course, the first one is essentially the antithesis of an atheistic film (God DOES exist in Tolkien's film) and the second was mentioned before I showed up.

I'll second the poster who mentioned the Romero zombie films, especially in regards to "Day of the Dead," a stark and sad depiction of the end of the line for humanity. And I'll also throw out a suggestion for Alan Arkin's urban nightmare "Little Murders" -- if there's ever a film that screams that there's nothing to believe in (not God, not humanism, not life), it's that one.

I hate to ruin everyone's day, but this site always struck me as one that invited deeper thought, so:
Every atheist, evolutionist, religious person, and thinking person believes God exists. Why? Causality. There had to be a First Cause and that First Cause is God.

Christopher Hitchens issue is that people can't agree on the identity of God. They can't explain it in a non-contradictory manner.

Whenever a person tries to prove God exists, they are trying to prove two things: God's existence and God's identity. When the identity is contradictory, the entire argument can be thrown out. If you are interested in a non-contradictory definition of God go to www.modelinggod.com. If you are only interested in a Theoretically Contradictory Film Festival, please continue...

Is a pagan (or pro-pagan) film atheist, or theist? This is an important distinction in order to keep, or exclude, Lord of the Rings, for example... which is full of magic but no apparent gods (or "God"). Ditto Mary Poppins, who clearly should be burned as a witch... if you're a nice upstanding Christian, that is.

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.

Jim, I'm still confused. How does one express "nonbelief" without expressing "disbelief"? Unless you mean 99% of all movies made that make no reference to religion or god at all.

Also, you stated that you assumed "the default position toward any belief would be nonbelief." I'm not sure I agree. Take the belief in extra-terrestrials. Is the default belief non-belief or is it ignorance? I don't know if I believe in extra-terrestrials because I don't have enough information. Wouldn't you say the same about god? I'm with Martin Amis, who also on that Bill Moyers program, said that the only intellectually honest position is agnosticism. I would also argue that this is the default position.

We need look no further than our current multiplex for a grand ol' atheistic time. "Sunshine" hits the red button and does what "Contact" did. Makes science and technology the savior of mankind and relegates God to a crazy desire to hurt the human race. Actually I really liked the film. I put up a flattering piece over at my own blog. I just spent this afternoon writing it, so I'm not about to repeat it!

Philip beat me to it. Sunshine is the ultimate atheist movie, Jim!

Just read Alex Garland's introduction to his script:

Aside from being a love letter to its antecedents, I wrote Sunshine as a film about atheism. A crew is en route to a God-like entity: the Sun. The Sun is larger and more powerful than we can imagine. The Sun gave us life, and can take it away. It is nurturing, in that it provides the means of our survival, but also terrifying and hostile, in that it will blind us if we look directly upon it, and its surface is as lethal to man as an environment can get.

As the crew travel nearer to the Sun, the majesty of the burning star fries their minds. The crew are hypnotised by it, or baffled by it, or driven mad by it. Ultimately, even the most rational crew member is overwhelmed by his sense of wonder and, as he falls into the star, he believes he is touching the face of God.

But he isn't. The Sun is God-like, but not God. Not a conscious being. Not a divine architect. And the crew member is only doing what man has always done: making an awestruck category error when confronted with our small place within the vast and neutral scheme of things.

The director, Danny Boyle, who is not atheistic in the way that I am, felt differently. He believed that the crew actually were meeting God. I didn't see this as a major problem, because the difference in our approach wasn't in conflict with the way in which the story would be told. The two interpretations that could be made from the narrative were the same two interpretations that could be made from the world around us. In that respect, perhaps the difference was even appropriate.

---
One of the beautiful things about Sunshine is that it allows both the main character and the audience to experience a moment of catharsis that is rooted in science.

For more thoughts on Sunshine, see my article at The House Next Door:
http://tinyurl.com/2wn5cz

Just got out of a Sunshine screening and ran to Jim's Web site to add it to the list. Beaten, of course, but thanks for the Garland intro.

My interpretation is closer to Boyle's (I can't help but see the sun and think of God) but I can understand an atheistic reading and purpose, even if the religious person depicted has nothing to do with any believers I know, and indeed seems rather simplistic and the weakest part of the film.

JG Lenhart wrote, "Every atheist, evolutionist, religious person, and thinking person believes God exists. Why? Causality. There had to be a First Cause and that First Cause is God."

Um, only if you define God as nothing more than the first cause in which case you can call it anything. Since the first cause has not yet been determined I can equally claim, "Every atheist, evolutionist, religious person, and thinking person believes Santa Claus exists. Why? Causality. There had to be a First Cause and that First Cause is Santa Clause."

If you want a truly intelligent insight into the argument go to the source, Stephen Hawking here: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml

And if God is the first cause then who created God and who created God's creator? And on and on and on. My problem with people assigning God as the first cause in the absence of scientific knowledge as to what the first cause was is this: Just because we don't yet understand the beginning of the universe (but as Hawking says we are getting closer)doesn't mean we should start guessing. Imagine there are two men living 10,000 years ago and they look up at the moon. One says, "I wonder what that thing is." He has no way of knowing yet as science and technology have not progressed far enough to answer the question. The second says, "It is a god." "How do you know?" asks the first. "What else could it be?" responds the second.
Now, was the second one right? No, of course not. He didn't have the answers yet so he assigned divinity to the moon.

We do not yet know the first cause of the universe. So am I going to throw rationality to the wind and say the first cause is God? No.

J.G. you also said "this site always struck me as one that invited deeper thought." I agree. But with comments like "the first cause is God" you might be better off at a site where the most intense intellectual question is, "What's your favorite flavor of bubble gum?"

Please give me better argumentation than simply playing semantical games. I visited your site and do not doubt your conviction or the thought you have given the matter. But your statement above does not constitute any more proof of God than it does of Santa Claus because it's entire logic is based on semantics, not logic or science. When you speak of modelling God I understand where you're going (at least I hope I am interpreting it correctly) that the God you are thinking of is not necessarily adherent to any religion. But why make it God at all? Many people made the moon a god and the sun and the stars into gods before they knew they were not. At this point we're down to the first cause and even though everything else we have attached God to has come up empty once the facts were collected we're still assigning God to things we don't understand. When does it end?

I couldn't help but think of Caddyshack . . .

Judge Smails: "You're not a man, you're a BISHOP for God's sake"
Bishop: "There is no God!"

Keith Gordon's STATIC.

I think Monty Python's Meaning of Life could reasonably be considered a candidate for the (fictional?) Atheist Film Festival. Think about it: the basic message of the film, if there is one to be found, seems to essentially be that there isn't really a "meaning of life" in any grand sense, and that we should just live our lives in such a way as to respect those around us, be nice, try to do what we feel is right, etc. There is never any mention of God there (though He does make an appearance in the movie if I'm not mistaken), and the general point of view seems to fit your criteria of being one which simply does not think the question of God's existence is one much worth asking.

Why is Grizzly Man counted as an aetheist film? Some lunatic who thinks he can talk to bears and "understand them" goes living with them for years, and as the film says 'crosses an invisible line that exists between man and nature'. Eventually one of the bears kills him and his girlfriend and thats the end of the film.

How does any of it prove or disprove the existance of God? How can it be called an atheist film? Is it because God doesn't intervene and save one of his people from the bear? I don't see how anything presented in the film denies the possibility of God.

I know the film is bleak, but according to every religion God gave us free will. With his free will Treadwell spent it living with bears and annoying them, only to end up dead and God isn't going to stop it from happening.

First off I know I've said it, but Bergman's trilogy is far from atheistic. I go into it in the first post for atheistic films.

JONATHON, when you speak about predetermination, that we as humans have a set course for our lives...that it's all planned out, well not all Christians or religious types believe that. That's been in a state of contention for a long time. One thing that always bothers me about religious and science types is that they feel they have to know everything, that if something is unknown it has to be understood, so they try to fill in the blanks with the strangest things you've ever heard of. I like a little mystery, but while things are constantly changing, as you say, most things in the universe have a set pattern, following revolutions and rotations, even Halley's Comet follows the same course over and over again! A bee, that flies randomly about, has a singular goal and will repeat that goal all day long, of course Herzog would be laughing at me right now and calling me a fool! And I don't think he's wrong, and I don't think you're wrong either, there's chaos out there. I myself am a Christian, but am in no way religious and hardly "spiritual".

SAM, that was the one problem I had with "Sunshine", the overtly simplistic view of religion. That those who believe in God would rather see life end than try to save it. It took a very fundamentalist stance. The one thing is that none of the other characters even mention God - they only talk science, about recreating a big bang, which is thought by most to not have needed a God to begin with. I believe one can be a humanist and a believer all rolled up. I feel there's nothing in the script to support Boyle's interpretation, except that the antagonist towards the end says he's been talking to God for 7 years! But we can all tell he's crazy. I really need to see this movie again.

I like Marry Poppins, it fits into my Wizard of Oz theory.

I had put up Star Trek: the Undiscovered Country, but really all Star Trek is written from an atheistic viewpoint.

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...

Atheists and evolutionists think randomness is the first cause.

The argument about what came before the first cause would still END with a first cause.

The first cause are principles that exist ahead of anything else: right and just.

Right is a qualitative principle and just is a quantitative principle. EVERY other principle either limits or contradicts just.

In order to assert that God doesn't exist, you have to define God's identity AND THEN show a being with THAT identity doesn't exist.

Look over the two posts on this topic and see what people say is God's identity, that is, what the movie says is missing. Isn't THAT interesting?

EVERY religion believes God is right and just. However, every religion realizes God doesn't APPEAR to be right and just. So, EVERY religion is simply a rationalization for how God can be right and just, even though God doesn't appear to be right and just. All of these explanations are contradictory.

For example, look at the AMADEUS comment. God made Mozart talented and Salieri "less" talented. Salieri thinks that godliness is equated to talent...it is not. Salieri justifies himself to his own detriment instead of justifying God...justice is upheld AND God exists.

I have helped people have a non-contradictory understanding of God and improve their lives.

Dig deeper...

Jonathan Lapper,

I appreciate your explanation. In fact, I actively look for people to prove me wrong. The only way to become more right is to find out where you are wrong and change your belief. The only people who don't change are the perfect and those not growing.

The Hawking link is interesting because I'm wondering why he hasn't realized that by his own explanation, God must be something INTANGIBLE and CAUSELESS. The problem with making the First Cause tangible is that it BEGS the question, "What created the First Cause?"

I would think the truly brilliant would conclude (if they are truly pursuing growth) that the First Cause must be real AND intangible. The only thing I know of that are intangible and real are principles.

God is the principle of right and just. This principles are causeless and the cause of every other principle that can be named. These principles are at the heart of creation.

These are the principles I identify in my book to prove God's idenitity and how all the other characteristics of God are actually dependent on these principles.

Mr. Lapper, I truly appreciate your input because it has made me realize to a greater extent how powerful this model truly is.

Thank you.

THE RULING CLASS.

Just to throw something into the mix, I believe that a large number of people who would call themselves "spiritual but not religious" might actually be better classified as Pantheist rather than atheist (or, more accurately, Natural Pantheist). Pantheism is essentially a melding of some pagan ideals (i.e., a strong respect/reversence for mother nature) and science. Pantheists subscribe to the belief that there is no God along with the universe; the universe itself is divine (hence the spiritual but not religious angle). Wikipedia is a good place to start if interested in reading more.

Grizzly Man is an atheist film because it argues that our efforts to impose ourselves onto nature are misguided. Anthropomorphizing (if that's a word) bears isn't that different from suggesting that a complex universe shows signs of "intellegent design." Certainly the film does not explicitely make that leap, and certainly attributing human personality onto bears is a rather extreme example of this error in thinking (at least I think it's an error), but it's consistent with an atheist critique of faith. Herzog's filmography (what I've seen of it anyway) is pretty consistant on insisting on an indifferent, dangerous universe. He falls right into the tradition of literary naturalism, which was an effort to demonstrate how Darwinian forces are the real substance of life. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean God can't exist, but it doesn't leave him much of a role in our lives. I suppose that makes the film very "nonbelieving" rather than "disbelieving," since he doent' structure a polemic against faith, but instead explores the fallacies of projecting ourselves onto the universe.

Believers look at the stars and marvel at the God who made such a grand, theatrical universe for us. Atheists certainly feel the transcendance when they think about that larger space out there, but we don't think it has anything to do with us at all. Grizzly Man looks at planet earth and insists on the same point.

Out of curiousity, where did my other post go? I see what appears to be a response to it up there, so I figue it was here at some point, but it's gone. I'm not particularly offended (hey, it's your website), but I'm puzzled.

JE: jamie -- I'm puzzled, too, since I didn't junk it and I didn't find it in the spam folder. I did find a comment from you in the previous thread on the same topic (Hitchens/Athiest Film Festival). Is that the one you're thinking of?

In addition to what Peter brought up about free will, the matter of what Herzog calls "chaos and hostility and murder" is consistent with Christian theology as a result of The Fall. Furthermore Christians aren't supposed to pray for or expect good fortune from God, but to follow Christ's example of praying that "Thy will be done."

In any case, Grizzly Man's view of Treadwell seems a little more ambivalent to me. Most of the reviews describe the film as Herzog taking Treadwell to task. Herzog does voice his differing views in the film, but he hardly pushes them hard. Most of the film comes across as an empathetic, humanising, occasionally pitying portrait of the man. Clearly Herzog has some degree of admiration for Treadwell, or he wouldn't have bothered to do a feature length documentary.

The ending almost seems pro-transcendentalist, ending with Treadwell's pilot friend singing an elegiac song while the camera pans to look out over the beautiful Alaskan wilderness at sunset. Then Treadwell reappears in the film like a ghost, alive and well in stock footage, while the song continues:

"Then he'd look off some place in the distance,
At something only he could see,
He'd say all that's left now of the old days,
Those damned old coyotes and me."

And he turns and walks into the distance with two bears.

JG: You write: Atheists and evolutionists think randomness is the first cause.

This may be true for some, but not for all "atheists and evolutionists." Some theists discount the possibility of post-first-cause randomness ("It's all part of god's mysterious plan"), but evolution does not have anything to do with "first cause" -- only how life developed over the history of this particular planet. Science doesn't pretend to explain why there is something rather than nothing -- it only attempts to understand the operating principles of our physical world, to the best of our ability to apprehend it. Some say the problem with science is that it refuses to consider supernatural causes or explanations. But that is the definition of scientific thinking, and the essence of what separates it from religious thinking. Science (by definition) is based on empiricism; religion (by definition) is not. Nobody can prove or disprove, for example, that any holy texts are the Word of God; science doesn't even pretend it has the resources to try. All it can do (anthropologists along with religious scholars) is to try to figure out when particular, physical texts were written, by whom, in what context, and for what audience -- based on physical evidence and comparisons to other texts, both older and newer.

As Hitchens mentions in the previous post, theists seem to prefer the randomness of a god made in the image of humans -- angry, loving, mistake-making, regretful, prone to temper tantrums -- in the Old Testament (and as personified by part-human/part-divine Jesus in the New Testament) over the randomness of nature. Hitchens finds the belief in a personal, interventionist god strikes him as a "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."

Atheists (and agnostics) don't necessarily believe the universe originated in randomness. Some of us simply don't pretend to know WHY the universe came into existence -- and suspect that it may be beyond the scope of man's knowledge or imagination. We don't pretend to know the mind, or will, of an all-powerful superbeing. We figure we need to just figure out how to live this life and not worry about a hypothetical next one. (Does any scripture pretend to know WHY god created heaven and earth?) In that way, I'd say atheism is alive to today -- to this moment -- rather than trying to guess at first-causes or the unknowable beyond this life. Science and rationality don't pretend to have the answers to everything. But, unlike religion, they know their limits.

Jim, I have tended to call myself agnostic; knowledge is the starting point for me, not God or no God. But I may have just converted to Jimism (or Emersonian transcendentalism). That was a great summary of how I think about it. I think I'm ready at any time to greet God if he shows himself but not before, and I have no worries that if he does show up he'll be some jealous Old Testament ogre. I'm ready to explain how the brain he gave me came to its conclusions. And he can tell me why some people see him so clearly every day. He must have a reason for such favoritism.

Or maybe he could just release a sequel to his book.

Jim,

I stand corrected. I should have written that "some" atheists and evolutionists believe randomness is the First Cause. It should have been posed as an example...

My point still stands that because we are here, there HAD to be a First Cause. The rest of the argument isn't focused on the existence of the First Cause, it is focused on the identity.

As for science and religion...religion is a belief system. Science is not a belief system, science is tool for determining truth. Religion has always used science to determine truth. Short sighted religious leaders have not agreed with the conclusions and killed the scientist or suppressed the new learning, but time proves out truth.

Science is based on four principles: non-contradiction, contrastive thinking, causality, and growth. Throughout history, every wrong conclusion in politics, religion, economics, philosophy, medicine, etc. can be traced to a misuse of at least one of these principles.

There is a lot more similarity between science and religion than most people realize. Scientists tell us that principles guide EVERYTHING we see. They actually look us in the eye and tell us the tangible is guided by the intangible...except when they talk about the First Cause. Why is that?

Finally, Jim thank you for hosting a site that understands that movies are worldviews. When we watch a movie, we are watching philosophy, explanations for the meaning of life, definitions for concepts that affect all of us, etc.

Art IS the religion of today because religion currently gives us a more contradictory explanation (worldview) than art. After all, how many people explain their beliefs in terms of a movie, song, or novel?

These posts have taken a really interesting turn for me. I was a research scientist (biology) for about 20 years, then I up and went to seminary and now am a pastor. So I have a foot in both camps, so to speak. And I have to say that I don't buy the distinction, JG, that science is not not a belief system. Religion is based on the foundational belief in the supernatural as the ultimate explanation; science is based on the foundational assumption that all is explainable by non-supernatural means. A scientist must believe -- at least from 9 to 5 -- that this is true. Personally, I have found that good scientists are every bit as passionate in these beliefs as are religionists.

My favorite definition of the process of science is that it is the study of the natural world using the scientific method. (yes, it is that circular) Science as a body of knowledge is that which has been derived using the scientific method. This method (see any high school science text for details) forms a foundational set of principles every bit as rigid (and every bit as routinely ignored by its practitioners) as church doctrine.

To do science, as I once did, and be a believer, one has to "compartmentalize" one's beliefs, or at least (like Kant) divide knowledge into what is in the sphere of religion versus what is in that of science. That is, knowledge that can be obtained (or "proven") via the scientific method, with its huge requirement of repeatability, versus knowledge which cannot.

Interestingly, in the "post-modern" age that is just now taking shape, there has been at least a partial breakdown between these two categories of knowledge. See, for example, the film What the Bleep do I know and it's sequel. (I'm especially fond of Ramtha, who is channeled by a heavy-set blond woman).

This, by the by, is why I love Scanners best of all ... great, lively discussion on a variety of topics. Its also why I love film, which has the power to provoke it all.

This may sound strange, but I've always considered fiction to be my religion. Why worry about the veracity of a certain belief system, when one can never really be completely sure? It's "poetic truth" that counts. Take away the dogmas and self-righteousness and the power of metaphor still stands.

The closest I've come to a religious belief is a suspension of disbelief. I've seen the light in many different ways, but am aware of the projection.

As an agnostic, I was amused to see Bryan Singer explore a Christian subtext in Superman. Finally, the world was shown religion in its most natural habitat: the realm of speculative fiction.

Feel free to disagree!

Peet,

You wrote: It's "poetic truth" that counts. Take away the dogmas and self-righteousness and the power of metaphor still stands.

As we say in the religion biz, amen to that.

Guillermo del Toro is an ex-Catholic and an atheist (or possibly agnostic; he used both terms at the Q&A I attended), but are his films atheistic? Can a film be atheist and also fantastic? I think you could make a case for "Pan's Labyrinth," and maybe "The Devil's Backbone." (Sorry, I should probably go read the first post before I send this in case it's already been addressed, but I'll post it anyway...)

I would tend to agree with assessing Guillermo del Toro as an "atheist-ish" director. His fantasy always seems to be emphatically fantasy, and my response to the supenatural parts of his films always seems to waver between two poles. On one hand, sometimes I think a despairing "wouldn't it be nice if. . . ", like at the very end of "Pan's Labyrinth." At other times he seems to be trying to get at an underlying truth of a situation using unrealistic means, like the horrific "banquet scene" (with the monster with eyes in his hands). The way he uses fantasy suggests that he is thinking poetically because that kind of thought is the only way to understand life sometimes. That he does so while being sadly wistful about the unreality of the whole excercise makes his films cut way deeper than other fantasy films. If only murdered little girls DID turn into princesses. . . if only ghosts DID hang around to get justice. . . but of course these things don't happen. That's why we tell stories.

As someone who loves melodrama and fantasy (when it works anyway. . . ) I wish more filmakers were as conscious of the real saddness at the heart of storitelling. We want to live in a world with meaning and with resolution, even if the meanings and resolutions are unhappy. Since reality rarely offers "closure," we need stories. I hate, hate, hate when fantasy films of supernatral horror films get all preachy and churlish toward people who don't "believe" in the supernatural. Often the theme of fantasy films is something like "isn't it great to be credulous enough to believe in ghosts or devils or psychic powers or angels or blah blah blah." Why must skeptics always be the villain? James Randi (a noble skeptic if there ever was one) had a lively discussion on his web page a while back about hollywoods prejudice against skepticism.

As I was typing, it occured to me that the things I praised del Torro for could also be said of David Lynch, another personal favorite. Lynch tends to be more on the "underlying truth" side of the fantasy axis than on the "wish fullfillment" side, unless you think of "wishes" in the Freudian sense. Of course, to understand David Lynch without Freud is pretty tough.

I certainly think that unrealistic films, even ghost films, can be at least non offensive to an atheists point of view. The trick is to not waste time arguing for the benefits of credulity. You want to think like a five year old so you can feel wonder? Knock yourself out. But don't insult me. There's plenty of awe inspiring real stuff out there.

What about the movie "Saved"? It definitely mocked christians and christianity. Plus it's funny as hell.