The Invisible Man has just posted these comments in the Donnie Darko thread.

Since they introduce a topic about far more than Donnie Darko, best to start a new thread:



After my joking response about how he was most certainly right, and I must immediately reject several of the films that mean the most to me, he added:



This all comes as quite a shock to me, as I find great value in the work of both Anderson and Kieslowski.

So. Um... comments?

Was Kieslowski an agent of the devil? Is Paul Thomas Anderson eroding thought?

What other filmmakers would you classify as postmodern?

Can we agree on a definition before we draw up our damning lists of films and quickly scramble to the safe side of the fence?

First, what is our definition of postmodern? Is just being meta or ironic? If that's the case then help me understand how Kieslowski's work is more post modern than Donnie Darko, which I found incredibly spiritually rich.

I will attempt to defend Postmodernism.

How does one come to salvation? Through Jesus Christ, correct? How do I know I am in God's grace? Do I know it because the church tells me I am? The church has the ability to bind and loose. It is the bride and it has apostolic authority.

Do I know I am in God's grace because Christ tells me I am? In certain denominations, when two of the sacraments are administered, the words of Christ are spoken to me. God is truth, He does not lie, thus I trust in Christ's words.

Do I know I am in God's grace because I had an experience? Do I trust an experience within myself, which is subjective? Is an experience not what is accounted for by the book of Acts? The early church did amazing acts, affirmed their relationship with Christ, and they had phenomenal experiences.

Luther challenged both the first and the last. Why would one trust in another man, or in self? He argued that God's word creates, sustains, and secures. From this position, he called the Papacy Antichrist, endorsed violence against Jews and Anabaptists, and made Zwingli cried.

I do not believe that the Devil is in Postmodernism anymore than he is in any other philosophical system. Likewise, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit shuns the art, philosophy, music, literature, or architecture of Postmodernism. Admittedly, I affirm the doctrine of prevenient grace.

Can we please put first things first (or at least sixth) and address this question before digging ourselves any deeper?

Link to thread on 'Slayers of Postmodernism'.

Backrow Baptist wrote:
: First, what is our definition of postmodern?

I love the use of "our" there, in this context.

Seriously, though, there is no single one-size-fits-all definition of postmodernism. However, I agree that we need to define our terms before we can discuss anything else by using those terms. So, since this all began with Invisible Man condemning a whole category of films that he deems "postmodern" (note to Invisible Man: I mean that purely descriptively and not in any pejorative sense), I would say the onus is on him to explain what he means by that.

I used the word in the sense that Postmodernism questions "metanarratives". I would think that a Postmodern film undermines the classical paradigm, but as Peter said, the definition is likely far too fluid to even agree on that.

Then I suppose my reply to Mr. Invisible is that I won't understand anything about his rejection of certain films until he defines what he means by the term. If something cannot be defined, it can hardly be rejected.

"Postmodern" is more of a buzzword these days than an actual philosophy, at least among Christians. Just my observation.

Wikipedia should probably define it for us before we get much farther. And if we don't like their definition we can just change it!

Sorry for not replying to you sooner, but I am on London time, and my last post was made around 1am when I was very sleepy (I'm actually amazed that it's as typo-free and as coherent as it is, given the hour).

Okay, to a definition. I naturally follow Honeysett's as his book was the thing that got my juices flowing in the first place. He calls postmodernism a "notoriously slippery word" but states that "at its heart lie three key concepts". These are:

1. Relativism

2. Philosophical pluralism (the idea that, because all truth is relative, all ideas and truth claims must be treated with equal respect, there being no objective way to evaluate their respective merits. Language creates truth, but it doesn't convey truth)

3. Suspicion of metanarratives (A metanarrative is defined as being a large scale story that claims to account for all reality. Postmodernists regard such stories - of which Christianity is one - as oppressive and, therefore, they reject them.)

Honeysett's definition is pretty much echoed by Kenneth Richard Samples in his book "A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test".

I hope this helps.


Gary

What is it about, for instance, Kieslowski's works that they deserve to be defined by one or more of these things?

A definition of "postmodern" is a good start, but what is a "postmodern film" and how does it relate to these ideas?

The Invisible Man wrote:
: I naturally follow Honeysett's as his book was the thing that got my juices flowing in the first place.

Is Honeysett a postmodernist himself? Or is he anti-pomo? If the latter, then I wouldn't necessarily buy his definition of the term.

: 2. Philosophical pluralism (the idea that, because all truth is relative, all ideas and truth claims must be treated with equal respect, there being no objective way to evaluate their respective merits. Language creates truth, but it doesn't convey truth)

This sounds to me like a wee bit of a caricature, or simplification. Would any thinking philosopher seriously claim that ALL ideas must be treated with equal respect -- including the ideas that disagree with this idea?

: I hope this helps.

It does, I think. So... what sort of films exemplify this definition of post-modernism, and in what ways do they exemplify it? Like, in what WAYS do Kieslowski's films follow these three points, and why is it necessarily a bad thing if they do?

Giving full weight to "necessarily," generally speaking, I wouldn't necessarily buy anyone's definition of any term, so I'm not sure how helpful that is.

Furthermore, in the case of something so apparently slippery as "post-modernism," I'm not sure being a representative is a qualification for being able to give a cogent and normative description, or that not being one is reason for added skepticism. (I know I wouldn't go to a deconstructionist to tell me what deconstructionism is, for instance.)


Depending on how you define "thinking," my impression is that there are indeed philosophers who hold forms of subjectivism that "deny" (or seem to deny) that ideas are "true" or "false" and therefore in principle "affirm" (or seem to affirm) that all ideas are equal in the marketplace (though I think there is usually a subset of ideas that are tacitly more approved and a subset that are less so -- I didn't say they were consistent).


Wait, are you really asking why it would be a bad thing if a film embodied moral relativism and philosophical pluralism, at least, as Gary has defined them? Can't we agree on that much?

Um, I've been pretty out of the loop around these parts due to overwhelming class work and regular work and family work, etc. But I wanted to chime in a bit if I could here.

When it comes to post-modernism, I'm not sure we can accurately define it since we're kind of "in" it. One way that I've thought about it is as a reaction to modernist principles of basing truth on the scientific method and an empirical way of arriving at conclusions. In the same way that modernism didn't trust anything that came before it and began to apply the scientific method of reductionism to everything in life, so post-modernism seems to reject the few centuries of the way modernism arrives at conclusions. Post-modernism seems to recognize that there are things outside of our sensual grasp.

I think the "philosophical pluralism" aspect is more based on the Hegelian concept of "thesis-antithesis" producing a "synthesis", rather than an acceptance as all things as valid.

"Relativism" makes a sort of sense within this framework because there's an admission that life cannot be boiled down to a set of scientifically provable postulates and room should be left for the gray areas.

"Suspicion of metanarratives" also makes sense because, as a reaction to the modernist metanarrative, post-modernism is attempting to create its own meta-narrative.

Since this is a cultural shift that's been happening since the sixties, it would be hard to find films since the 70's that aren't influenced in some way by the streams of thought. I've found most religious reaction to post-modernism to be based more on their suspicion of Emergent churches than on an understanding of the philosophical structure that goes into the world-view.

That's just my two-cents.

I saw the quote yesterday and honestly sat there for about 20 minutes with my jaw dropped. I didn't have anything good to say, so I stayed off the thread.



This is how I understand post-modernism. It is an arriving at truth without an arrow to point the way.

In Christian thinking, aside from being a separatist cliché, it is getting outside of denominational division and unifying around belief. It is admitting that no one knows Truth, but we sense that there is something greater than ourselves and cling to the thing that makes the most sense -- the story of the oppressed nation of Israel and the life of Christ.

Some will say this story is a metanarrative and nothing more. I'm OK with building my life on such a great metanarrative -- it's the panoptical one.

But I think that most people that don't admit that they can't understand every element of life are liars, and most preachers that think they have every answer are phonies.

I fear going back to modernism as much as I fear going back to pentecostalism. The two use "absolutes" to justify positions of power and structure.

I have no idea what post-modern art is supposed to look like, except that if we are already in this age it is everywhere and unavoidable... Unless one never asks a question, it can't be escaped.

Ohhh-kaaay, so now can we start talking about the films themselves and whether or not they are inherently evil as Jeffery asked? Pulp Fiction is the classic example of what I've seen pointed to as a post modern film. (See Brian Godawa's book "Hollywood Worldviews".) In theory, it's post modern because as Tarantino himself once pointed out, he started with well worn plots/ narratives (ex. the boxer who's expected to throw the fight) but then takes them in unexpected directions (the whole episode with the gimp). But does this make the film meaningless?

At this point I guess I should ask, do we even agree that postmodern films are meaningless? If Pulp Fiction is post modern, I have to disagree with the notion that it's completely meaningless. It's already been pointed out that the Jules' choice to leave the life of the hitman and "walk the earth. Like Cane in Kung Fu." saves his life and by this point he has had a spiritual awakening that is not shared by Vincent.

Kill Bill on the other hand is a much better example of what I understand to be post modernism. Ebert probably put it best in his (favorable) review.

"The movie is not about anything at all except the skill and humor of its making."; "The movie is all storytelling and no story. The motivations have no psychological depth or resonance, but are simply plot markers. The characters consist of their characteristics."

Once you start talking about "meaning" or the lack thereof, we're veering in a more existential direction. I don't recall definitions and discussions of PM contains much "meaning" language. But perhaps by meaningless you simply mean evil, as in Jeffery's original question.

As for a definition of PM, I agree with and re-emphasize what has been alluded to above: that there is a gap between many of the philosophical definitions (e.g. Lyotard's "disbelief of meta-narratives"), and the more everyday or practical use of the the word. One such practical usage is the "rejection of Modernism's absolutist or materialist claims" that Mike and Stef mentioned. There's also the softened versions of the Lyotard definition in which disbelief is reduced to skepticism or even just suspicion. So any criticism of a film based on it's alleged PM basis/content must make clear which sort of PM (the tougher[absolute?] sort or the softer sort) is being discussed.

I'll also mention the weird infatuation with PM that is seen in some parts of Christian academia and higher education. When I attended a typical private Christian school a few years ago, we were absolutely hammered with PM-this and PM-that. It's quite out of proportion with the emphasis placed on the topic by secular higher education and the general public.

Time is tight, so two quick(ish) replies.



You should ask Tony Watkins that. He and Honeysett "spent a lot of time together working through postmodernism and its implications".



You don't find "Three Colours Red" to be a metaphysical hodgepodge? What about "The Double Life of Veronique"? What's that film all about exactly? Is what it means to you the same as what it means to me? Is what it means to me the same as what it meant to Kieslowski? Does it actually mean anything? If it doesn't mean anything, then why do so many Christians embrace this film? Should Christians embrace meaninglessness?

Kieslowski admittedly played with Christian symbols and themes in his films, but "played with" is the operative term, for he seldom committed himself to them (suspicion of the Christian metanarrative, for want of a less cumbersome term, is clearly implied). In the Decalogue series, for example, we have a spooky figure who observes our world from the edge of the action, but Kieslowski couldn't quite bring himself to name him. According to Joseph G. Kickasola, the actor playing the part thought he was playing Christ, and I'll wager that most people who watch the series think of Christ, but, hey, these are postmodern times, so "We don't do God" in polite company.

Moreover, Kieslowski frequently presents fate and chance as being the key forces in the universe, but to accept fate and chance is to reject God as being in control of our lives, so where are we now? Does it matter if your head is in a fog as you watch? I think it does because our whole culture currently has its head in a fog.

Here's Marcus Honeysett again:



And



Personally, I prefer to set meaninglessness aside, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

I find both Red and The Double Life of Veronique to be beautifully filmed, tender stories about "double lives [and] second chances". Double lives are interesting in a "what if" way; the way that coincidence and chance are interesting themes. Second chances are a theme of a good percentage of the films people here have deemed "spiritually significant", not least because redemption is a large part of the Gospel.

Does it matter if it means the same thing to Kieslowski that it means to me? Does it matter that I find great depth and meaning in a more straightforward film like American Beauty while Jeffrey and a few others here regard the film as a pitiful, shallow caricature? Can we admit that even if a film doesn't have meaning to someone... even the director, it can still have meaning to me? It seems to be a monumental stretch to say that this relativistic thought is the enemy of the Gospel... which is my reading of what's being said here.


This is a tangent, and I will not attempt to make any sort of defense of the content of Eminem's music other than this: most of it is satire, and as such he's not defending rape and torture in the manner asserted here. Additionally, he is not a "so-called" artist. He is highly acclaimed for a very good reason. If the rhetoric used regarding Eminem is at all similar to the rest of the book, then I'm afraid I can't share the level of respect you have for Mr. Honeysett's writings.

But like I said, that's just a tangent. I'm more concerned with this question: why are open-ended or "mystical" films bad, or against Christianity. Is it that relativism == postmodernism == the downfall of absolute truth? Because I guess I think of relativism as a) something that appropriately happens in real life all the time, and B) not necessarily postmodernism in the way that all apples are round but being round does not make something an apple.

I'm really confused between the innocuous nature of the subject matter and the intensity of your reaction. I'd seriously like to understand how you get there.

Someone just emailed me this scene from a recent E.R.

I thought it would be worth posting here and discussing.

It's been titled "E.R. discovers the flaw of post-modernisem" ...



In view of our recent discussion of post-modernism... or rather, our discussion of the difficulty in defining it... how does this scene "discover the flaw" in post-modernism?

I take this to mean that the woman is deluded by post-modernism. She suggests that there aren't any real answers that apply to everyone, but that each person must find their own path, make their own interpretation. But her father insists on an answer that is real, that applies to everyone, that is true and not just up to the individual.

As far as that goes, my sympathies lie with that poor cancer patient.

But I can't make the leap to say that any movie which challenges us to do the good work of interpretation for ourselves is, therefore, "post-modern." The truth of a work of art is not something that can be paraphrased, because what part of its truth an observer discovers will depend, in part, on the observer's experience.

I think I've heard of this scene before; thanks for posting it so we can actually watch it.

Alas, the clip starts in mid-conversation, so when the guy says he ignored "the signs" that God was sending him, we don't know what those signs are.

I agree with the woman that it is sometimes easier to feel guilty than forgiven. But since we haven't really heard the guy's confession (at least not based on this clip), it is hard to say whether this was an appropriate response or not.

What we CAN say is that, in order to feel "forgiven", someone has to forgive you -- so this woman's suggestion that the man just needs to forgive himself IS pretty weak. Especially since the person he wronged was apparently someone else.

The guy might complain that a statement like "God is Love" feels like "New Age crap", but, well, God IS Love. "One size fits all" is, of course, another matter entirely.

But the fact that this guy wants "a real Hell" does kind of suggest that he is clinging to his own guilt. It would not surprise me at all to find that many people lock themselves in Hell because they don't want to acknowledge or accept the forgiveness that is open to them. Whether this guy would be one of them is hard to say.

I mean, does he want a real HEAVEN? Does he want to be reconciled to anybody? Or is he just afraid of pain?

This is interesting, I think. In his book "Above All Earthly Pow'rs", David F. Wells discusses the loss of meaning in film and video.