185 replies to this topic

[SDG]

The last two sentences of M. Leary's post are exactly what I think. The rest sounds like what I would think if I knew a lot more about French cinema.

[kenmorefield]

Overstreet, on 28 February 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

And I think it's fair to say that the majority of mainstream evangelical Christians don't read CT movie reviews, or Crosswalk, or anything like that. (I'm aware of those positive reviews.)

I can accept that, but I think your tendency to use the terms "Christian" and "mainstream evangelical" interchangeably within your review ends up putting you in an untenable position--either that you think the terms synonymous (which I don't think you do) or that you think the behavior of both circles is the same (which I'm arguing it isn't).

[Anders]

M. Leary, on 28 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Which is good. I think if the film had been cast in more transcendent or visually polished hues, we would lose the film's real gravitas - which is the depiction of an organic embodiment of justice as a missional calling. What these monks do is not transcedent; it is social, worldy, and material in an immensely charitable way. A film with a more transcendental mise-en-scene would have subverted this aspect of their Christological witness.

Yes, and this is another reason mainstream Evangelicals won't flock to it. The "social, worldly, and material" is of no interest when there is a deep seated suspicion that this amounts to "social justice" (remember Glenn Beck's warning that if your church teaches social justice it amounts to Communism?) and Jesus is going to return and it will burn anyway.

Perhaps this also explains why films like THE MISSION and A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS cross over to the mainstream Evangelical. They are concerned with aspects of the transcendental: evangelism or the sacrifice of everything in the name of belief. I think the reaction to OF GODS AND MEN may lie in part in the idea that, like Ebert, many would find the monk's decision foolish. It's one thing to sacrifice yourself for your faith (when asked "Do you believe in God even if I'll put a bullet in your head?" the answer is "YES!") VS. what these monks do, which is dedication to a community and people who AREN'T EVEN BEING CONVERTED! I mean, the "good Muslims" are still Muslims at the end of the film!!!

Edit: I hope it's obvious that the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph don't represent what I think, but what I do believe would shape the response of many Evangelicals.

Edited by Anders, 28 February 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Overstreet]

Well, I think that to some degree, my use of "Christian" to describe the audience that is unaware of, or uninterested in, this film is a fair generalization. But the generalization is especially true, I believe, of mainstream American evangelicals. I probably could have been more specific about this point in the review, but I didn't want to burden the article with constant uses of cumbersome labels.

Edited by Overstreet, 28 February 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[Christian]

M. Leary, on 28 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

What these monks do is not transcedent; it is social, worldy, and material in an immensely charitable way. A film with a more transcendental mise-en-scene would have subverted this aspect of their Christological witness.

I like this because it makes the film's mise-en-scene seem very deliberate. I'll be charitable and say that may be the case, although it's hard for me to get excited about a "plain" looking film because the actions behind the film might not be construed as "transcendent."

Actually, isn't it fair to say that the monks' goals are transcendent in the sense that they're aiming to glorify God? Maybe I'm reaching. I'm not sure, even if you grant the premise, that it changes anything about what the immediate look of the film should have been.

[morgan1098]

As others have suggested, I think "Christians" haven't flocked to Of Gods and Men for the same reason everyone else hasn't flocked to it... it's a foreign film in a foreign language and it hasn't been marketed in the US to even a fraction of a degree that these "evangelical" movies have been. Movies like Courageous get tons of promotion, primarily to the "Christian audience," but also to the general market. I cringe even typing this, but there's a Courageous Study Bible, a Courageous soundtrack CD, etc etc. Maybe if someone put together a Of Gods and Men Study Bible (complete with Apocrypha!) we could drum up some more business.

[Overstreet]

Regarding the parallel discussion of whether the film is great art...

I see the film as powerful primarily for its narrative and for how that narrative is acted and presented. It tells a story, and illustrates that story, with some beautifully composed imagery along the way. It doesn't overreach, but then, it isn't seeking to embrace something as ambitious as, say, The Tree of Life or The Mill and the Cross. It has admirable but fairly simple goals, and it achieves them. Great things can happen in quiet chapels. But that doesn't make a quiet chapel is a work of architecture to be compared with a cathedral. There are poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins that are great blessings, but I wouldn't compare them to, say, The Four Quartets.

So, while I love the film and think it is a powerful work, and while I'll recommend it to almost everybody, if I were asked to give a list of the works of art I admire and love most, this wouldn't be among my favorites. As cinema goes, it's fairly straightforward. It is a beautifully but modestly illustrated narrative. It doesn't employ enough of the poetic capacities of cinema to keep me coming back, time and time again, to explore the work of masters*. But I will watch The Tree of Life and The Mill and the Cross and Babette's Feast frequently on my own. All three of those are more watchful and meditative. Yes, Babette's Feast is also a narrative-driven work, but its "show-don't-tell" aspects are much more pronounced than Of Gods and Men. More poetic forms of cinema speak to me more powerfully and keep on giving.I may be wrong, but I don't think Of Gods and Men is the kind of film that will show me new things every time I see it. (I've seen it four times now, and if I watch it again it will be because I'm introducing groups to the movie, not because I am drawn by a sense that there is much, much more to discover.)

I agree that Malick-esque cinematography would have distracted from the film's central raison d'être. Its form is suitable to its function.

So again: This is in no way a criticism of Of Gods and Men. It's about as profound as a meal of soup and bread can be. It's just a different kind of thing than a seven-course meal.

*"Masters" - by which I mean the great filmmakers who give me the sense that they're expanding what cinema can do, who say as much with images as they do with dialogue, who inspire me to want to write whole essays on their composition, their editing, the way they capture and cultivate mystery and meaning. I realize that "mastery" is a subjective thing, and thus I use it here only as a personal reference to the filmmakers whose films reveal new substance every time I visit them.

Edited by Overstreet, 29 February 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

kenmorefield wrote:
: Specifically, you start with the premise that the film has gone "almost unnoticed in the Christian circles." I think this claim only even defensible/accurate if one accepts what seems to be your premise that "Christian circles" = Movieguide and its readership.

And now I'm getting flashbacks to the short-lived Faith and Film Critics Circle, which, as I argued at the time, should have been called the Christian Film Critics Circle -- both to reclaim the word "Christian" and to be more honest about the fact that we represented a PARTICULAR faith and not just "faith" in general.

: But to make generalizations about "Christian circles" really either just perpetuates the notion that the Movieguides of the world really do speak for the Real, True Christians or makes you come across as unwilling to be specific about who and what you are criticizing.

Jeff does specify "mainstream evangelicals" somewhere in that article -- but then, the very qualifier "mainstream" kind of takes the air out of the argument. Why are "mainstream" people not more ecstatic about a "foreign", "arthouse" movie? Um, well, the question practically answers itself -- and that answer has nothing to do with religious categories, but basic movie-consumer categories.

SDG wrote:
: I'm Roman Catholic and might be expected to concur, but I don't. (Many Evangelicals love movies like A Man for All Seasons and The Mission, and those are pretty Catholic.)

And don't forget The Passion of the Christ. NEVER forget The Passion of the Christ. (Although, admittedly, that film was not nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture as those other, Robert Bolt-scripted films were. Then again, it did make a boatload more money than those other films did. So all three of those films were pretty "mainstream" to North American audiences in a way that Of Gods and Men is not.)

Overstreet wrote:
: If you poll most students at Christians universities . . .

Huh, that's an even MORE narrow category than "mainstream evangelicals".

M. Leary wrote:
: I think if the film had been cast in more transcendent or visually polished hues, we would lose the film's real gravitas - which is the depiction of an organic embodiment of justice as a missional calling. What these monks do is not transcedent; it is social, worldy, and material in an immensely charitable way. A film with a more transcendental mise-en-scene would have subverted this aspect of their Christological witness.

Excellent points!

[Nick Olson]

But is it a more narrow category if you take into consideration all that Christian universities represent and involve? Students at Christian universities are being cultivated in one way or another. And Christian universities are being constructed, cultivated, and encouraged in one way or another.

The Christian (evangelical) university is a good indicator of "mainstream" evangelical culture, isn't it?

In other words, isn't the university a kind of meeting ground for most components of the evangelical sub culture?

Edited by Nicholas, 28 February 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[SDG]

Overstreet, on 28 February 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

It doesn't employ enough of the poetic capacities of cinema to keep me coming back, time and time again, to explore the work of masters.

I think, and have long argued, this is much too limited an account of what "mastery" can consist of.

Even the word "poetic" is a strange narrowing of scope -- as if there is no such thing as masterful prose. Beyond that, even workmanlike prose can propound a masterful argument, offer masterful insights. A supremely gifted stylist is not necessarily a better all-around writer than one whose voice is less distinctive. A writer may have a mastery of characterization, setting or theme without necessarily constructing his sentences in ways that draw attention to themselves.

C. S. Lewis praised Rider Haggard's mythopoetic mastery in spite of his glaring literary limitations, and returned to his works again and again for that which was excellent in them. I think a film can in principle be heart-stoppingly masterful on many levels even if its blocking and camera movements and so forth are downright mediocre.

And Of Gods is certainly not visually mediocre. Even if it's not the film you would recommend specifically as a study in cinematic technique, its use of visual language is at least strong enough to allow its extraordinary merits to shine forth without being a distraction, like Haggard's literary limitations.

Quote

So again: This is in no way a criticism of Of Gods and Men. It's about as profound as a meal of soup and bread can be. It's just a different kind of thing than a seven-course meal.

This analogy fails crashingly, if only because meals of soup and bread are commonly available, and in the main one is much like another. Of Gods is breathtakingly unique: It does what it does better than any film in at least the last quarter century and arguably ever. That is not a meal of soup and bread.

Edited by SDG, 28 February 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[Attica]

Anders, on 28 February 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

M. Leary, on 28 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Which is good. I think if the film had been cast in more transcendent or visually polished hues, we would lose the film's real gravitas - which is the depiction of an organic embodiment of justice as a missional calling. What these monks do is not transcedent; it is social, worldy, and material in an immensely charitable way. A film with a more transcendental mise-en-scene would have subverted this aspect of their Christological witness.

Yes, and this is another reason mainstream Evangelicals won't flock to it. The "social, worldly, and material" is of no interest when there is a deep seated suspicion that this amounts to "social justice" (remember Glenn Beck's warning that if your church teaches social justice it amounts to Communism?) and Jesus is going to return and it will burn anyway.

Perhaps this also explains why films like THE MISSION and A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS cross over to the mainstream Evangelical. They are concerned with aspects of the transcendental: evangelism or the sacrifice of everything in the name of belief. I think the reaction to OF GODS AND MEN may lie in part in the idea that, like Ebert, many would find the monk's decision foolish. It's one thing to sacrifice yourself for your faith (when asked "Do you believe in God even if I'll put a bullet in your head?" the answer is "YES!") VS. what these monks do, which is dedication to a community and people who AREN'T EVEN BEING CONVERTED! I mean, the "good Muslims" are still Muslims at the end of the film!!!

Edit: I hope it's obvious that the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph don't represent what I think, but what I do believe would shape the response of many Evangelicals.

I of course can't speak for all Evangelicals, but with the Evangelicals I know OF GODS AND MEN would probably not be considered "uplifting" enough. It's a film that deals with some of the tough stuff of life, and yes, with some of the amiguities which come with this. It requires some thought and wrestling to find all of the redemptive parts of the story. Obviously for those of us on this board, and many others, that is a good thing.

But, many of the Evangelicals that I know have been incultured to see "Christian" art (or maybe religious or spiritual art is a better word) as being of true spiritual value when it makes them feel happy and alive, and/or when it directly preaches the good news of the Gospel, or when it has a good cheerful happy ending. Of course also when it's good fun entertainment.

OF GODS AND MEN doesn't really fit any of these, I mean, sure, I find it entertaining, but it's not entertaining in a way that works with what some people would like. Also the film's transcendence is more in the quiet ways of God being active in the simple aspects of life, charity, and kindness. Some Evangelicals that I know, would want the transcendence to be more overt and obvious. Go large or go home would be their motto. They only want a story that deals with faith or religion to be "victorious". This is a film that in part wrestles with the question of where God is, in the midst of suffering, when the Christians in the film don't have a noticeable "victory", but in fact are killed by the "bad guys". I think kind of stuff makes a certain kind of Christian uncomfortable..... I mean, sure they know that life sometimes works out this way, but they don't want to see it in their "entertainment". They want their entertainment to be an escape from the tough stuff of life, and so therefore, when it comes to a film like this one, this means that the Christians in it should be victorious.

[Anders]

SDG, on 28 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Overstreet, on 28 February 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

It doesn't employ enough of the poetic capacities of cinema to keep me coming back, time and time again, to explore the work of masters.

I think, and have long argued, this is much too limited an account of what "mastery" can consist of.

Even the word "poetic" is a strange narrowing of scope -- as if there is no such thing as masterful prose. Beyond that, even workmanlike prose can propound a masterful argument, offer masterful insights. A supremely gifted stylist is not necessarily a better all-around writer than one whose voice is less distinctive. A writer may have a mastery of characterization, setting or theme without necessarily constructing his sentences in ways that draw attention to themselves.

C. S. Lewis praised Rider Haggard's mythopoetic mastery in spite of his glaring literary limitations, and returned to his works again and again for that which was excellent in them. I think a film can in principle be heart-stoppingly masterful on many levels even if its blocking and camera movements and so forth are downright mediocre.

And Of Gods is certainly not visually mediocre. Even if it's not the film you would recommend specifically as a study in cinematic technique, its use of visual language is at least strong enough to allow its extraordinary merits to shine forth without being a distraction, like Haggard's literary limitations.

Quote

So again: This is in no way a criticism of Of Gods and Men. It's about as profound as a meal of soup and bread can be. It's just a different kind of thing than a seven-course meal.

This analogy fails crashingly, if only because meals of soup and bread are commonly available, and in the main one is much like another. Of Gods is breathtakingly unique: It does what it does better than any film in at least the last quarter century and arguably ever. That is not a meal of soup and bread.

I'm in agreement with you on this matter, SDG, over the use of the term "mastery." Though I'm getting flashbacks to discussions on THE TREE OF LIFE regarding the use of the term "poetic." Which is probably fine, as I'm going to be sitting down over the next few days to do some sustained writing on THE TREE OF LIFE.

[Overstreet]

I think you're misunderstanding why I meant by soup and bread. Can you not see a difference between the complexity and scope and demands of, say, Andrei Rublev and, say, Chariots of Fire? If you want to drop the soup and bread analogy, fine. I was making a point of ambition and technical achievement.

And I'm saying that as I, personally, value works that give me as many questions as answers, I'm impressed with, but not particularly excited by, Of Gods and Men.

These men and their story give us a grand example of humble, beautiful Christian service. The film recounts an historical event modestly, and leaves us to think it over. But as films go, it is closer to what I call "cinematic prose" than "cinematic poetry." By that I mean, there is not comparatively a great deal left to our interpretation. I hear what they say, I consider what they do. But I don't find myself weighing one image against another and considering the tensions between them. I don't find myself intrigued by the editing or the juxtaposition of images. That's fine, but when I think of the works that move and intrigue me most powerfully, I think about images and editing as much as narrative. Cinematic prose isn't bad... it just doesn't interest me as much as cinematic poetry. I'm less likely to feel a heightened sense of attention, inspired by the sense that there is much, much more going on here than I'm currently apprehending.

In other words, it's more The Lives of Others than Stalker... more Letters to Father Jacob than Three Colors: Blue... more Sophie Scholl than The Passion of Joan of Arc... more The Straight Story than Au hasard Balthazar. Again, I'm not saying one is good and one is bad, but that I am far more impressed by, excited about, and likely to return to one that is mysteriously alive in what I'm calling a "poetic" way than just a well-told story. Maybe that's just a personal preference. (It's true that as I get older, I take much more pleasure and nourishment from poetry than prose.)

Edited by Overstreet, 29 February 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[Anders]

Attica, on 28 February 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

OF GODS AND MEN doesn't really fit any of these, I mean, sure, I find it entertaining, but it's not entertaining in a way that works with what some people would like. Also the film's transcendence is more in the quiet ways of God being active in the simple aspects of life, charity, and kindness. Some Evangelicals that I know, would want the transcendence to be more overt and obvious. Go large or go home would be their motto. They only want a story that deals with faith or religion to be "victorious". This is a film that in part wrestles with the question of where God is, in the midst of suffering, when the Christians in the film don't have a noticeable "victory", but in fact are killed by the "bad guys". I think kind of stuff makes a certain kind of Christian uncomfortable..... I mean, sure they know that life sometimes works out this way, but they don't want to see it in their "entertainment". They want their entertainment to be an escape from the tough stuff of life, and so therefore, when it comes to a film like this one, this means that the Christians in it should be victorious.

Well put, though I don't think the desire for escapist entertainment is limited to Evangelical Christians. I remember my parents sat down with my aunt and uncle years ago to watch THE QUIET AMERICAN. At the end of the film my uncle blurted out: "What the hell was that supposed to be?"

[Attica]

SDG, on 28 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

And Of Gods is certainly not visually mediocre. Even if it's not the film you would recommend specifically as a study in cinematic technique, its use of visual language is at least strong enough to allow its extraordinary merits to shine forth without being a distraction.

No, your right, it's not. Sure the film could have had more sweeping shots of the beauty of the landscape that the monks live and work within..... but not all monks live and work within extremely beautiful landscapes. This being said to point out that this film's visuals fit perfectly with what the film is, in part, attempting to convey, or at least what I perceive the film is attempting to convey. It's partially about real people, in the midst of real life, finding beauty and life in the small things in and amongst struggle, when it isn't as easily apparent. When one looks for the beauty in the small things then there is an awful lot of it in the world. Maybe with this perspective one could think that the visuals of the film fit with the idea of the search for beauty and transcendence, when it isn't as obvious or apparent as we would often like.

Just a thought.

Anders, on 28 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Attica, on 28 February 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

OF GODS AND MEN doesn't really fit any of these, I mean, sure, I find it entertaining, but it's not entertaining in a way that works with what some people would like. Also the film's transcendence is more in the quiet ways of God being active in the simple aspects of life, charity, and kindness. Some Evangelicals that I know, would want the transcendence to be more overt and obvious. Go large or go home would be their motto. They only want a story that deals with faith or religion to be "victorious". This is a film that in part wrestles with the question of where God is, in the midst of suffering, when the Christians in the film don't have a noticeable "victory", but in fact are killed by the "bad guys". I think kind of stuff makes a certain kind of Christian uncomfortable..... I mean, sure they know that life sometimes works out this way, but they don't want to see it in their "entertainment". They want their entertainment to be an escape from the tough stuff of life, and so therefore, when it comes to a film like this one, this means that the Christians in it should be victorious.

Well put, though I don't think the desire for escapist entertainment is limited to Evangelical Christians. I remember my parents sat down with my aunt and uncle years ago to watch THE QUIET AMERICAN. At the end of the film my uncle blurted out: "What the hell was that supposed to be?"

Sure. It's not limited to Evangelicals. I want some good escapist entertainment from time to time.

Edited by Attica, 28 February 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: Even the word "poetic" is a strange narrowing of scope -- as if there is no such thing as masterful prose.

True. Though now I'm getting flashbacks to when I read That Hideous Strength way back in high school. I vaguely recall that one of the characters there ruminates on the possibility that the better prose tends to be somewhat poetic. (Sorry, don't remember the exact quote or the exact reference.)

: A writer may have a mastery of characterization, setting or theme without necessarily constructing his sentences in ways that draw attention to themselves.

Very true. Sometimes there are more things to discover in a film because the artist left them there in plain sight and allowed you to discover them for yourself.

[Overstreet]

Peter T Chattaway, on 28 February 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

True. Though now I'm getting flashbacks to when I read That Hideous Strength way back in high school. I vaguely recall that one of the characters there ruminates on the possibility that the better prose tends to be somewhat poetic.

Yes.

I'm not saying prose cannot be masterful. But masterful prose *is* poetic. Of Gods and Men is powerful "cinematic prose," but it is not particularly "cinematically poetic prose", and so it doesn't seem as alive to me as other kinds of "cinematic prose."

I'm sure my use of the term "mastery" is insufficient. And even though I sought to avoid it, I believe I have somehow suggested that Of Gods and Men is flawed or lame or something. I didn't mean that at all. It fulfills the measure of its ambitions beautifully. But it did not... how do I say this... get my brain humming with implications, with suggestions, with questions, and with the life of composition -- of possibilities that occur within the frame, of dialogue occurring between scenes and images -- the way the films of Hou Hsiao-hsien, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Carl Dreyer, Terrence Malick, and others do. It was mostly concerned with telling the story. It doesn't put me to vigorous work the way my favorites do; it's very accessible. (Again, not a bad thing. Just not particularly exciting to me.)

In short, most of the life of the movie is in the script and stage directions, which are all admirably carried out. Most of the art is there and in the actors, but not in distinctly cinematic aspects of the film, aspects that I could write pages about if I were writing about the films that inspire me most.

Edited by Overstreet, 29 February 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[SDG]

Overstreet, on 28 February 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I think you're misunderstanding why I meant soup and bread. Can you not see a difference between the complexity and scope and demands of, say, Andrei Rublev and, say, Chariots of Fire?

Of course. I can see a similar difference between Psalm 117 and 1 Corinthians 13. I wouldn't say that 1 Corinthians 13 excites me less than Psalm 117.

Quote

If you want to drop the soup and bread analogy, fine. I was making a point of ambition and technical achievement. And I'm saying that as I, personally, value works that give me as many questions as answers.

I think questions can be something to value in a work. I can't see making that a criterion of excellence. As Chesterton says, an open mind is useful in the same way as an open mouth, to close on something solid.

Quote

I'm impressed with, but not particularly excited by, Of Gods and Men. It recounts an historical event modestly, and leaves us to think it over. But as films go, it is closer to what I call "cinematic prose" than "cinematic poetry." By that I mean, there is not comparatively a great deal left to our interpretation.

We have very, very different responses to the film.

First, if you look at the difference between, say, Roger Ebert's take on the film and mine, I think it's clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation.

But second, Of Gods goes to the core of my being in a way that very, very few films have done. As I wrote earlier:

Quote

The response I've seen in receptive viewers to Of Gods is akin to a new clarity of self-knowledge. I've seen Christians and non-Christians come away shattered, conscious of their eyes being newly opened to who they are, to what life is all about. It's not simply an assent to a message. It's a transformative encounter with a vision of life, made possible through art.

If I could reach down into my soul and pull out my response to this film and turn it into words, it might be something like, "Yes. This, this is true. This is what matters. This is who I am. What I need. What I must be. The world, myself, good and evil, God. I see it all more clearly now." I don't know how to measure that against other films. But I value it more than I value the (considerable in my eyes) achievement of The Mill & the Cross.

[Timothy Zila]

SDG, on 28 February 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

FWIW, Andrew O'Hehir refers to Of Gods' "austere but spectacular visual language." Andrew Schenker in Slant sketches some quick strokes: "Through a series of austerely lit fixed takes and slow, methodical pans, Beauvois evokes the daily life of the monks and the vast sweep of the valley landscape, while with a slightly livelier camera he gives us a sense of the mutually beneficial encounters between Christian and Muslim." That's exactly what I remember, and in the main how I think it should be.

I don't think it's right to call Of Gods "a 'plain' film with a powerful message." I don't think its power is solely in its "message," for one thing, as if we were talking about a "message" film like Courageous. I think it is a powerful work of art -- a powerful drama with a powerful exploration of humanity, of characters, of ambiguity and conflict, of the no-man's-land between high ideals and hard realities, of truth and goodness and beauty. And I think that its visual approach is a key part of its power.

The response I've seen in receptive viewers to Of Gods is akin to a new clarity of self-knowledge. I've seen Christians and non-Christians come away shattered, conscious of their eyes being newly opened to who they are, to what life is all about. It's not simply an assent to a message. It's a transformative encounter with a vision of life, made possible through art.

I think this is getting at something I wanted to say earlier, but didn't. Which is that one of my personal definitions of great film is that the film's style/structure mirrors its content. I think this is equally true of Of Gods as it is Tree of Life. Of Gods austere, meditative style very much reflects the inner life of these monks' conflict. It dramatizes their conflict and dilemma, but does so in a way that is appropriate to the story. Tree of Life's style also mirrors its content, but since it's looking at the world through a much bigger lens (that of the entire cosmos) it is stylistically 'grander,' if you will.

You couldn't film Of Gods in the way Malick filmed Tree of Life, and you couldn't film Tree of Life in the way Beauvois filmed Of Gods.

In conclusion: you might think of the films as equal but different (which, btw, is not at all some kind of tangential affirmation of complementarianism or, for that matter, segregation . . . just so we're clear).

Edit: I see that some of what I'm saying here has already been said by others (including myself!) In short, I'm generally with Overstreet on this one (not that I need to take sides), although I haven't lived long enough with the film to hazard a guess at whether the film will keep on revealing more things about itself in the way, for example, Tree of Life already has (which I've seen four times - I've only seen Of Gods once).

However, I'm also quite hesitant to say that one film is ultimately 'higher' art or a seven-course meal opposed to bread and soup, or anything like that. Why? I'm not sure that one can't be as fulfilling as the other, given certain circumstances.

Edit 2: On the whole Evangelical Christian thing: I agree that people simply don't know about it. Other issues (that it's not uplifting enough, etc.) may be true, but aren't even that relevant if people haven't heard of it. If I polled friends from my Christian college group, I'd be surprised if more than one or two of them have even heard about it, not to mention actually seen it.

I also know that I watched it with my parents (i.e. Evangelical Christians) and they appreciated it. My dad even said he'd like to see it again. FWIW . . .

Edited by Timothy Zila, 28 February 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Overstreet]

Quote

First, if you look at the difference between, say, Roger Ebert's take on the film and mine, I think it's clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation.

Yes, but here's the crux of the matter. Your -- our -- disagreement with Ebert is about *what the film is about.* Not how it is about it.

He's disagreeing with the monks' decision and saying it is prideful.

We disagree with him on a matter of principle. Yes, we are given good evidence to defend our point by the film, but that's a more practical matter than what I'm talking about. I'm overjoyed about what the film is about. I am impressed, but not exhilarated or particularly intrigued, by how it is about it.

I have favorite hymns that I enjoy and that are meaningful to me. Of Gods and Men is a very good hymn by a very good, even inspired, composer. But sometimes a symphony comes along, or, say, Handel's Messiah, that seems to have come from someone working on levels beyond what I can apprehend or explain... something that makes me want to expand my capacities in order to grasp more of it.

Perhaps, at one time, Of Gods and Men might have felt that way to me. But... and again, this is why what I'm saying about the film is very personal and not an argument for how it must be for everyone... Of Gods and Men is a movie I am very happy to visit, but not one that makes me want to live there every day. Its subject is as sublime as cinema can address. But its form lacks much of what excites me most about what movies can do and be.

Another thing I would cautiously suggest: Watching Of Gods and Men on a flat-screen TV, I became fairly confident in saying that this was not a film that really needs to be seen on the big screen. A decent flat-screen TV is more than enough to do it justice. My favorite films, shown on a TV screen, make me aware that this is not how it was meant to be seen. They make me yearn for, you know, a cinema.

Edited by Overstreet, 28 February 2012 - 02:26 PM.