Sunday, October 31, 2010
Hell scene in Dawn of the Dead
In Dawn of the Dead, there is a scene in which the attacking, murderous dead are doused with gasoline and lit. A more fitting view of hell has rarely been portrayed. The love of the family above that which is righteous is portrayed in the black man who hid from the others the fact that she was infected. She becomes a walking dead, tied to the bed, has her baby, who then becomes walking dead. The father defends his wife and infected baby from an uninfected person, thus becoming a murderer because he loved his family more than what is good. The family made into an idol and placed before God becomes the family from hell.
No, Not Dawn of the Dead!
Yes, Dawn of the Dead also demonstrates the bible. Question: Does Satan have the power to raise the dead? No. So, how do the dead have the power to rise from the dead and eat and kill people? Only God can raise the dead. OK, so the movie actually combines two things - the evil of murder, cannibalism, and mindless mania with the power of the Good God to raise the dead. That is why the living dead seem to have such power - the movie has combined two opposite things, giving evil a power it does not have. It glorifies God in a backhanded way. But giving evil and death the power that only God has, the movie gave to Satan a power only God has. Fear is the normal response to the power of God exercised in an awesome way. Combine that legitimate fear with the fear of murderous monsters, and you mix hell and heaven. This is not a legitimate theme for inspiring understanding of the gospel; however, even this movie cannot deny the awesome unrelenting power of resurrection, even when it is perversely applied.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Inception's Resolution
At the end, Cobb confesses his sin against his wife, which caused her to lose faith that there is only one reality, something his projection of her causes her to say to him when Cobb and Ariadne go to limbo purposely. He also admits to himself and the projection that she, the one who had sabotaged or attempted to sabotage his efforts to accomplish great tasks in the dream worlds, was his own mind's creation; it was his own self-destruction at work in his mind and conscience. And he admits it when he answers Mal's question about what he felt and believed - guilt ever-present, irrepressible guilt. But that does not solve his problem; someone else - Saito - has died. What kind of guilt will Cobb have over that? And will he really overcome the guilt induced by Mal, his conscience. Can confessing to yourself cleanse from sin?
Saito, the one who seemed all-powerful monetarily, who looked out for Cobb like a guardian angel, who could punish the 1st architect at the beginning of the movie and have him removed like a godfather (or God), who could promise to Cobb that with one phone call he could have Cobb pardoned forever (the arrangement), had essentially died and gone to limbo. Notice that Cobb does not remain with Mal, the guilt-inducing human love. No, he follows Saito into the grave. And it is not Cobb who solves the problem by the gun, it is Saito. Saito saves Cobb after Cobb follows him, and Saito "honors the arrangement." Like the God who kept His promise of redemption, salvation, and forgiveness, Saito keeps his and sends Cobb to real life instead of into a life "full of regret, waiting to die alone." It is a very different thing from saving oneself. It is also very different from following Mal into death - "going down is the way forward," for that would not save either. But following Saito would because Saito had induced Cobb into taking a "leap of faith" based on Saito's promise of ultimate power, the power to forgive eternally. Amazing.
When Cobb returns to his children, they are laughing and telling him what they are building. Interesting parallel to the architect Cobb, who had ceased being able to build because of his guilt. Also interesting that our work as adults would be compared to that of children, particularly in light of the top that never ceases spinning as the movie ends. We are like children, building our toy accomplishments in dreams and in the real world, but in the end it all crumbles to pieces, like the buildings in the limbo world in which Cobb and Mal had built. Ultimately, even this world is not truly real; it's only a preparation for the next. And the resolution of guilt, which we cannot accomplish in any way other than by faith, is the most important accomplishment.
Saito, the one who seemed all-powerful monetarily, who looked out for Cobb like a guardian angel, who could punish the 1st architect at the beginning of the movie and have him removed like a godfather (or God), who could promise to Cobb that with one phone call he could have Cobb pardoned forever (the arrangement), had essentially died and gone to limbo. Notice that Cobb does not remain with Mal, the guilt-inducing human love. No, he follows Saito into the grave. And it is not Cobb who solves the problem by the gun, it is Saito. Saito saves Cobb after Cobb follows him, and Saito "honors the arrangement." Like the God who kept His promise of redemption, salvation, and forgiveness, Saito keeps his and sends Cobb to real life instead of into a life "full of regret, waiting to die alone." It is a very different thing from saving oneself. It is also very different from following Mal into death - "going down is the way forward," for that would not save either. But following Saito would because Saito had induced Cobb into taking a "leap of faith" based on Saito's promise of ultimate power, the power to forgive eternally. Amazing.
When Cobb returns to his children, they are laughing and telling him what they are building. Interesting parallel to the architect Cobb, who had ceased being able to build because of his guilt. Also interesting that our work as adults would be compared to that of children, particularly in light of the top that never ceases spinning as the movie ends. We are like children, building our toy accomplishments in dreams and in the real world, but in the end it all crumbles to pieces, like the buildings in the limbo world in which Cobb and Mal had built. Ultimately, even this world is not truly real; it's only a preparation for the next. And the resolution of guilt, which we cannot accomplish in any way other than by faith, is the most important accomplishment.
Monday, October 25, 2010
More on Inception
The most beautiful scene in the movie is when Cobb sees his children's faces - in the real world. The most unrealistic part of the dream sequences is that no one ever gets bogged down and unable to move their feet when being chased. Small sacrifice for the rest of the movie's messages. For example, the chaos of the chases and reverberations from other levels and the dangers are like a dream.
Parts of the movie and certain characters contain more meaning than others. Sometimes, in looking for the biblical message in a movie, one must pick parts, which are not always sequential. For example, there's a message in Saito's character (misspelled before as Sato). He hires Cobb and his team, but he doesn't ask, he tells Cobb that he will do the job even before Cobb agrees to. He also tells Cobb he can get him a pardon from the murder rap with one phone call if he'll do the job. He also has immense power - he can buy an airline at the drop of the hat. He is, therefore, most like God in a movie about using god-like powers to enter and influence people's minds. He is the one who advises Cobb about being an old man full of regret. He watches over Cobb and even saves his life in Mombassa. He also gets wounded in the final dream sequence, goes into limbo after telling Cobb that he'll return, is followed by Cobb as if Cobb takes up his cross to follow, and resurrects Cobb and himself from the limbo dream world.
Saito represents the character of God that exhorts with strength, but also with confidence. He is a father-figure to Cobb and the counterpart of Cobb's sympathetic, advising, but unreproaching real father. He is definitely not like the corporate heirs father who is strong, but only for himself, who is disappointed in his son, and who simply wants to build an empire for himself. The father image is critical throughout the movie. In fact, when Cobb contacts Eames, the thief and forger, about joining the team for the Saito job, they discuss the goal - to change the corporate heirs mind about retaining a monopoly power like his father did. Eames thinks political anti-monopoly ideas won't work - a person's prejudices would get in the way too easily. Then he says something profound: "You have to go to the absolute basic to make the idea stick - the relationship with the father."
Cobb is not able to be a father to his children because of his guilt over what he did to his wife. Saito gets him a pardon in an instant of time, like faith in Christ causes a pardon to be received by the sinner facing condemnation and eternal death. The corporate heir does what is right with respect to the corporation because he sees his father in a totally different light. And Cobb's real father gives him the ability and knowledge to perform the dream invasions, but he does not condone the thievery and deception Cobb employs. Thus, 3 aspects of the creator God are shown - he gives to man the power to create but does not condone the sinful perversion of that power, He reveals Himself to man in a supernatural way outside the control of man showing his compassion and goodness, and he pardons at the moment the sinner receives Christ as his atonement and salvation.
Parts of the movie and certain characters contain more meaning than others. Sometimes, in looking for the biblical message in a movie, one must pick parts, which are not always sequential. For example, there's a message in Saito's character (misspelled before as Sato). He hires Cobb and his team, but he doesn't ask, he tells Cobb that he will do the job even before Cobb agrees to. He also tells Cobb he can get him a pardon from the murder rap with one phone call if he'll do the job. He also has immense power - he can buy an airline at the drop of the hat. He is, therefore, most like God in a movie about using god-like powers to enter and influence people's minds. He is the one who advises Cobb about being an old man full of regret. He watches over Cobb and even saves his life in Mombassa. He also gets wounded in the final dream sequence, goes into limbo after telling Cobb that he'll return, is followed by Cobb as if Cobb takes up his cross to follow, and resurrects Cobb and himself from the limbo dream world.
Saito represents the character of God that exhorts with strength, but also with confidence. He is a father-figure to Cobb and the counterpart of Cobb's sympathetic, advising, but unreproaching real father. He is definitely not like the corporate heirs father who is strong, but only for himself, who is disappointed in his son, and who simply wants to build an empire for himself. The father image is critical throughout the movie. In fact, when Cobb contacts Eames, the thief and forger, about joining the team for the Saito job, they discuss the goal - to change the corporate heirs mind about retaining a monopoly power like his father did. Eames thinks political anti-monopoly ideas won't work - a person's prejudices would get in the way too easily. Then he says something profound: "You have to go to the absolute basic to make the idea stick - the relationship with the father."
Cobb is not able to be a father to his children because of his guilt over what he did to his wife. Saito gets him a pardon in an instant of time, like faith in Christ causes a pardon to be received by the sinner facing condemnation and eternal death. The corporate heir does what is right with respect to the corporation because he sees his father in a totally different light. And Cobb's real father gives him the ability and knowledge to perform the dream invasions, but he does not condone the thievery and deception Cobb employs. Thus, 3 aspects of the creator God are shown - he gives to man the power to create but does not condone the sinful perversion of that power, He reveals Himself to man in a supernatural way outside the control of man showing his compassion and goodness, and he pardons at the moment the sinner receives Christ as his atonement and salvation.
Avatar's Jake Sully
Jake Sully, the main character, is something of a lost person when he arrives at Pandora. He had lost his twin brother, and he talks like he's open to anything new that might give his life meaning. Of course, the prospect of having a new body, even if only virtual, is attractive to a marine who has lost the use of his legs. Jake doesn't know his purpose, so at the same time he's helping the anthropologist understand and befriend the Pandorans, he's also giving intel to the colonel for him to know when and how to strike the enemy. Jake is the ultimate double agent, although there is no attempt to fool the Pandorans who and call Jake and the other virtual Pandorans "sleep-walkers." Often our lives take odd, unnerving and faith-challenging turns, and we wonder what purpose we were intended for. In that sense, we're like Jake who had to wait to see the purpose for the crippling he'd experienced. He had to go low before he could go high. Obviously, the "divine" dandelions that light upon Jake while he's following the Pandoran woman through the jungle are the sign of some sort of calling upon Jake; the Pandoran woman recognizes that.
To add to the statement I made yesterday. Not only does Jake get persecuted and rejected, then come back in power to save the people whose body he had taken on, but he also dies in order to rise again in his permanent new Pandoran body. It's not in the correct order to perfectly mirror Christ's life, but the elements are there in any event.
The movie raises an important moral and biblical question: When do you turn against your own people? Jeremiah was called a traitor, and he did not go nearly as far as Jake. The prophet Jeremiah told the people of Israel that they should submit to Babylon, their pagan enemy. Bablyon's assertion of control was God's own judgment upon them as His people. Jeremiah also told the Israelites who lived in Babylon to live, raise families, contribute to the society they lived in. This was serious medicine for the people accustomed to thinking of themselves as God's chosen and at all other people as unclean.
Therefore, there is a basis for saying that one's society should relent from pursuit of certain goals, even when it should submit to subjugation, but notice that Jeremiah, unlike Jake, did not take up arms against his own people. What is difficult is knowing when that has occurred. When does a society face God's judgment such that countering political, even military, takeover by a foreign power is disobedience to God? The Christians in Rome had to face a similar question. Until the Emperor Constantine, Rome was in serious rebellion against God, but it was not a society that had covenanted with God, then defected, which was Israel's condition. The Roman Christians lived, worked, served, even died for the society they lived in. When they were persecuted to death by the Roman authorities, they died for Christ, but in allowing themselves to be publicly humiliated, they were also dying for their society. They testified that they cared enough about God to die for Him, but they also testified that they cared enough about their society to be a witness to them of whom they should also obey.
Perhaps the appropriate tactic for a Christian to take in a modern society that has forsaken the God it once was in covenant with is some sort of combination of those two attitudes - a "prophetic" testimony to the society that it has forsaken the God it once served while also being willing to face persecution while trying to live and serve and testify of that God. What we cannot follow is a blind "my country right or wrong" attitude nor a Jake Sully "join the enemy and attack" attitude.
To add to the statement I made yesterday. Not only does Jake get persecuted and rejected, then come back in power to save the people whose body he had taken on, but he also dies in order to rise again in his permanent new Pandoran body. It's not in the correct order to perfectly mirror Christ's life, but the elements are there in any event.
The movie raises an important moral and biblical question: When do you turn against your own people? Jeremiah was called a traitor, and he did not go nearly as far as Jake. The prophet Jeremiah told the people of Israel that they should submit to Babylon, their pagan enemy. Bablyon's assertion of control was God's own judgment upon them as His people. Jeremiah also told the Israelites who lived in Babylon to live, raise families, contribute to the society they lived in. This was serious medicine for the people accustomed to thinking of themselves as God's chosen and at all other people as unclean.
Therefore, there is a basis for saying that one's society should relent from pursuit of certain goals, even when it should submit to subjugation, but notice that Jeremiah, unlike Jake, did not take up arms against his own people. What is difficult is knowing when that has occurred. When does a society face God's judgment such that countering political, even military, takeover by a foreign power is disobedience to God? The Christians in Rome had to face a similar question. Until the Emperor Constantine, Rome was in serious rebellion against God, but it was not a society that had covenanted with God, then defected, which was Israel's condition. The Roman Christians lived, worked, served, even died for the society they lived in. When they were persecuted to death by the Roman authorities, they died for Christ, but in allowing themselves to be publicly humiliated, they were also dying for their society. They testified that they cared enough about God to die for Him, but they also testified that they cared enough about their society to be a witness to them of whom they should also obey.
Perhaps the appropriate tactic for a Christian to take in a modern society that has forsaken the God it once was in covenant with is some sort of combination of those two attitudes - a "prophetic" testimony to the society that it has forsaken the God it once served while also being willing to face persecution while trying to live and serve and testify of that God. What we cannot follow is a blind "my country right or wrong" attitude nor a Jake Sully "join the enemy and attack" attitude.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Tomorrow Avatar
The danger in discussing Avatar is to concentrate on the negatives, political, religious, military justice. There are so many. While I'd like to touch on some of those things, lest people think I endorse all of the movie's messages, I want to concentrate on that which comes through sometimes unintentionally, sometimes subtly, and which can teach us about living biblically. I'd like to get the negative out of the way by the following basic statements and questions.
Obviously, as created by the writer and director, the natives on Pandora worship a different god from the true God, something one can do in a fictional tale of any form. The corporate CEO said some of the best lines in the movie, demonstrating the proper disrespect for pagan earth worship: "Hey, if you throw a stick on the ground around here, it becomes a sacred object to be worshipped." (Or something to that effect.) Having said that, the movie can still teach us. Obviously, the humans were from a post-Christian world. Where were the evangelists, who normally arrive in remote areas before the businesses? Why did they send an anthropologist (Sigourney Weaver) to convince the natives to move? She's always going to study the natives and appreciate and try to preserve their culture, not try to change them.
What about the traitor? I was shocked that friends and other movie goers weren't more shocked by the main character's ability to simply turn on his own people so easily and attack them. His treachery was of the most radical kind. He deserved a military court martial with a potential death sentence, had he lost the war.
At the same time, what a dumb idea - send a guy to live with a tribe and be like them. Of course, some affection will rub off. This was the warning of Deuteronomy 7 - Don't let the natives corrupt you by letting their children marry yours, or your children will worship their gods. It's religious preservation 101. But, we Americans send our children to pagan, secular, anti-Christian, tax-supported schools to learn how to live, so what's the big deal? Facetious comment.
The Pandorans appear to be merely annoyed and disrespectful of the humans and not murderous toward them. However, the colonel's speech at the beginning to the newbies on the planet seems to indicate hostile natives, like many of the Indians of the old American west. A little more history of the antagonism against the humans might have lessened our cheers for their warfare upon the humans at the end of the movie. But then, the movie maker would not have achieved his goal of making the humans look like greedy, heartless, capitalist, anti-environmental, colonial marauders - worthy of death, of course. ;) Are we in the world of the environmentalist wacko, or what? We are. Having said that, tomorrow's post will explain the positive to be gleaned from the movie.
Here's a teaser as to what can be gleaned from the movie that is positive. Think about what happens in general terms. A man comes down from the sky, takes on the form of the creatures, who don't understand him, and after being rejected by these creatures and left to die, he returns in great power, becomes their king, and saves them from their enemies. Sound familiar? But there's more.
Obviously, as created by the writer and director, the natives on Pandora worship a different god from the true God, something one can do in a fictional tale of any form. The corporate CEO said some of the best lines in the movie, demonstrating the proper disrespect for pagan earth worship: "Hey, if you throw a stick on the ground around here, it becomes a sacred object to be worshipped." (Or something to that effect.) Having said that, the movie can still teach us. Obviously, the humans were from a post-Christian world. Where were the evangelists, who normally arrive in remote areas before the businesses? Why did they send an anthropologist (Sigourney Weaver) to convince the natives to move? She's always going to study the natives and appreciate and try to preserve their culture, not try to change them.
What about the traitor? I was shocked that friends and other movie goers weren't more shocked by the main character's ability to simply turn on his own people so easily and attack them. His treachery was of the most radical kind. He deserved a military court martial with a potential death sentence, had he lost the war.
At the same time, what a dumb idea - send a guy to live with a tribe and be like them. Of course, some affection will rub off. This was the warning of Deuteronomy 7 - Don't let the natives corrupt you by letting their children marry yours, or your children will worship their gods. It's religious preservation 101. But, we Americans send our children to pagan, secular, anti-Christian, tax-supported schools to learn how to live, so what's the big deal? Facetious comment.
The Pandorans appear to be merely annoyed and disrespectful of the humans and not murderous toward them. However, the colonel's speech at the beginning to the newbies on the planet seems to indicate hostile natives, like many of the Indians of the old American west. A little more history of the antagonism against the humans might have lessened our cheers for their warfare upon the humans at the end of the movie. But then, the movie maker would not have achieved his goal of making the humans look like greedy, heartless, capitalist, anti-environmental, colonial marauders - worthy of death, of course. ;) Are we in the world of the environmentalist wacko, or what? We are. Having said that, tomorrow's post will explain the positive to be gleaned from the movie.
Here's a teaser as to what can be gleaned from the movie that is positive. Think about what happens in general terms. A man comes down from the sky, takes on the form of the creatures, who don't understand him, and after being rejected by these creatures and left to die, he returns in great power, becomes their king, and saves them from their enemies. Sound familiar? But there's more.
Cobb's wife Maul
There is more to the difference between Maul (spelled phonetically). After Cobb taught her to doubt her reality, Maul had no standard for distinguishing between God's reality and the dream world. She was a post-modernist or, at least, a nihilist. Her decision to go back to the limbo world - accomplished by suicide - is apparently based on pure desire. There, she had her husband to herself, and they built and lived without any interference from others. It was a selfish world, built around her love that was so possessive and possessed. Because she has no standard to compare this world with (like the thimble top), she cannot distinguish between real and unreal. So, we without the bible, cannot distinguish between the real and the unreal. Our modern problem has never been lack of information; it's been too much.
Notice Cobb's speech at the end to his wife, his projection of his wife, that is. He tells her she is a product of his imagination, and that he did a poor job. That's for sure. His lovely wife (or his projection of her) was a monster in his subconscious, killing and torturing people indiscriminately and always trying to subvert Cobb's jobs, his success. (By the way, this is eerily similar to I Peter 3:7, which warns husbands: "ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.") Cobb's main problem was guilt. He could not escape his guilt for giving Maul the existentialist idea of standardless, meaningless unreality.
Cobb knew the person he saw in his dreams was not real. So, why did he keep going back to the dream world to relive past events. He was doing what we do all the time. We always go back to the memories of failure and sin, and we think we can fantasize that they didn't happen, or conjure some sort of change, or figure out something to cure the past. But we can't. At least Cobb had the temptation of what seemed so real - the dream world. We know our minds can't fix our past, yet we still try. It's utter folly. It's better to face the consequences, the discipline for the past, and live in the enjoyment of redemption and forgiveness, with all beginning with Him.
Interesting sidenote: The song they used to clue them about an upcoming "kick" back tow wakefulness was the Edith Piaf 1940's song, "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien." It's about regret, but the words could be interpreted as a popular Christian song about redemption and conversion. The French translated to English is as follows.
"No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
Did I rise? Did I soar? Did I fall? It means nothing at all!
No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
All is paid, Swept away, Cast away. I have no yesterday!
I have made a small fire Of my old memories. All past pain and desire Drift away in the breeze.
Up in smoke, my old loves With the tremors they caused. Up in smoke, my old life; I am done with what was!
No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
Did I rise? Did I soar? Did I fall? It means nothing at all!
No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
All I know, All I do, All I am, All begins now with you!"
Notice Cobb's speech at the end to his wife, his projection of his wife, that is. He tells her she is a product of his imagination, and that he did a poor job. That's for sure. His lovely wife (or his projection of her) was a monster in his subconscious, killing and torturing people indiscriminately and always trying to subvert Cobb's jobs, his success. (By the way, this is eerily similar to I Peter 3:7, which warns husbands: "ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.") Cobb's main problem was guilt. He could not escape his guilt for giving Maul the existentialist idea of standardless, meaningless unreality.
Cobb knew the person he saw in his dreams was not real. So, why did he keep going back to the dream world to relive past events. He was doing what we do all the time. We always go back to the memories of failure and sin, and we think we can fantasize that they didn't happen, or conjure some sort of change, or figure out something to cure the past. But we can't. At least Cobb had the temptation of what seemed so real - the dream world. We know our minds can't fix our past, yet we still try. It's utter folly. It's better to face the consequences, the discipline for the past, and live in the enjoyment of redemption and forgiveness, with all beginning with Him.
Interesting sidenote: The song they used to clue them about an upcoming "kick" back tow wakefulness was the Edith Piaf 1940's song, "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien." It's about regret, but the words could be interpreted as a popular Christian song about redemption and conversion. The French translated to English is as follows.
"No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
Did I rise? Did I soar? Did I fall? It means nothing at all!
No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
All is paid, Swept away, Cast away. I have no yesterday!
I have made a small fire Of my old memories. All past pain and desire Drift away in the breeze.
Up in smoke, my old loves With the tremors they caused. Up in smoke, my old life; I am done with what was!
No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
Did I rise? Did I soar? Did I fall? It means nothing at all!
No! Not a thing! No, I don't regret a thing.
All I know, All I do, All I am, All begins now with you!"
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Inception
I've seen Inception twice now. I have a greater respect for Leonardo Dicaprio after this movie. The main plot involves an extremely wicked business - playing God with people's minds through dreams pirating. The plot deals with metaphysical and theological matters, like how God sovereignly gives thought and inspiration to man, how love and rejection affect us in that process, and how the real is ultimately found only after this life - the unreal is lower and full of thought but as Ariadne, the "Architect" says, "You have to go up to the real." Thus, heaven, the up, is the most real, while that which is down in the depths of man's dark soul and flesh is less stable. In fact, at the end of the movie, the limbo in which Cobb's projection of his deceased wife lives, is crumbling to pieces. The movie folds over on itself and reflects itself, like the 1st dream sequence Ariadne experiences in which she folds the city on itself and moves large mirror doors to change reality. Notice that the last scene is the thimble spinning and not falling down. Cobb had explained that his wife had used the thimble to help her keep dream and reality separate - if the thimble fell down after spinning, it was real. So the movie leaves two alternatives: Either Cobb is still in a dream state, or the real is in the afterlife. I choose the latter.
However, the main theme is not in the main plot; it's in the subplot, which involves Cobb's struggle with guilt, his wife's death, wanting to keep his wife in a dream so he can correct the past, and how that keeps him from experiencing reality. Cobb keeps going back to his wife in the dream world because he blames himself for her death. But he is at risk of losing himself in that dream world. Ariadne sees him in the warehouse from which they work using the dream kit to go see his dead wife. He appears to use dreams like a drug. The sentence keeps being repeated: "To become an old man, full of regret, dying alone." It is the danger of living in a dream world instead of God's world of reality, of normality, like the simple daily sight of children's faces. Cobb cannot see his children because of the threat of prosecution for his wife's death that he faces and because in the dreams, his children are not real, while he sees his wife's face, the face of a dead person.
Notice the difference and similarity of Cobb and his wife. Cobb has experienced trouble distinguishing between the dream and the real, but while his wife wants to go down into her subconsciousness, Cobb knows he must go up toward God's reality. That's ultimately why he can escape his wife's fate - he wants to see his children's real faces and turns his head away to avoid seeing their faces in the dream world, lest he want to stay there. His wife wants to go down partly because she can no longer tell the difference between God's reality and her own dream world; they are all the same to her, so she simply chooses the one she felt most secure with her husband. She uses the word "feel" in an attempt toward the end of the movie to convince her husband to stay in the limbo dream world forever. It's hard to do while watching the movie (that is part of its effectiveness; we live Cobb's difficulty), but remember that every time we see Cobb's wife, except for a few scenes in the middle of the movie, she is merely Cobb's projection of his memory of his wife. That is what is so diabolical about the dream world - it seems real but isn't.
The movie reflects upon itself by beginning with Cobb meeting Sato in the limbo world, which is actually a scene from the end of the movie. But that technique emphasizes the critical importance of the words about being an old man full of regret. Sato has become an old man in that scene, and Cobb is looking at himself, what he would become if he allowed the dream world to swallow him. The starting of the movie with that scene, leaves us hanging in suspense, then the ending shows us what it really means for the plot. But the real meaning is not for the sake of the plot, it is for the sake of Cobb and his dilemma, the real theme of the movie. Also, Cobb reflects his wife, who are both deeply involved in living and building in the dream world. However, even though they both build in the dream world, that part of the world falls apart; it's the relationships that last, that can travel from one world to the next. You can be deceived about whom one is talking to in the dream world, but the reality of the relationship with the person is constant. The victim of the scheme, the heir to the corporate conglomerate, reflects this fact. His inheritance of the corporation is much less important to him than his relationship with his father. Thus, the plot involving changing his opinion as to what his father thought of him reflects the theme involving the Cobb and his unreal, dreamworld wife. Cobb undergoes a transformation by rejecting his imagined projection of his dead wife and facing up to reality, but he does so while creating a false imagination of the corporate heir's father in that heir's mind. This is an inverse reflection, sort of like a fun house mirror that distorts the reality of our appearance in some odd way.
However, the main theme is not in the main plot; it's in the subplot, which involves Cobb's struggle with guilt, his wife's death, wanting to keep his wife in a dream so he can correct the past, and how that keeps him from experiencing reality. Cobb keeps going back to his wife in the dream world because he blames himself for her death. But he is at risk of losing himself in that dream world. Ariadne sees him in the warehouse from which they work using the dream kit to go see his dead wife. He appears to use dreams like a drug. The sentence keeps being repeated: "To become an old man, full of regret, dying alone." It is the danger of living in a dream world instead of God's world of reality, of normality, like the simple daily sight of children's faces. Cobb cannot see his children because of the threat of prosecution for his wife's death that he faces and because in the dreams, his children are not real, while he sees his wife's face, the face of a dead person.
Notice the difference and similarity of Cobb and his wife. Cobb has experienced trouble distinguishing between the dream and the real, but while his wife wants to go down into her subconsciousness, Cobb knows he must go up toward God's reality. That's ultimately why he can escape his wife's fate - he wants to see his children's real faces and turns his head away to avoid seeing their faces in the dream world, lest he want to stay there. His wife wants to go down partly because she can no longer tell the difference between God's reality and her own dream world; they are all the same to her, so she simply chooses the one she felt most secure with her husband. She uses the word "feel" in an attempt toward the end of the movie to convince her husband to stay in the limbo dream world forever. It's hard to do while watching the movie (that is part of its effectiveness; we live Cobb's difficulty), but remember that every time we see Cobb's wife, except for a few scenes in the middle of the movie, she is merely Cobb's projection of his memory of his wife. That is what is so diabolical about the dream world - it seems real but isn't.
The movie reflects upon itself by beginning with Cobb meeting Sato in the limbo world, which is actually a scene from the end of the movie. But that technique emphasizes the critical importance of the words about being an old man full of regret. Sato has become an old man in that scene, and Cobb is looking at himself, what he would become if he allowed the dream world to swallow him. The starting of the movie with that scene, leaves us hanging in suspense, then the ending shows us what it really means for the plot. But the real meaning is not for the sake of the plot, it is for the sake of Cobb and his dilemma, the real theme of the movie. Also, Cobb reflects his wife, who are both deeply involved in living and building in the dream world. However, even though they both build in the dream world, that part of the world falls apart; it's the relationships that last, that can travel from one world to the next. You can be deceived about whom one is talking to in the dream world, but the reality of the relationship with the person is constant. The victim of the scheme, the heir to the corporate conglomerate, reflects this fact. His inheritance of the corporation is much less important to him than his relationship with his father. Thus, the plot involving changing his opinion as to what his father thought of him reflects the theme involving the Cobb and his unreal, dreamworld wife. Cobb undergoes a transformation by rejecting his imagined projection of his dead wife and facing up to reality, but he does so while creating a false imagination of the corporate heir's father in that heir's mind. This is an inverse reflection, sort of like a fun house mirror that distorts the reality of our appearance in some odd way.
Movies are popular and culture
The movie and TV are the most popular form of culture today; both involve the visual arts, the audio arts, drama, and music. The most popular art of the past is now out of style, or at least, less popular. Consider the play, the chamber orchestra, etc. Formerly very influential, now less so. The movie is the most powerful of all cultural forms because it makes use of so many art forms.
I don't allow movies to determine me. They are reflections of reality, just like any other creation of man. They are flawed because man is flawed, but the thoughts of man cannot escape the reality of God. Even movies that have not goal of glorifying God, perhaps are antagonistic, end up doing so. This is because even in attacking or fleeing God, man cannot help reflecting his maker in his thought.
Thus, all movies can be interpreted from a Christian or biblical perspective. I have gone to non-Christian movies that have taught me more about living the Christian life than an hour-long sermon. Movies can move us, inspire us, and change our thinking. Therefore, it is imperative that we interpret them properly and not allow them mold us. They're more enjoyable when you see the purpose of God through them anyway. Therefore, I created this blog. I being with the movie I saw tonight - Inception. See the next post.
I don't allow movies to determine me. They are reflections of reality, just like any other creation of man. They are flawed because man is flawed, but the thoughts of man cannot escape the reality of God. Even movies that have not goal of glorifying God, perhaps are antagonistic, end up doing so. This is because even in attacking or fleeing God, man cannot help reflecting his maker in his thought.
Thus, all movies can be interpreted from a Christian or biblical perspective. I have gone to non-Christian movies that have taught me more about living the Christian life than an hour-long sermon. Movies can move us, inspire us, and change our thinking. Therefore, it is imperative that we interpret them properly and not allow them mold us. They're more enjoyable when you see the purpose of God through them anyway. Therefore, I created this blog. I being with the movie I saw tonight - Inception. See the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)