Saturday, December 1, 2012

Skyfall: Bond vs. Belial


I don’t normally think of the Holy Spirit as a bearded Scotsman with a sawn-off shotgun. I also rarely see a movie as thick with Christianity as Skyfall.

I never went scavenging for Christ figures in the Lord of the Rings, and it would be wrong to say Skyfall “had Christian themes,” as if the directors had sat down and sketched out the prepackaged problem, the gospel message, and Bond’s conversion experience in advance. Rather, at the climax of Skyfall, I felt that I was actually watching the drama of the Gospel unfold.

I also felt like I was crazy. Since seeing the movie I’ve read reviews that criticize the plot and characters as unoriginal and ask when the Bond franchise is going to wake up to its eternally unsavory treatment of women. I’ve been more absorbed by the movie’s symbolic qualities, but I should acknowledge those reviews because they helped me understand what my analysis was not—and also offered a clue to the sense of bleakness that ensued from thinking too long about certain aspects of the film.

The narrative of Skyfall is a triumphal rejection of paganism. What it says about life and death, love and hate, sin and judgment and redemption, is so emphatically Christian that it felt lifted from the pages of medieval theology. You don’t have to see the movie this way, but it doesn’t take much mental exertion to do so if you recognize the villain. What the story did with him was bound to be important, just because of the characteristics he possesses.

Silva is a man of the world: smooth-tongued, seductive, brilliant, urbane. He controls a global operation of spies and intrigues, rigs elections and ends lives with a wave and a yawn, and lives as a law unto himself. England and the empire are jokes to him. He is the accuser, hacking into M’s computer and conscience to tell her to “Think on your sins.” And for all his polish, he’s demonic:
“[Even] the use of electricity may be ‘demonic,’ as in fact may be the use of anything and of life itself…[T]he experience of evil which we call demonic is not that of a mere absence of good, or, for that matter, of all sorts of existential alienations or anxieties. It is indeed the presence of dark and irrational power” (Alexander Schmemmann).

It’s no coincidence that Silva is totally dependent on force. His clockwork of computers and mind games boils down to control. In every way, Silva matches the character of Satan in classical and medieval theology and literature: scoffer, accuser, warlord, gentleman—a genius only able to corrupt, not create. So what do you do with the devil?

This is where Bond comes in. Early in the film, he’s mired in reckless dissipation. When he comes back from the dead and back on duty in the face of a shadowy but personal threat to M and MI6, he is still struggling with M’s earlier betrayal and the effects of living for himself: substance and alcohol addiction, a deterioration from his machine-like physical condition, and a disdain for authority rooted in “psychological issues from his childhood.” He may have skirted death, but he hasn’t found newness of life.

Nevertheless, he begins hunting down the threat. Eventually he meets the mastermind (Silva), who plays with his confidence, shows off his own strength and the bizarre wreckage of an island from which he brings his twisted fantasies to life, and even invites (then threatens to coerce) Bond to join his side.

Bond’s response to this situation is clever, but not morally compelling. In a distasteful sequence involving a waste of trust and a woman’s life, Bond relies on his wits and training to spring Silva’s trap and take him back to England. As ugly as this moment is, it’s the point where he declares himself as Silva’s enemy. Whether he can outsmart the villain or not, he’s picked a side.

Back in London, M and Bond find out Silva is still playing his own very planned out game. When the technological wiles of MI6 fail to exorcise the demon, Bond realizes their conflict is about more than which spider has the cleverer web. The real question is whether loyalty can withstand blind force and impersonal hatred. So Bond changes the battle. He goes off the grid and into his past, luring Silva to his fortress of a childhood home. Some viewers found this implausible. Fine, but the symbolism starts to get really interesting. Here we find out that Bond is an orphan, and M recruited him to the Secret Service from the Scottish moors.

Arriving at the mansion, Bond and M find an unexpected companion: the old gamekeeper, Kincade. When Bond tells Kincade the upcoming showdown “isn’t your fight,” Kincade answers, “Try and stop me, you uppity little shit.” Out of childhood, out of the shadows, out of the past, enter the Helper—one who has become unfamiliar but who knows the orphan as well as he knows himself, and will care for the widowed M in her distress.

When Silva arrives, Bond is no longer impressed with his wiles and force—he actually rolls his eyes at the overbearing mode of Silva’s approach. M, the defender of Britain, is defenseless. Her job is execute Bond’s plans and flee at the right moment, with Kincade’s help, to the estate’s old chapel. Bond has taken her place as defender. In defending M, he defends Britain; in defending both of them, he also defends his mother. The orphan is fighting for natural affection, safety for the widow, and kingdom against chaos. Everything Silva laughed at, Bond has owned. This isn’t just the settling of an old score—this is about an eschatology of chaos vs. peace.

The action sequence in the old house is flawlessly executed and amazing. (Implausible, some complain, but that’s the whole point of making Bond movies.) Bond neutralizes Silva’s attacks one by one, until they are both paused, hiding behind fortresses. So with one fuse Bond destroys both. The conflict becomes man to man.

And it centers on M. The woman who earlier declared that “regret is unprofessional” is wounded at the hip, shedding blood for the sins she wouldn’t acknowledge. Kincade, the Helper, is leading her to the church, shining a light for her feet on the dark moor. That flashlight catches Silva’s eye. Naïve Mr. Kincade, the viewer thinks with a cringe, but the nature of light is to overcome darkness.

When Silva finds M in the church, she’s all alone. Another failure by Kincade, you’d think. But just as providence is not the same as redemption, Kincade’s job is to come alongside, not ultimately to save.

Silva thinks he has dispatched Bond, so when he finds M, all obstacles between them have fallen. In a stunning renunciation of his quest for revenge, Silva embraces M, puts a gun to both their heads, gives M the trigger, and begs her to “Free us both.” Suddenly all he wants is oblivion, absorption, and dissolution into the universe. What he’s demanding of M is an admission that her love and his hate, her sins and his justice, her self and his self, are finally meaningless and indistinct. What he thought for so long was hatred for her was nothing but hatred for his own corrupt self and everything that was not corrupted like it. This renunciation of personality, rationality, moral distinction, and being itself, is the pinnacle of demonic paganism. Weston’s possessed and jumbled consciousness in Perelandra came vividly to my mind:
“‘You be very careful, Ransom. I’m down in the bottom of a big black hole. No I’m not, though. I’m on Perelandra. I can’t think very well now, but that doesn’t matter, he does all my thinking for me. It’ll get quite easy presently. That boy keeps shutting the windows. That’s all right, they’ve taken off my head and put someone else’s on me. I’ll soon be all right now.’…Ransom could never make up his mind whether it was a trick or whether a decaying psychic energy that had once been Weston were indeed fitfully and miserably alive within the body that sat there beside him…The intoxicated will which had been slowly poisoning the intelligence and the affections had now at last poisoned itself and the whole psychic organism had fallen to pieces.”
Silva’s last request is for negation of his being—to become utterly incomprehensible.

And it is his last request. Of course Bond isn’t dead, and he shows up and finishes Silva in the knick of time. (Interestingly, no shot is fired in the church.) M is beyond physical help, but she’s safe from moral madness. The apostle of Death has died. Her death isn’t a theft or an abdication, but a passing on into the province of God’s mercy. Bond is there to mourn and Kincade to witness when she goes.

I suppose it should be strange that in all of this there isn’t really a Christ figure. Bond might fit in a pinch, since he defeats death symbolically when he kills Silva and personally when he escapes drowning twice. But he needs redemption as much as anyone. Not until he spends himself for love of someone else does he find himself again after his long malaise, and many of his actions in the meantime are repulsive. If I was to stick an archetype on him, I would pick the prodigal son or maybe the wayward apostle returning to grace. But I don’t think it’s necessary to stick an archetype on him for the drama that plays out among Silva, M, and Kincade to hold its Christian resonance. Bond is just a sort of spokesman.

The theme of the whole movie is expressed in a word, in the scene where Bond is tied up in a chair on Silva’s island. Silva has just finished showing off his machines and his global control, prompting Bond to comment, “I suppose everyone has to have a hobby.”

“What’s yours?” asks Silva.

Bond thinks a moment. “Resurrection.”

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Mercy of Breakfast

-->
Unmerciful, the morning breaks on heads
Unkempt with dreams and eyes as bleared as sheets
Upon which coverlids flick dumbly back
In disarray of textile and of mind.

Unmerciful, the morning showers dawn
And song and beauty down upon men's backs
And work-bound feet before their eyes can lift
Or hearts can pause to sing with its refrain.

Unmerciful, the morning brings the day
And call to draw the world along with hands
And spurs and laws and rakes and winning words:
The trappings of vocation, and of hope.

So thank you for the sacrament of strength:
A silent breakfast in the rosy light
That rises as your word in mouth and heart
And man stares uncompanioned at his thoughts.

A homely eucharist, this cud that feeds
Our limbs and every small obedience
Written in the book of allotted days
Till joy comes, and the shadows flee away.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

In Defense of Trophies

This week I ran across a link in Becky Keller's Google status (hi Becky) that led me to an article about trophies.  It was inspired by an e-card on Pinterest: "I'm afraid of a world run by adults who were never spanked as kids and got trophies just for participating."

The author, Kathleen Quiring, says:
I have medals, pennants, plaques and certificates for every conceivable elementary-school achievement, from track to public speaking to spelling. These turned out not to be very good indicators of my future as a leader and world-changer...Most of us trophy-winners, as adults, don't have much in the way of imagination, character, or practical skills...In fact, researcher Karen Arnold, after spending more than fifteen years following the careers of high school valedictorians, actually concluded that these people are not the people to look to for creative breakthroughs or becoming notable leaders in a particular area. They just know how to do school.
Well, I can identify with some of this. I have two boxes of such mementos sitting on my shelf waiting be gone through, because my mom didn't want to store them on her shelves anymore. Part of my reason for procrastinating is that to touch those boxes I have to make a decision about whether all of that stuff means anything now. (I'm leaning no, and not just because of a grouchy article.)

The lady goes on:
I grew up to be rather spineless and lazy, lacking creativity and ingenuity.I give up easily when things get hard, I have trouble relating to people who are different from me, and I've failed to do or produce a single original thing in my life. You don’t want the world run by people like me.
That, obviously, is where she lets her hammer fall. Overachievers are just good at jumping through the hoops of self-importance. And self-importance makes them unremarkable. "And of all these sinners I am the chief."

I will gladly attest that bucking the regime of overachievement in some way is one of the best things you can ever do for yourself. If you never stop measuring yourself by other people's expectations, you cannot know what you're made for. (As with many crises, it's best to have this out in college or some other haven where it won't seriously affect your living expenses.) But I hope we can see the irony here.

I think Ms. Quiring plays herself false. It's impossible to evaluate her claim of failing to do anything original in life, so the reader has no choice but to feel vaguely bad for her. Then she uses sympathy against us and stakes a claim to authority. "You don't want the world run by people like me" is both a statement about how the world should be run and a claim to authority in making it. Her conclusion is even more blatant: "I'd much rather live in a world where there were no trophies." Ms. Quiring is asking that we listen to her because she is mediocre; in effect, she wants a trophy for self-awareness.

I have no intention of giving it to her. Self-awareness is good, but it is not great; it's also not enough to resolve questions of this magnitude. Ms. Quiring recognizes that great things are achieved by people who suffer and struggle through failure and rejection; she does not recognize that abolishing rewards would abolish the very values that make great things intelligible. In other words, she ignores the need for criteria and distinction.

The great honors of the world--the laurel wreath, the gold medal, knighthood, beatification, the Purple Heart, the Nobel Prize, even the Triple Crown--partake of immortality. They single out certain achievements as remarkable and unite people around events and heroes. Even local prizes like a blue ribbon at the county fair, first place in the demolition derby, or scholarships bestowed by the Elks express something of community values like ingenuity or homespun usefulness.

The trouble with trophies isn't that they exist, but that we've turned them into carrots and sticks for a host of activities that aren't truly competitive (like handwriting) or that we could just as well do for fun (like spelling bees). Carrots and sticks make for a very different society than trophies do, so it's no surprise that the winners of unimportant trophies feel lied to about both work and play. The remedy is not to do away with trophies, unless you really do want a society of carrots and sticks--i.e., no work and no leisure.

The remedy is to turn trophies back into trophies and do away with lying about them. This means making distinctions about achievement. I don't think we should all become snobs who are so obsessed with Mozart that we can't tell Johnny "good job" after his recital. But we should cultivate a sense of proportion. Many thousands of the indebted, unemployed humanities majors living in their parents' basements right now would have been better served if someone had encouraged their more "plebeian" interests in the trades, interior design, and outdoor sports, rather than assuming right along with them that the liberal arts are for everyone. Obtaining an academic degree is good, but the reverse is not shameful. Is that so painful to admit?

Insisting on distinctions and exceptionalism will ruffle some feathers, but there's no other way to have an intelligible society or, as Ms. Quiring points out, an intelligible life. The truth has a way of sticking up for itself in the long run. Our choice is whether it will claim victims in doing so (ask the jobless generation). We can reduce the pain of these massive social corrections by agreeing with the truth in the first place: that jumping successfully through the hoops of life is good and desirable, but not ultimate and not in itself great. Not everyone will pursue distinction and not all who do will achieve it. And there's no shame in living simply.

Until we restore some sense of proportion about this, the Quirings of the world will continue to be angry and confused.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Exercises at the Parade Grounds


Exhaustion is the weariness worst,
The feeling futile that attends on the end
Of a worn-long day.

What a calm of a balm is to sit and befit
All the futile flat-fall to its ether home.
On the solid of a bench and the common of the park
In the lee, sunward-wise, of a tree, put I
As it’s setting and its glory limns their limbs who try.

Three black men in three white shirts
Run the length and the strength of the long green field.
Past the chain-link screen, little nimble-running shapes
Trying not to run clumped like a bunch of grapes
Learn soccer from a hoarse-heard coach.

Soccer and running are words for belonging
And the goal is the means to the fill of the longing.
So the little one stopping to tie his shoe
Keeps an eye on the hopping and stray of the ball
Which the runningmen bounce easy back in the flip
Of their looping continuous strain.

I who am perfect because of my work
Look at these who are perfect because they are God’s
And the futile falls off from my shoulders.