I love movies—especially Coen brothers movies. As you know, they just came out with another called No Country for Old Men—most of you have probably seen it. I must admit, it was intense; but I could not turn away. I have seen it three times! It is a wonderfully made movie. And it has gotten wonderful reviews. They really needed this after the past few flops they have had!
The movie is based on a novel by the same title by Cormac McCarthy. I anticipated the movie so much I decided to read the book before going to see it. I could not put it down. I read the whole thing in about two days. Granted, it is not that long of a book, but that is still pretty good for me (I am a slow reader). The book read like a movie, and I just kept looking for excuses to read more and more.
But the book and movie also presented some pretty real struggles for me. They were both incredibly violent. Profoundly so. From the very first pages of the book, and the first scenes in the movie, we are bombarded by violence.
I realize that McCarthy is one of the most respected living American authors. So as I read the book and watched the movie, I was really trying to read between the lines to get to what he was saying through this story. I know he wasn’t just putting violence out there for the sake of violence—as is so common in movies, television, and video games. This is a story that is intelligently saying something. And there are some important themes presented throughout the story. (I will save my interpretations of the story for another post.)
As many of you know, throughout the past few months I have been thinking a pretty good bit about the issue of pacifism and non-violence. I have even published here on the issue. And when I return to those issues and put them in conversation with No Country for Old Men, some real questions begin to emerge: can violence (in art) have a redemptive function? In other words, can I accomplish a valid artist goal by using violence in my art—as McCarthy has done? Or has he? Is that valid for Christians?
And where does this stop? I mean, if I argue that No Country for Old Men can/should be used to make some real and important statements about humanity, America, or God, then can I use something as senselessly brutal as Halo as well? What is the difference? Is it that McCarthy actually has intelligently placed violence before me? Does the intelligence (or intentionality) behind something validate it more?
You see where I am going with this. I just want some consistency here. Am I going to find it? How?
Posted in Books, General Posts, Pacifism, Social Justice, Spirituality
Recent Comments