One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

A typical theological reflection on the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest might see the character R. P. McMurphy as a Christ figure with his stay at the mental hospital as having a redemptive quality. I will not be viewing the film in this manner; instead, I’ll be viewing the film with a Gnostic filter as opposed to a more normative Orthodox theological perspective. In this perspective the hospital becomes a metaphor for the human condition itself.

The character of R. P. McMurphy becomes not a Christ figure per se but simply a person cast into the mix with the rest of humanity, as represented by the other members of the hospital. The difference between McMurphy and the others is that he is more aware of the outside world – symbolic of the Gnostic desire to return to a pre-existent state within the pleroma. He desires to return to that state, but the bonds of the hospital bind him in such a way that he cannot. In contrast to McMurphy and the other patients in the hospital is the medical staff. The director of the hospital stands as the Demiurge, the god that watches over creation; whereas the hospital staff, and especially Nurse Ratched represents the archons who do the work of the Demiurge and who work to keep everyone enslaved to the material world (i.e., the hospital).

McMurphy tries to escape the hospital prison to achieve gnosis, but his ties there are too firm and he finds himself going back. The other patients in the hospital are also tied there, and most are tethered to the hospital willingly and don’t want to escape the shackles that bind them. Only one person in the hospital breaks free from the efforts of the Demiurge and his archons. That person being Chief Bromden, who through the efforts of McMurphy realizes he no longer needs the hospital and frees himself. After he frees McMurphy from his material prison, by smothering him with a pillow, he escapes his prison to find gnosis.

Looking at the film as a metaphor for the Gnostic human condition, to seek a world outside of the realm of the Demiurge and the archons, and to come to one’s own grips with reality is something this film can demonstrate. By looking at the film as strictly another Christ film, with McMurphy in the Christ role, seems to place all the emphasis of the film onto the character of McMurphy. While he is the lead character of the film, there is potentially more at stake than simply the greatness of McMurphy. It could be viewed, in a Gnostic sense, that McMurphy does have a Christ like quality, but it also shows the real responsibility within a Gnostic understanding of redemption rests within each person and not necessarily an historical action. The real hero in the movie is Chief Bromden, who goes from feigning deaf and dumbness to an awakening that allows him to hear, to speak, and to be free.

The Passion of the Christ

In the film The Passion of the Christ the viewer is taken into a realm of melancholy music, harsh brutality, and sadistic revelry. The obvious theological implication of the film is the views of the director, Mel Gibson (a conservative Roman Catholic), who clearly views the atonement as a bloody sacrifice of Jesus sacrificed on behalf of humanity -- independent of the workings of humanity. The view that humanity is enslaved by sin, and demonic influences, and can only be redeemed from this enslavement by this act of sacrifice, is placing Jesus in the role of a divine scapegoat. This role is reinforced with scenes of sadistic brutality inflicted upon Jesus throughout the film, a brutality that seems both forced and overly sadistic.

That The Passion of the Christ is a movie about Jesus is abundantly obvious; however, I would like to focus my attention on some underlying theological aspects of the film that function in a more subtle role. The first I will address is the role that Mary, the mother of Jesus, plays in the film. Throughout the story she is seen following her son through his scourging, walk with his cross, and ultimately his crucifixion. There are several scenes in which Mary has a flashback to a younger Jesus, a human Jesus who falls and needs his mother, and a Jesus who is hungry and needs food. This human Jesus is contrasted with the justified Jesus who tells the high Priest, “I AM…” which can be seen as Jesus alluding to his divine status,[1] as well as the quick flashback scene where Jesus states the words of John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”[2] Later in the film Jesus is a bloody mess, and can barely carry his cross on his way to the crucifixion site. When his mother kneels down before his fallen body she tells her son that she is here, and her presence seems to give him the energy to continue his journey. She is clearly grieving for her son, but her presence in the film also seems like a coach motivating a player to stay in the game. This seems consistent with the role that Mary plays in the theological witness of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. She is not simply the woman who gave birth, and raised Jesus but also the Theotokos, the Mother of God and to some a co-Redemptrix.

Towards the middle of the film Mary is seen with a white piece of cloth cleaning up the blood of her son after he had been scourged, and it seemed akin to a nun cleaning up a spilled consecrated chalice used in a Eucharistic rite. The image of the white cloth and Eucharistic elements exist throughout the film. In addition to the white cloth Mary used to soak up blood, a white cloth was used in the film to cover the bread used in the last supper, and finally a white cloth was used to dry the hands of the Roman procurator after he “washed his hands” of the Jesus affair. The symbolism here is important Eucharistically. In the older form of Catholic worship the priest would wash his hands after the offertory prayer in preparation for the sacrifice of the Mass itself, drying his hands on a white cloth. That the procurator is giving Jesus up to be a sacrifice seems evident, and reminiscent of the Catholic understanding of the Mass being God offered up to God in a non-bloody sacrifice as opposed to Jesus being offered up as the bloody sacrifice. The sacrifice of Jesus in relived in the Eucharist. A similar white cloth can be seen in his funeral shroud, although it is miraculously unstained, at the very end of the film when we see Jesus resurrected, completely healed save for the holes within his palms. This funeral shroud, without blood stains, seems to indicate the time for the bloodless sacrifice – The Eucharist – has come. The image of the white cloth plays an important role in linking these various scenes of the Eucharistic elements of the film.

Several other characters in the film are worth mentioning. The first is the Satan figure. This figure has an ambiguous gender and is clearly the real antagonist of the film following Jesus throughout the film, and taking delight in his punishment. The Satan figure also interacts with the Judas character and most strikingly in the scene where Judas interacts with some children who at first seem concerned about him, only to display a demonic countenance in which they endeavor to torment Judas and reveal to him his cursed nature. Judas then retreats to the wilderness where he finds a rotting donkey near a tree, and taking rope from the donkey corpse he hangs himself. The horrific images of the Judas suicide seem to help in displaying the Satan figure as a key player in the story, as a deterministic element manipulating and steering events. The irony is that at the end of the film the Satan figure seems defeated by that which he worked towards – the crucifixion of Jesus.

Some mention needs to be given to the roles played in the story by Herod and the Roman procurator. The procurator is seen in a sympathetic perspective, and he is almost seen as a man forced out of necessity to condemn Jesus. Herod, on the other hand, is seen as an effeminate letch devoted to pleasure and debauchery. The Roman procurator, on the other hand, is seen as a calm respectable figure trying to do the right thing. The Jewish priests are clearly seen in the film to be the instigators of the violence to Jesus, and this enmity towards Jesus seems to be shared by the Roman soldiers who seem to enjoy torturing Jesus. The scene with the priests processing to the crucifixion site seems in contrast to a flashback where Jesus is seen, with the camera angle seen through his eyes, processing into Jerusalem on a donkey. These two scenes contrast with the Judas suicide scene where he hangs himself from a rope around a decomposing donkey. Jesus rode in triumph, the priests rode to a slaughter, and Judas used the donkey’s possession to end his life. As the donkey carries its burden, Jesus is seen in the film to carry the burden of sin.

The film The Passion of the Christ utilizes material from all four gospels, and takes liberty where it suits the film maker. The film is not Jewish friendly film (from the effeminate Herod to the sadistic priests), and clearly reflects the theological agenda of the film’s maker. The popularity of the film cannot be ignored, and the rich symbolism of the film needs to be discussed. The film offers a good springboard for conversation on atonement, and place the crucifixion has within Christianity.

[1] This “I AM” statement can be seen in Exodus 3:14 with God referring to himself. The Gospel of Mark 14:62 has Jesus refer to himself as “I AM,” but the other gospels omit the “I AM.”
[2] New Revised Standard Version.

Crimes & Misdemeanors

In the Woody Allen film Crimes and Misdemeanors the viewer is taken into two separate, yet interconnected worlds. In these two worlds the viewer glimpses into a world of suffering and struggle. It is the suffering and struggle, and subsequent relief, which are the subject of this particular theological analysis of the film. There are multiple layers to this film with multiple characters, and each of the characters wrestles with tough questions, makes choices, suffers, and longs for an end to that suffering.

There are two main characters in the film; Clifford Stern and Judah Rosenthal. These two men represent a contrast, since Judah is a successful doctor and Clifford is a seemingly average documentary producer. Both of these men struggle through life looking for happiness, and while Judah seems to find happiness in a mistress (Delores) he has to deal with her later in the film by murdering her. Clifford on the other hand doesn’t have the career success as Judah and tries to do everything with a sense of moral rightness. By the end of the film we see Judah having arranged the murder of his mistress, guilty of financial improprieties, and guilty of adultery; however, in the end he seems blessed by a rejuvenated marriage and while not a clear conscious a conscious that will allow him a sense of peace. Likewise, by the end of the film we see Clifford having lost the woman he loved, still unsuccessful in his work and staring into his glass in apparent depression. What does this tell us about God? About redemption?

There are plenty of support characters in the film. Halley is the love interest of Clifford, but instead of Clifford “getting the girl” she falls for Lester, an arrogant producer that Clifford ridicules and tries to compete with. When we see Halley earlier in the film she is divorced, yet still wears her wedding ring and not fully over the divorce. She isn’t receptive to Clifford’s advances, but is a likable character and it seems like she and Clifford will become a couple by the end of the movie, but of course she ends up with Lester. Another supporting character is Wendy, the wife of Clifford and sister of Lester. She is clearly unhappy in her marriage with Clifford and she doesn’t seem to respect her husband; however, by the end of the film we see that Wendy and Clifford are separating and that Wendy has found someone who makes her smile. In contrast to Wendy is Delores, the mistress of Judah. She longs for him, but he doesn’t want to give up his wife and privileged position. Delores ends up dead, because she threatened to challenge Judah’s lifestyle and marriage with Miriam. Another important supporting character is the sister of Clifford. She is a likable character but plagued with unhappiness, and at the end of the story she doesn’t seem to have much to look forward to. What do these characters tell us about God? About redemption?

The contrasts in the film are striking. The arrogant producer (Lester) gets the girl (Halley). The adulterous embezzler now murderer (Judah) ends up happy. The do-good looser (Clifford) gets nothing. The woman longing for love (Delores) sees only suffering and death. The contrast in the film is that those characters that seem worthy of our sympathy get nothing; whereas, those characters who are not as likable find solace by the end of the film. What does this tell us about God? About redemption?

It would be haughty to assume that God only cares about those people with whom we care about, and wrong to assume that God doesn’t care about the wicked, or the arrogant. The film can clearly be seen as a metaphor for God’s love for humanity. Redemption, being hope and meaning, can be given by God to anyone and need not filter through the moral compass of humanity. A person’s relationship with God is their own relationship, and need not pass a consensus evaluation. The arrogant (Lestor) can find humility (Halley). The distraught (Delores) can find relief (death). The proud and conflicted (Judah) can find happiness (Miriam). The success of these less likable characters doesn’t mean that the other characters in the film will never experience redemption from their troubled lives, but it does show that redemption is there and that it is given to even those we feel are undeserving. The moral of the story is not to question the generosity of God. Not to place qualifiers or expectations on the generosity of God. God loves the righteous and the wicked, the sinner and the sinless.