Friday, November 25, 2011

'Melancholia' and the advantage of the Abused

Lars von Trier says, in an interview regarding his recent release Melancholia, that
"You can skate across the polished surface in this film. The style is polished, but underneath the smooth surface, there's content. And to get to that, you need to look beyond the polish. But the worst thing to happen was when they said at Nordisk Film: There are some beautiful images,” 

This film has beauty, and it is seductive.  Images of the landscape, the castle, the wedding reception, and of Kirsten Dunst can draw us in.  Von Trier admits the finished picture had a "plastic" quality that nearly turned his own stomach against it.  The filmmaker's creation has almost bested him.  And moreso it may his audiences.  Search the online reviews; few can describe what this movie is about other than the obvious, superficial elements.  

On that superficial level, I have to say the film disappoints.  There are no plot twists.  There is no escape from the inevitable.  There is only a witness of how various characters respond to an impending crash of planets.

There is, however, a deeper statement, reflected in the transformation of Dunst's character Justine: from helpless, depressed, and crushed by the weight of everyday life - to clear, direct, purposeful and productive - all as the crisis draws nearer.  It is no coincidence that the character in whom this transformation takes place is a survivor of sexual abuse.

I expect most reviews will miss this background of Justine's character, but the evidence is all there, subtly and unmistakably.  The father who is obsessed with women he jokingly names "Betty" - bringing two of them to the wedding - which we later learn is his pet-name for his daughter.  The mother who openly scorns the marriage ceremony, who later bitterly explains, "I wasn't there when that man had a crack at her body, I wasn't there for her first sexual experience, why should I be there for this stupid ritual."  And, finally, Justine's growing panic as her new husband undresses to consummate their union, requesting a moment to herself - during which she impulsively and violently rapes an innocuous wedding guest in the sand trap on the golf course.   Justine has transferred forward the violence done to her, engaging in anonymous sex, often the only kind of sexuality with which the child victim of sexual abuse can identify.

Justine's history as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - which is so subtly told it will be lost on most audiences, I'm afraid - provides a crucial backdrop for her prevalent present features: her crippling depression and her strange clarity and strength as the end of the world nears.

Part I, "Justine," shows Justine's debilitating mental illness: the wedding is admittedly a performance, a last-ditch effort to revive her spirits.  Yet it is a failure, she cannot live on her own and ends up back at the castle estate on which her sister's family lives.  She spends days in bed and needs help being lifted physically to the dinner table or the bath.  She is a woman who cannot summon the energy to participate in everyday life on the same terms as others.

There is a thread connecting the instances of Justine's energy, and this is part of the genius of von Trier's script:  Justine comes alive only at opportunities to engage with truth.  She actively seeks out her mother to reveal her feelings of confusion and fear, only to be smote by her mother's jealous bitterness.   Justine shows surprising initiative at chasing down her father and arranging him a room to stay the night, because she needs to speak with him about "something important."  The incestuous father, however, sensing the possible encounter with the truth of his past transgressions, finds the excuse to flee from the confrontation.  The husband of her dreams, while making dull attempts at kindness in providing a fantasy life for her, cannot himself deal with the truth of her depression, but escapes into the  bottle of Hennessy and by burying his face in her breasts, hungry for sex.  When Justine leaves her husband in his state of excitement, she is an abuse victim not just fleeing from stigmatized sex, but also intolerant of her partner's inability to face her truth.

As this pattern repeats in part II, it becomes evident that Justine's depression is not an individualized disease (as our medical model would have it), but rather that she is sapped of life as her key connections stake out their commitments to flee from the truth.  As the collision with the planet Melancholia becomes more inevitable, the other adults flee - one through suicide, and the other into flailing fantasy and despair.  Meanwhile, the character Justine answers a nighttime muse to bathe nude and touch herself in the light of the approaching planet Melancholia, symbolically drinking in the truth about her melancholy, which all the functioning world would deny her.

Robbed of the stability that would have come from healthy boundaries being respected in her upbringing, Justine, like all abuse survivors, at a young age had her world turned upside down.  While she is incapable of functioning in a functioning world, she conversely possesses the unique ability to draw strength from chaos - for in the chaos, there is truth.  As Justine says, "life is evil;"  the functioning world, like her father, would hide its chaotic violence and put on pretenses (such as the wedding) for their own benefit.  Yet, they crumble or flee when the truth eclipses their pretense.  Justine, however, finally has her nourishment: the unmistakeable approach of the destruction she has always known was there.   While her nephew's parents have abandoned him, she relates to him and steps up to show him the way through chaos: with dignity, they prepare, join together, and close their eyes to meditate while their destruction rips through them.   Von Trier explains:
"We are [alone].  But no one wants to realize it. They keep wanting to push limits and fly wherever,” he laughs. “Forget it! Look inward.”

As eloquently as Pema Chodron might put it, Lars von Trier shows that truth cannot be met by our common, cowardly impulses toward escape.  And in facing the truth, the struggles that trauma survivors  have gone through to grapple with their own worldly handicaps will actually serve them well.  Jesus did say, "the last will be first."

Regardless of whether the world ends suddenly with planets colliding, or whether melancholy gradually eclipses us as our trusted sources of stability in life are compromised, Melancholia asks us to consider how we will face truth.  Will we plan, like Claire, to put on Beethoven's 9th, drink good wine, and try to make it "nice"?  Or, like Justine, will we have the courage to meet truth with truth, call those sorts of plans "shit," and prepare in all seriousness as best we are able?

Anyone commenting on or reading about von Trier's film has felt the truth of the film resonating within them.  Are we content to comment on the superficial, plastic elements of the film, or will we try to probe deeper for the source of this truth within us?  Will we allow ourselves to be seduced, like an abuser, into thinking that beauty is all there is to be had - or will we force ourselves to keep asking questions, until the reality of the destruction becomes something we accept?

If you have been abused, you have in your experience an advantage in answering this for yourself.  


Sunday, November 20, 2011

Inversion of Destruction



Nov. 9 -

"World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change


Nov 20 -

"Rich nations 'give up' on new climate treaty until 2020"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/20/rich-nations-give-up-climate-treaty


News this month published by the Guardian tells us that we are within 5 years of being "locked in" to an irreversible trajectory toward 450ppm of CO2, by projected demand and pollution of existing power plants, and that our leaders have resigned themselves to inaction, bowing more to the difficulties of human relationships than the consequences of doing nothing.

This means any change that will happen needs to come from below - from choices individuals make in our habits and our purchases.  Time for us to grow up, our leaders are not going to legislate this for us.

The reason they will not, of course, is they fear the political backlash from their constituents if they were to try and enforce rationing, similar to the riots in England against austerity measures.  We have always had the power.

The question is, do we realize we are also the problem?  Each of us is to blame - not our leaders - for the path our Earth will take, because we in effect whine whenever our toys are threatened with being taken away.  Our leaders cannot win when it comes to climate change, because they have whining on the left about their not doing enough and whining on the right about quality of life being compromised.  Perhaps the problem is not with our leaders after all.  

There is hope in the "Occupy" movements in that it shows the people can have a voice, unite, get attention, possibly even effect change.  However, even this movement can be inhabited motivated ultimately by a whine.  Honest participants will be examining: am I here out of a sense of responsibility and a call to what is right - or am I whining because my life isn't what I want it to be?

The most important question any of should be asking is: How much do I care?  Am I committed to effecting something positive and lasting with my time here?  Or am I, like my leaders, content with finding excuses for giving up, and feeling justified with my whining.  Our answers may not make much difference on the outcome, in one regard.  But they can change the quality of what we are able to contribute along the way.  



Monday, October 24, 2011

Reading the Qur'an

I am embarking on a reading of the Qur'an.  I have wanted to since college but put it off, however after attending an evangelical-leaning church for two years, I realized in a car ride today with my more left-leaning friends that I have begun questioning my long-held conviction that the God of the Bible and Allah in the Qu'ran are one in the same.  Having not read the Qur'an, of course, this conviction was based on nothing other than the desire for the world to be a happy place where everyone gets along (as my family wasn't) and did not stand up to the assertion by my zealous Pakistani ex-Muslim friend who claimed that Allah could not be the same God as the God in the Bible because in the Qur'an it says _X_ (which I don't remember).  But anyway, that assertion was enough to erode my so-called conviction, which like most things wasn't something so much I believed but a pleasant compromise position that served my purposes in most the circles in which I traveled.  So, I decided it was time to see for myself.

I will cut to the chase after such a wordy prologue.

What stands out to me about the Qur'an, in starting to read from the beginning, includes:


- The recitation seems to be directed toward the disaffected descendants of Ishmael, but seeking to move readers beyond factionalism to a common reference point in Abraham.  It is not directed toward "Muslims" - as no such people would have existed at the time of the recitation.  Rather, it orients itself as pointing out the common problems with the practice of religion of both Jews and Christians:

They say: ‘Become Jews or Christians and you will be guided aright.’
Say: ‘Rather, the religion of Abraham, of pristine faith. Nor was he a polytheist.’
Say: ‘We believe in God, and in what was revealed to us, In what was revealed to Abraham, to Ishmael, to Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, In what was revealed to Moses and Jesus, In what was revealed to prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, And to Him we surrender.’
Khalidi, Tarif (2009-07-23). The Qur'an: (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) (Kindle Locations 577-581). Penguin Classic. Kindle Edition. 
As for the believers, for the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans* who believe in God and the Last Day, and who do righteous deeds - these have their wage with their Lord. No fear shall fall upon them, nor shall they grieve.

Ibid,  447-448.
They say: ‘Only Jews and Christians will enter the Garden.’ Such are their fancies! Say to them: ‘Show me your proof if you speak the truth.’ Yes, indeed. He who surrenders his face to God in all piety shall receive his reward from his Lord. No fear shall fall upon them, nor shall they grieve.
Ibid, 537-539.
This last quote I like particularly because it points to an unsavory aspect present even today in evangelical Christianity, namely that of in-grouping and exclusivity claims by a religious body regarding who may enter heaven.  To this, the text answers (as does the Bible, but Christians seem to miss the possibility that it could apply to them) that it is a turn of the heart - "surrenduring... in all piety" that is more important - than to which doctrine you ascribe.


- The text does not seem to deny Jesus' sonship, as I have often heard attributed to it.  Rather, it seems to acknowledge this claim, and put a different emphasis on it than Christianity evolved to - namely, to by it assert further God's power and sovereignty, which seems to be more of the intention of the text.


They say: ‘God has fathered a child.’ Glory be to Him! To Him, rather, belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth. All mankind obeys Him. Marvellous Creator of the heavens and the earth! When He decrees a matter, He merely says to it: ‘Be!’ and it is. 
Ibid, 545-547 

- In general, the wisdom and correction it issues forth seem on-par if not more direct and biting than anything we will find in the old or new testament regarding the necessity for genuine faith and the description and punishment for hypocrisy.  Take this example, which not only captures the Christian doctrine of predestination but also adds a nuanced understanding of how the evil lie to themselves - an awareness I wish were more present in Christianity:

As for the unbelievers, it is all the same if you warn or do not warn them: they will not believe. God has sealed up their hearts, their hearing and their vision with a shroud, and terrible punishment awaits them. Among people, there are those who say: ‘We believe in God and in the Last Day.’ But they are not true believers. They try to deceive God and the believers but, unknown to them, deceive only themselves. Sickness abides in their hearts and God increases their malady. A painful punishment awaits them for the lies they uttered. And if someone says to them: ‘Do not sow discord in the earth,’ they answer: ‘We are merely trying to bring people together.’ In truth, they are sowers of discord, but they know it not.
Ibid, 368-374. 

- Lastly,  contrary to most popular belief - among fundamentalist Muslims and Christians alike - the text does not seem to prescribe violence.  Although it is easy to see how for the simple-minded, this would be extrapolated:


O believers, retaliation for the slain is ordained upon you: A free man for a free man, a slave for a slave, a female for a female. But if a brother is forgiven by another regarding what is ordained, then gracious pardon must be offered, and seemly deliverance of payment made. This is an act of leniency from your Lord and a mercy. Whoever commits aggression thereafter, painful torment awaits him. The prospect of retaliation saves lives, O you who are possessed of minds - perhaps you will fear God. 
Ibid, 650-654.
What I read in this is not an order toward violence, but rather a demand for accountability: transgressors must be made to know their sin, otherwise, how will they learn?  However, as a caveat to this, forgiveness reigns as an even stronger law.  Not forgiveness that we come up with on our own, but forgiveness that we are bound to BECAUSE another has forgiven us (cf Luke 7:47).   Violence - as aggression - is strictly forbidden.  It emerges that the threat of retaliation - rather than the retaliation itself - is the important element, in teaching us to fear God.  This is an even more humane expression of the ever-popular "spare the rod, spoil the child" in Christianity (Proverbs 13:24).



If what I take from this brief introductory reading of the Qur'an holds true, I would say that reading the Qur'an is of utmost importance - not as a way of "understanding our enemies," as I am afraid it would often be taken, but as an additional word from God for any who consider themselves pious.  The proscription of hypocrisy is even more crisp and upfront, and it seems directed toward dividing those who please God by their faith from those who posture with their religiosity - a theme taken up strongly first by Jesus in his evisceration of the Pharisees, and in Matthew 6:1-8.

I may come across more in the reading that challenges this hypothesis, but in the recitation issued through Mohammed I see a continuing accusation and warning against hypocrisy - issued by the One and Only God - leveled at Christians and Jews, but directed specifically at an audience who may have culturally been ostracized by both these groups, as descendants of the banished Ishmael, born to Hagar when Abraham showed his human weakness and doubted God's promise.  These people deserve salvation too, and it would not be like my God to allow the descendants of Ishmael to suffer vile treatment - by Jews and Christians alike who were not living up to what He had taught them about brotherhood - without stepping in and saying something for their benefit.

I do not agree that what I have read so far was meant by God to spur a new, separate religion called "Islam," but then again I also do not believe necessarily that God wanted "Christianity" to emerge to contend with Judaism.  Rather, I believe each action by our God is part of his ongoing effort to reach out to us, point out to us where we are off and our souls are in danger because of it, and invite us back into right relationship with his loving compassion and mercy.







Sunday, October 23, 2011

relocation

I think people should move out of L.A. because something bad is going to happen there within the next couple months.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Christmas: Presence, not presents

I awake Christmas Eve morning agitated, anxious, jittery. The holiday weekend has begun; I have family and friends to look forward to, yet I am nervous out of habit. I feel punch-drunk from the brutal exchange of expectations from Christmases past, and trod dutifully back for another beating.

My pen and journal have helped calm my restless legs each morning this week, and again I reach for them to dig beneath the current of my racing thoughts. How did I come to be so would up around Christmas each year? What messages did I ingest to make the advent of the Prince of Peace so profoundly disquieting?

I remember the ramp-up: pressure around the tree and decorations; Christmas music required on-hand to ritually trigger desired memories and affect. And then there was Christmas morning, when we finally plumb the depths under the tree, desperate for the proper blend of presents and responses to our gifts so to pique our high; only to settle, spent, afterwards into an empty ennui of wondering what gift or experience we must have missed. The whole thing invested with so much performance that we might as well be seducing santa into our beds for a one-night stand.

What is it we are looking for under the tree? Didn't our parents promise us, in December especially but also throughout the year, that if we simply behaved, Santa would take note and reward us Christmas morning? And why would they need to promise this, except that their parenting skills fell short of making an imperfect world palatable to us and, instead of accepting this human flaw and sitting with us to show one can accept such pain in the moment, they displace it to a yearly reckoning wherein a bearded intruder settles the account with gifts.

The dynamics diverge for each family, from orgiastic cheer to unwrapped cartons of cigarettes; from semblances of the family unit, to parents fractured in relationship and psychology alike. There are always variations on a theme. But, almost uniformly, we trace our parents' footsteps in an annual pilgrimage back to the tree, to exchange gifts and hope it somehow fills the void. What we are looking for, boxed up under ornaments and lights, is the love our parents were unable to give.

When we obsess over choosing the perfect gift for our loved ones - with cost and thoughtfulness matched to what they mean to us - we are trying to assuage our guilt for what we have yet again failed to offer, in time or patience or care throughout the year. Contrast this to the gift God gave to us on the same holiday: nothing but his naked, vulnerable, dependent self.

The baby in the manger came with no frills, inside jokes, or utilitarian purpose. He came simply to be with us. He offered himself in purest form, with no adornments. How often do we think ourselves alone inadequate, our presence insufficient if we fall short in the number or value of gifts we put forth? Though we see in the wise men's frankincense and myrrh that a gift of simple presence may inspire an appreciative response that has material aspects, these cannot substitute for the real thing. Both the bible and our own hearts remind of us this, every Christmas morning.

The revolutionary statement Christ made in his first simple moments on Earth applies not just to Christmas, but all year round; at every moment we can stop and be with each other, with our children, remembering that Emmanuel means God With Us. Every day we are threatened with openings to intimacy, with the possibility of eye contact, of showing something true on our face. But not often enough do we accept God's first gift to us - the gift of coming alongside us, being ready for us without an agenda, of affirming we are enough, just as we are. This is the gift that can settle us down. That can end the ache of unrequited love that is chased throughout generations. This is the gift we have been looking for from our parents all along.

Each Christmas, we gather in the dead of winter, starved of presence, craving presents. This Christmas, let us follow God, and simply give ourselves.


Merry Christmas everybody. Please be introduced to this wonderful and a propos track from my friends at Church of the Beloved:

"our gift is not what we can do but who we are."
http://belovedschurch.org/hope/given.php

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

one part of the response


Dead prez was right. Only its not just skin color. It's BS passed down as abuse by weak human beings who can't face their problems. We have to fight the lies. But we have to fight it first in ourselves. or nothing changes






Candice Isaacs McCormick, R.I.P. 7/22/2010

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

underneath

The anger has always been here. Can't you feel it?

no, I can't feel it.

The wrath, that becomes the great tribulation, has been beneath the surface, in all of us, in our righteous anger, can't you feel it?

no.

The oil, that becomes the lake of fire, has been underneath us all along. Now it's spilling out. Can't you see it, taste it? See what it means?

Maybe I'm starting too.

The rage you have felt toward your mother has been in every relationship, a hate you couldn't access, a violence that was apparent but hidden thinly behind smiles and reassurances you were programmed to give. Can you at least feel that?

Yes. now I can.


.