About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Monday, November 22, 2010

My Favourite Movies: The Book of Eli



Sorry, but I’m back to the ultra-modern stuff again. I was actually in two minds (come to think of it more that two) about seeing this at the cinema. Despite being a big fan of Denzel and of end-of-the-world films, I was getting a little sick of the genre. I had also discovered that the movie had a religious – actually Christian – theme which might stick in my craw. But I bit the bullet and went along with the usual posse and felt that I could grit my teeth in the appropriate places if required. Fortunately I hardly needed to grit them at all.


In the movie the world we know and love had ended some decades previously. Although it’s never actually explained it appears to have suffered through a nuclear war of some kind. One of the first scenes appears to take place in fall-out with Washington (the man rather than the city) wearing a NBC ‘noddy’ suit – which seemed rather odd as its years after the bombs fell. Anyway, Denzel is making his way through a wonderfully filmed desolate landscape going west. Along the way he meets up with some people who try to take his things. Needless to say it does not go well for the bad-guys. On reaching a town recovering from the devastation we are presented with the figure of Gary Oldman who plays the brutal leader of biker gangs tasked with bringing back books. Oldman is looking for a specific book and soon discovers that Denzel holds a copy – maybe the only copy left in existence. The book is, we quickly discover, the Bible. Washington explains, to his tag-along runaway (played by Mila Kunis) that a voice spoke to him soon after the bombs fell directing him to the Bible and telling him to take it West. This he has been doing for many years. After adventures and misadventures Denzel and Mila deliver the book to Alcatraz (of all places) which has become a repository of the world’s knowledge.


There were several things that I immediately liked very much about this movie. Firstly, the cinematography was outstanding with washed out colours and utter desolation everywhere. Both Washington and Oldman played their parts wonderfully and were a delight separately and especially together when sparks flew. The supporting cast were adequate and largely disposable – indeed largely disposed of by Washington. Cute as she is, Mila Kunis really only plays Mila Kunis and is not that much different from the ungrateful character Jackie in ‘That 70’s Show’. The music was haunting and occasionally spiced up by tunes from Washington’s barely functioning iPod. The action sequences were well handled except for the laughable siege set-piece with the eccentric cannibal husband and wife team played by Frances de la Tour and Michael Gambon which really should have been left on the cutting room floor.


From a philosophical point of view I did struggle with the idea that future generations would be able to build a better world with the Bible in it rather than without it. After all, a Bible inhabiting world had just been practically destroyed. I also struggled with the idea that a God could take such efforts in guiding someone across America, on foot, and giving him the skills to survive for decades in the harshest of environments whilst at the same time condemning billions of people to death in a nuclear holocaust. Of course none of these questions raised their heads during the movie. If God was dissatisfied with his human creations I’m sure there’s a more discriminating way of dealing with them than ICBM’s and MIRVs – but then again I’m not God so who knows! Overall though this was a very creditable end-of-the-world movie which worked for me on several levels. The problems I did have with it, which are the result of over-thinking things a bit, are minor in relation to the enjoyment I had from watching it. It’s certainly worth a mite less than 2 hours of your time if you haven’t seen it already.

9 comments:

Thomas Fummo said...

You make a lovely analysis as usual, but I'm afraid I'm still not going to see it.
The fact is that I know plenty of other films with excellent cinematography which don't feature around something as awful as the Bible.
I don't believe you were over-thinking at all CK, I think you were thinking just the right amount. And that you were quite right to do so.
I'm afraid I have difficulty detaching a film from it's intended message, seeing as I believe films should be primarily judged on the basis of this aspect, not in spite of it. So I, personally, most certainly would not enjoy it, methinks.
If its message is hokey and raises far too many questions, then I'm afarid it's a no go for me.
That's my opinion, anyway :-)

CyberKitten said...

TF said: You make a lovely analysis as usual

Thanks!

TF said: The fact is that I know plenty of other films with excellent cinematography which don't feature around something as awful as the Bible.

Very true....

TF said: I'm afraid I have difficulty detaching a film from it's intended message, seeing as I believe films should be primarily judged on the basis of this aspect, not in spite of it. So I, personally, most certainly would not enjoy it, methinks.

I know what you mean. It's difficult to say a film is 'good' or that I liked it when I found the obvious underlying message objectionable. But I have enjoyed, at least when I was much younger, religious films because of their specticle rather than their message - but I wasn't so unforgiving back then.

TF said: If its message is hokey and raises far too many questions, then I'm afarid it's a no go for me.

I like films that raise questions. I prefer films that try to answer them - rather just ignore things - though!

TF said: That's my opinion, anyway :-)

One that you're fully entitled too!

I'll think you'll like the next review though...... [grin]

Sleepypete said...

Yep - awesome pictures with outstanding sound in this one.

Watched it again last week (first blu-ray with the new bits) and it instantly went on the list of "Movies to use when showing off kit". But that's not just it, there's a decent story here too.

On the religious message thing - I think that's more a "how do I convince people to follow me ?" thing. Words have power. Some of the most dangerous people in history have been amazing speakers with questionable morals or ideas. But people follow them because of the power of their words.

PS Alice in Wonderland mini review (possibly my second one) coming soon :-) (In a while cos I'm going to grab a screenie or two)

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I enjoyed it too. I'd like to see the Bible preserved just as much as I'd like to see the complete works of William Shakespeare preserved.

CyberKitten said...

Pete said: PS Alice in Wonderland mini review (possibly my second one) coming soon :-) (In a while cos I'm going to grab a screenie or two)

Alice *almost* made my fave list a few weeks ago - but there was just 'something' about it that didn't quite make the grade.

mike said: I'd like to see the Bible preserved just as much as I'd like to see the complete works of William Shakespeare preserved.

I'm not convinced about the utility of the Bible (or any other religious text actually). It certainly informed western culture but I think the world would have been mentially healthier without it. Then again a lot of non-religious culture refers to christianity so a lot of that would have changed too.... On balance though I'd 'risk' not having the Bible around.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I see religious texts as a part of human history. I hate to see any of them lost, just as I find it abhorrent when conquerors destroy the customs and culture religious or otherwise of the conquered.

CyberKitten said...

I know what you mean. If only the Bible (and other texts) could be treated just as that - texts. Human beings wrote them while trying to understand life, the universe and everything - many centuries ago before we knew very much about any of those subjects. Then they ruined it all by making a religion out of them.....

The books themselves are, by and large, harmless. It's what people do with the books and in the name of the books that is stupid and harmful. Especially when they take them at face value or as absolute truth.

Ancient texts are, pretty much by definition, inferior to more modern texts because, generally, we (humanity) have grown in knowledge and understanding over time. It's a pity that we can't put many of those texts on back the bookshelf and leave them there as the older science, engineering and medical texts have been - after being superceeded by more up to date and useful works.

Knowing the Bible - or at least having a working knowledge of it - helps you understand some of the historical themes in western culture (indeed it would be difficult to understand western history without it) but I don't think it adds much value to the here and now. That's why I think that its disapearence shouldn't bother the future generations growing up in the world of this movie.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I agree.

dbackdad said...

I liked this one too. I really think it was less about the bible specifically and more about preserving Western thought and learning in general.

The concept of preserving the bible reminds me of the scene in Day After Tomorrow where they are having to resort to burning books to keep warm. The atheist in the group won't let them burn a Guttenberg bible because of what it represents civilization-wise, not necessarily though because of what it represents "God-wise".