Hello, dear readers!
This Saturday, July 13th, we will have the final live film discussion of the “Theology, Philosophy, and Film” series on Crimes and Misdemeanors (Zoom link below). It is not, however, the final film in the series. We have one more film after Crimes and Misdemeanors–but no live discussion. Please also remember that a NEW series called “The Christian Imagination” will start in September!
HERE is the Fellini conversation from this past week.
This Week’s Film: Crimes and Misdemeanors
**You can only find this film streaming on YOUTUBE (in parts—but it works!)**
Judah, one of the two protagonists of Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is a (secular) Jewish ophthalmologist who wonders if his vocation is merely a coincidence, or if it was related to devout father’s favorite saying:
“ ‘The eyes of God are on us always.’ The eyes of God. What a phrase to a young boy. What were God's eyes like? Unimaginably penetrating, intense eyes, I assumed.”
Crimes and Misdemeanors is a film that examines the ultimate implications of both theism and atheism. Interestingly, the film’s director, Woody Allen, is a secular Jew, not unlike protagonist Judah. In this film–perhaps his most philosophical–Judah is haunted by the religion of his upbringing, especially as he makes a life-altering choice that takes him back to the basic questions of life:
Does God exist? Does meaning exist?
Do good and evil exist? If so, which is which?
Is this a just universe where people doing bad things must pay for them? Or do things happen randomly and without meaning or justice?
I first saw this film during my second semester in college (the spring of 1991!) for Dr. Reginald McLelland’s Intro to Philosophy class. When I started the class, I had no real idea what philosophy was, and I had never watched and discussed a “philosophical” film. That all changed in Dr. McLelland’s class. He had the entire class over to his house to watch and discuss the film. Of course, we all loved it. And I loved it so much that I took many more classes from Dr. McLelland–and I watched many more Woody Allen films (this was long before we knew of his scandalous behaviors). I am so thankful and honored to tell you that Dr. McLelland will join us this Saturday, July 13, to discuss Crimes and Misdemeanors on Zoom! Dr. McLelland is a dear friend and mentor, and his classes and friendship have been very formative in the trajectory of my life and career.
Please join us this Saturday, July 13th at 11 am PT, 1 pm CT, 2 pm ET, 7 pm UK time, 8 pm EU time. HERE is the ZOOM LINK.
Crime and Misdemeanors introduces the contrasting lived experiences of atheism and theism when Judah is giving a friend, Rabbi Ben, his eye exam. Ben, the theist, is going blind. Is this Allen’s snarky take on “blind faith,” or is he positioning Ben as a prophetic figure whose blindness indicates deeper spiritual insight?
In a pivotal scene for the film, the two men express their competing conceptual frameworks:
Judah Rosenthal : You know, it's funny, for our entire adult lives, you and I have been having this same conversation in one form or another.
Ben : Yes, I know. Its a fundamental difference in the way we view the world. You see it as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn't go on living if I didn't feel it, with all my heart, a moral structure with real meaning and - forgiveness. And some kind of higher power; otherwise, their's no basis to know how to live.
Ben posits the film’s key guiding question: What is the basis for us to know how to live?
Looking at the atheistic existentialism of French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) is helpful in discussing Crimes and Misdemeanors as Judah’s character shares many of his views. You can find the full text of Sartre’s 1946 lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism” HERE.
Sartre believed that human beings have no intrinsic identity or value before they make choices. Their worth is determined by their choices–only action determines value. Accordingly, Sartre famously writes that “existence precedes essence.” There is no core “essence” that we are all born with: “human nature”does not exist. In order for there to be a defining likeness between human beings, there would have to be a creator, the ultimate, sacred mold in whose image we are made. In Sartre’s conception of an empty, amoral universe, this God does does not exist.
All human beings experience a sense of “abandonment” when realizing that there is no God to provide them with direction or to determine what is right or wrong. There are no such things as “signs and omens” to help us make decisions that lead to meaningful choices. Instead, we are totally free and must take responsibility for all of our choices. This produces “anguish” because “In fashioning myself, I fashion man.” As there is no moral structure in the universe–no center of morality or meaning to guide us–we set the standard for others when we make our choices. For Sartre, this is terrifying. Freedom is not something empowering as Nietzsche told us it was. Instead, “Man is condemned to be free.” This freedom leaves us in a state of “despair” as there are no factors beyond our own choices that can alter our circumstances. The only real “sin” is to choose not to choose or to choose based on another’s guidance. This is the central plot of Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play Waiting for Godot.
In a pronounced subplot of Crimes and Misdemeanors, failed filmmaker Cliff (played by Allen himself) takes an opportunity to show the beautiful Halley some film footage of atheistic existentialist philosopher, Professor Louis Levy, talking about love, life, and meaning. At the end of the film, we hear Levy’s voice in a voiceover saying these words:
“We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions. Moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on lesser points. But! We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to have been included, in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love, that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.”
Levy’s conception of reality is similar to that of Woody Allen’s Sartrean atheistic existentialism. But is the film actually advocating this?
Both Judah and Cliff must make ethical choices in the film. Do they both suffer the same sorts of consequences?
Like Fellini (and Guido), Allen is a director who is wrestling with the faith of his youth, the long-lasting impact of religious rituals and doctrine. Many of his films revisit the same questions about the possible sacred meaning of life vs. a life devoid of meaning in a cold, empty universe. Is life merely “a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury/ signifying nothing”?
At the end of Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Mickey (played by Allen) has spent time shopping for religions in order to bring a sense of peace and meaning in his life. None of them satisfy, so he attempts suicide. When his attempt fails, he takes a trip to the cinema. When watching a comic film, he decides to abandon any search for meaning. Instead, he will embrace moments of enjoyment and beauty:
“Look at all the people up there on the screen, they're real funny, and what if the worst is true. What if there is no God and you only go around once and that's it. Well, ya know, don't you wanna be part of the experience? You know, what the hell it's not all a drag. And I'm thinking to myself, Jeez, I should stop ruining my life searching for answers I'm never gonna get, and just enjoy it while it lasts. And after who knows, I mean maybe there is something, nobody really knows. I know maybe is a very slim reed to hang your whole life on, but that's the best we have. And then I started to sit back, and I actually began to enjoy myself.”
As you watch Crimes and Misdemeanors, here are some questions to consider:
In the scene pictured above, what do we learn about the faith of Judah’s family that was so formative in his childhood?
What do you make of all of the film’s references to eyes and blindness?
How does the film’s title relate to the central questions of the film?
When Cliff and Judah’s paths finally cross at the end of the film, they talk about a great plot for a movie (obviously based on Judah’s life). At one point, Cliff ponders what will happen if “His [Judah’s] worst beliefs are realized.” What are Judah’s “worst beliefs”?
What is the significance of the subplot with Lester, Halley, and Cliff?
While being filmed for his own documentary, Lester says, “Tragedy plus time equals comedy.” Is this true in the film? In real life?
What is the significance of Professor Levy’s role in the film? When we learn his fate does it change your interpretation of the film’s central philosophy?
SPOILERS: Here are the final words that Judah says to Cliff. Read them closely. Are we supposed to see this is a good or bad ending? A comedy or a tragedy?
“And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he's plagued by deep-rooted guilt. Little sparks of his religious background which he'd rejected are suddenly stirred up. He hears his father's voice. He imagines that God is watching his every move. Suddenly, it's not an empty universe at all, but a just and moral one, and he's violated it. Now, he's panic-stricken. He's on the verge of a mental collapse-an inch away from confessing the whole thing to the police. And then one morning, he awakens. The sun is shining, his family is around him and mysteriously, the crisis has lifted. He takes his family on a vacation to Europe and as the months pass, he finds he's not punished. In fact, he prospers. The killing gets attributed to another person-a drifter who has a number of other murders to his credit, so I mean, what the hell? One more doesn't even matter. Now he's scott-free. His life is completely back to normal. Back to his protected world of wealth and privilege.”
Thank you for reading!