Idea. Epiphany. Conclusion. Apotheosis of the thesis, man. I've got my thesis for my paper. How do I know? It just feels right.
I've been doing all this reserch into both The Last Temptation of Christ and Noah. And what do these two films have in common? They were both boycotted by the Conservative Christian church and the conservative majority at the time. Why? What is so essential about these two films that made them the object of the vehemence of conservative scorn?
I think it's a control thing. For Evangelicals, particularly Conservative evangelicals, everything right now seems out of control. The rise of secularism, in the 70s, the rise of feminism, scientism, the drop in church attendance, especially that of young, college-aged individuals, the rise of alternative world religions, etc. All this contributes to a feeling of utter isolation and down-hill-slide situation, regardless of the actuality of the thing.
And I think they are (were) scared. Scared of losing their hold on American hearts. Scared of losing their influence on American's minds. Scared of losing their control. And what happens when someone gets scared? Two things. One, they begin to lash out at people as enemies and attackers regardless of those people's real intentions. Two, they go into control mode. Lock down on everything they possibly can and try to control even those things they shouldn't. Evangelicalism, especially conservativism, is in control mode right now. Lock down on beliefs, lock down on ideas, lock down on liturgy, practice, and education, all in hopes to stay the rising tide what they perceive to be apostasy and Satan's work.
Problem is, whenever you lock down control, you end up killing the objects of your care. But we won't focus on that this paper.
But why these films in particular? Why Scorsese, a pronounced Catholic? Why Aronofsky, an admitted atheist but, in this case, one with little more dubious purposes in regards to Noah but to explore Kabbalistic images in regards to the Noah story?
The Bible is one of the few things the conservatives feel they can control. It's their truth foundation, it's their Scriptures, it's their inerrant, infallible foundation on which they can see their God and still tell the world that they have the only saving Faith. It's literally their God, or as close to Him as they feel anyone ever can get. It's a control thing.
And now we have films (made by Catholics and Atheists no less) which subvert and fill in the gaps of their treasured, inerrant stories, stories in the hearts and collective mythos of American men, women, and children as the church has taught them.
The truth is, these films do undermine the faith of millions of American evangelicals. The faith of evangelicals isn't in God, it's in God through the Bible, as the Bible has been given to them, holes, mysteries, and all. No, the directors had no purpose to do so; in fact, both have professed they tried to capture essences of the original Bible story. But to the evangelicals, any change or uncomfortable alteration of the story will necessarily undermine their faith because their faith is in God as the Bible says, or as they've interpreted Him from the Bible. It's their method of controlling God, and when you threaten someone's method of control over life, intended or not, expect to see some claws.
The directors couldn't have known this. They don't share the same truth foundation or control method.
I think these two films especially have been attacked because, well, think of the socio-political context. Late 60s, early 70s, highest point of second-wave feminism. Moral majority founded for the expressed purpose to try to restore "moral government", e.g., conservative ideology, to the nation and, I'd guess, Hollywood.
Today, the rise of scientism and secularism. Pluralism. Why do you think Mattson saw Gnoscisim in Noah when no such thing existed? World religions are in the sniper sites of conservative Christianity right now because in the last fifteen years it's been on the rise in America.
And we should expect this to continue and get worse. As more and more control is taken away, the conservative church will grasp control more and more, and subsequently more and more of it will be lost. It will become more and more scared, more and more controlling, just as the Catholic church and Jewish church have done in history. Some Christians will leave, become "liberal" Christians, Christians with a less controlled view of God and church, less-Scripture centered even if they don't become full-on universalists. Americans will get tired of being controlled, and the polarization will only continue.
These are all ideas I want to explore in my paper. I think I'll structure it something like this.
Introduction and Thesis
The Last Temptation of Christ
Film Summary
Historical Context
Release and reaction to the film; exploration of ideas
Noah
Film Summary
Historical Context
Release and reaction to the film; exploration of ideas
Conclusions and Summaries
Some interesting points I've noticed: in both, conservatives have manufactured heresies that aren't actually present in the film. In both, the conservative church has imagined dubious and malicious purposes of the director not actually intended. Fear makes you imagine threats that don't really exist to you.
For more research, I need to really explore the history and reaction to The Last Temptation. I also need to explore the present circumstances in regards to World Religions. I would guess, in the last ten to fifteen years, that world religions have risen greatly in the United States.
But I also need to support my claims on control, and to see if they're genuine and real. How could I do this? Maybe with the large amount of "deception" clinics popping up? The conservative universities' programs? I'll have to think more about this one.
Ivan Dugic at the Jung Institute said The Last Temptation " The Last Temptation of Christ, as a peculiar mixture of historical and traditional facts with new elements, all taken very realistically, strongly provokes a questioning the state of the contemporary Christian myth and its future development." He then goes on to list more instances which question it in contemporary time, citing them in the context of a Jungian analysis of the contemporary conservative crisis of myth.
Just an example. Thoughts, Nancy?