“The Island”
July 6th, 2008 ~ Potpourri for 100, Alex
I think I’m a little late discovering this 2006 movie, but just in case there are any other Orthodox (or Orthodox-inclined) out there who haven’t done so already: rent the Russian film “The Island.” It’s a must-see type of thing, telling the story of a monk who became a ‘fool for Christ.’ It’s not based on a true story, but in many of the details, it reminds me of the hagiographies of other saints (including today’s saint of the day, St. Sisoes).
The movie tells the story of Anatoli, a man tortured by guilt after he shot a friend during WWII. He joins a monastery and lives out the rest of his life there, eventually becoming a wonderworker sought after by the townsfolk for his gifts of healing and discernment. His fellow monks are somewhat in awe but also exasperated by his erratic and unpredictable behavior. The portrayal of the man is both incredibly well-acted but also downright amazing for its faithfulness to the Church’s tradition of such gifted ones.
I really don’t want to say much more. You have to see it to believe it. And by the way, it’s also a pleasure for film aesthetes, owing to an artist’s gift with cinematography, showing the hard, flint-like cold of a Russian monastery so accurately you may need to grab a good pair of mittens before you start.
Here’s a trailer for it, but all in Russian, so you’ll just have to use your imagination:
Contents available under a
July 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
yes, that is a great movie. You’ve reminded me that my hubby loaned it to his pastor (Lutheran) back during Western Lent! I’d like to watch it again.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Yes, I give it five candles. :)
July 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Sorry Grace, but I have to disagree on this one. It makes a fundamental theological error of confusing remorse and repentance. Anatoly was remorseful, but he never repented of the act. Instead he kept going back to it and caressing it with his tears and self-pity.
The fact that remorse and repentance were confused is not surprising, given that it is not a Christian film that seeks to be theologically accurate, but rather the Russian equivalent of a Hollywood film that seeks to be entertaining.
I know I’m in the minority on this one, but after writing about this originally in early January (and getting hammered by Orthodox people who were in love with the fact that a decent movie was made about Orthodoxy) I went back and saw the film again. I’m still convinced that while it’s a nice story, it’s not a particularly Christian presentation of the theme.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I saw it during Lent, and I agree, very very good.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
hmmmm…James. I’m not sure your take on repentance is a slam dunk. St. Paul references his persecution of Christians etc. and his continuing humility etc. after decades of faithful service had passed. Did he weep about it? I don’t know. With all the Father’s talk of “tears of repentance” in general, you may be reading too much into the movie’s “theology”. I have some grievous sins I have repented of but am also continually sorry for after 16 years. Anyway, at some level “art films” permit us to read ourselves and our issues into the characters. Across the board I thought it was pretty “Orthodox” and reflected life in a monastery and the purpose of the spiritual life pretty well with what little dialogue and scenery there was.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
James has an interesting point. But in the end, I think I’m with s-p on this. This isn’t to say that James’s obserrvation is wrong but that it is incomplete… kind of as Steve suggests. But to be more specific, Archimandrite Zacharias suggests in his writings that what may starts as tears of remorse can and usually is redirected by those more advanced in spiritual warfare. The remembrance of the pain caused others and the remorse can be used to feed a higher level of prayer. By this notion, the immediacy of the pain of the moment can transform and feed into a life long source of repentance. At least that’s how I remember it.
I think the film does its very best to portray a simple but holy life. It’s a stark life and starkly portrayed. Not a whole lot of subtle or nuance in it for the most part… and it goes against so many of our traditional Hollywood production expectations that it’s possible I imagined more than was there… or filled it in. There’s a theology to that as a grace of artistic license… or more specifically a psychology of seeing what we expect rather than what’s really there…. like the film where ask you to count the number of times they pass the basketball and you get so engrossed in counting you miss the fact that there’s someone who walks through the group in a gorilla suit… which about 50% of the audience does.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I’m with s-p and James the Not-Really-Thickheaded, and find the conversation personally helpful.
I enjoyed the film, but cannot get one glaring flaw out of my memory of it: the abrupt cut to the admiral and his daughter on a train - so abrupt I thought I had bumped my remote and was dropped into another film! They could have just as easily arrived by ship, keeping the entire story to one form of transportation.
Still, good to see.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
James (of P): You’re right — that was a bit sudden. If we’re listing things we’d like to have changed, I wanted Anatoli to give a *little* more information to the woman he told to sell everything and go to France looking for a husband she thought had died in the war. Because she has absolutely no information to go on and France is, you know, a whole country and stuff. Still, I suppose you have to believe that if the word Anatoli gave her was from God, He would provide.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 am
James (of thick-headedness): I almost never endorse a movie uncategorically (and shouldn’t have done so this time) because the older I get, the more I understand the meaning of chacun à son goût, (or, if you prefer, different strokes for different folks). And it is, after all, only a movie, so I wouldn’t want to get caught up on what’s “true” or “false” about Anatoli as if he weren’t just a fictional character. I didn’t see a lack of repentance there, but if you did, you did.
I think it’s interesting though, since it is just a movie, that you’re a detractor. In that way, you seem to be acting the role of some of the people that are around real life holy people. They always have their detractors. If I knew a saint in my life (and maybe I do for all I know), I can believe it possible that I just plain wouldn’t like them. I’d have to deal with that sooner or later, probably. But it’s just something I can imagine. Real holiness isn’t the same in person that it is to read about or meditate abstractly about. A really holy person might be really irritating.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Uh… Grace? Did you read my 2nd sentence?
My full review is here:http://vvcix.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/the-island/
and written because I’d heard the buzz, but also a fairly substantial body of opinion who found it a “tough watch”. I tried to process that just as I tried to process James P’s view. If I don’t always make myself clear, then I ask that you try to remember that after all, I am Thickheaded.