Holy—-
Ok, so we finished Fast Cheap and Out of Control eight minutes ago.
As Robyn said one minute ago: “There are no words.”
But I’m going to try anyway.
So, things the movie does, it talks about humanity. It talks about God. It talks about souls and consciousness. Art. Death. Levels of being. I’m not going into all of it right now, but let’s start with God.
The four men were all versions of God.
The topiary man, he is the bumbling elderly gardener, who cannot quite control what happens to his creations in bad weather, and doesn’t have the seasons of his youth to repair the recent damage. And there will be no replacement, when he finally dies.
The mole-rat man, he is the housebuilder, the anthil-watching deist sort of god. He builds the habitat and gets a kick watching his little mole rats scurry around, their squeaks help him sleep. Their brutality fascinates him, their adaptability, their interaction.
The lion-tamer is the institutional god. Organized religion. The snapping of the whip and fire of a blankloaded revolver that keeps the mighty beast docile and dominated. He has had close calls, but he has survived. Even he is a degraded version of the old God, the movie star God, the God who could make a lion and tiger fight for film and entertainment.
The robot maker, the clockworking god. He is some fascinating mix, a Pandora and a Prometheus. Willing to give life and mobility to machines that will eventually end life as we know it. Wideyed, brilliant, godlike, a creator who embodies a sort of inspired recklessness.
And all the people. We are robots, mole rats, topiary, and lions.
There’s some funny elemental thing happening here, too. Four artists. One works in metal, one wood, one earth, and one in flesh. Strange crazy stuff.
I don’t know what to think.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
[...] Ahhh! I’m far too dazzled to coherently discuss anything right now, though I feel I should. I may have to view it again in the film lab and take notes, then make a gigantic post with everything I can think of. For now, go look at Tyler’s blog. What he’s got so far is brilliant. [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
You’re doing fine so far.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Brilliant, maestro!
April 1st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
[...] There’s so much more to say about this film, but first I need to watch it about a million more times. Oh, I can’t wait for class tomorrow… Until then, go to Tyler’s blog for some ideas that will help to convert you to the new religion I’m starting which will revolve entirely around Errol Morris. [...]
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:16 am
[...] I’m not sure I agree with Tyler’s post and all the adoring comments it’s recieved. But then again, I still haven’t managed to see the film (AGH!) so maybe I’m just missing what everyone seems to be trying to articulate. It seems to me that what’s being described are, pretty much, four different ways to worship God. None of these descriptions seem to quite get at all of, or even half of, the qualities a Biblical God possess. They are, rather, ways we worship God by trying to conform ourselves to his image. And yet if we’re conforming ourselves, we’re in essance creating ourselves, which makes us God-like. But not God. After all, the Bible says “all our riches are as filthy rags compared to the glory of the Lord.” (this isn’t exact, but it captures, I think, the essance of the verse. But maybe we’re not talking about God in a Biblical sense; that’s just what I think of when someone says God. How does one become a stand-in for God? I ask this in both a filmic and novelistic sense, as I’m all over the Christ-character concept, but I don’t think I’ve encountered a God-like figure. How do you, anyway, represent someone/something who is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful. No human has all the answers, we can’t even figure out what truth is, so how can we portray ourselves as even coming close? Maybe someone can help me out!? I promise to try and see the movie soon, but I’m halfway through The Fog of War right now, and I’m finding it STUNNING (but more on that later). Besides, talking about the concepts of the movie seems to me to be almost more “brain-charging” than talking about them in the context of the film. Doesn’t Morris want us to take them outside of his films and engage with them anyway? But that doesn’t mean I won’t watch. I will make a valiant effort to see this, arguably, fantastic movie. [...]
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Mary Carolyn,
I’m not saying that I think there’s an Errol Morris religion or anything like that, just that he comments on god and several possible constructions of god. his characters are all artists, some are creators, all are edited and shot to be a bit godlike.
I don’t think Errol Morris says that he knows what god is like- just puts forth four possibilities to think about. Also, he’s not just talking about god in this movie, not by a long shot. Just, that the theological implications of his flim were the first things I found striking.
I look forwards to talking to you after you’ve seen the movie. Then, we can talk about Morris instead of my blog posts and see what we think.