Oblivion

            In Reel Spirituality, Robert Johnston answers the question, Why look at film? from a theological perspective: “If viewers will join in community with a film’s storyteller, letting the movie’s images speak with their full integrity, they might be surprised to discover that they are hearing God as well” (100). When I saw “Oblivion” this weekend, I was fixated on the middle part of his statement. Being open to what a movie has to say before attempting to analyze it is a persistent theme of his. However, what it means to me to be “open” has changed since I came upon his book.

            For example, I read a review of “Oblivion” before going to the theater, something I never used to do. It suggested that it might be hard for a viewer to get around the Tom Cruiseness of Tom Cruise. Morgan Freeman, another icon, is also in the movie. I had the opportunity to say, You know what? These guys are just actors. They're paid to facilitate the story. What a feeling of freedom this gave me! The movie was well produced and told a good story. The actors were never a distraction.

            “Movies, like life itself,” Johnston writes, “are first experienced, then reflected on. They affect the heart, then the head” (250). “Oblivion” certainly hit me in the realm of experience. It’s a post-apocalyptic science fiction thriller in which aliens (subtly presented; no guys wearing rubber masks) have taken control of Earth. A band of human beings has taken refuge underground. In one crowd scene, a small boy pushes to the front to see what is going on. Babies and small children always get to me; I started to cry. In other places, when the drama became overwhelming, I reminded myself that the movie fell deeply into the fantasy category on Johnston’s range-of-cinema matrix. So, was I not completely open to its images?

            Later I remembered reading about “second naivete.” The blog Big Other says it better than I can: “Consider the ‘second naïveté,’ a theological concept derived from the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur. It refers to a stage of belief that, in contrast to the ‘first naïveté’ (characterized by uncritical, childlike acceptance), can only be achieved after passing through an intensely rational or critical stage. So that three stages can appear—the first naïveté, the critical distance, and the second naïveté (a sort of return to, and maturation of, the first).”

First naïveté’ is the condition I used to insist on with respect to the movies. It is sometimes called the pre-critical stage. Critical reflection is the stage that became available with the option of taking the theology course in June. It is characterized by an attitude of distance. Second naïveté’ includes the consequences of passing through the first two stages. I was not able to watch “Oblivion” without resorting to reflection, but even while I was calling it a fantasy I was in tune with its story. It was like waking up in a dream and knowing I was dreaming.

            Big Other applies the idea of the three stages to the artistic life of Syd Barrett, a founding member of the Pink Floyd band.

.