©2006 Warner Bros.

Death is the road to awe.

In the movie The Fountain (written and directed by Darren Aronofsky) , three stories are told, each story represents the past, present and future lives of one man (Hugh Jackman). Each story, separated by five centuries each, is essentially about one man and the woman he loves (Rachel Weisz). Both Jackman and Weisz do phenomenal jobs with each of their roles. It is a very moving piece about love and life.

In 16th Century Spain, Tomas (Jackman) is a Spanish conquistador who is given a quest by Spain’s queen (Weisz). His challenge is to find the legendary Tree of Life that is being hidden by a tribe of Mayans because it is said that anyone who drinks the sap of the tree shall be immortal. Driven by the love of his queen and his thirst for immortality, Tomas accepts the challenge.

In 2005, Tommy (Jackman) is an experimental scientist who is desperately trying to find the cure for his wife, Izzi’s (Weisz) brain tumor.

In 2500, Tom (Jackman) is a space traveler who is traveling to the legendary nebula called Shabulba. Traveling in a space sphere he built, Tom spends his days talking to a tree and hallucinating about the wife he had in a previous life.

In each story, the main goal of the man is to be with his love forever by defeating death. In the past, he aims to gain immortality from the Tree of Life. In the present, he tries to find the cure for death.

“Death is disease just like any other,” Tommy said. “There is a cure, and I will find it.” In the future, Tom is traveling to a dying star in hopes that when it dies and explodes, he and the tree that represents the woman he loves will be reborn and live forever together.

In contrast to the man, the woman figure in each story accepts death as a necessary part of life. As Izzi, Tommy’s wife, she tells him a story that explains how she views death.

“The last night I was with the Mayan guide he told me about his father that had died. He said that if they dug his father's body up, it would be gone. They planted a seed over his grave. The seed became a tree. He said his father became a part of that tree. He grew into the wood, into the bloom. And when a sparrow ate the tree's fruit, his father flew with the birds. He said... death was his father's road to awe.”

The main idea conveyed in this film is the irony between what the man wanted out of life and what he actually got. The theme of immortality runs throughout, and immortality is what he achieved, just not how he pictured it.

In the past, when Tomas finally found the Tree of Life he was mortally wounded by one of the Mayans. However, when he put the sap on the wound it instantly healed. He wanted to live forever with his queen so he started to drink the sap. He started to feel pain and then his body was overgrown with flowers and plants from the inside out, and he became part of the earth.

In the present, Tommy found the cure for Izzi, but before he could give it to her, she died. In the future, Tom’s tree dies and he saw a vision of Izzi, from his past life. She asked him what he was so afraid of and he finally came to the ultimate realization, that he was going to die, and that made him free.

So in the end, death was an act of creation. Death was the road to awe. This movie is overtly spiritualistic. The reoccurring motifs in each story help create a sense of each life as a whole, but also individually. It is obvious that the writers wanted to get across the idea of immortality through reincarnation and that death is actually an act of creation.

—Ali

©2009 New Line Cinema

Most people wonder at some time in their lives what their purpose for living is. Why were they brought onto this earth? For Anna Fitzgerald, the lead character of My Sister’s Keeper (2009), the purpose of her life was simple and clear – to keep her sister Kate alive.

Anna was conceived by her parents through in vitro fertilization in order to be a genetic match for Kate, who was suffering from leukemia. Although her parents do love Anna, she was basically created to be spare body parts to keep her sister alive. After undergoing years of surgeries, Anna has finally had enough of forced medical procedures and sues her parents for medical emancipation, or the right to decide what is done to her own body. The movie follows this legal process as well as how Kate’s illness has affected each member of this loving family.

As would be expected from a plot dealing with such ethically complex issues, My Sister’s Keeper raises many worldview questions about the nature of human life. It uses a very complex situation within a family to challenge the foundational beliefs of some major worldviews. Viewers are inevitably brought to a place of examining for themselves what they would do in such a situation.

This movie asks some major questions about humanity’s capacity to create and control life. Speaking of Anna’s in vitro fertilization, her dad says, “We went against nature,” and sees Anna’s legal action as the inevitable consequence for he and his wife trying to take control where it was not theirs to take. The movie definitely suggests that creating Anna for the purpose of keeping her sister alive was not ethically right, although it never appeals to God for this moral standard, but to the ways of nature and to Anna’s well-being.

Regarding the origin of life, Anna describes babies “souls flying around looking for bodies to live in” who get put into bodies when people have sex. Anna calls this a coincidence or accident. Even though Anna does refer to souls, the rest of her explanation and the entirety of the movie does not place a high emphasis on one’s soul as being a part of life, and definitely does not attribute the creation of these souls to a God.

And even though the purpose of life is so closely examined in the movie, a conclusion is never really reached. It is strongly suggested that being created just to keep someone else alive is not right. This leaves Anna’s purpose in life as unknown as the rest of humanity’s. Kate’s life is also regarded as having no purpose, or at least no known purpose.

In the end, it seems that My Sister’s Keeper is challenging two major worldviews with postmodern skepticism. It challenges the theistic worldview that says that we have all been created by an all-powerful God for a good purpose. To that, the movie contends that there is absolutely no way to be certain of this, largely due to life’s many difficulties.

My Sister’s Keeper also challenges the naturalistic worldview, which says that humans are machines who must fight to survive. To that, the movie brings up the personal and relational side of humans – the side that knows that creating a human for the sole purpose of keeping another human alive is not right. There is more to life than just surviving, and humans will experience consequences if they try to take too much control over the creation and purpose of life.

Therefore, the heavy plot and hard-hitting ethical issues of My Sister’s Keeper show the weaknesses in two major modern worldviews – theism and naturalism. Typical of postmodernism, though, the movie does not offer any definitive answers to the questions it so plainly asks.

—Sarah J

ABC ©September 22, 2004 - May 23, 2010

LOST is arguably one of the highest-impact shows ever to run on network television. LOST has captivated a generation of post-modern thinkers and has influenced spiritual assumptions and understanding about this world and the world to come. Viewers have had to ask some of the “big questions”: Why are we here? Is there life after death? Is there such a thing as purgatory? What is the balance of good and evil? Who (or what) controls this balance? Throughout six seasons, the writers of LOST have explored these questions and their “answers” have strayed into all of the major worldview strands.

LOST is about a group of individuals who are on an airplane that crashes onto an uncharted island. Together, they overcome many obstacles and fight to survive the perils of the island (polar bears, frequent flashbacks the characters’ past, and the unknown “other” people). Throughout these trials we see the personal world-stories of the characters come out, and nearly all are different. Jack Sheppard, who is consistently the primary character, is very atheistic. Jack is the clear leader on the island and in one of the early episodes he says, “We don’t have time to sort out everyone’s god,” in regard to burial. It is very clear that he sees “gods” as something not to be bothered with. John Locke, generally John’s rival, is spiritualistic, and is more in tune with the island than the other characters. Charlie Pace, the unspoken hero of the show, who gives his life to save those on the island, is theistic. It is also interesting to note that LOST has significantly helped to give Islam a better name through one of the “good-guy” characters, Sayid, who previously fought with the Iraqi republican guard before crashing on the island.

Throughout the series, I have been left guessing trying to figure out the overall worldview of the show – the worldview that the writers were attempting to present. In reality, no final answer could be determined until the finale. From season one and following, my opinion of the overall world-story changed from theism to atheism to spiritualism then back to theism and around and around again. After some frustration, I gave up on a diagnosis and simply labeled it postmodern, i.e. merely “celebrating diversity” of varying points of view without attempting to judge their merits. But when watching the final season I was once again intrigued by trying to determine the overall world-story of LOST. Throughout the final season my perception changed repeatedly, and even in the finale I wasn’t convinced of the worldview of the show, until in the last half hour of the final episode the overall perspective of the show finally came out. My understanding of LOST’s worldview is spiritualism.

In the end, all of the main characters, even those of have supposedly died, congregate at a large orthodox-looking church. Also at this time, Jack meets the father he thought was dead. His father explains to him the mystery of the island, while they are in a room in the church that is cluttered with various religious symbols. These symbols represent the unity of all religions, essentially discrediting all religions by saying that all are equal. In the very last scenes of the show, all of the characters from all of the seasons are united. They come together in one happy meeting in this present life, then they take their seats on the pews of the church to be transported to the next life.

LOST can be a very confusing show, and arguments can be formed for nearly all the major worldviews. It is clear now that the producers were intentionally withholding support of a specific world-story, which of course would have “lost” them viewers holding different beliefs. Instead, they were just trying to show the interconnectedness of all lives. The interconnectedness of all lives is one of the key tenets of spiritualism, as the destinies of all its characters finally merge. Now knowing the ending, as I go back and watch previous episodes, it is very clear that as a whole, LOST reflects a postmodernized version of western spiritualism, where everything is unified, all lives are joined in the end, and no one view is better than any other, except the superiority of the view that no one view is better than any other..

—Ellen

©2007 20th Century Fox

The Illusionist, based on a book written in the 1990s, has as its setting in Vienna at the turn of the twentieth century. The film follows the story of Eisenheim, a mysterious magician who doesn’t care for all the wealth that tricks provide for him. He is driven by his love for his childhood friend, Sophie von Teschen, stating in the middle of the film that his chief end is “to be with her.” Later in the movie, he reflects more on this thought in his conversation with Sophie when he recalls, “I went to Prague, Russia, Asia, and the Orient. I kept thinking I’d find a real mystery, but the mystery I could never solve is why I couldn’t let you go.” His greatest happiness on earth, the object on which he set all his affections and energy, is that of obtaining the continued companionship of his love.

The crown prince, to whom Sophie is engaged, is revealed as desperate for power, hot tempered, and once beat his former wife so badly that, in order to cover up the evidence of his anger, he threw her over a balcony to kill her. It is his insecurity that drives him to figure out the “power” behind Eisenheim in a search for control, and drives the height of his insecurity to unbearable levels.

For Eisenheim to be with Sophie, he must outthink the powerful and controlling prince. They are unable to run away together, since as Sophie recounts, “As long as we are alive he will hunt us.” With the only possible solution pointing to someone’s death, the entire movie is about crafting this increasing conflict, climaxing in the inevitable resolution. Through a carefully crafted series of events, the prince ends up pinned into a corner of his own making, caught for attempting to overthrow his father, the king. The ending reveals a beautiful woman stroking a horse on a remote hill with a quaint little cabin in the background. It’s just them now, Eisenheim and Sophie, with the ability to live “happily ever after.”

While The Illusionist is known for its beautiful cinematography, clever plot, great actors, and a well-crafted script, it remains true to its title in the illusion it presents. The entire movie speaks of the value of reason and logic, with which both Eisenheim and the prince are obsessed. All who watch are astounded at Eisenheim’s power over the supernatural, and yet his consistent response is that “It’s only an illusion.” The audience is left to conclude that the protagonist won only because he was smarter than his enemies. Themes of naturalism and survival of the fittest underscore that right and wrong are determined by the situation and what does the greatest good for the most people. The audience is led to approve of the illicit relationship between the two lovers. Because of Sophie’s abusive relationship with the prince, it is perfectly excusable for her to be free with her true love. Why does it matter that deceit is used to obtain the “prize?” It’s for everyone’s good, after all.

Many audiences love The Illusionist; it’s beautiful to the eyes and captivating to the mind. But also, in constructing a reality where humanistic, self-serving materialism reigns, this film fits its title ironically well. Nature is all there is in a dog-eat-dog world, and survival against competitors requires reason, logic, and wit. Eisenheim’s ability to obtain his goal, the love of his life, creates the positive feeling that one must only follow their heart and do better than everyone else in order to live a carefree life with the companion of their dreams, living happily ever after. The perfect ending to a perfect illusion.

—Meghan

BBC ©2005-2010

The longest-running science-fiction television series in history, BBC’s Doctor Who has become a major cultural icon in the United Kingdom and is gaining popularity in America. Originally running from 1963 to 1989, an updated Doctor Who started in 2005. The fifth series aired in 2010 with a new head writer (Steven Moffat) and a new lead actor (Matt Smith).

Armed only with his wits and a sonic screwdriver, the Doctor travels through space and time fighting monsters and saving planets. Often the Doctor will bring a human companion with him to experience the wonders of the universe. The Doctor travels in the TARDIS, a blue police phone box that is bigger on the inside than the outside.

Doctor Who contains postmodern elements. Absurdity is the Doctor’s constant companion. He responds to danger and death with wacky and random humor. Characters often face absurd situations. Doctor Who also reflects a postmodern distrust of metanarratives. Any serious question about truth and the supernatural has no answers. When the Doctor discovers a beast that claims to be the Devil, the Doctor admits he doesn’t believe in it, but also that he hasn’t seen everything. He keeps traveling “to be proved wrong.”

Change is central to Doctor Who. Truth is relative, and so is time. The Doctor says time is actually “a great big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey….stuff.” Thus, time can be rewritten and reality is in flux. Even the main character of the show changes. When the Doctor is near death, he can regenerate every cell in his body, changing his appearance, personality, and even his ethics. At first, this process smacks of reincarnation, but differs greatly: unlike reincarnation, regeneration is a natural process, not a spiritual journey, and the Doctor retains his memories and whatever makes him him. The current Doctor (played by Matt Smith) is the eleventh regeneration of the Doctor.

Like time and truth, Doctor Who’s worldview is also wibbley-wobbly. The show flits between elements of destiny and the hopelessness of a chaotic universe. The Doctor acts as a savior-figure, and the TARDIS and time are almost characters themselves. However, the Doctor can’t stop people from dying purposelessly, and he always ends up alone. Although Doctor Who alludes to Laws of Time and the possibility of destiny, the show stays atheistic. The Doctor, the last of a race called the Time Lords, comes the closest to a god-like figure. But the Doctor and the Time Lords are flawed and limited. Gaining true godhood is considered the ultimate danger. Death is final with no hope of a supernatural afterlife. Even so, psychic abilities, whether human or the Doctor’s, sometimes play important roles. One character helps save reality through the power of memory. Doctor Who does have a sense of hope: the Doctor almost always saves the day, and most episodes end happy or bittersweet. But hope seems based in chaos, not in a God or overriding purpose. “The universe is huge and ridiculous,” The Doctor says. “And sometimes miracles happen.”

The show’s worldview is hard to pin down because it changes with different writers. Still, Doctor Who worldview wobbles closest toward western spiritualism, and postmodernism clearly colors Doctor Who with its absurdity and reluctance toward metanarratives.

—Alaina

©2006-

The Big Bang Theory is just entering its fourth season and has gained a strong following over the years. The show revolves around two best friends and roommates who work at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California. Leonard Hofstadter is an experimental physicist and Sheldon Cooper is a theoretical physicist. The two live across the hall from Penny, and attractive blond waitress from Nebraska, who is also an aspiring actress. In the show are Howard Walowitz and Rajesh Koothrappali, best friends and co-workers at Caltech University. With Sheldon and Leonard, they form a picturesque group of what is the epitome of all that is geeky and nerdy. They frequently play Klingon Boggle, debate which comic book character would win in a battle, and have extensive knowledge of and own memorabilia from various science fiction/fantasy movies and television series such as Star Trek, Battlestar Galatica, and Lord of the Rings. In addition to being extreme nerds each of the men has various social impediments.

Sheldon seems to have no ability to grasp most social norms (including sarcasm) and tends to view himself as superior to all others because of his high IQ. Sheldon is also highly OCD to the point of organizing his cereal by bran content. Rajesh, who hails from India, is unable to communicate directly with females unless he is intoxicated. Rajesh’s inability to socialize with women is juxtaposed with Howard’s extraneous and deplorable attempts to begin a relationship with any woman, which can be extremely creepy. Howard is also a 30-year-old Jew who still lives at home with his mother. Leonard stands out from the four as one who wants more socially and is most open to new things. He was instantly captivated by Penny when she moved in during the Pilot episode of the series and has consistently attempted to begin a relationship with her which has been the only developing theme in the series’ plot.

Most of the humor in the series is derived from the social inadequacies of the four men as they grow in friendship with Penny who is far more socially adept and their dependence on logic and science in all areas of life. For example, Sheldon often struggles with understanding Penny’s sarcasm in humorous ways. With the exception of sexual innuendos and discussion and the abnormal use of humor the show is pretty clean. Often times the characters over apply logic to cultural norms and relationship problems creating humorous situations.

The general worldview of the show is atheism, specifically naturalism. With the exception of Penny, all four men operate from an extremely logical and scientific approach to life. As shown by their conversations and lifestyles, the only tangible truth is that which can be empirically or scientifically proven. This includes discrediting all religious and spiritual beliefs. For example, when Sheldon finds out that Penny is a Sagittarius he classifies her as one who "participates in the mass cultural delusion that the sun’s apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality.” Most of the characters morals come from social constructs and vary since science doesn’t apply to morals. They maintain common cultural morals such as lying, stealing and killing but view sex as a purely physical act. Also, the name of the show should tip off the viewer immediately to the worldview present as The Big Bang Theory is generally accepted among naturalistic atheists.

—Scott

©2006 Nintendo

The video game franchise The Legend of Zelda made its debut in the 1980s on the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES for short). Since then it has spawned numerous sequels, prequels, and splitting timelines. Most recently, Nintendo has released “The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess” in 2006 (TP for short). It draws on much of the same ideas from previous games and incorporates some new ones, both in terms of game play and philosophy.

Like all Zelda games, it centers on Link (or some incarnation of him) and his quest to save whichever land in which he happens to be living–Hyrule in this particular game. For one reason or another Princess Zelda is in some sort of danger along with the land, and it’s up to Link (the game universe’s predestined hero) to save it all. In TP the issue is that a tyrannical king from another dimension, the Twilight, is looking to extend his reign to be over the regular world as well as his. It should be noted that he also usurped the former leader of the land, the Twilight princess.

The game draws more heavily on the eastern philosophies of balance and yin and yang than other installments in the series. The whole back story is that in ancient times an evil tribe was banished to the Twilight (which always looks like the sun is setting in a sky peppered with black clouds). And since it’s been so long since the twilight banishment, the people of Hyrule don’t particularly care for the “culture clash” created by monsters and devils coming into their world.

Like every Zelda game, TP utilizes a polytheistic spiritualism in its mythos. Each of the provinces of Hyrule has a guardian. Further, the Triforce (ancient, almost mythical artifact of great magic and power) is present, which means–for those unfamiliar with Zelda–that the creators of the Triforce also exist in this game. The three creators are Din, Farore and Nayru, and they are the goddesses of power, courage and wisdom respectively. Not only did these mythic figures create the Triforce, but they are credited with creating all of Hyrule (and presumably the world, though no other lands are ever mentioned in the game). This polytheism is rather downplayed in TP as the main goal is to defeat the Twilight king, save the Twilight princess, not defeat the classic Zelda villain, Ganondorf, by using the Triforce of Courage.

Curiously, despite the game’s heavy emphasis on defeating the King and thus closing the portal between worlds (i.e. restoring balance), in the end the main objective of the game is for good to conquer evil. *SPOILER ALERT* Despite only being mentioned at the very end of the game, Ganondorf does indeed make an appearance. The game extends its polytheism by revealing that the Twilight king believed Ganondorf to be a god and essentially offered up his life/servitude in exchange for ruling the Twilight and receiving magical powers. Again, the peculiar thing here is that the game seems to completely disregard its emphasis on balance and turn to the concept of good completely conquering evil, sword fights and all. The game and story are both excellent, there’s no doubt about that. It just seems to have a very odd and eclectic gathering of philosophies to form its mythology. And curiously, it is further demonstration that belief in spiritual powers and entities makes for more compelling gaming scenarios than the (anti-super)naturalism of atheism.

—Alex

©2009 Focus Features

Coraline is an animated movie based on the book by Neil Gaiman. Distributed by Focus Features, it was directed by Henry Selick, and the starring role of Coraline was voice acted by Dakota Fanning. It was ranked third at the box office on opening weekend, released on Feburary 6, 2009, making 16.85 million.

Coraline is a young girl who recently moves to a new apartment. She does not like her parents or the other people in the apartment. Her parents never let her do what she wants, and her food is terrible, and the other people who live in the apartment are very strange. She eventually finds a door that leads to another world that looks almost exactly like her own. In this world she has her other mother and her other father, who are just like her real parents, only they give her everything she wanted that she did not get from her real parents. In that world even her neighbors that she does not like are far more majestic than in the real world. Coraline is captivated by this world, and is ecstatic when this other mother and father invite her to come and stay forever. The only catch is that she has to let them sow buttons on her eyes, becoming like them with their own button eyes.

She tries to escape but is eventually locked up behind a mirror where she meets the ghosts of three children who had been trapped by the “other mother”. They had given into the “better world” and let her sew buttons on their eyes. After Coraline escapes and returns to her world she finds that her real mother and father have been captured, so she returns to the other world and challenges the “other mother” to a game. In the game Coraline has to find the missing eyes of the three children, and her parents, and then she can go. As Coraline finds each of the children’s eyes, the portion of the world that she finds them fades gray and disappears. She finally finds all of them and her parents and escapes. She ends up throwing the key to the other world down a deep well. At the end her parents are outside gardening with her along with all of the other people from the apartment.

This movie is heavily postmodern. It presents the only important things in life as the real world. Beliefs in another, seemingly ideal world are dangerous and should be avoided, even when there is some semblance of reality. Being seduced by alternative realities is a web designed to entrap the gullible. What really matters is the really real. No matter how bad your life is, you should not try to escape from what is real by going to something that is not real. Also, those that have been captured by a belief in a false world should be saved from their eye-less-ness. Only when they can see properly again can they be set free, returning back to real world, as unpleasant as it might be.

— Luke

Sherlock Holmes, the 2009 motion picture directed by Guy Ritchie and produced by Joel Silver, Lionel Wigram, Susan Downey and Dan Lin, is a creative retelling of the story Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In this retelling, Sherlock (played by Robert Downey Jr.) is not just a very observant detective that finds the most important clues in the smallest details and carefully walks through the mysteries set before him, but he is a very skilled combatant that takes daring risk after risk. He has been re written to have fighting skills alongside those of Jet Li. Although these new characteristics may distance many hard core book fans form the movie, I found the mix between super combat hero with vigilant detective very interesting. Before most fights the audience gets a glimpse inside Sherlock’s head as he plans out his martial moves. All of the details given, cracking a rib before breaking it, weakening the jaw before dislocating it, etc. are, as far as I know, right on.

The story starts off rather darkly, with the main antagonist performing a cultic ceremony over a young women who is, apparently, going to run a knife through her own body as a ritualistic sacrifice. Sherlock, through using some rather advanced parkour, is able to arrive well before the Scotland yard police. With his partner Dr. Watson (played by Jude Law), who also has combat skills to match Holmes, they are able to defeat all of the minions and capture their adversary. This adversary is then sentenced to death for the murder of five other young ladies. Watson is the doctor who pronounces him dead, as he wants to make sure that he finishes the last case that he and Holmes do together, since Watson is soon to be married. Shortly after their adversary is buried, he apparently rises from the dead and is still plotting against the city. Holmes takes up pursuit, and drags the reluctant, engaged Watson with him. Holmes, while perusing data on the case, continually jests against Watson’s upcoming marriage, knowing that he is about to lose his partner.

Their adversary turns out to have risen from the dead and intends on using fear to control the public. After a long and twisted road along which Holmes’ romantic interest, a young lady just as cunning as he is continues to pop in and out, both helping and working against him. In the end, it turns out that the adversary plots to use a machine that will pump poisonous gas into the chamber of parliament, killing all its occupants as the final sacrifice in a larger cultic ritual. He remotely activates the machine, but unbeknownst to him, Sherlock, Watson, and Sherlock’s romantic interest, have sabotaged the machine. It turns out that the adversary staged his apparent resurrection and death by taking some chemical that induces a short coma which causes him to appear dead. However, there is an even smarter mastermind behind all this—someone who stole from the machine the mechanism that allowed for remote ignition. Since the setting is the nineteenth century, Holmes declares the source of this technology as “the future,” so he and Watson rush off in pursuit of this master mind.

The movie as a whole presents the human mind as being more valuable than technology, and technology as being generally evil. A suspension bridge, shown in the dark skyline at the beginning of the movie, is what kills the adversary in the end. The most advanced piece of machinery in the movie is what is intended to kill Parliament. The occult and supernatural are presented as being fictional, though a sort of twisted higher fate seems to come into play in the last scene where by chance the adversary falls from the bridge, and by chance gets his neck caught in a chain carrying the weight of a heavy steel beam, which just perfectly makes a loop to hang him.

The movie also presents a higher good than that of the government. Several good officials go against their government to help Holmes fight against the wicked men that are in power.

The movie is slightly humanist, but it shows human’s greater achievements in his own mental prowess, and not as much in the inventions that he makes. This has a very similar point to that of The Prestige, which presents the use of science for devious purposes. Another similarity is that the piece that allows wireless transmission for the machine in Sherlock Holmes, was invented by Tesla. And because this is in the same time period, it does leave it open for a connection.

—Luke

Imagine our world destroyed by war. Thirty years after fire consumed seemingly everything, ashes fall from the sky, cities lie in ruins, and basic necessities like water and food are nearly impossible to come by. Each person lives just to survive another day. Through this wasteland of forgotten glory, walks a man named Eli (Denzel Washington). He is on a mission - to do whatever is needed to protect a sacred book and carry it west. This book is the last copy of the Holy Bible remaining on earth. Eli is not the only one who values this book, however. Ruthless Carnegie will stop at nothing to have the book for himself, for he believes it will give him the power to rule over the remaining world. The Book of Eli not only tells a story of Eli’s quest to protect the book, but explores the implications of living by it.

Simply basing a movie on the Bible does not necessarily mean that the writers are coming from a theistic worldview. Countless movies, songs, and books deal with religious subjects, but are far from religious or virtuous in their core messages. The Book of Eli, however, has a message that is consistent with its subject. In every aspect of the movie, from plot and characters to dialogue and symbolism, the message of God’s Word is respected and valued.

Eli has such a high regard for the Bible’s words and truth, that he not only protects it with his life, but reads it every night so that he can truly know it and internalize its message. Most important, Eli strives to live by the principles of the Bible. He humbly submits himself to God in prayer, risks his life in order to “do to others what you do for yourself,” and displays a teachable heart that desires to be changed by God’s truth. Although Eli kills many people, he only does so in self-defense when attacked. His goal is not to simply deal out violence, but to protect the book, help the innocent, and fulfill his mission.

Carnegie, on the other hand, wants the Bible for his own malicious purposes. His ruthless selfishness is clearly portrayed in the movie as being completely evil. All that he does is manipulative, abusive, and heartless. Through the contrast between Eli and Carnegie and a surprising ending, it becomes clear that the Bible is useless if its words are not known, believed, internalized, followed, and ultimately shared with others.

Therefore, this often violent, sometimes shocking, and very thought-provoking movie definitely comes from a Christian theistic worldview. Good and evil are clearly contrasted; morals remain clear even in a world that is seemingly void of religion; and viewers are challenged to take the message of the Bible seriously. In a world stripped of the comfort and extravagance we are distracted by daily, the central questions of life remain and find their answers in God’s Word.

[written by] Sarah J