Dr. Moreau is Dead

          After watching multiple videos about the nightmare that was the making of the film “The Island of Dr. Moreau,” I decided to watch the film myself to see if it was as bad as the production.  In short, it was not terrible, just horribly unfocused and confused with most of the actors lacking the ability to care about the film either because of personal problems or losing the will to continue because of their terrible experiences on the production.  Though the story concept was interesting, the book by noted author H. G. Wells likely handled it better.
There was a moment in the film though that rather stuck with me while watching it.  It was the final moment where main character Edward Douglas, played by noted actor David Thewlis, better known as Remus Lupin in Harry Potter and Sir Patrick in Wonder Woman, as well as the only one of the three leads in this film who feels like he’s trying, has to face off with the film’s antagonist and declare him God to the island.  As was the case with the film, it had a lot of discussion on man’s relationship with God, the desire to overthrow him, and then replace him and that moment encapsulated it quite well.  So I thought I’d take some time to discuss it here and the consequences of such desires.  Obviously there will be spoilers for the film so you have been warned.
For context to the event, this blogpost will start off with an overview of the film.  UN negotiator Edward Douglas is left stranded in the Java Sea after a plane crash before being rescued by Dr. Montgomery, played by Val Kilmer, and brought to the island of Dr. Moreau.  There, he meets Doctor Moreau, played by Marlon Brando, who has found a way to turn animals into humanoid creatures that can function, in theory, like real people.  During his experiments, Dr. Moreau believes he has created perfect people who can live in a utopian society where they are guided by key rules that they must follow in order to be sufficiently human (as well as being thoroughly drugged and implanted with devices to cause them pain when they step out of line).
Eventually, after several failed attempts by Edward to escape, the animals, led by the hyena-swine man, manage to rebel and kill Dr. Moreau along with the rest of his staff and those closest to him before declaring themselves leaders of the island.  Eventually, Edward is kidnapped by the rebels and forced to accept their superiority in front of the other animals.  However, he is able to outsmart them and defeat them before escaping the island to return to the world of man.
As a brief review before discussing the confrontation, the film plot may sound somewhat interesting.  The biggest issue is the execution as the film is horribly unfocused since it has multiple plotlines from Edward trying to escape to Montgomery slowly going insane out of jealousy of Dr. Moreau to Dr. Moreau’s utopia falling apart.  As a result, the film comes across as dull since nothing really stands out in terms of plotline since it’s always competing with other events.  Unsurprisingly, the book might have been a masterpiece if made use of these plot elements, but the film tragically could never find its footing and was weighed down with actors not giving the performances the film needed because they were weighed down by the nightmare that was the production.
Regarding the film’s theme though, it touches on the nature of God and those who would seek to dethrone him in society.  Notably, Dr. Moreau serves as God to his creations, which is why they call him father, and his island serves as his sort of Eden.  This is why the animals later rebel against him as they believe that doing so would give them the power they believe their creator has and would let them create themselves in their own image.

The desire to destroy Dr. Moreau in this story is similar to men who desire to overthrow God.  Often God’s rules as set by our creator are seen as archaic, arbitrary, and at odds with our desires which we believe will surpass his.  In the end, those who leave behind what they believe the shackles of religion do so believing they will find something else, ideally a better world designed in their own, man made image.

This brings us back to the final confrontation where the Hyena-swine has taken Edward and intends to use him to declare himself God in front of the other animals.  The Sayer of the Law, the sort of priest of Dr. Moreau, refuses to acknowledge the Hyena-Swine as God as the only God for him is his creator.  However, Edward instead responds by saying “You are all Gods” to the animals that had killed Dr. Moreau, much to the Sayer’s dismay.

The Hyena-Swine, thinking he’s won, tells Edward to say that to the other animals as though to show the legitimacy of the former’s reign.  Instead, Edward asks him what makes him any more the new leader than the other animals as all are equal and there were others just as capable as the Hyena-Swine who were also involved in killing Dr. Moreau.  In response, the animal man goes on a rampage and tries to kill the others before Edward defeats him.
Once the rebellion is over, Edward crafts a raft and returns to civilization.  He offers the Sayer to send someone back to help the animals, but the Sayer recommends against it.  The animal man knows that without the laws of Dr. Moreau, the animals will return to their original state and that that was what nature had always intended.  With that, David Thewlis leaves, knowing both that he has learned from his experience, and that he won’t have to return to the set again after the nightmare of a production.
This scene is actually deep as it shows the truth of men who try to declare themselves as God.  Just like the animals, all human being are equal, meaning that despite differences they have the same propensities towards corruption, sin, and failures.  Some may be more capable than others, but the idea that the rules don’t apply to them leads to pride, hubris, ego, and other synonyms.
One thing one of my Sunday school teachers always said was that there's a God shaped hole in our hearts and that without him we will try to replace it with something else.  Often, we try to shove our own interests to replace him, but we are one perspective among many and what works for us may not work for others.  In the end, man can never replace God because we are not morally superior nor inferior to his other men and thus incapable of reaching that status.  This brings us to the inevitable truth: that objective morality does not exist in this world without God.
Through his commandments and the teachings of Christ, God left man the path towards enlightenment and purpose, a way to better one’s and become more Christlike.  When we reject God’s vision, we inevitably become trapped in ideas that are ideologies of equal merit that will fail the same way we do.  For God is perfect, something to be imitated, and knows what is good.  Since the fall, man has been flawed and the things we create will be just as flawed, meaning just as likely to fall.
Lacking an objective morality that God provides, man will try to replace him with something inferior that is also just as likely to fall.  This is why G. K. Chesterton said “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”  The end result is that like the animals, we resort to a phase of nihilism and purposelessness, destroying what separated us from animals and becoming the creatures we were made to rule over.
This theme is found repeatedly in the Book of Genesis, starting with Adam and Eve’s decision to eat from the tree of Knowledge.  They were told it would make them like Gods, when the only thing it did was make them aware of their brokenness and thus were cast out from the garden, the furthest thing from Gods they could have been.  Another story would be the tower of Babel where the people making it thought doing so would make them superior to God and instead resulted in them getting cursed to speak other languages.  Be it in the bible, or real world examples like the Cristero War, Godless Communism, or even in America where our society gets more depressed as it rejects God, the desire to replace God, to say “God is dead'' ends always the same with a river of blood and an utopia never arrived at.  The end result is always the same: the desire to replace God ends in failure every time.
The theme of the film does not justify the bad things about the film, but I still did find the film interesting.  It encapsulated the hubris of those that seek to replace God with themselves and the inevitability of what happens to a society without him.  Never forget, the guard rails of society exist for a reason, and there may be justification to go past them but you do so at your own peril.

The Art of Crafting a Message Film

With every medium, art, or craft, there is a method to doing it well.  A layman may know the basics to a field such as filmmaking or writing, but to do it and do it well is another story entirely.  So today will be a discussion over a rather relevant topic: the method of putting ideas and concepts in entertainment.

There has been a large push in recent years to increase the number of political concepts and norms in pop entertainment.  From press narratives on the importance behind an upcoming film to defenses of entertainment based on the ideas of the piece, there is no denying that Hollywood is pushing to increase the discussions on relevant concepts in our media. And this is always met with backlash, derision, and loss of audience interest.  This is an abnormally common occurrence it seems.

Some may argue that this may be a sign that audiences are opposed to the messages in entertainment, but the truth is most Americans are apathetic to politics as opposed to particularly invested.  So why then is there so much backlash to the politicization of current media?  Well, to answer that, one would need to look at the nature of communication.

There are two important schools of thought on the importance of communication: looking THROUGH communication, and looking AT communication.  The concept of looking through communication is based on the belief that the primary importance of communication is to transmit an independent idea free from the medium that transmit it.  The use of language or other parts of a medium is secondary from the transmission of an idea as that must take priority.  This is why Plato hated rhetoric as he believed that it would obfuscate the actual goal of the speaker or manipulate the audience.

Looking at communication, however, was instead the idea that the medium was a part of, if not equal to, the message itself when communicating.  As brought up by Richard Lanham, the mere choosing of wording or style can change the conveyance or intent of a message.  Every bit that makes up a medium of communication, including the choice of medium itself, is important in how that message is communicated.  Therefore, there is no message without the medium of communication itself.

Just about anyone in communication will say that the medium and method is just as important to reaching people as is the message itself.  For example, many in campaigning have said that billboards and signs do little while phone calls, mailers and door knocking actually connect with people.  So when one seeks to communicate any message, following the rules of the medium are important when seeking to use it to craft a message.

When one makes a film then, the focus on filmmaking must come first before using it to tell a message.  One must follow the rules of the medium, such as “conflict is the heart of the story,” and “you admire a character more for trying than their successes.”  If the message comes at odds with the story, then bending the story to please the message does not better communicate it, it just weakens the film.  This is why message films often fail: because a bad or mediocre film leaves no impression.

A good example of this would be the problem christian films.  Often these movies are very poor in terms of film quality and not well received by critics or general audiences.  There are certainly exceptions, but often they fail specifically because they focus more on the message than actually telling a good story.

For instance, the movie “God’s Not Dead” is a perfect representation of failures of looking through communication.  The christian hero is specifically designed to act absolutely perfect while the atheist villain is as moral as Hannibal Lecter to drive the point that christians are noble, atheists are evil, and that the former will triumph over the alleged threat they impose.  He and the rest of the christians are going to win because they are noble while their enemies, though seemingly more powerful, are evil.

At face value, this can be extremely insulting because the message oversimplifies actual struggle in a cultural war.  In addition, no christian is actually perfect (Romans 3:23), so it is hard to relate to a character that lacks any level of imperfection.  The characters as a result are not real characters like an actual movie would have, but instead lifeless tools designed to represent whatever is needed.  As a result, the film is no longer a film but instead a sermon designed to sell an idea.  Even if one agrees with the message of the film, the sloppy attempts at storytelling will alienate potentially interested individuals or supporters which makes any intent pointless.

Compare that to a decent christian film like “I Still Believe.”  Though the pacing and the dialogue can be clunky, the story is built around a man dealing with the death of his wife and coming to grips with it through his belief in God.  The message flows naturally from the story which is why the message does not feel forced or like it bends the film around it.

So that is the key to producing good content.  It must follow the rules of filmmaking and storytelling while the message must flow naturally from the struggle.  If it fails to do this, it will fail to interest the particularly interested and possibly make the message look bad.  Therefore, one should always keep the rules of filmmaking and storytelling at heart when making a film and never bend it to justify an alleged message.

Crafting a story that can promote a message is a hard process that is rarely commercially successful.  If entertainment truly wants to be entertainment, it must focus on good storytelling and filmmaking first, and all else second.  If it does not, then it will continue to divide and fail to resonate.