Bored by Sin - Reconsidering 'Groundhog Day', again

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

Today is the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord. And yesterday evening we celebrated a wonderful Vesperal Liturgy with many worshipers present.

However, February 2 is also Groundhog Day. Not a "feast day" on my calendar, I can assure you. Yet, Groundhog Day brings to my mind a film by the very same title, i.e. "Groundhog Day."

I know that many people have seen this film, but I wonder how many realize just how "theological" of a film it actually is, though under the cover of being a romantic comedy. That theological dimension is what struck me probably after more than one viewing.

Some time ago, I wrote a film review of "Groundhog Day" and titled the review "Bored By Sin," which I thought was one of the major themes of the film. Many of you have probably read this review in the past; and it is one of the meditations included in my new book. Yet, for those who have not read it before; or for those who may want to revisit it, I have included it here below. If you have actually seen "Groundhog Day" and would like to share your own comments or understanding of the film, please feel free to do so in the comments panel below. I can assure you that I would be glad to hear back from you.

Fr. Steven

+ + +

'Bored By Sin'

Archpriest Steven C. Kostoff

Perhaps some of you recall the film "Groundhog Day" that goes back to 1991. If not quite a "cult classic" (it was too mainstream for that), it was immensely popular and was subject to multiple viewings and an endless flow of commentary and interpretation. The lead role seemed to be a perfect fit for precisely Bill Murray's type of deadpan and highly ironic sense of humor.

Having enjoyed the film myself, and having seen it a few times, I suggested "Groundhog Day" for our latest Feature Film Festival for the parish, based on some of the themes that I will expand on below. When we watched the film together I believe that it was thoroughly enjoyed by one and all. There was certainly a great deal of laughter!

Yet, the purpose of our watching films together, beyond the social significance of "getting together" as a group, is to find those films that are morally and ethically probing, in addition to their "entertainment value." Movies and movie-going dominates our popular culture, so trying to deepen that experience a bit strikes me as a sound idea. In other words, we try and choose films that will make everyone think. That is the purpose of our post-film discussions.

So why choose a film such as "Groundhog Day," a film described as "zany" and "wacky?" 

Now, there is no doubt that "Groundhog Day" plays as a very effective and highly entertaining romantic comedy. However, this is deceptive for there are layers of meaning underneath that rather well-worn and rather predictable genre. 

How many people are aware of the fact that at least for a few years after its release, "Groundhog Day" was subject to a great deal of philosophical and even theological commentary and interpretation? I recall reading many insightful reviews of this film in some very "high brow" journals. What makes all of that even more intriguing is that the director, Harold Ramis, claims that all of that went beyond his intention in making the film. The creative process can be mysterious.

"Groundhog Day" is essentially a romantic comedy with a real twist. It charts the life of a rather cynical and ambitious Pittsburgh weatherman, Phil Connors, played perfectly by Bill Murray. His self-absorption and unapologetic egoism are of gargantuan proportions. His charm is manipulative and self-serving. As the center of the universe, apparently everyone and everything around him is meant to satisfy his needs and desires. As he admits later in the film, he is a "real jerk." Phil the weatherman is sent to Punxsutawney, PA, in order to cover the groundhog day festivities there. In his mind, it promises to be a boring excursion into small town existence. At one point, he contemptuously calls the local population "hicks." He is accompanied by his TV station's producer, Rita, and cameraman Larry. Obviously, Phil does not want to be there, and can't leave soon enough once his responsibilities are fulfilled. However, a blizzard that he failed to predict, sends him back to the small town for at least one more night. When confronted with the blizzard, he angrily shouts back to the highway patrolman: "I make the weather!" But even he is forced to succumb to the power of nature and back to town he goes.

Yet, Phil wakes up the "next day" only to discover that it is February 2 and groundhog day all over again - exactly, down to every detail. He is now trapped in an inexplicable "time warp" that forces him to relive the same day over and over again, apparently without end - into eternity itself. It is the myth of the "eternal return" but on a daily basis in small town Punxsutawney! It is a living nightmare. The film wisely makes not even the slightest attempt at explaining this new reality. How could it? It simply is, and Phil is helplessly caught in it alone, for the same people that he meets are unaware of his predicament. They remain as static and unchanging as the surrounding environment. 

At first bewildered and frightened, Phil begins to make "adjustments" to his new situation. His "selfish gene" kicks into action. He soon realizes that his newly-achieved "immortality" means that his actions on one day have no consequences for there no longer exists a "tomorrow." There is no one or nothing to answer to. As it plays out in the film, it is something of a lighthearted version of Dostoevsky's aphorism, "if there is no God, then everything is permissible." Phil can now break any conceivable law - civic, social, moral, divine - with total impunity. He can now unleash his hidden passions with no restraint or "anticipatory anxiety." He can "eat, drink, and be merry" without the slightest cost to his well-being - or so it seems to him. The film exploits all of this to wonderful comic effect, and it is hard to dislike Phil in the process, "jerk" that he is. But perhaps our sympathy with Phil is grounded in the "fact" that he is living out some of our own uninspired fantasies. As in: what would you do if you won a billion dollar lottery? Or, what would you do or be like if there were no consequences to your actions?

One of the great insights of our spiritual tradition is that sin - beyond its moral, ethical and spiritually corrupting effect - is ultimately boring. Besides immediate satisfaction it remains a distortion of true life, and instead of yielding an enhanced sense of life - or "living life" as Dostoevsky would call it - sin devolves into an empty caricature of life. It is the negation of life. That is why spiritual death precedes biological death. Repetition is not a relief, but an increase of this intolerable boredom. The passions are insatiable. Sin is thus an existential vacuum that is suffocating in its long-term effects. Unconsciously, or perhaps intuitively, Phil begins to realize this after endless bouts of "wine, women and song." Daily dissipation has worn him out. He embodies the biblical "vanity of vanities." His moral universe is unaware of a "higher reality," so he looks elsewhere for relief.

Although consistently maintaining its comic touch, the film now steers us in a darker direction. Attaining a sort of pseudo-omniscience by being able to predict the daily events around him, and realizing that he cannot die, Phil begins to fancy himself a "god." Not "the God" as he admits, but a "god" nevertheless. There is nothing new left to experience so he turns to suicide. Life is boring, so he will now try death! Phil now explores the many "creative" ways in which a person can commit suicide - from driving trucks over steep cliffs, swan-diving off of tall buildings, or electrocuting himself in the bathtub. This can be interpreted as a grisly form of finding relief to the nightmare quality of having to live out the same day in isolation from a non-comprehending humanity; or the thoroughly desperate attempt to discover some more "kicks" in his morally meandering and meaningless existence.

But what actually "kicks in" at this point of the film is the slow transformation of Phil after he has bottomed-out in the manner described above. The film has a "moral," and I believe that it is effectively realized in a natural and unforced manner that is not merely sentimental or banal keeping in mind the genre and intent of this film. And again, with a lighthearted touch that probably increases its effectiveness. Remembering that this is a romantic comedy, the question becomes: will the guy - or how will the guy - get the girl in the end? Phil has resorted to endless subterfuge in order to seduce Rita the producer. Try as he might, this is the one thing he could not succeed at, regardless of his great advantage of knowing her "inside out" after living out an endless amount of days with her over and over, each one ending with a well-deserved slap to the face as Phil's real intentions become obvious. Rita is quite attractive, but more importantly she is a genuinely "good person" with a pure heart and honest intentions. Within his juvenile universe of a warped moral sensitivity Phil does not understand this.

Yet, something happens within Phil and he begins to radically change by no longer living for himself alone. He somehow breaks through his narcissistic and solipsistic one-person universe. (There is a key scene involving a death in which he realizes that he is not actually a "god"). He discovers the "other," and this discovery is transformative. He beings to live altruistically. In fact, the film can be seen on one level as the transformation of Phil Connors from a "jerk' into a genuine human being. And this will prove to be the way into the heart of Rita. Genuine virtue, as the great saints both taught and realized in their lives, is never boring as long as it does not lapse into formalism and/or moralism. It bears fruit a hundredfold when practiced with patience and the love of the "other" primarily in mind. It is the means of ascending up the ladder of divine ascent, as St. Klimakos demonstrated. Virtue is endlessly creative, since it extends and expands our humanity beyond the limits of the self. As Phil will discover, it is also the means of breaking through the meaningless "eternal return" that has taken him down into the inferno and back. But perhaps that is something that you may want to see for yourself.

"Groundhog Day" remains consistent from start to finish. The ending is satisfying and not simply anti-climatic. The screenplay is clever, sharp and humorous, and regardless of its intentions, or lack thereof, raises many genuinely "profound" issues that can be explored and expanded upon. I may have given away too much in my commentary, but I would still recommend it if you haven't seen it before. It is highly entertaining. When we think of such topics as sin, repentance and virtue, the film lends itself to a "Christian interpretation" that is not unduly forced, but rather flows naturally and instinctively from the predicament as conceived and presented. Such discoveries can be rewarding. All in all, a worthwhile film from a variety of perspectives.

Guest Film Review: 'MAN OF GOD'

Dear Parish Faithful and Friends in Christ,

Here is a guest review of the film, 'Man of God', which we recently saw on March 21 & 28.

Man of God

Settling into my seat, I anticipated a good, but lengthy film of just under two hours. Knowing the general premise for the film and having read a few excellent reviews, I knew it would be a positive experience. However, I could not have prepared for the impression it continues to leave on me.

The film, Man of God, is a poignant portrayal of a holy man whose singular desire was to live unto the Lord. Yet for all his purity, we witness the many obstacles in the form of other persons — many identifying as godly, themselves, who collectively beat down this innocent man. As a viewer, I feel frustrated and even angry at seeing this injustice. But what surprises me is how I cannot stay that way because of the way St. Nektarios responds. His calm demeanor — part personality but more spiritual development — neutralizes those natural human reactions with those that are driven by the Holy Spirit. I was left ignorant of what to feel, but given a clear example of how to act.

Without guile this film holds before the viewer the mirror of seeing certain characters in our own face. I could not help but see myself in Mr. President (his need for authority), in Kostas (his vicarious ambition), and even the mother of one of the young nuns (her need for control). There are many others, to be sure, I could identify with... and it left me with the sad realization that the person with whom I could see least resemblance to was the man of St. Nektarios. But I was left wanting to be more like him! Constant in prayer and fasting... never yielding to anger due to the slanderous comments or even physical assaults of those who sought to humiliate, hurt, and destroy him.

St. Nektarios’ humanity is relatable in his desire to know what he had done to deserve the treatment he received from those who professed to love him. Yet, sometimes there are no answers. And he reminds us that if our faith is based on the actions of men... there is no hope. Our hope must be in God for He will never fail us if we persist in trusting Him.

I was moved at seeing St. Nektarios tell others in a few scenes the truth that God loves them. How often have we heard these words told to us? How deeply do I believe them? How truly has the person who has said those words to us actually believe this truth themselves so that they are convincing to the hearer? I left the film convinced that if I could allow myself to believe undoubtedly the incomprehensible truth that God, indeed, loves me, a sinner, then my entire life would be completely transformed. But even to acknowledge a little that we are lovable by the Holy God means to feel the gravity of our brokenness.... and it hurts. It is a process, however, in which we can make progress.

The film credits were rolling before I could process the ending. Though I was tired from a long day, I couldn’t believe two hours had flown by. I wanted more. It wasn’t enough. I needed to learn more from this man, from this holy father.

Few films are worth our time and entertainment, and even fewer those that would seek to elevate our lives by the message it conveys. This is one of those few. Like a great classic book which is a “must read,” this film is a “must see.” Yelena Popovic, the director and producer (along with several others) of the film has given us an early Paschal basket of holy virtues in the life of St. Nektarios on which to feast. Let us attend! And eagerly desire the table of the Lord!

'MAN OF GOD' - Film Review

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

 

Yesterday evening (Monday, March 21), fifteen members of our parish sat in a relatively empty cinema and together watched an amazing film - 'Man of God'.  Everything about the film was of the highest quality - the script, the acting, the recreation of late 19th - early 20th c. Egypt and Greece, the musical score, and a fine eye from the director for the larger narrative and those details that leave a lasting impression. The director, by the way, is Yelena Popovich, a Serbian-American, who is an Orthodox believer. She has made a film unapologetically focusing on a "holy man" (the actual meaning of the word "saint") of deep faith and piety - St. Nektarios of Aegina (+1920) The Orthodox scholar, Constantine Cavarnos has described St. Nektarios in the following manner: "Metropolitan of Pentapolis, great Theologian, Philosopher, Moralist, Educator, Ascetic, Mystic, Miracle-Worker and Healer." His written legacy is quite prolific.

St. Nektarios was a Greek Orthodox bishop (Pentapolis in Egypt) who was mercilessly mistreated and slandered by his fellow hierarchs in both Egypt and Greece. His life as a bishop became almost a struggle for survival as he never received a diocese once he was expelled from Egypt by Patriarch Sophronios in the late 19th c., still a relatively young man. This broken relationship between St. Nektarios and the patriarch was especially painful to him, as the patriarch was his "spiritual father." Slander followed him to Greece and the wheels of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy never moved in such a way that would soften his initial fall from grace, thus leaving him not only unrecognized, but isolated and humiliated. 

He eventually became the rector of a prominent theological school, however, building it up as young men were trained for both service in the Church and in the world. Even here there were real tensions with more secularly-minded authorities. His approach was to find the right balance between "kindness and authority." His last great vocation was to establish a group of young nuns in an independent monastery on the lonely island of Aegina. (Today, this is a large and thriving monastic community and complex.)  But he died misunderstood and isolated from the wider life of the Orthodox Church in Greece. In his lifetime, there was no final reconciliation between the saint and the Church hierarchy. (This was the fate of St. John Chrysostom from the fourth and fifth centuries). Duriing his lifetime, he was a prolific writer of theological and pastoral literature that is in wide circulation to this day. His holiness could not remain hidden, and he was numbered among the saints of the Church in 1961. The Patriarchate of Alexandria issued a formal apology a few decades after his death, and this flowery apology scrolled down across the screen right before the final credits. Often, the Church is too hesitant to admit a mistake and repent, so this was a fine example of breaking through such self-defensive posturing.

The film's focus was on the interior life of St. Nektarios as he absorbed blow after blow that would have totally diminished a man of lesser integrity and lesser faith. It was precisely the depth of his faith, his acceptance of whatever cross that came his way - uninvited though it may have been - and his acceptance of any and all life-constricting situations always as a hidden and providential means of strengthening his sense of total dependence on God. This was overwhelmingly impressive as the film unfolded. He always exhorted those around him to resort to faith in God in trying circumstances. 

The lead actor playing St. Nektarios did bring a genuine sobriety and dignity to his portrayal, never falling into the level of pietistic sentimentality. The dialogue was sharp and focused and the saint showed great restraint when verbally - and once even physically - assaulted by his detractors. St. Nektarios leaned on the Gospel image of Christ, turning his other cheek at times, but as Dostoevsky once wrote: "Humility is a powerful force." One touching element is that his supporters were far more troubled at the indignities that he suffered, than St. Nektarios himself was. They wanted justice on his behalf, but he realized that it was not forthcoming. Of particular interest is that the only time St. Nektarios was willing to "fight" the authorities, is when his spiritual children - a group of young nuns - were under attack. 

The atmosphere of his time period was nicely brought to life, from late 19th c. sensibilities - both ecclesial and secular - to the speech patterns and clothing different people wore. The film was made in English and at times the accents were (attractively) heavy! There was some nice interior shots of what were clearly Byzantine-era churches. The saint's practice and dependence on the Jesus Prayer was also periodically highlighted. On the whole, this film was a very professional production, and not a film that could only aspire to playing time on "religious media channels."  The question may arise: Can genuine holiness - or an actual historical saint - be depicted in a film, itself a construct that is ultimately imaginative? That is a legitimate question, indeed. But here was an honest attempt that did strive to remain within realistic boundaries and discernible facts from the life of St. Nektarios - with what I would again call a certain "sobriety" - without straying into the excesses of romanticized religiosity.  


Following the film everyone seemed a bit stunned, trying to process what we had just seen in the life of this remarkable man. To a person, everyone from the parish seemed quite moved and impressed. (The near-empty theatre was a bit disconcerting. I had expected a different response from the Orthodox Christian community). We had some lively exchanges before we left the theatre. Someone even suggested a "road trip" to Aegina one day! That is where the relics of St. Nektaroios are resting and widely venerated to this day. His feast day is November 11, and is on the OCA ecclesiastical calendar. 

I know that "The Man of God" will be shown next Monday, March 28. I am aware of other parishioners who intend on viewing the film. I would strongly recommend it to anyone else. It is a good choice for a "lenten-time film." Actually, presvytera and I saw the film in the summer. We missed the first twenty minutes or so, and on a small computer, we did not have the same viewing experience as this time. We thought it was "good" but nothing exceptional. This second viewing was quite a different experience. 

If you saw it yesterday evening at a different theatre - I believe four different cinemas are presenting it - please share your impression with me. I ask the same if you view it next Monday. I am also thinking of an upcoming zoom session after next Monday, in which we could have a lively group discussion.

*** You can learn more about the film, its director, Yelena Popovich, and St Nektarios of Aegina, on this special page on our parish website.

 

Review: ‘Eyes On The Prize’

 

Dear Parish Faithful,

On Sunday, I briefly mentioned in the homily that I recently watched the documentary, "Eyes on the Prize." Below is a piece that I wrote as a kind of review, in case you may be interested. 

_____

“Eyes on the Prize”

A Review

Presvytera Deborah and I have just completed a remarkable documentary on television called “Eyes On the Prize.” This was made as far back as 1987, but has recently been revived on both PBS and Amazon Prime. It is now considered a “classic.” The documentary is comprised of six one hour segments. “Eyes on the Prize” covers the tumultuous decade of roughly 1955 – 1965, the crucial decade of the Civil Rights movement. The documentary begins with Rosa Park’s courageous stance as a black woman who rode in the white section of a Montgomery, Alabama bus, leading eventually to a massive city-wide boycott by black citizens. The culmination of this early protest movement was the integration of both white and black citizens riding on the bus system as equals. The series comes to a fitting conclusion with President Lyndon Johnson signing into legislation the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a bill that gave African-Americans the full legal status of voting citizens. That it took an entire century for this to happen from the time of the Civil War to 1965 is one of the most baffling and troubling pages in American history.

What is so compelling in “Eyes on the Prize” is the simultaneous coverage of the African American community’s organized drive toward freedom and equality, and the equally determined effort of resistance to this pursuit of freedom by white Americans. It was a struggle of titanic proportions. The documentary’s combination of powerful archival film and the interviews of both freedom fighters and white supremacists was totally captivating. It was like a battle of wills and resources. And it important to state openly that there was nothing remotely resembling “moral equivalency” between the two sides. One side stood on grounds of moral integrity and righteousness; while the other side was mired in an immoral and unrighteous stance.

This decade from the mid-1950’s and its relentless movement into the 1960’s was charged with powerful centrifugal forces as the Civil Rights movement was enmeshed with the polarization caused by the War in Vietnam, and the stretching of accepted boundaries of social and moral discourse - and “lifestyle changes” - caused by the counter-cultural efforts often labeled as the “hippie movement.” For those of us old enough to remember those tense times, we can probably draw some real parallels with our current social and cultural polarization based on the equally intertwined issues of the Covid pandemic, a divisive presidential election, and the revival of the “race question” in America. I am a strong proponent of the position that to understand the present, we must understand the past which has shaped the present. That is why the issues, the achievements and the failures documented in “Eyes on the Prize” have a gripping relevancy to them as we, as Americans, are again grappling with a myriad of similar issues around the “race question.” All this in contemporary America well over a half century after its supposed resolution.

Some of the key events that earn well-documented coverage over the course of six episodes are the following:

• The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 and its aftermath.
• The brutal killing of the black teen Emmet Till and the aftermath of the failed conviction of his killers. Nevertheless, the attention of the nation was drawn to this egregious crime.
• The assassination of Medgar Evers and the killing of three freedom riders (a black man, James Chancey; and two white men, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwemer) in Mississippi).
• The attempted integration and resistance to it of the public school systems and universities in Alabama and Mississippi.
• The tension between the federal government and local state governments in the southern states over racial integration.
• The March on Washington of 1963 with an assembled crowd numbering 250,000 protesters – both black and white - culminating in Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.
• The bombing of a black church in Birmingham, Alabama, resulting in the deaths of four young black girls only twenty-three days later.
• Focus on the campaign of young idealistic students – both white and black - to promote voting rights in Mississippi and the violent reaction against this basic civil right of all American citizens.
• The Selma to Montgomery march that caught the attention of the nation as this peaceful protest march resulted in a violent backlash by Southern authorities.
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights bill of 1965

The stark contrast between the dignity, courage, perseverance, and sense of the moral rightness of their cause among the black citizens of the South; with the open bigotry, prejudice, violence and hatred of many white Southerners is quite overwhelming throughout the entire course of this documentary. It makes your blood boil. For there is no other word that can describe the violent resistance that white people resorted to in order to thwart this compelling movement for equality before the law, equal dignity among citizens, and a recognition of the humanity of African Americans, than hatred. In interview after interview of white officials – former Alabama governor George Wallace and the infamous Bull Connors being two high-profile examples - one hears an unapologetic defense of racial prejudice that assumes black inferiority.

In fact, it was George Wallace whose blasphemous paraphrase/parody of Hebrews 13:8 – “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” – by publicly stating: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” - most succinctly expressed white resistance to black demands for civil rights. How jarring those words sound today! On the other hand, a nationally-televised audience heard more hopeful words from President Lyndon B. Johnson, shortly before the Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965: “Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome this crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.”

I would like to explore this dark side of human nature just a bit more, as this really caught our attention. There is no denial that hatred remains as real as it is irrational. Of course, the violence unleashed on the “Negro” (though an inappropriate term today, this was the accepted term at that time for African American citizens), was very disturbing. Besides the assassination of key Civil Rights figures, such as Medgar Evers, the three freedom riders and others (with no one ever convicted for these crimes), culminating in the sickening bombing of a black church in which four young black girls were killed; together with countless beatings, the attacks of vicious dogs and the turning of fire hoses on black demonstrators (including children); there is image after image caught on camera  of white faces distorted and twisted by hatred – men, women and young adults – as they hurl their usual racial epithets at peacefully marching black people. When Dr. King experienced this same hatred “up north” during a protest march in Chicago for fair and equal-housing opportunities for black citizens, he found it both shocking and intimidating. The questions that inevitably arise are: Just where does such hatred come from? How do law-abiding and church-going citizens mercilessly beat and hate other human being because of the color of their skin? How is such hatred passed down from generation to generation? Is it about power, or the fear of the “other?”

I miss the Christian dimension of this past Civil Rights movement compared to today, for it was the teaching of Christ, a firm belief that God blesses a righteous cause, and the capacity to endure pain in the practice of non-violent resistance, that was clearly a testament to the Christian faith that was so eloquently presented by Dr. Martin Luther King, and practiced by young black men and women with such fortitude. I think this documentary could have focused more attention precisely on the role of the “black Church” and its leaders in both promoting and fighting for racial equality. Prayer and effective sermonizing played huge roles in inspiring that generation of Civil Rights proponents. I would have also wanted to see some further examination of “white churches” in the South. To what extent did they abide or resist the surrounding bigotry, perhaps from their actual parishioners?  There exists an unresolvable tension between the Gospel and racial bigotry. How was that tension handled by white pastors, ministers and preachers?

As taught and practiced within the Civil Rights movement, non-violence was an effective reaction to white hatred and bigotry. The black leaders studied the methods of Ghandi and did their best to implement them into the American context of a segregated South. We have to appreciate the discipline and courage of the protestors who knew that they were going to be beaten and perhaps killed in this context. This was captured on film when black protestors sat at  “white only” lunch counters in North Carolina. These young people were ripped from their chairs, thrown to the floor and beaten as the police stood my in passive complicity with this expression of mob violence. Hard not to be impressed! There is some interesting archival footage of the training sessions these young black protesters underwent, together with their white supporters.

“Eyes on the Prize” also documents the growing tension between the leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) – the first president of which was Dr. Martin Luther King - and the Students Nonviolence Coordinating Committee (SNCC). It was the more youthful leadership of SNCC that began to challenge the principle of non-violence consistently taught by Dr. King throughout his life. After so much violence inflicted upon the protesters, the effectiveness of non-violence resistance was proving to be far too weak for many in the movement.  Stokely Carmichael was the leading voice from SNCC whose fiery rhetoric led to the “Black Power” movement that would culminate in the formation of such groups as the Black Panthers.

James Baldwin once famously said: “History is not the past. History is the present. We carry our history with us. We are our history.” To even begin to understand the troubling issue of “race relations” or “racial (in)equality” in the present moment in our society, one must have an informed grasp of the entire history of slavery in America; the Civil War; Reconstruction; Jim Crow segregation; and the Civil Rights Movement of roughly 1955-1965. “Eyes on the Prize” will offer a documentary that will at least fully inform you of the more recent Civil Rights Movement. There are heroes and there are villains. There are moments of intensity and brutality. And there are moments of overwhelming sadness – the murder of the four black girls in Montgomery, AL, is gut-wrenching and heartbreaking. Yet, there are moments of lofty inspiration, of soaring rhetoric in which one hears the words of the biblical prophets, and of undaunted and inextinguishable courage that are deeply moving. The power of a righteous cause is as compelling as unrighteous resistance is repellent.

The Civil Rights movement of 1955-1965 has to be considered the greatest social movement in American history. It was truly a battle for “the soul of America.” For those of us who lived through those years, this documentary is a worthwhile backward glance that reminds us that the struggle for human dignity exists at the most basic level of human existence. For those born after the Civil Rights movement in need of historical context to better understand what is going on today, and to perhaps be inspired by youthful and purposeful idealism, “Eyes on the Prize” will prove to be a worthy primer. 

Fr. Steven

 

A Review of the Documentary 'True Justice: Bryan Stevenson’s Fight for Equality'

This powerful documentary shows how "Stevenson and his colleagues have been able to free and overturn the wrongful convictions of about one hundred and fifty death row and other socially-marginalized inmates..." 

"One has a lively sense of the Gospel at work in his endeavors on behalf of the outcast neighbor..."

 

 

At the beginning of 2020 - in the pre-pandemic era! - I wrote and posted a film review based on the strong impression that the film 'Just Mercy' made on both Presvytera Deborah and me. The film was a  cinematic dramatization of an actual case that occurred in Alabama in 1987. In this case, which took years to bring to a just conclusion ("just mercy"), the Harvard-trained African American lawyer, Bryan Stevenson, was able to help free Walter McMillan, an African American man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering a young white woman, and who spent many years on death row before his exoneration and release in 1993. The deep sense of satisfaction the film created for the viewer when the reversal of a wrongful conviction and thus the victory of justice was achieved, left an indelible impression. Here is a link to that review if anyone would be interested in reading it.

 

I bring this up eight months later because Presvytera Deborah and I recently watched the powerful documentary, 'True Justice: Bryan Stevenson's Fight For Equality'. Narrated by the celebrated attorney, and covering his long career fighting against a broken system in order to provide legal counsel to death-row inmates in order that they too may be granted the justice that they failed to receive earlier in their lives, this documentary also left an indelible impression. It was stated that Stevenson and his colleagues have been able to free and overturn the wrongful convictions of about one hundred and fifty such death row and other socially-marginalized inmates over the years. So, this current reflection and commentary is something of a "follow up" on the film, as the documentary is an even more direct presentation of what Bryan Stevenson has been able to achieve; while his narrative is in many ways a piercing indictment of the racism that has plagued the United States now for centuries. This legacy cannot be ignored if you want to understand the present-day tensions that continue to trouble our society. If you take the time to watch this documentary, you will come to what may be the uncomfortable conclusion that his argument is essentially unassailable. Of this I am certain – especially for a Christian conscience, I would add.   

This indictment travels all the way to the Supreme Court, because for many years this highest judicial branch of  the United States supplied legal justification and credence to a two-tiered society that maintained the morally-bankrupt ideologies of white supremacy and black inferiority. This is one of the reasons that leads Stevenson to say: "The North won the (Civil) war, but the South won the narrative." As the documentary unfolds, it continually comes back to a shot of the Supreme Court building and the motto etched in stone high above the entrance: "Equal Justice Under the Law." The striking and ironic juxtaposition of the facts presented in the documentary with the hollow ring of these words in the light of those facts has its effect upon the viewer. Equal justice under the law did not exist for millions of black Americans who were treated as undeserving of that very justice even though a bloody Civil War was fought to win for them both freedom and justice. This gloomy picture finds relief and light as Stevenson also narrates the more recent cases (beginning with Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1954) that begins to tilt the scales of justice in a more equitable direction. Brian Stevenson is directly responsible — as he argued the cases — for five pivotal Supreme Court decisions that redress the legal and moral failings of the Supreme Court in the past. The verdict is in: the Supreme Court failed to uphold the proposition of the Constitution that "all men are created equal" in many decisions from the era of Jim Crow segregation.

 

There is about a ten-fifteen minute segment in "True Justice" in which Bryan Stevenson offers a deeply-troubling historical overview of the legacy of lynching that plagued the black community of the South for decades. There are endless photographs of distorted bodies hanging from trees (some victims were burnt alive) surrounded by huge crowds of onlookers who are thus morally culpable for these atrocities. There were probably around five thousand such lynching from 1890-1950 in the South. And the black community had no recourse to justice, because it was the legal authorities who were often direct participants in these crimes. (There was a fluidity of movement between the KKK and the legal authorities wherein it is difficult to distinguish between the two). This was nothing short of home-grown terrorism. This led to the great migration of black people to the major urban centers of the North in the twentieth century - a desperate desire to escape from this intimidation and domestic terrorism. This segment is narrated with a certain sobriety and lack of sensationalism, and perhaps that makes it all the more chilling. The devastation that this lynching brought to the black community was horrific and can bring tears to your eyes. But the open brutality, callousness, and moral degradation so evident in the white participants, combined with the racism that was rampant within a seemingly large segment of the white community, can either leave the viewer enraged or chilled to the core of one's being. There were not only white men present at these barbarous crimes, but also women and smiling children standing underneath a hanging corpse. Think for the moment of the moral corruption of such children. And this is then perpetuated for generations. Watching this I thought that this is not only about ignorance and prejudice, but something altogether "demonic" at work. Can human beings really be this evil? And these very people may have went to church on Sunday morning with an untroubled conscience!

In another segment, Stevenson makes a good case for his claim that at a certain point in time, when an uninvited notoriety was finally surrounding the widespread lynching, that the "outdoor lynching" became the "indoor lynching" of the courtroom. White judges, white prosecuting attorneys, white court-appointed attorneys, white law enforcement officers and all-white juries created an atmosphere for the black defendant that did not leave much room at all for justice to be served. Harper Lee's wonderful novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, gave us a fictional, yet devastatingly realistic recreation, of this harsh environment. Today is the anniversary (1955) of the brutal murder of Emmett Till, the young teenager who was tortured and mutilated beyond recognition for the "crime" of disrespecting a white woman. The film of his trial shows the defendants in the front row smirking and laughing throughout the charade being enacted in the courtroom. When the segregated black community returned to the courtroom after lunch, the local sheriff greeted them with these words: "Hello, n-----s!" To this day, no one was ever found guilty of this horrific crime. Justice was not served. 

Yet, Bryan Stevenson seems to be a hopeful person, and this is conveyed in his over-arching theme that embraces this shameful history into a higher and promising narrative. He is a modest man for all of his really extraordinary accomplishments. His outward demeanor is calm and collected, a character trait that is probably essential when arguing cases often enough to an either indifferent, skeptical or hostile (all-white) audience. Yet, the "fire within" is clearly right below the surface and just as evident. It is clear that his Christian formation is an integral part of his professional career. He was brought up in an AMA church [African Methodist Episcopal Church] in Delaware and he returns to this church setting a couple of times during the documentary. His grandmother was a woman of strong moral fiber, and he includes her in his narrative. His language also reveals his Christian upbringing - he spoke of mercy and grace before a senate committee, a scene included in the film as a kind of summation of his legal work on behalf of others. And at the end of the documentary, when speaking to a gathering of folks at a newly-constructed memorial center that keeps alive the memory of the victims of racial injustice, he offers a prayer before the gathered assembly. Although so difficult for anyone to perceive it, it is Christ who stands with these victims as the lover of the poor, the dispossessed, the marginalized and the outcasts.

 

This memorial  center is deeply impressive. Established in 2018 in Montgomery, Alabama, it was initially called The National Lynching Memorial, but has been renamed as The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. To my embarrassment, I have only recently become aware of this new structure and its purpose. Through careful and painstaking research the names of thousands of the victims of lynching have been recovered, and soil from the actual sites of these crimes has been gathered in large glass bottles and stored in row after row on wooden shelves that seem to reach to the ceiling. There are also stone slabs that have the name of the counties where this lynching occurred. Every county is able to retrieve the stone slab with its name as a memorial to the victims if it so chooses. It is an impressive sight and the message seems to be: We will not forget. For to forget the past is a betrayal to the memory of these innocent people whose "crime" was to be born with dark skin. 

 

 

He also follows the camera as it sweeps through the South, focusing on one romanticized and mythologized  monument after another of Civil War generals, Confederate statesmen, and other figures of that bygone era. Let’s just say that this glorification of the past leaves an uneasy feeling after the ravages of slavery, a failed Reconstruction Era, Jim Crow laws of segregation and the lynchings discussed above are reviewed in the cool light of historical recovery and analysis. 

 

I would like to share an anecdote with which Bryan Stevenson begins his documentary. As a young boy, he and his sister were given the present of going to the then newly-constructed Disney World. This must have been in the mid-60s. Either there or on the road they stopped at a hotel that had a large swimming pool. In their excitement they changed their clothes and raced to the pool and jumped in. Immediately, all of the other (white) children were frantically taken out of the pool as if an emergency situation had occurred. Finally, there was one last boy jerked out of the pool by an adult man. In his confusion, the young Bryan Stevenson asked the man just what was the problem. The man looked at him and said: You, n-----, you are the problem."  It was as if the black skin of those innocent children had somehow made the water in that pool toxic by mere contact. When he told his mother what had happened, she told him to not be afraid and to go back into the pool. He did so obediently, but found himself in a corner of the pool crying. Obviously, this memory has stayed with him throughout his life. But Stevenson then wonders aloud with the question: "Do any of those white children possibly remember that day in the swimming pool?" And memory remains a key theme that runs through the entire documentary. 

 

Memory, reconciliation and grace are the key themes that Bryan Stevenson leaves us with in the end, again attesting to the Christian inspiration that impels him forward in his pursuit of “true justice.” Another sub-theme of the documentary is the case of Anthony Roy Hinton, another wrongfully-convicted African American who served time together with Walter McMillian on Alabama’s death row. (He is also portrayed in the film version, 'Just Mercy'.) Bryan Stevenson eventually took up his case and appealed his wrongful conviction. After nearly thirty years in prison, Anthony Roy Hinton was released in 2015. The footage of him walking out of prison and into the light of day to be embraced by family members is deeply moving, to say the least. Mr. Hinton is determined to forgive everything that was done to him. He will not allow bitterness and rage to “enslave” him yet again. But the point is made that not one representative of the State of Alabama – not a judge, prosecuting attorney, law enforcement official, no one – ever said as much as “we are sorry.” Stevenson’s commentary on this was to state that those in power think it a sign of weakness to ever apologize. He further comments that a lengthy marriage can only be a fruitful one if mutual forgiveness is practiced among the spouses. To simply say "I am sorry" is a sign of a strong, not a weak character. After spending thirty years in prison for a crime he did not commit, Mr. Hinton deserved that apology.

 

This leads Stevenson to argue that true reconciliation between white and black people  can only be meaningful when full recognition of the darker aspects of this past are acknowledged as criminal and immoral. He points to the painful act of reconciliation that occurred in South Africa after the dismantling of apartheid. Also to Germany’s public recognition of the horrors and crimes of the Holocaust. Such humility is a strength that heals – not a sign of weakness. And again, the Christian dimension of reconciliation, grace and truth becomes all too apparent within such a narrative. He raises the issue of the Supreme Court. Would it be too much to hear an apology from the highest court of the land one day so as to acknowledge what terrible consequences their rulings from of old had on the black community for decades? What an effect on the healing process such an apology would have!

 

Bryan Stevenson embodies heroism and courage, combined with humility and modesty. He has accomplished great things in the name of “peace and justice.” One has a lively sense of the Gospel at work in his endeavors on behalf of the outcast neighbor. He is leading a life worth living. His legacy will remain as surely as the tarnished legacies of the unjust perpetrators of these heinous crimes will continue to fade into oblivion. Perhaps he has afforded us a glimpse of a contemporary saint?

 

The documentary 'True Justice' can be found on HBO through amazon prime. It has also been made available to view for free on YouTube by the producers (HBO Documentary Films and Kunhardt Film Foundation). As with the film, 'Just Mercy', it is available for rental and purchase through AppleTV and other online outlets, and is out on DVD. It is about two hours in length. Highly recommended!