Thoughts on “The Book of Eli”
I’m a fan of post apocalyptic movies. Show me a film where meteors, monsters, zombies, or odd diseases create the collapse of modern society, the downfall of the capitalist/greed/debt based culture and the heroic actions of an ostracized outsider and I will be suitably entertained for quite a while.
This is perhaps because I grew up being told that I lived in such a catastrophic age, heralding in the end of society as we know it. From the age of five or six years old I’ve had dreams complete with the nightmare landscapes of decimated cities, and roving gangs of future-punk marauders. Read the book of Revelations to your three year old and the same thing will happen to him.
Which brings me to why, surprisingly, I couldn’t enjoy “The Book of Eli.”
The protagonist in this film is a part of the problem. Not that I am entirely unsympathetic to those who fall among the billions on earth claiming one of the three Bible-derived religions as their faiths (I used to be one of those) but rather that I fear the unquestioning zeal and determination that these faiths can spawn. Christianity, the Jewish Faith, and Islam all share a common set of bronze age laws (found in the old testament books of the modern Bible) that explicitly encourage the slaughter of anyone who dissents from the ancient Hebrew theocracy. They should be preserved perhaps as a historical marker of what kind of intolerance and hatred ancient people held towards outsiders, but not as a viable philosophical vehicle for modern minds (or as a possible solution for the social reconstruction for post apocalyptic humanity.)
Make no mistake, modern tolerance (the notion of allowing members of other faiths to live, coexist, share resources, and be happy) is not an idea that the founding fathers of Middle Eastern religion could allow.
There is no mention in the Bible/Torah/Koran of tolerance and kindness until the teachings of Jesus. He is the first philosopher to introduce the concept of healing for unbelievers, compassion, and forgiveness… patently un-Biblical virtues to that point in religious history. The unfortunate thing is that the Old Testament contains laws that the modern Christian church could not live without, particularly those that decry homosexuality (Jesus never said a single negative thing about homosexuals during his time on earth) that can only be used to rationalize intolerance and hatred if they are included in that sect’s holy text.
So here we have a movie, set after the nuclear fall of human society, revolving around a protagonist who is a hero protecting the last copy of the Bible. And not because, as he explains, he believes it to be a work of art or an important part of rebuilding society, but rather because he believes he heard the audible voice of god give him this particular mission.
This man kills dozens of other human beings in order to protect the sacred text of a religion that would itself surely have brutally slaughtered him for his unacceptable levels of tolerance for members of other faiths a few thousand years prior to the setting of the film.
When asked why he states, almost casually, “Because it teaches to do more for others than you do for yourself.”
It also teaches to stone unbelievers, witches, homosexuals, and unruly children to death.
It’s a funny contradiction, and one that ruined my ability to love the fight choreography, the explosions, and the delicious flavor of speculative “how would I do it?” that accompanies viewing apocalyptic films for me.
How would I do it? I would’ve given up the book without shedding another single drop of human blood in the name of a brutal and hateful religion. But that’s just me, not Eli.
