'waking Life'-the Holy Moment 2e5f19

This document is copyright James Richard Skemp III (homeofjrs[at]eml[dot]cc) http://strivinglife.net/

Title: Waking Life: The Holy Moment - Thoughts and Comments on the Dialogue Description: Thoughts on The Holy Moment scene in the movie Waking Life. [~2850WC] Author: James Richard Skemp III (homeofjrs[at]eml[dot]cc) Created: May 14th 2003 Modified: September 18th 2003; November 10th 2003; December 11th 2003; May 13th 2005 Notes: n/a

It’s been almost two years since I originally looked at the Holy Moment dialogue that takes place in the movie Waking Life. I hope that this revision adds some worthwhile information, and cleans up the previous content. First, I include the dialogue that takes place. This is taken from Tara Carreon’s original transcript with some very important and necessary corrections. The complete transcript can be found at http://strivinglife.net/ articles/wakinglifescript.shtml After looking at the complete dialogue, I take a number of things that the dialogue appears to touch upon. Comments regarding my comments are greatly appreciated, and are considered and posted. Thanks to Gavin Schmitt for suggesting that I cover Hegel. (Two film directors are talking with each other.) THE HOLY MOMENT Cinema in its essence is about an introduction to reality. It's just that reality is actually reproduced. For Bazam, its not like a story telling medium, really. He feels like literature is better for telling a story than film. You know, if you tell a story, like a joke, like this guy walks into a bar, he sees a dwarf, that works really well because you're imagining this guy and this dwarf in the bar and there's this kind of imaginative aspect to it. But in film, you don't have that because you actually are filming a specific guy, in a specific bar, with a specific dwarf, of a specific height, who looks a certain way, right? So for Bazam, what the ontology of film has to do with is also what photography has to do with, except it has this dimension of time to it, and this greater realism to it. So it's about that guy, at that moment, in that space. And you know, Bazam is a Christian, so he believes that God obviously ended up being everything, and for him reality and God are the same. So what film is actually capturing is like God incarnate, creating. And this very moment, God is manifesting as this. And what the film would capture if it was filming us right now would be like God as this table, and God as you, and God as me, and God looking the way we look right now, and saying and thinking what we're thinking right now, because we are all God manifest in that sense. So film is actually like a record of God, or the face of God, or the ever changing face of God. You have a mosquito. You want me to get it for you? There, it's gone. And like the whole Hollywood thing is just taking film and trying to make it like the story telling medium where you take these books or stories, and then you have the script, and you try to find a person who sort of fits the thing. But it's ridiculous, because it shouldn't be based on the script, it should be based on the person, you know, the thing. And in that sense, they are almost right to have this whole star system, because then it's about that person, you know, it's sort of like the story. Truffaut always said that the best scripts don't make the best films, because they have that kind of literary narrative frame that you're sort of a slave to. The best films are the ones that aren't tied to that slavishly. So I don't know. That whole narrative thing just seems to cinema like time is to music. You don't first think of the story of the song, and then make the song. It has to come out of that moment. And that's what film has, that moment which is holy. Like this moment. But if we walk around it's not holy. If we walk around, there are some holy moments, and there are all the

-Page 1 of 5-

This document is copyright James Richard Skemp III (homeofjrs[at]eml[dot]cc) http://strivinglife.net/

other moments that are not holy. But this moment is holy, right? And if film can let us see that, like frame it so that we see, ah, this moment, holy, holy, holy, holy, moment by moment. But who can live that way? Like wow, holy! If I were to look at you and just let you be holy, I don't know, I would just stop talking. Well, you'd be in the moment, and the moment is holy. Yeah, but I'd be open. And then I'd look in your eyes, and I'd cry, and I would like feel all this stuff, and that's not polite. It would make you feel uncomfortable. You could laugh too. I mean, why would you cry? I don't know. For me, I tend to cry. Let's do it right now. Let's have a holy moment. Okay. (Long moments with them staring at each other) Everything is layers, isn't it? I mean, there's the holy moment, and then there's the awareness of trying to have the holy moment. It's the same way that the film is the actual moment really happening, but then the character is pretending to be in a different reality, and it's all these layers. I was in and out of the holy moment looking at you. You're unique that way, Kave. That's one of the reasons I enjoy you. (They turn into cloud people looking at each other)

The Holy Moment is, first, one of my favourite scenes. However, I strongly object to the argument that this scene is solely about God (and that’s why it’s the ‘holy’ moment). I believe that there’s a lot more to this scene than God, and that things can be holy and not related to the gods. Or at least I did, until I read a bit more into various philosophical texts. Now I don’t object quite as much. So, as I said above, there is more to this than a discussion about God. If you focus solely on ‘holy moments’, you’re going to get stuck in the clouds. I personally find that it’s sometimes best to start at the beginning. First, can we be sure that the individuals that are engaged in this dialogue are both film directors? Do we have evidence that points solely to this conclusion, or is it possible that they are not both film directors? I think that claiming that they are both film directors is questionable, based upon the experience we garner from their discussion. I could equally see this discussion happening between a film director and a non-film director (a layperson). The title is next, but it doesn’t necessarily give us all the information we need, so we’ll keep it in the back of our minds. We then come to the following: Cinema in its essence is about an introduction to reality. It's just that reality is actually reproduced. For Bazam, its not like a story telling medium, really. He feels like literature is better for telling a story than film. You know, if you tell a story, like a joke, like this guy walks into a bar, he sees a dwarf, that works really well because you're imagining this guy and this dwarf in the bar and

-Page 2 of 5-

This document is copyright James Richard Skemp III (homeofjrs[at]eml[dot]cc) http://strivinglife.net/

there's this kind of imaginative aspect to it. But in film, you don't have that because you actually are filming a specific guy, in a specific bar, with a specific dwarf, of a specific height, who looks a certain way, right? So for Bazam, what the ontology of film has to do with is also what photography has to do with, except it has this dimension of time to it, and this greater realism to it. So it's about that guy, at that moment, in that space.

This is the first point we have, since “And you know” is more of a new point – it’s an extension of what they’ve been talking about, and should therefore be added on after we understand the first part. On the one hand, we have literature. Literature, by means of words, attempts to tell you a story. So, to take the example from the movie, there is a story which starts out with a dwarf entering a bar. The story may describe the dwarf more then that, such as the dwarf has red hair, or it may leave it open, so that you have to fill in the details. Each person, if the description is not absolute - is not completely complete - is going to have a different idea of what the dwarf, or the locations/people/objects, in the story, or stories, looks like. On the other hand, with film, we have a particular dwarf which looks a particular way. With imagination the characters characteristics are confined only by what the author tells you, and what you pick up. With video, on the other hand, where there is an image, you are greatly confined by what the director decides. The director picks certain people to play the roles and, when you think of the character, you think of that person. This would be true for anyone that has seen the video. No longer is the dwarf so open to possibilities, it is now confined to a certain actor. Elijah Wood becomes Frodo, and Frodo is Elijah Wood. Hartigan transforms into Bruce Willis, just as Bruce Willis puts on the façade of Hartigan. While I can still imagine that Frodo doesn’t look like Elijah Wood, my imagination is still likely to hold onto that which I have created, even if I have created it from an image (for that is how imagination works). Film and photography, as is pointed out, have not only this distinction over literature, but also the distinction of occurring in time. The photograph shows a particular person, at a particular time, as a particular way. Books, on the other hand, are much more fluid. Since the background and the exact appearance of the characters are accessible to change, they can change. They don’t deal with particulars so much as universals. Since the scope of the characters, containing here both the background and foreground (actual characters), can apply to a wide variety of possible characters, the events can be shown to be applicable in a wide variety of places and times. Film doesn’t quite have this scope, unless the theme is what drives the film, instead of the characters. And like the whole Hollywood thing is just taking film and trying to make it like the story telling medium where you take these books or stories, and then you have the script, and you try to find a person who sort of fits the thing. But it's ridiculous, because it shouldn't be based on the script, it should be based on the person, you know, the thing. And in that sense, they are almost right to have this whole star system, because then it's about that person, you know, it's sort of like the story.

-Page 3 of 5-

This document is copyright James Richard Skemp III (homeofjrs[at]eml[dot]cc) http://strivinglife.net/

The above quote is exactly what we have in film - the characters over the story. The story can still have a great importance, but it’s the character in the story. Things happen to the character. We can perhaps place ourselves into the story, but by doing so we must become the character. In fact, you’ll see this in some television and movies, where someone imagines that they’re a part of a movie. They take on the clothing, the layers, of the individual who is actually in the movie, for the character remains bonded with the story of the film. We also have this from the dialogue. Everything is layers, isn't it? I mean, there's the holy moment, and then there's the awareness of trying to have the holy moment. It's the same way that the film is the actual moment really happening, but then the character is pretending to be in a different reality, and it's all these layers.

We can apply this to literature as well. I lie in bed, or sit in my chair, and I read a novel. While I’m imagining that the story is taking place, I’m also aware, in some sense, that the story isn’t taking place - it’s just words that I’m reading off of a page. Yet, I balance between being there and being not-there. At some points one wins over the other, and I think it’s the same for actors. They know that they’re portraying a character, yet they sometimes become the character to such a point that they are no longer anything but the character. Reality and fiction are no longer a razor’s edge, but rather like the edge of paper - sharp yet also flexible at points, or if nudged from the right way. Bringing Hegel into this ... It's not hard, I think, to see a bit of Hegel in the last quoted part. Looking at The Hegel Reader (Blackwell Publishers, 1998, Edited by Stephen Houlgate), specifically at Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: Spirit. Absolute Knowing (pg 120-123), we see the following; But the other side of its Becoming, History, is a conscious, self-mediating process - Spirit emptied out into Time; but this externalization, this kenosis, is equally an externalization of itself; the negative is the negative of itself. This Becoming presents a slow-moving succession of Spirits, a gallery of images, each of which, endowed with all the riches of Spirit, moves thus slowly just because the Self has to penetrate and digest this entire wealth of its substance. As its fulfilment consists in perfectly knowing what it is, in knowing its substance, this knowing is its withdrawal into itself in which it abandons its outer existence and gives its existential shape over to recollection. Of importance is the line: "This Becoming presents a slow-moving succession of Spirits, a gallery of images, each of which, endowed with all the riches of Spirit, moves thus slowly just because the Self has to penetrate and digest this entire wealth of its substance." In other words, life/history is a bunch of moments - a succession of images/experiences. Everything, everything in the world around/, is made up of Spirit, of life, of Tao, of God, etcetera (pick your favourite). While we don't normally take note, allow ourselves to 'penetrate and digest this entire wealth of substance' - while we don't allow ourselves to realize that each moment is holy, or full of Spirit, or full of life - that does not mean that it is not there. Rather, we have come to take for granted that each moment is full of life/Spirit, and lose our wonderment with the world. We, in a

-Page 4 of 5-

This document is copyright James Richard Skemp III (homeofjrs[at]eml[dot]cc) http://strivinglife.net/

way, lose ourselves in the character that we have become, and fail to look at what once we were, or that that around us changes outside of ourselves. In a similar way, we do not realize that each moment leads to the next - that what we do (cause) leads to future events (effects) - instead believing that we live in chaos, when in fact we live in a world that flows from one moment to the next. If we were to take time to make note of the moment - of day-to-day, second-to-second, and even lower, events/effects/situations - we would notice that every moment is full of life, of Spirit, of possibilities ... As for God … And you know, Bazam is a Christian, so he believes that God obviously ended up being everything, and for him reality and God are the same. So what film is actually capturing is like God incarnate, creating. And this very moment, God is manifesting as this. And what the film would capture if it was filming us right now would be like God as this table, and God as you, and God as me, and God looking the way we look right now, and saying and thinking what we're thinking right now, because we are all God manifest in that sense. So film is actually like a record of God, or the face of God, or the ever changing face of God.

There is an idea in theology that God is the world. If you’ve ever seen the movie Stigmata, this movie also makes an argument along these lines. However, there is also a claim that God is not the world, but that he is linked with it, in that he sustains the world it is by God that the world exists. And of course, there are claims that God is not the world, which does not pertain to the quote above. If God is the world, then it follows that God is in everything that is around us, as well as everything that is within us. If God is in everything, then it also follows that if we look into things we can see God. Whether or not we really see God is questionable to some, yet if God is everything, if God is the world, then it follows that we must see God when we look. Truly, then, if one loves God, one will love everything that is around them and within them, for everything is God. Since love consists of respect and awe, among other things, everything is to be treated with respect, and looked at with awe. Every moment, which consists of things and places, is to be treated like one would treat God - as holy. Cite this document: James Skemp, Waking Life: The Holy Moment - Thoughts and Comments on the Dialogue, http://papers.strivinglife.net/, May 13, 2005 (Accessed Reader: Insert Current Date Here)

-Page 5 of 5-