UNews Review - October 2009

Religious freedom is something that every human being deserves, as is underscored by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted in 1948. And while freedom is a theme very frequently used in the world of cinema, freedom of religion is not explored quite so often. But in light of our topic this month, I have selected two films which touch upon the notion of religious freedom in different ways. The first is a sweeping Hollywood sci-fi drama that focuses on the freedom to believe in something beyond oneself. The second is a small, local independent film that illustrates the freedom to follow one’s own religious traditions while respecting and loving those of others. Two different films – one common thread.

Read, watch, and enjoy!

Contact (1997)
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey
Rated PG (For some intense action, mild language and a scene of sensuality)
Running time: 149 Minutes

Ellie Arroway’s work with SETI, which pursues signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life, is not without its skepticism and opposition. But when her team picks up a radio message from deep space, the possibility of their years of faithful work being fulfilled becomes more and more tangible. As the message becomes increasingly clear and complex, the implications of the message include great risk. In the midst of Ellie’s entanglement with destiny is her relationship with Rev. Palmer Joss, a noted humanitarian and religious advisor. On the verge of a new era of understanding, where and how – if at all - do science and religion fit?

This film is a beautiful representation of mankind’s persistent search for something that can satiate our long-unanswered questions. That search has generally led to two roads: religion and science. Contact, in its juxtaposition of the two, takes on an issue that has been debated for thousands of years. But in addressing this issue, the filmmakers create what is perhaps the most beautiful aspect of this film – and, interestingly enough, the part which is most in keeping with this month’s theme – in that they thrust neither religious nor scientific dogma down the throats of viewers. Rather, every viewer is free to decide whatever they wish about this world, be it the existence of other intelligent life, or of the presence of God.

There are many powerful and reflective scenes in this film that are worth taking the time to watch carefully. Note the words young Ellie chooses to say as she listens for radio transmissions. Listen to her discussions with Palmer on religion, science and proof. And most importantly, pay close attention to the scene in Congress as Ellie, the lifelong religious skeptic, finds herself asking the world to believe in her unbelievable experience. All of these scenes point to an important truth, regardless of one’s stance on science and religion: we all need to have faith in something. It is that need for stability in truth which drives humanity towards science and religion, and both are key components to fulfilling that universal human need.


Discussion Questions

1. Is there anything in your life that you know to be true, but can’t really prove?
2. In spite of the “mini-sermons” Palmer sometimes gives Ellie, do his words truly change her? Or is something else the source of her internal change?
3. Why does Ellie not believe in God?
4. In the film, science confronts religion, and religion confronts science. Can you find examples of both? Would these things still happen if religion and science were used together?
5. What is your stance on the relationship between religion and science? Is one more important than the other? Are they truly different, or do they have any common ground?


Arranged (2007)
Directed by Stefan Schaefer and Diane Crespo
Starring Zoe Lister Jones and Francis Behamou
Not Rated (I would rate as PG, for one use of cursing and a brief adult party scene)
Running time: 90 Minutes

When Rochel (Lister-Jones) and Nasira (Benhamou), an Orthodox Jew and a Muslim, meet as new teachers at an inner city public school, co-workers and students expect friction. But the women discover that they have the shared tradition of entering into arranged marriages. As they experience tension between their traditional cultures and life in contemporary America, Rochel and Nasira form a special bond. But will this bond also unite them with their faith traditions, or will theirs be a bond that goes against heritage?

Some readers may recognize this title from one of my previous reviews on FamilyFed.org. Due to the positive response I received from others who had watched the film, I felt that I must introduce all our UNews readers to the film as well – especially given its relevance to our theme.

Arranged is a joy to watch for many reasons. Many will love this film for its awkwardness, especially during the montage of dates that Rochel goes on. This awkwardness transcends culture and faith tradition in its hilarity, and will charm viewers with its innocence and purity. Many will also find the film a fascinatingly intimate juxtaposition of Orthodox Jewish life, Muslim life, and “secular” life - which is never overtly defined as non-religious, but is shown to appear more liberal and post-Modernistic.

But where does freedom of religion fit into the picture? This can be seen in Rochel's and Nasira's individual paths of faith. Although the film mainly focuses on Rochel's struggles, both women have a bumpy course, as they begin to doubt if their systems of marriage actually work in today’s society. Such doubts are understandable, as arranged marriage and other faith traditions have the stigma of eliminating one's freedom of choice, and the secular world is all too happy to remind them of that stigma. Amidst all of the struggle and contrasting viewpoints, the film takes care to show that both women have a choice in their religious practice - even when some characters don’t share that sentiment. Ultimately, both girls take ownership of their freedom, and make choices that support their initial faith commitments... but to say any more would deprive you from the joy of discovering the story yourself!

Discussion Questions

1. Could you relate with any of Rochel and Nasira's experiences regarding faith and freedom?
2. Although Rochel and Nasira lead very different lives, they do have many important similarities. Can you find some examples? In discussing these similarities, do you feel that different religions have more similarities with each other, or more differences?
3. Consider the notion of freedom as seen in the film. Which characters promote freedom of choice? Which characters just want people to follow their way? (Think carefully; the answers may not be as cut and dry as you expect…)


In conclusion, Contact and Arranged approach freedom of religion from two different angles, but they are united by the fact that they don’t impose religion. In fact, these films function a lot like natural witnessing. When filmmakers let their characters be themselves, with genuine wants, fears and doubts, viewers can feel an emotional connection to the characters. And when the story is allowed to run its course, letting the characters make their own discoveries without being preached at, viewers can draw their own conclusion. In essence, they are being given their own religious freedom, while being exposed to the quiet goodness that different faith traditions have to offer. And though we may not agree on some traditions or principles, we all can unite on the common ground we all share. We all want love, happiness and truth. And in standing upon common ground, we can begin moving together as one united family, towards fulfilling our deep-rooted dreams of peace.

Familyfed.org review - October 2009

This month, I would like to focus on the subjects of commitment and choice. We all have commitments in some form or another - to our work, our marriages, our families, our faith traditions and responsibilities. Commitment is by no means easy, and often becomes a challenge to our integrity; I myself had difficulty sticking to my commitment to write this review. And commitment can not be discussed without the notion of choice, for we choose to make our commitments, and we can choose to walk away from them. But in the end, something strong and deep within us prevails, guiding us to the right choice. And that something is one of those precious gems that link us with the divine.

The following films have many dissimilarities. One is very old, and is considered the “Citizen Kane of the American silent film era"; the other is a modern but little known independent film. Nevertheless, these two films find common ground in that they showcase commitment, its inevitable challenges and choices, and its ultimate victory.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

Directed by F.W. Murnau

Starring George O'Brien and Janet Gaynor

Not Rated (I would give this a PG rating, for some violence and mild sexual innuendo)

Running time: 95 Minutes

This emotional odyssey follows a Man and Wife, whose marriage is threatened when the Man falls prey to a Woman from the City. The Woman, a cosmopolitan temptress, persuades him to murder his neglected Wife, make it look like an accident, and run away with the Woman to the city. He comes very close to fulfilling this determination, but he cannot bring himself to do it. The Wife flees to the city, and the Man, desperate to make things right, follows her. What follows is a much needed day of redemption that drastically affects their marriage. But will it lead their marriage to a place of true solidity?

This lyrical silent film is captivating in both style and substance. As many people seem to have agreed with this statement, Sunrise ended up winning Academy Awards for Best Actress (Gaynor), Best Cinematography,and Best Unique and Artistic Picture But what can this silent film, ancient by film history's standards, teach viewers in 2009?

The Silent film is a curious creature, as it tells tales of human development with almost no use of a basic human activity, speech. Visuals must lead the story forward. Murnau was one of the leading film directors of the silent era, and particularly of the German Expressionist movement, which was characterized by unusual visual contortions. Viewers can find such contortions in the first half of the film, such as the shot of the host family at the dinner table when the Woman from the City comes into the room; everything is too large and on an angle. Such contortions could be taken to illustrate how this City Woman has contorted the peace of the village with her presence. This is visual storytelling.

One may feel that the characters, like the visuals, are exaggerated. The Man has some alarmingly murderous tendencies, for example, and the Wife is so quick to forgive and trust him in spite of those tendencies. This could concern some, who wonder if these characters are worth taking seriously as examples of good choices and strong commitment. But exaggeration makes an excellent teacher. While most of us won't plot to murder our wives, we all have our moments of frustration. We might experience that moment where we wonder, “What if I walked away from all this?”. That choice is always there.

We might spend a long and lonely time questioning our path. But then, something will come along that will show us why we ever committed in the first place. In Sunrise, this comes in the form of a wedding the Man and Wife. As they watch a couple make their vows for the first time, they both renew those vows within themselves, and in forgiveness, re-commitment and move forward. In sum, Sunrise is a simple yet beautifully complex story that will remind you why we commit to loving others. For that reason, I humbly hope that you give this worthy film a chance.

Discussion Questions

1. Have you ever found yourself involved in two conflicting obligations? What choices can you make in that kind of situation?

2. Sunrise uses a film technique called separation, which uses acting, direction and editing to show how two people who are physically distant are actually indelibly bonded. Can you spot the use of separation? (hint: it's within the first 15 minutes) Do you ever feel that way with certain people or things in your life? Is it in a good way, or a bad way?

3. Though the Man is reborn in his Wife's forgiveness, he is not completely absolved of his shortcomings. Is he totally changed by the end of the film?

Arranged (2007)

Directed by Stefan Schaefer and Diane Crespo

Starring Zoe Lister Jones and Francis Behamou

Not Rated (I would rate as PG, for one use of cursing and a brief adult party scene)

Running time: 90 Minutes

When Rochel (Lister-Jones) and Nasira (Benhamou), an Orthodox Jew and a Muslim, meet as new teachers at an inner city public school, co-workers and students expect friction. But the women discover that they have the shared tradition of entering into arranged marriages. As they experience tension between their traditional cultures and life in contemporary America, Rochel and Nasira form a special bond. But will this bond also unite them with their faith traditions, or will theirs be a bond that goes against heritage?

Arranged is a joy to watch for many reasons. Many will love this film for its awkwardness, especially during the montage of dates that Rochel goes on. This awkwardness transcends culture and faith tradition in its hilarity, and will charm viewers with its innocence and purity. Many will also find the film a fascinatingly intimate juxtaposition of Orthodox Jewish life, Muslim life, and “secular” life - which is never overtly defined as non-religious, but is shown to appear more liberal and post-Modernistic.

But where do choice and commitment fit into the picture? The answer can be found in multiple forms. The first form, unsurprisingly, is seen in Rochel's and Nasira's individual paths of faith. Although the film mainly focuses on Rochel's struggles, both women have a bumpy course, as they begin to doubt if their systems of marriage actually work. Such doubts are understandable, as arranged marriage has the stigma of eliminating one's freedom of choice, and the secular world is all too happy to remind them of that stigma. Ultimately, both girls make choices that support their initial faith commitments... but to say any more would deprive you from the joy of discovering the story yourself.

One additional point worth mentioning is that of the women's commitment to their friendship. In spite of the various opposition they receive from their home and school environments, Rochel and Nasira become steadfast friends, and in doing so, show that a commitment to friendship can surpass cultural boundaries. This notion is well received by their students, as can be seen during the “unity circle” scene. This transcendent friendship is a reminder that nothing can stop us from staying true to ourselves and to those we love.

Discussion Questions

1. Could you relate with any of Rochel and Nasira's experiences? Are either of these girls really that different from you?

2. Rochel discusses our identities, or “our words on our chests” during the unity circle project. The things we identify with could actually be considered commitments in themselves. What sort of identities have you committed to?

In conclusion, though these two films have a whopping 80 years between them, they share a common understanding of how difficult it is to maintain commitments, and of how essential those commitments are to our lives. Both show characters who choose to deviate: the Man in his infidelity and idea to murder his wife, and Rochel in her visit to her distant cousin. But like the Prodigal Son, both end up returning home. It's also important to note that neither of these characters could have done what they did without a character of salvation – the Wife for the Man, and Nasira for Rochel. These characters' choice to be there for the other in times of struggle is a beautiful example of commitment. These stories can remind us in our own times of difficulty that we always have a choice – and the best choice is to stay true to your promises.