Wall-e: The good news of forsaking heaven and embracing worldliness
I went to see the film Wall-e a few nights ago and was interested in its visual exploration concerning the nature of human fulfilment. The story, as most of you know, begins from the premise that humans have left the Earth because it has become uninhabitable due to the pollution and refuse that has resulted from our insatiable desire to consume. Human have opted to temporarily live in a huge spaceship called “axiom” until the earth is habitable again. They originally intended to leave for only 5 years but, when the film begins, they are in their 700th year. Before leaving the Earth the humans left an army of robots charged with the task to clean the mess up however, over the years, all but one of these robots (the hero) have broken down.
The idea of humans leaving Earth and going to live in the heavens can be seen to mimic the notion of heaven that is found in the popular imagination. The spacecraft is represented as a place where all ones needs are met, a place where there is no pain or suffering or tension or conflict and no-one has a job to do (except the captain whose job is largely a symbolic one). In short it is a place of perpetual peace, harmony and relaxation. While we can presume that people still grow old and die the film does not show any old people (or, of course, death) – everyone appears to be around the same age (apart from some brief scenes of babies) and so we get the impression of a place of equilibrium, a place without old age or death. On the spacecraft people’s needs are instantly satisfied. Desires for particular foods and fashion etc. are all met in an instant and (in homage to Silent Running) it is always a perfect 72 degrees.
However, it turns out that this “heavenly” existence is actually a type of mundane, melancholic hell. No one walks anymore (they all use hovercrafts to move), everyone is overweight, and humanity is portrayed (via the photos of different captains) of slowing devolving into what one can only imagine to be a fatty, inactive blob. This dystopia is not however enforced on people (as in films like Equilibrium), it is what human beings have chosen, what they want, or at least what they think they want. They do not hate it any more than they love it, they have rather entered into a type of undead existence, not unlike a cryogenic state, in which they are not dead and yet not really alive.
Once the film has shown us how this first (“heavenly”) attempt at salvation and fulfilment has failed it charts humanities return to Earth and, more than this, of humanities return to the earth itself, to the ground, the soil. Here, as humans slowly turn from their reliance on technology and desire for instant gratification, they begin to experience joy and wonder again. This is symbolised in their desire to return to growing food rather than instantly getting it in the form of an artificially flavoured smoothy (as they did before).
This is not however a romantic scene in which the director paints the rural life as one of true peace and tranquility over and against the false peace and satisfaction of their heavenly existence. This is to miss the point – their heavenly existence did offer peace and tranquility in a direct, unmediated way (not some false version of these) and was, for this very reason, the true enemy of existence. Instead, by forsaking this direct (horrifying) engagement with peace and tranquility, and instead living up to the fact that life involves a host of tensions and difficulties to overcome, a more substantive life was rediscovered.
Here we see a glimpse of Nietzsche’s point that heaven (in the popular sense) would be a living death, a mummified existence. Whereas truly embracing the fluctuations, fragility and tensions of life, supremely difficult as this is, brings with it a true joy and exuberance.
Here, in a Derridian fashion, the obstacle is the very opening to that which it blocks. By returning to the very thing that they thought was the obstacle to their fulfilment they indirectly find fulfilment (a fulfilment without fulfilment, an impossible fulfilment). While their previous direct attempt to find fulfilment (to make it present in its fullness) led to nothing but a type of living death.
So what do we learn? Perhaps we are reminded of the old Christian insight that heaven is the impossible that we indirectly glimpse only when we renounce it and put ourselves to the task of utterly offering ourselves to the world. Of unreservedly embracing worldliness in Bonhoeffer’s sense. In his Letters and Papers from Prison he writes,
“This is what I mean by worldliness – taking life in one’s stride, with all its duties and problems, its successes and failures, its experiences and helplessness. It is in such a life that we throw ourselves into the arms of God and participate in his sufferings in the world and watch with Christ in Gethsemane. That is faith, that is metonoia and that is what makes a man and a Christian”
Tags: Bonhoeffer, Equilibrium, forsaking heaven, metonoia, Nietzsche, Peter Rollins, Wall-e
July 25th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
HA! Pete; I had that very quote of Bonhoeffer’s up on my refrigerator until I moved 9 months ago. Love it!
Not sure about the “old Christian insight that heaven is the impossible….” or the idea of “a fulfillment w/o fulfillment.”. In the one case I’m not familiar w/any Christian tradition that speaks of heaven (or the kingdom of God or the New Earth or the New Jerusalem) that way. And in the other case, unless f.w/o.f means something akin to the already/not yet phenomenon that some theologians capture w/such concepts as “realized” and “futurist” eschatology, I’m not sure I get it. I do get the idea of the obstacle being the very opening to that which it blocks. And I think you (or the creators of Wall-e) see reality (or human nature) for what it is.
Cheers, –Kevin
July 26th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Hey Kevin. Yeah, its a great quote, and it totally fits with how I see you. Not sure what that means, except you having it on your fridge seems obvious to me once you said it!.
When I talk about the Christian insight that heaven is glimpsed in its renunciation and the embrace of worldliness I am thinking of people like Eckhart and other mystics who wrote of taking leave of God for the sake of God and the idea that the moral act must be done without thought of heaven. Primarily I am referring to the idea of a totally incarnational theology of embracing the world, one which I also see at work in some Liberation theology and Radical theology. I must however concur that I am involved in an interpretation of these thoughts which concentrates on an element that is often eclipsed – and one that interprets them through a deconstructive lens. They are also not a popular idea, but rather hidden in the rich soil of Christian thinking
July 26th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
[...] one from Peter Rollins, which is causing me to think. Posted by Isaac Bubna Filed in discoveries Tags: Marshall [...]
July 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
No doubt the problem with heaven, as many have pointed out, is that so many Christians view it as a sort of escape pod from the travails of this planet. This contributes to the perception of Christians as lazy, egotistical, and detached.
BTW Peter, this is unrelated, but have you seen the old Robert DeNiro film The Mission? I watched it the other night and it’s a pretty interesting exploration of the conflict between Christian nonviolence and the human instinct to defend the defenseless.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:25 am
This is basically what I am (supposed to be) thinking about all the time at the moment, and I have no idea what to think.
It seems that many people’s – including my own – idea of heaven competely ignores our actual experience of time and fulfilment, i.e. the fact when time passes without requiring effort or energy towards no particular goal, life is pretty rubbish. This is summed up best in the last chapter of Julian Barnes’ ‘History of the world in 10 1/2 chapters’, I think. But then, when times passes well, it seems to be because we are concerned with outcome – real outcome. So, one example I’m mulling over is that of a game. Playing a game with someone who cares only about the outcome, not about the savouring of the process itself, is pretty joyless. But equally, playing a game with someone who doesn’t care about the outcome at all is pointless and frustrating. So it seems that the whole idea of an ‘end’ can both give and take away meaning, depending on how it used, or construed.
I wonder whether it might be similar with Christian escthatology, I just can’t really work out how it might be similar.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:00 am
To bring in another film that looks at this idea of embracing worldiness and forsaking heaven/transcendence would be Wim Wenders, Wings of Desire, which for me is an amazing transformational film which helped me to open my eyes to see the beauty awe and colour of the world around me.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Hey Pete–
if you are into poetry, this line of thought is also present in the work of one of the finest living poets in the world today– Jack Gilbert, particularly in his book Refusing Heaven.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I liked the line in Troy (2004) by Achilles (Brad Pitt):
The gods envy us because we are mortal, and every moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful that way.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Its the best line in the film. I even used it in my PhD.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:49 am
This comment may help those who are, like me, less experienced with philosophy and formal theology:
Similar to Stu’s thoughts and analogy, I have seen that human existence without appreciating all of its moments is empty and can be depressing. I also found that attending to life’s mess, not fleeing it, was depressing. As I continue to search for more fulfilling life, I have been blessed with glimpses of what I believe to be eternal life. These glimpses come as I reach out and nurture relationships with people around me. My perspective is that I am embracing an aspect of heavenly life. Of course, relationships aren’t perfect and can add more stress; but the love we experience as we try to relate is worth the stress. It’s important to express that renouncing heaven to embrace contemporary life does not mean relinquishing what we perceive to be blessings but is more a redefining of eternal, heavenly life.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
[...] Wall-e review like none other (at least that I’ve seen), very [...]
August 6th, 2008 at 6:33 am
[...] being said, I’ve had this post (I love the subtitle by the way, “The good news of forsaking heaven and embracing [...]