I feel I need to formally apologize to any who might enjoy my reviews for having not seen this movie when it came out. When I saw previews for “Knowing” it looked interesting, but with “Push” in theaters at the same time, I only had so much time on my hands and chose to make room for the movie that looked more “sci-fi” oriented. I wish now I had seen this film instead of Push.
First, it’s directed by Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City) which would have put me in the theater on opening day if I had known that in advance. Second, it deals with so many relevant philosophical issues that I would have loved discussing it with others at the time of its release.
The movie is about a widower and his son who come across a page of numbers that signify future events. Throughout the movie they are on a race to solve the mystery of these numbers before the final “prophecy” is fulfilled. That’s the non-spoiler version and I greatly hesitate to say much more.
Nicholas Cage, an acquired taste for many, turns out a very good performance as a father and scientist. The child actor playing his son does a decent job, though not remarkable. The remaining cast is filled out by relative unknowns who all do adequate work, though Cage and the story are the true co-stars of this flick.
Though not an action movie, “Knowing” moves forward at a great pace and includes some of the best sequences of destruction I’ve ever seen. A particular airplane crash is incredible to watch and I’m sure my mouth was open most of the time.
Be forewarned that this movie does not end in the way you think it might. Like “Dark City”, this movie starts out as one kind of movie, and ends as something very different from what you may have rented it for. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it may be helpful to know that going in.
In terms of relevance to the important issues in life, this movie tackles, or at least references several. Is there a heaven? Does life have any purpose? Were we created by design or random chance? This movie not only implies these questions, it includes them in actual dialogue!
Although in a few lines, rational thinking is inappropriately contrasted with belief in the supernatural, the movie largely marries logical thinking and exploring the supernatural.
Cage’s character is the son of a pastor and has a strained relationship with his dad. Although the portrayal of his presumably Christian family gives off a somewhat traditional, stereotypical vibe, to the movie’s credit it did not go so far as to make Cage’s dad a clichéd cruel legalistic preacher. He seemed to genuinely want reconciliation with his son and the rift seemed to be the fault of Cage’s character. I found this genuinely loving, non-hypocritical example of a Christian family to be a nice change of pace in mainstream cinema.
Before I get into the philosophical/theological issues this movies plays with, I’ll sum up my review by saying that the movie is very enjoyable, though some may be disappointed with the ending. I’d recommend renting it, however, as it provokes a lot of thought on some of the most vital issues for humanity to ponder.
Rated PG-13 for disaster sequences, disturbing images and brief strong language
Quality: 8.5/10
Relevance: 9.0/10
Now, on to some of the thought-provoking issues in this movie. If you have not yet seen the movie, DO NOT read any further until you’ve have watched the entire film.
SPOILER WARNING--- SPOILER WARNING--- SPOILER WARNING
Although the movie ends with a somewhat clichéd use of aliens, I’m not confident we should see the “strangers” in that light. Based on the commentary for the DVD, Alex Proyas viewed the strangers not as necessarily as Aliens, but as possibly literal angels. He aimed to make the strangers natural forms look somewhere between alien and angelic so that the audience could make up their own mind.
So, although the film SEEMS to follow the old cliché of turning angels and biblical visions into descriptions of aliens that would falsify biblical claims, Proyas was not specifically aiming for this. Instead, he was actually trying to challenge our mental picture of what angels LOOK like, while not necessarily challenging what they truly are. His level of success depends on the viewer, but knowing this does put the movie in a different light.
A few quick theological/philosophical references:
According to Proyas, the strangers are based on the creatures in Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 4:7, though in these passages, the creatures serve the role of attendants to God’s throne and don’t necessarily have a connection to the end of the world.
The movie suggests a judgment on humanity. Near the end of the film, people everywhere are panicking, looting and behaving like animals, and the film seems to hint that it is just this kind of behavior that keeps any adults from being saved from the planet’s destruction.
In the final shot, there is a clear reference to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge.
Despite several biblical references throughout the film, Proyas states in the commentary: “I was trying for a universal symbolic spirituality rather than anything specific.” He used Christian imagery because he believed that western audiences would immediately feel what he wanted them to, given that these ideas are “so ingrained in our minds”.
There’s a problem with this approach, however. The story makes the assumption that what it presents is compatible with the Bible, while it really isn’t. While there are several views on how the biblical “end times” play out, a complete, instant and global holocaust without any warning is not compatible with any well-supported scholarly view of the Apocalypse.
The writers have fallen into a typical mode when it comes to using biblical end-times prophecy or symbolic vision as a basis for storytelling. They’ve assumed that because prophecy is described in symbolic language, that any number of wild interpretations are equally valid or likely. However, by doing just a little research into ancient Jewish culture we can see what most prophetic symbols mean literally. Only in ignorance can we make biblical prophecies mean whatever we want. But this is usually the road that fiction writers take and “Knowing” is no exception.
I’m no expert in biblical prophecy, by any means, but even knowing the little I do makes the basis for fiction like this very flimsy and oddly unbelievable compared to the more researched elements of the film.
I might compare it to a musician watching a drama about musicians and in the movie it is explained that all musicians can play the piano. I suppose that the piano is a very common instrument that many musicians do play, so I can understand how someone might make that leap if they didn’t get out much, but…um…huh? Really? That’s a bit what these kinds of stories feel like to me.
Proyas touches on this some in the commentary. He acknowledges that he pulled a lot from Christian “mythology”, but he sees the “end-times” ideas conveyed in Christianity as “symbolic rather than specific” and drawing from a larger archetype.
The idea that all religions point to the same “higher truth” is a popular one, but it’s not an idea that supports itself with viable evidence. And arbitrarily viewing the Bible as symbolic and incomprehensible is a choice that makes no sense. But apparently it makes for good fiction. Still, can modern Americans tell the difference between an interesting, creative idea and an idea that is likely to be true? I’ve got my doubts.
Proyas makes it clear on several occasions that he wants his audience to interpret the movie how they would like to. He even says that he doesn’t absolutely know what’s happening at the climax of the film. (Really? Then why are you trying to tell me this story?) While there is room for this device in storytelling, and it does often make for thought-provoking fiction, it also caters to our desire to construct our own reality and pretend the world is whatever we want it to be. It’s one thing to enjoy this mental exercise in fictional entertainment, but it’s another to apply this kind of mentality to our view of reality, which we too often are guilty of doing.
“Knowing” is a fun ride and a cool flick, but it will likely be thought of as logically inconsistent by those with an interest in studying the Bible.
