I finally saw "Into Great Silence" ("Die Grosse Stille"). Here's the synopsis from the Zeitgeist Films website:
Nestled deep in the postcard-perfect French Alps, the Grande Chartreuse is considered one of the world’s most ascetic monasteries. In 1984, German filmmaker Philip Gröning wrote to the Carthusian order for permission to make a documentary about them. They said they would get back to him. Sixteen years later, they were ready. Gröning, sans crew or artificial lighting, lived in the monks’ quarters for six months—filming their daily prayers, tasks, rituals and rare outdoor excursions. This transcendent, closely observed film seeks to embody a monastery, rather than simply depict one—it has no score, no voiceover and no archival footage. What remains is stunningly elemental: time, space and light. One of the most mesmerizing and poetic chronicles of spirituality ever created, INTO GREAT SILENCE dissolves the border between screen and audience with a total immersion into the hush of monastic life. More meditation than documentary, it’s a rare, transformative theatrical experience for all.Despite its quiet power -- or, perhaps, because of it -- it is not a movie for everyone. The movie has such a deep, meditative quality that it requires a great deal from its viewers -- the ability to surrender to its subtle storytelling rhythms and to its sonic palette of melting snow, falling rain, and the noises of the monastery ... church-bells, sandals on flagstones, the shutting of old wooden doors.
The film has its weaknesses. One is the unusually -- and inexplicably -- poor English subtitles. To take one example, the German Du hast mich verfuehrt, Herr! Und ich, ich habe mich verfuehren lassen ("You seduced me Lord! And I, I let myself be seduced.") is translated as "You seduced me, Lord! And I was seduced." This translation is not only inaccurate, but also ignores the element of willing self-sacrifice that the German text underscores. Particularly in a film in which a few quoted passages are repeated for rhythmic effect, such inelegant mistakes merely mar the film's impact.
Another weakness -- though one that wouldn't, I suspect, matter as much to religious believers -- is that the one instance in which a monk breaks the mantle of silence of the film, speaking in his own voice (as opposed to reading from canonical texts), is one in which a blind monk, near the end of the film, comments on his impending death in a mixture of stoic and Christian dogma. ("I am happy that God chose to blind me; He must have done so for the good of my soul.") Even for religious believers, this sequence will offer no new insights into the feeling of solace that comes from religious conviction. It only serves to freight the monk's words with a weight they're unable to bear -- unnecessarily, as the film would be far stronger, and more interesting, without the scene.
For those with the patience to enter the world of the movie, however, the experience offers much of lasting value: cinematographic still-lives of stunning beauty; daily necessities reduced to their barest essence -- a slice of apple, a glass of water, a hunk of bread; the dance of the seasons and the elements -- water, fire, earth, and air, now frozen, now fluid; and, most centrally, the quiet power of witnessing lives devoted solely to simplicity, community, and contemplation.
Comments