A kingdom of conscience

August 2017

Kingdom of Heaven is a 2005 movie directed and produced by Ridley Scott. It takes place during a 12^th century Crusade, with Jerusalem occupied by Christians and Muslims led by sultan Salahuddin claiming it back. The main character, played by Orlando Bloom, is a French village blacksmith seeking redemption for the soul of his wife who killed herself. He thus follows his father, a great knight, to the Holy Land, “kingdom of conscience”, where anything can be achieved.

Kid, I used to love it, as it is an epic historical and adventure film, and also because I identified more easily with the blacksmith, Balian, than with most movie heroes. He is no strong and brave warrior, simply a man with skills and weaknesses, and more importantly, principles. Looking back on it, principles are all what this film is about.

First, it depicts the Crusades with great open-mindedness, thus criticism. Fortunately, one would say. It portraits men of power driven into madness by greed, and taking thousands with them into the horror of war. That part I find really interesting: war appears as nothing more than a stupid game, that smart rulers always try to avoid. Under the governance of Baldwin IV and Salahuddin, all beliefs are welcomed and respected.

“There’ll be a day when you will wish you 

had done a little evil to do a greater good”

It also raises a philosophical question: the one of utilitarianism. Should we engage in acts for the maximum good of the maximum of people, no matter the means? This is a type of consequentialism, the theory according to which an issue is morally judged upon its outcome. That is the way most people think. At some point Balian is given a utilitarian choice. The princess Sibylla, who holds power, is married to the main antagonist, Guy de Lusignan, an anti-Muslim wishing for war. To avoid this, Balian should agree to Guy’s assassination. He does not, even though he is well aware of the man’s monstrous intentions, and that they hate each other. When asked why, he has this beautiful answer: “it is a kingdom of conscience, or nothing”. He believes that whatever good may be a situation, it is worth nothing if based on an evil act. So do I. We will not build a better world if we accept to build it with blood. If we accept to surrender our principles.

“God will understand, my lord. 

And if he doesn’t, then he is not 

God, and we need not worry.”

The question of religion and belief is central to the movie, and even though men of God are mostly depicted as fanatics or vicious persons, some rightful characters are also driven by their faith. I don’t see this as an atheistic movie. It respects and values different beliefs, but has a lot to say about religions. “You’ve taught me a lot about religion, Your Eminence” says Balian to a hypocritical priest. Religion is used to move armies, it is what gives meaning to all of it. It is the reason why people unite. And when religion fails, something else is required, a sense of honour, being a knight, for instance. Jerusalem is a pile of rocks, Balian understands it and fights for the people living inside the city. But Jerusalem is also a symbol. It is the last human desire, the last step of Maslow’s pyramid of needs: transcendence. Because, as Balian says, the kingdom of conscience is in our mind and heart, and that can never be surrendered.

What is Jerusalem worth?

Nothing. Everything.

These final hours

2015 - Zak Hilditch

J’ai déjà versé une larme devant plus d’un film. Mais éclater en sanglots, c’est la première fois. Dernière scène, le générique, je commence à réfléchir, je me projette, et la vision est intolérable. These final hours est d’une puissance émotionnelle rare. Comment les gens réagissent sachant vivre leurs dernières heures ? La réponse est multiple, souvent terrible, parfois sublime. Beaucoup de protagonistes pour autant de réactions, mais surtout un duo de personnages, perdus. Une jeune fille qui perd son père, un homme le sens à donner à son existence. En la sauvant, il se retrouve. L’ambiance générale est sombre, malsaine, le désespoir omniprésent. On s’accroche à chaque lueur, jusqu’à en suffoquer. La mise en scène développe finement l’atmosphère d’apocalypse, le jeu est convaincant, c’est surtout incroyable de voir une telle évolution dans un contexte aussi contraint. La force de ces dernières heures réside dans le fait de savoir l’histoire sans issue. Il ne reste rien, aucun objectif, aucun espoir, aucune raison de se battre. Tout ce qui demeure est un ensemble d’individus seuls avec leur conscience. C’est une vision dure, mais je ne peux que vous inciter à la contempler. 

Scénario : Zak Hilditch

Musique : Cornel Wilczek

Photographie : Bonnie Elliott

An illustrated essay on Transhumanism

April 2017

“Happiness is never grand.” states a Controller in Huxley’s Brave New World, written in 1931 and depicting a future in which humanity finally experiences true social order, as all humans are clones conditioned to accomplish one specific type of tasks and to be always happy. Mankind has eventually fulfilled its ultimate purpose: happiness. For millennia, it has tried to reach this state, relying on philosophy, culture, science. For the first time in 1776, it even became the foundation of a free nation: « the pursuit of Happiness » is an « unalienable Right ». The pursuit. The path, not the destination. That is what defines mankind: ambitions, a will to go beyond, and push any limits. Create works of art, reach the stars, understand life. This is the never-ending evolution of humanity.

This, indeed, is the paradox of transhumanism. If we follow our nature until we reach what we seek, we will lose our very nature. Once we’re happy, we have no reason to go on. Worse, more progress would threaten this achievement. In Brave New World, the social order is unshakable, people have no reason to get upset, angry, eager, because they can have at all time whatever they wish: products (such as the pain-relieving, mind-soothing “soma”), sexual partners, adrenaline... But before going further, let’s take a moment to explain what Transhumanism is, because happiness is just one of its goals. It is actually a lot more than what this eighty-six year old book describes.

Transhumanism is about using technologies to revolutionise what it means to be human. On the one hand, by improving our body (that includes our brain), on the other hand to go beyond our body, to make one with technology, our mind being partially or totally digitalised. Transhumanists believe that technology, like biology, is an evolutionary process. And today, our biology has become a limiting factor. We are « shackled by our Primitive Darwinian brain », explains the British Institute of Posthuman Studies, and it is time to move forward. The Institute focuses on three improvements, namely super longevity, intelligence, and happiness. Back on tracks.

In BNW, people assume they have the best life imaginable, because they’re never unhappy. But they live to live, with no passion, nothing gets out of it. They have come back to a survival state, simply without dangers. They don’t have to adapt anymore. Mankind goes round in circles, people live and die, but it creates nothing. It evolves no more. Whatever, could we argue, individuals are all that matters, and they’re satisfied with their lives. But what life? Emotions define our personality, we do not exist without them. I do not feel; therefore I am not. So much for super happiness? Surely, we could manage with a little less anxiety. But as John: “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

What about our body, then? Among other awesome improvements, let’s mention replaceable prostheses to allow the blind to see (They already exist for deaf people who can now hear!), the suppression of neurological disorders, access to knowledge at any time, increased strength and emotions (including fully immersive VR!) or the capability of remaining healthy for as long as we want. Not eternally, don’t get me wrong, but live plainly up until we chose to leave serenely. Why shouldn’t we? Issues of social inequalities are raised in two movies: Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca, and Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium. Who would own the tech? And what about those who do not wish to follow? In Gattaca, children are conceived through genetic engineering and tampering “to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents” (check out this Centre for Neuroscience & Society’s page: Neuroethics in film and litterature).

This obviously leads to genetic discrimination. But then, the Internet access also led to discrimination in recruitment. We now believe that this same Internet access could reduce inequalities in developing countries. Evolution needs time. Well, assuming that people won’t reject it. Except that some already do, the so-called bio-conservatives. According to them, “there is a substantive human nature which exists independently of its cultural determinations”. They claim that the self should remain a “private, individual, dignified being”, consciousness a mystery. In other words, let’s not kill romanticism! I agree, but we didn’t —while science skyrockets, we still write and read poetry— so why would we? Only when romanticism gets in the way of science, it gives us the Classical elements and the medicine of Humourism. Pretty, but I’m glad we overcame it. Knowing that love is chemistry doesn’t make me less of a lover. Science doesn’t kill magic; it is rather becoming magic.

The other objective is to simply get rid of our body, to go beyond it. But would it be a transfer, or merely a copy, like in the Soma video-game (edited by Frictional Games)? And how accurate? Would we be fully ourselves? This last question, among many others, is addressed in Wally Pfister’s movie Transcendence, where the mind of a dead scientist has been uploaded onto an all-powerful digital system and controls connected humans in order to save the world. Transhumanists generally believe consciousness is pure electrochemistry, thus we will undoubtedly be able to upload it. Will this affect us in any way? How will we experience the world, with which sensors? What about hormones? Because they play a crucial part in our feelings. More importantly, would we still interact with the “real” world or live in a new, digital reality? This can seem far-fetched, but think about it: for some, our personality is already partly digital. Our existence online, on social networks especially, also defines who we are. Imagine what wonderland awaits us, worlds we can build from the ground, in which we would stand as gods, limitless. Except if it turns out to be like The Matrix...

Eventually, this issue merges with the second inevitable outcome of growing technology: artificial intelligence (Chappie, again by Neill Blomkamp). A tremendous number of movies deal with the single IA issue, the best two, in my view, being Her (by Spike Jonze) and Ex Machina (Alex Garland). And to be honest, this is as thrilling as it is frightening. And completing transhumanism before fully sentient computers may be the only way to survival.

It’s on its way, fellows, we’re already transhumanists. Already in “a future where our true reflection is only revealed once the screen goes… dark” (powerful Black Mirror trailer!). But hey, I’m an optimistic after all, not ending on this! Now, go to the rhapsodising YouTube Channel Shots of Awe! Listen to what Jason Silva has to say (is this guy taking drugs?): “We spilled over out of our minds. This is our triumph. This is what it means to be human”.

We’re going to witness within a life-time span the next step of evolution and I’m personally looking forward to this. We simply must never forget that it is not coming without dangers. Now (carefully) embrace the future!

Je vis de mots et de leur beauté, et j'ai besoin de le partager. 

J'ai besoin de croire que ce monde des mots existe, ce monde des images et des valeurs, ce royaume de la conscience, qu'il est bien là et que je ne suis pas seul dedans.

Grave

2017 - Julia Ducournau

Quelle minutieuse puissance, quelle sublime horreur ! Face à la gravité, un frisson, une fascination... morbide. Des actes crus, des ambitions cruelles, un film sanglant et sans tabous. Un bloc aux mille facettes mais sans aspérités. La violence du propos est supportée par une architecture assez simple, une mise en scène intelligente, et un jeu époustouflant. Premier long métrage de Julia Ducournau, premier rôle principal pour Garance Marillier, et toutes deux font déjà preuve d’un talent rare.

Grave c'est aussi un questionnement illustré. Parmi un panel de messages et d’alertes, il brille d’une nature antispéciste. « Pour toi baiser un singe c’est comme violer une femme ? », demande une étudiante. À priori oui, et les manger aussi. Pêle-mêle, on y parle de famille, d’éducation, du bizutage sauvage dans les écoles de médecine, on y adresse la question du consentement, celle du jugement d’autrui.

Ce film est terriblement paradoxal, aussi fin qu’il est gore, avec autant de bienveillance que de dévastation. C’est un univers à part entière, de ceux que l’on veut fuir et découvrir simultanément. Enfin Grave c’est des musiques, variées, et toujours parfaitement adaptées. Elles font vibrer, ou elles font frémir.

« C’est un délire, ou c’est plus grave que ça ? » C’est Grave. 

Scénario : Julia Ducournau

Musique : Jim Williams

Photographie : Ruben Impens

The Neon Demon

2016 - Nicolas Winding Refn

Avant tout un film artistique, une ode à la beauté. Mais pas dans sa version harmonieuse, ici Nicolas Winding Refn cherche plutôt à imager le sublime, dans ses infinis contrastes : on oscille en permanence entres scènes pas saines et perles, entre morbide et merveille, toujours dans l’intensité. La fascination côtoie le malaise, l’horreur et le dégout sont au rendez-vous, on n’en tire rien de bon, rien d’encourageant, rien d’agréable. Et pourtant on ne peut en détacher les yeux un seul instant. Ce ne sont pas pas les acteurs, pas le scénario, c’est l’atmosphère. Et le rythme. Les plans, les musiques, les surprises. Ce n’est pas un film sur la mode, c’est un film sur l’immonde. Sur la saleté en chacun, et ce besoin mortel de la cacher sous une peau parfaite. C’est de l’art, mais des plus difficiles d’accès. Ce n’est certainement pas pour les enfants. Et c’est révolutionnaire. 

Scénario : Nicolas Winding Refn

Musique : Cliff Martinez

Photographie : Natacha Braier

10, Cloverfield Lane

2016 - Dan Trachtenberg

La réalisation est d’une rare excellence. La construction scénaristique tout bonnement phénoménale. Et les trois seuls personnages de ce huis-clos sont suffisamment complexes pour éveiller chez nous des sentiments contradictoire. Le film est intriguant, minutieux, intelligent, effrayant, frénétique, mais plus que tout, le fil narratif est brodé d’or. Assez long pour collectionner les retournements de situations, assez court pour ne pas s’en décrocher un seul instant, sa noirceur contrebalancée par quelques passages enjoués. Tout s’enchaine et s’imbrique à la perfection de la première à la dernière scène, si bien qu’on pourrait croire qu’être parfait était vraiment l’objectif.

Scénario : Josh Campbell

Musique : Bear McCreary

Photographie : Jeff Cutter