Movies A Scientist at the Movies
Reviews by Greg Paris
 The Evaluation System

Reviews by Title

Reviews by Date 		Reviews from Video

Reviews of the Classics

Personal Background

a horizontal line

Title: Into Great Silence (Die Grosse Stille)

Date Viewed: 3/18/07

Details:

Written, directed, produced and edited by: Philip Gršning

Score: +

The Review: Documentary: a year in the life of the monks of La Grande Chartreuse.

"And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice." -- 1 Kings 19: 11-13

This is a difficult film. It is not really an audiovisual experience -- it is nearly completely visual. Then, its structure is quite simple -- it just starts: no explanation, no background, no context, no lead-in. You have to know what is going on, to understand much. And there is no narration. As becomes clear during the film, the Carthusian order is contemplative and under a vow of silence, so (with rare exception) the only sounds come from plainsong in the chapel, occasional bell ringing, and the noises of work. And eventually, a long time later, it just stops -- you may recognize the same series of three images with which it opened, and if so, the cycle will seem complete.

The cinematography is, well, interesting..., and not always to my taste. Often very difficult images, extreme close-ups, very grainy textures from extremely low light photography, forms needing to be deciphered with significant cognitive effort -- you have to work at understanding what's on screen. Some of the material appears to have been shot in Super-8, and all of it has been shot in natural light.

Focus -- attention on the part of the audience -- is a problem; it's very easy to zone out and miss new scenes, transitions, perhaps even minutes of film time. All because it is essentially a silent film without action or plot.

A monastic life is punctuated by events both distant from, and on a very different time scale from, that of the general public. This would seem to be difficult to get across. And time is critical to any appreciation of the film. Whether by artistic statement or an attempt to convey the monastic sense of time, most scenes are extended in length from those more familiar to the movie scene -- at times up to (and beyond) the limit of interest and tolerance. In a worldly sense, if the images were cut to satisfy the more familiar pace of contemporary film, Silence would have been less than 1-1/2 hours in duration. As it is, it is nearly 2-3/4 hours long. But it seemed to me that the sense of time is indeed very accurately drawn -- the audience leaves with an excellent feel for monastic time (to the unfamiliar, probably not all that different from deep time!), and this seems precisely the intent. So in that sense, the documentary has been successful.

We see at most between 24 to 26 brothers, depending on whether you count in the refectory or at communion. For all that the monastery seems rather large, it is at the same time not over-populated. The monks are introduced 3 at a time, extended over the entire film; this is an unexpected window into their personalities, as their expression and intelligent gaze is distinct for each, irrespective of superficial similarities of hair-style (short or shaved) and dress (the typical un-dyed homespun hooded chasuble). Ages vary a lot. Events are unremarkable. Near the beginning, we see the induction of a new brother, and he is a visible presence as the film unfolds. There is some humor, when on the once-weekly walks -- one of which goes, during the winter snows, to the summit of the nearby peak to overlook the monastery.

Only at the very end is there any context or intrusion of the documentary process itself. In a single paragraph of text revealed before the credits, we discover the identity of the location at which the film was made, and something of the effort needed to plan and execute it. Apparently, the director first approached the monastery, to get permission to film there, in 1986. Their response was, in effect, that it was too soon, they were not ready; they would call him when they were -- perhaps in 6-10 years. 14 years later, they called him back.

The theatre was quite crowded. When you're the only theatre showing the film in a 50-100 mile radius, and each showing surpasses 2-1/2 hours, this is not unexpected. But the audience started off restless, many arriving late, and it was difficult to get into the mood. Much better would have been the more typical handful of audience for most art films.

For all that the characters/subjects are deeply embedded in the church, this is not overtly a religious film. Its religiosity is muted, and except for occasional quotations and one scene in communion, it is subtle and not at all "in your face." It is a film about solitude, silence, and -- to the faithful -- about faith.

Nonetheless, I have a tremendous respect for those who choose this vocation, and not a little envy for an organization that recognizes the value of solitude & silence and has propagated acceptance of these values into a greater public, beyond that of the Catholic church. Let me be clear -- the envy is for the concept and its sociological marketing. Getting acceptance for activities of solitude is a difficult task in the current social milieu. Which brings me to an entirely different, but not wholly unrelated, idea.

a horizontal line

Scientific monasticism: Sanctioned cognitive retreats

Thread one... Science is a social and cultural artifact, a community within a community. A primary and critical component of science is communication, both with other contemporary scientists -- interactively or through the current literature -- and with the literature of the past. Even though there are sporadic documented cases (e.g., see Keller:1983), very little work in the scientific community today comes from isolated individuals. This was recognized long ago: "if I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" (attrib. Newton). The interconnectedness and the network structure of the scientific endeavor is legion.

Thread two... Solitude -- the intentional aloneness of an individual -- of any kind is seldom societally sanctioned. In the context of contemporary Western society (see Storr:1988), the desire for solitude is anathema and generally misunderstood. And as described above, within the international scientific community, solitude would be perceived to break the continuum of requisite communication. However, there are rare exceptions in which solitude is not only tolerated but, to some extent, venerated. Prime among these is the isolation practiced as part of the monastic tradition of many religious orders (see Henry:1989).

Weaving of threads... I suggest that there is a important place for something like scientific monasticism -- a form of non-religious, cognitive retreat -- and that the utility and value of such periodic and temporary solitude is largely unrecognized by today's scientific community. I propose that:

Now that you are done laughing insanely, stop and consider the idea, and the models upon which it is based. The intent is more than metaphoric.

Within science there are several predominantly solo tasks: thinking and writing are only two. Clearly, not all tasks are individual ones, nor can many be performed outside of an elaborate laboratory support network, but there are times when it would seem advantageous for a mathematician or scientist to minimize distractions and retreat from the mundane for longer periods of time. The resulting clarity, focus, and "flow" (see Csikszentmihalyi:1990) would inevitably be reflected in higher quality, more tightly knitted, work.

Following both the Buddhist and the Christian models, note that there are two different forms of monasticism -- eremitic and coenobitic -- and both can and should be supported. Eremitic (from the same root as "hermit") means "living alone"; in this model (rare today), individuals isolate themselves and their surroundings from interruption and community, both external and "of the rule." Coenobitic means "living in community", the most common form of monasticism recognized today; in this model, individuals are cloistered together for common activities, have access to individual rooms, but are isolated as an aggregate from the external community at large. In contemporary religious and non-sectarian sanctuaries (see Kelly:1991), access to both eremitic and coenobitic forms can be provided to those interested individuals, for a fee.

Finally, the value of at least semi-isolation for small, focused groups of scientists has been recognized for years: witness the tendency for conferences and meetings to be sited at some geographic remove from the normal work-a-day environment. Well-known examples are the annual Gordon Research Conferences, organized through the University of Rhode Island, and held at various out-of-the-way places in the Northeast US, France or the UK. To carry this example over the boundary into cognitive monastic retreats only involves the establishment of one or more dedicated sites, and promotion of the concept. Candidates for financial support of this concept include the Howard Hughes Research Foundation (i.e., the Howard Hughes Medical Institute) and the MacArthur Foundation.

(*) Final section derived from an essay original written about 10 years ago, in April 1997. This is obviously an idea of longstanding interest.

(20-Mar-07)

a horizontal line

BackBack to the chronological list of reviews