![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Case for Remaking Bruce Almighty
Jan. 19th, 2015 03:46 pmBruce Almighty is the mildly amusing and mostly forgettable story of a normal human being who is given all the powers of God and challenged to do better as the commander of the Heavens and Earth.
That premise should not make for a forgettable movie. I'm not aware of any other movies that actually go so far as to give a main character the omnipotence of the Abrahamic deity. As a premise goes, that's ripe for any amount of exploration that could range from the horrific, to the comedic, to the dramatic, to unintentionally any of the three.
Jim Carry plays the main character, who is Jim Carry if his name were Bruce instead of Jim and if he were in news rather than comedy. This character is one of the important fixes. While ostensibly Christian, he gives very little thought to God, save to blame God for his life. His girlfriend is also Christian, but seems to give little thought to God save to be offended and hurt when Jim casts God in a bad light.
As Bruce's difficulties mount, he grows more angry and has more malice for God and, at the same time, prays more. Eventually, still early in the movie, we have a scene with another problem that needs to be fixed. Bruce, driving in a rainstorm, possibly crying, begs God for instruction as to what to do. At that exact moment, a truck, carrying various stop signs, swerves right in front of Bruce's car.
Bruce continues driving and winds up getting into a car wreck that, save for some great luck, could have been fatal. After words, Bruce gets paged repeatedly by the same number.
He eventually calls the number, makes gets an appointment and finds out that he's speaking, face to face, with God. Morgan Freeman, of course, is a great choice to play God. But, this quickly comes into the next problem, which is related to problem number 1.
God examines Bruce's history of blaspheming God with insult and accusation. Then, he challenges Bruce to do better. This problem is... why Bruce of all people? His objections are clearly selfish. He's certainly no Job, brought to the end of his patience, but someone who hadn't had any patience to begin with.
Problem number 4... Bruce never tries to do better than God in the Godding business. All he does is use God's power to advance his own career and a few other selfish efforts. When he starts to hear prayers, he only wants to get through that as quickly as possible.
In the end, Bruce goes through more troubles, stops using his omnipotence to his own benefit (but still doesn't use it to benefit anybody else or even make a token effort at the challenge God gave him), and eventually is transformed, by the experience, into somebody who can be happy with where he is in his career and who can love his girlfriend like she deserves to be loved.
To say that this movie is confused in its theology would be to indicate that this movie is interested enough in its own theology to be confused. Its Christian devotion is deep, its contemplation is but a puddle.
The remake can do a lot better, first and foremost, by changing Bruce. He's not a horribly hate-able character, not for the most part. But, for someone given the powers of God, he is, at most, selfish and uninteresting. This is a result of the kind of deep-devotion and shallow-thought that you find throughout Bruce Almighty. Bruce represents people who take issue with God, which the movie will only acknowledge as selfish, shallow people taking issue with their own lives not going perfectly.
In short, Bruce Nolan is a straw man. To repair that matter, we need to interact with the concepts of Maltheism and Gnostic Heresy.
Maltheism: The concept that the creator god is evil, rather than good.
Gnostic Heresy: The belief that God is evil and his creation is bad. In this belief, Jesus is the savior, but as the son of Lucifer rather than the son of God. What we need to do to reach salvation is not accept the Jesus into our hearts, but follow the example and transcend this creation of a bad deity.
I can understand that the followers of Abrahamic traditions would disagree with these concepts and find them uncomfortable. But, if you're going to argue against them, exploring them is essential.
So, a more properly Gnostic Bruce Nolan (he doesn't have to self-identify as Gnostic) would take issue, instead, with God on a moral level. This can include the actions of God as depicted in the bible. This can also include children dying of cancer, accidents, and evil done by believers who think they're doing good because of their faith.
No, Bruce Nolan doesn't have to be correct in his objections. But, these less selfish and more moral objections allow for at least an initial possibility of a deeper struggle. Making Bruce obviously selfish and wrong from the beginning was philosophically annoying and made the whole narrative predictable.
This would make explain why Bruce would be the one given this opportunity and challenge. Bruce Nolan, in the movie, never really suggests that he could do better than God. A Gnostic Bruce could easily make that suggestion and mean it. This would make God seem like less of a smug bully (Morgan Freeman did great with the role, but he can't undo the writing) when he puts the challenge to Bruce.
As a result of Bruce having actually thought that he could do better than God, we could have Bruce (and this is the bulk of the movie's failure) try. This effort, as well as points that may seem actually better than what the movie shows as God's current method, would be ripe for comedy, drama, and philosophical exploration.
An example of what Gnostic Bruce could try: In the movie, as I stated earlier, we are expected to view a truck carrying stop signs as a clear sign to Bruce to... stop. The problem was that this is as easily coincidence as it was an actual sign. It could also be a sign to Bruce to stop... driving? Stop... praying? Stop... his life? Stop... his titular opponent (Evan Baxter) however it takes? Reading a sign into this leads to anything and everything becoming signs for... anything and everything.
Rather than relying upon signs with a plausible deniability, Gnostic Bruce could supply each person who prays with a clear written response (omnipotence would mean he doesn't have the limits of time or attention that were displayed in the movie). Nobody would have to learn that Gnostic Bruce is the one giving the responses. But, they would still have clarity of moral guidance, as opposed to trusting that they have some kind of communication, maybe.
The ending can go a number of ways. It can be Gnostic Bruce no longer being Gnostic and learning to trust God. It can have God learning to change his ways to whatever degree. It could be both, with God accepting Gnostic judgment and Bruce accepting God as, while not perfect, a force for good on the whole. The options are varied because the narrative would be open to the possibilities and be ready for the risk that the premise needs.
That's my thoughts. What are yours?
That premise should not make for a forgettable movie. I'm not aware of any other movies that actually go so far as to give a main character the omnipotence of the Abrahamic deity. As a premise goes, that's ripe for any amount of exploration that could range from the horrific, to the comedic, to the dramatic, to unintentionally any of the three.
Jim Carry plays the main character, who is Jim Carry if his name were Bruce instead of Jim and if he were in news rather than comedy. This character is one of the important fixes. While ostensibly Christian, he gives very little thought to God, save to blame God for his life. His girlfriend is also Christian, but seems to give little thought to God save to be offended and hurt when Jim casts God in a bad light.
As Bruce's difficulties mount, he grows more angry and has more malice for God and, at the same time, prays more. Eventually, still early in the movie, we have a scene with another problem that needs to be fixed. Bruce, driving in a rainstorm, possibly crying, begs God for instruction as to what to do. At that exact moment, a truck, carrying various stop signs, swerves right in front of Bruce's car.
Bruce continues driving and winds up getting into a car wreck that, save for some great luck, could have been fatal. After words, Bruce gets paged repeatedly by the same number.
He eventually calls the number, makes gets an appointment and finds out that he's speaking, face to face, with God. Morgan Freeman, of course, is a great choice to play God. But, this quickly comes into the next problem, which is related to problem number 1.
God examines Bruce's history of blaspheming God with insult and accusation. Then, he challenges Bruce to do better. This problem is... why Bruce of all people? His objections are clearly selfish. He's certainly no Job, brought to the end of his patience, but someone who hadn't had any patience to begin with.
Problem number 4... Bruce never tries to do better than God in the Godding business. All he does is use God's power to advance his own career and a few other selfish efforts. When he starts to hear prayers, he only wants to get through that as quickly as possible.
In the end, Bruce goes through more troubles, stops using his omnipotence to his own benefit (but still doesn't use it to benefit anybody else or even make a token effort at the challenge God gave him), and eventually is transformed, by the experience, into somebody who can be happy with where he is in his career and who can love his girlfriend like she deserves to be loved.
To say that this movie is confused in its theology would be to indicate that this movie is interested enough in its own theology to be confused. Its Christian devotion is deep, its contemplation is but a puddle.
The remake can do a lot better, first and foremost, by changing Bruce. He's not a horribly hate-able character, not for the most part. But, for someone given the powers of God, he is, at most, selfish and uninteresting. This is a result of the kind of deep-devotion and shallow-thought that you find throughout Bruce Almighty. Bruce represents people who take issue with God, which the movie will only acknowledge as selfish, shallow people taking issue with their own lives not going perfectly.
In short, Bruce Nolan is a straw man. To repair that matter, we need to interact with the concepts of Maltheism and Gnostic Heresy.
Maltheism: The concept that the creator god is evil, rather than good.
Gnostic Heresy: The belief that God is evil and his creation is bad. In this belief, Jesus is the savior, but as the son of Lucifer rather than the son of God. What we need to do to reach salvation is not accept the Jesus into our hearts, but follow the example and transcend this creation of a bad deity.
I can understand that the followers of Abrahamic traditions would disagree with these concepts and find them uncomfortable. But, if you're going to argue against them, exploring them is essential.
So, a more properly Gnostic Bruce Nolan (he doesn't have to self-identify as Gnostic) would take issue, instead, with God on a moral level. This can include the actions of God as depicted in the bible. This can also include children dying of cancer, accidents, and evil done by believers who think they're doing good because of their faith.
No, Bruce Nolan doesn't have to be correct in his objections. But, these less selfish and more moral objections allow for at least an initial possibility of a deeper struggle. Making Bruce obviously selfish and wrong from the beginning was philosophically annoying and made the whole narrative predictable.
This would make explain why Bruce would be the one given this opportunity and challenge. Bruce Nolan, in the movie, never really suggests that he could do better than God. A Gnostic Bruce could easily make that suggestion and mean it. This would make God seem like less of a smug bully (Morgan Freeman did great with the role, but he can't undo the writing) when he puts the challenge to Bruce.
As a result of Bruce having actually thought that he could do better than God, we could have Bruce (and this is the bulk of the movie's failure) try. This effort, as well as points that may seem actually better than what the movie shows as God's current method, would be ripe for comedy, drama, and philosophical exploration.
An example of what Gnostic Bruce could try: In the movie, as I stated earlier, we are expected to view a truck carrying stop signs as a clear sign to Bruce to... stop. The problem was that this is as easily coincidence as it was an actual sign. It could also be a sign to Bruce to stop... driving? Stop... praying? Stop... his life? Stop... his titular opponent (Evan Baxter) however it takes? Reading a sign into this leads to anything and everything becoming signs for... anything and everything.
Rather than relying upon signs with a plausible deniability, Gnostic Bruce could supply each person who prays with a clear written response (omnipotence would mean he doesn't have the limits of time or attention that were displayed in the movie). Nobody would have to learn that Gnostic Bruce is the one giving the responses. But, they would still have clarity of moral guidance, as opposed to trusting that they have some kind of communication, maybe.
The ending can go a number of ways. It can be Gnostic Bruce no longer being Gnostic and learning to trust God. It can have God learning to change his ways to whatever degree. It could be both, with God accepting Gnostic judgment and Bruce accepting God as, while not perfect, a force for good on the whole. The options are varied because the narrative would be open to the possibilities and be ready for the risk that the premise needs.
That's my thoughts. What are yours?
