Religion and Dead Man Walking (1995)

One of the important aspects of Dead Man Walking (1995) was the depiction of religious concepts and symbols.  In the film, the viewer encounters Sister Helen Prejean, a more “modern” Catholic nun that does not wear the habit in a time after the Second Vatican Council.  Her dress is still conservative, yet does not necessarily distinguish herself as a Catholic nun.  As the film begins, it is interesting that Matthew Poncelet seeks the legal help of Sister Helen, rather than spiritual guidance.  However, Sister Helen accepts the challenge of helping Matthew both spiritually and legally, even though he has been convicted of rape and murder.

Image 1: Sister Helen is screened at the jail security station (Time stamp 00:04::35).

Image 2: Sister Helen meets Chaplain Farley for the first time (Time stamp 00:04::43).

After receiving Poncelet’s letter, Sister Helen arrives at the jail where he is being held.  She then encounters Chaplain Farley, who is a Catholic priest.  In these scenes, different crucifixes are displayed.  While arriving at the jail, Sister Helen is wearing a crucifix around her neck that symbolizes the death of Jesus Christ and his resurrection.  In Image 1, a security police officer at the jail wands over her crucifix, realizing this was the object that had triggered the metal detector to sound.  In Image 1, the crucifix and the metal detecting wand represent the merging of “church” and “state.”  The “church” aspect is represented in the religious crucifix, while the metal detecting wand represents the government and laws of the “state.”  The lines between the church and state become skewed in this film since Poncelet faces the death penalty.  As a Catholic nun, Sr. Helen fights for Poncelet’s right to live, even though she does not have the knowledge of whether or not he committed the crimes.  In contrast, Earl Delacroix, who identifies himself as a Catholic, experiences an internal, spiritual conflict as he seeks justice for his murdered son, Walter.

In Image 2, Sister Helen greets Father Farley, the Chaplain of the jail.  The background of the second image clearly displays two distinct crucifixes, one on the wall and another on a shelf.  However, the following discussion between Sr. Helen and Chaplain Farley is incredibly surprising.  Chaplain Farley is condescending towards Sr. Helen, asking her if she’s even been in a jail, and why she does not wear the habit.  After she coolly answers his questions, Chaplain Farley explains what he has heard about the Poncelet case.  Next, he bluntly asks Sr. Helen her motives by saying:

CHAPLAIN FARLEY: Do you know what you’re getting into?  So what is it, Sister?  Morbid fascination?  Bleeding-heart sympathy? 

SISTER HELEN: He wrote me and asked me to come.

CHAPLAIN FARLEY: Well there is no romance here, Sister.

In a way, Chaplain Farley seems to be insulting her motives.  As the above dialogue continues, Chaplain Farley appears to have little sympathy for Poncelet.  Their discourse is quite shocking since their work is guided by Christ’s sacrifice to spiritually help other individuals.  Even though the crucifixes visible in Image 1 and Image 2 are symbolically equivalent, Sr. Helen and Chaplain Farley’s attitudes towards Poncelet, and thus their ministries, are incredibly different.

Another religious concept displayed in this film is that of reconciliation.  In the Catholic Church, reconciliation is one of the seven Sacraments.  Other Sacraments include Baptism, Confirmation, and Matrimony.  Before he is executed, Matthew Poncelet confesses to Sr. Helen that he is guilty of killing Water Delacroix and raping Hope Percy.  While some may see his confession as a type of “reconciliation,” this would not be considered a valid Reconciliation in the Catholic Church.  A priest must be the individual to hear a sinner’s confession, while the sinner must also truly repent his or her sins.  Even though Poncelet admits his guilt and claims to be sorry for his crimes, the viewer will never know if he was truly remorseful.

 

-Paige T.

Family vs. State in the film Munich (2005)

An interesting dynamic presented in the film Munich is the relationship between the family and the “state.”  In the context of this film, the term “state” refers to Israel.  After eleven Israelis at the 1972 Summer Olympics were captured and killed by the Palestinian group Black September, the Israeli government secretly recruited Avner and four other individuals as a part of the group Mossad.  They were to assassinate eleven individuals who supposedly had a role in planning the kidnapping and murder of the eleven Israelis at the Olympics in Munich.  In order to serve Israel, Avner must leave his home while his wife, Daphna, is pregnant with their first child.  Even though Munich focuses on the assassination attempts by Mossad, the film subtly displays the difficulties an individual encounters when making sacrifices for their state.

Image 1: Avner serving Hans at the dinner table (Time stamp 00:27::26).

After Avner leaves his wife to carry out the mission given by the state, he essentially becomes the head figure of the new family created under Mossad.  When the viewer first sees the other members assigned with Avner, they are sitting down at the dinner table preparing to eat (Image 1).  I find it interesting that director Steven Spielberg placed the new group together for the first time in a family setting.  By eating together, they share a simple yet important family experience.  In a way, the group tries to forget that they have left their families by attempting to form their own.  By coming closer together, they were better able to work with one another to accomplish the assassinations.

An important scene in the film emphasizing the importance of family occurs as Avner sees his daughter for the first time in the hospital.  While discussing their future, Avner tells his wife that he wants her and the baby to move to New York.  Worried, she conveys her doubts that if they move, their daughter will not be a true Israeli.  However, Avner expresses that wherever they are will be his true home.  The entire experience is incredibly conflicting for Avner, who wants to be with his family.

As the assassinations continue and his paranoia increases, Avner is at his breaking point.  Towards the end of the film, he is still searching for Ali Hassan Salameh, the mastermind behind the killings at the 1972 Summer Olympics.  In order to get information on his whereabouts, Avner speaks with his informant, Louis.  In front of a home furnishings store, Louis tells Avner where Salameh is located.  However, Louis notices that Avner truly misses his family.  Referring to Salameh, Louis says:

LOUIS: Eliminate him and they’ll let you go home, don’t you think?

AVNER: Yes Louis I do.

LOUIS: You could have a kitchen like that someday.  It cost dearly but home always does. 

For Avner, the fight to return “home” has been incredibly difficult.  Through his conversation with Louis, Avner is better able to realize that being with his family requires sacrifices.  Not only has he physically sacrificed by putting his life in danger, but he has also suffered emotionally by killing others while also being away from his family.  Munich stresses that the family is an important yet essential sacrifice that must be made in order to protect and serve one’s state.  By the end of the movie, Avner speculates whether or not the services he provided for Israel were truly related to the killings at the Olympics.  He also questions if his sacrifice had any value.  Ultimately, he decides to abandon Israel, the state he fought to protect, in order to be “home” with his family in New York.

-Paige T.