Across the Universe
To continue in the theme of recent posts…
I recently got around to watching Across the Universe. I know the movie was all the buzz last Fall, but I don't get to see many movies these days so I waited until it finally arrived through Netflixs. I loved the whole concept of a musical journey through the sixties to the soundtrack of the Beatles, I just wasn't expecting it to be so depressing. It had the obligatory happy ending of course, but the general message was "live for yourself because trying to make a difference in the world is pointless."
The film portrayed the existential struggles of youth, the crisis of the Vietnam war, and the struggles of the civil rights movement during the sixties in ways that deliberately spoke to their exact parallels today. On one level it is disturbing how little has changed since then. The characters sought to bring change to their world and failed. As the characters sought unity they found selfishness. As they sought spiritual answers they met the hollowness of consumerism. As they attempted to serve something bigger than themselves they found despair, madness, and death. As they sought to work for peace they found apathy, hypocrisy, and corruption. In the end they just had to give up on those passions and causes and find contentment for themselves. To put it in Beatles terms – "And, in the end, the love you take/ Is equal to the love you make."
I found the message depressing and disturbing mostly because I've heard forms of it over and over again from the church. "Don't bother trying to change the world, you won't make a difference anyway." "Just focus on your own relationship with Jesus, that's all that really matters." "There is so much evil and corruption out there that you can't ever really change things." And the implicit message – "see none of this is new, people have tried to work for peace and justice before and they failed, so just grow up and get over it." I'm sick of these messages. I'm sick of the defeatist, "all things conspire against you so just give up" attitudes. What will it take for people to actually have hope?
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Of course, just as a sociological insight, it's easy to see why the young activists of the Sixties turned into the self-absorbed middle-aged consumers of the Eighties and Nineties. They tried to change the world and not much changed. The government ignored them, the larger culture derided them, and the corporate marketplace eventually packaged and commodified them. It's enough to make anyone cynical.
Mike what you wrote reminds me of some of Jim Wallis' book talk. He spoke about how people who try to change things and don't succeed can become cynical and negative – that we need to guard against that happening to us, so we don't give up.
Julie, to me the movie didn't come across as drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of activism – to me it was a portrayal of the ways war affected that generation rather than a commentary on whether getting involved is worthwhile.
If I'd seen the message you saw in it I probably would have been frustrated too – because I do have that reaction to books and movies which I think present an overly negative view that doesn't include enough hope or show the more positive sides or possibilities of a situation.
Maybe this movie was that way and it didn't bother me because I didn't live through this and I thought it was good for me to think about the negative effects it had on those who did. So in this one case I felt it was important for me to see the negative side.
I didn't come away with a negative view about the effectiveness of activism when I saw the movie. But now that you point it out, Julie, I can see it.
My thought, as I read your post, is whether trying to make changes on a 'grand scale' is what leads to apathy and cynicism. I wonder if it's not better, for us and for those we try to help, to make changes on a smaller scale?
I guess that's the "think globally, act locally" idea, huh?
I dunno. I keep thinking of the story that Grace posted on her old blog about the starfish. The child tossing the starfish back into the ocean might get apathetic if he realized that he could not help all starfish, everywhere. His view, though, was (as he tossed those on the local beach back in the water) that he made a difference to that one … and to that one … and to that one …
Sorry for the off topic ramble.
I think I saw it a bit differently, as well.
Jude didn't have a problem with Lucy protesting or working for change. What bothered him was her obsession at the neglect of those she was in community with (her boyfriend, their household), and the corruption he observed in the movement's leader.
I think that what Jude failed to realize until the end of the movie was that Lucy was his passion & purpose. He was an artist, not so much an activist… but he loved and supported this woman who had a lot to say to the world.
Its an idea of the many members of the body. Some of us are built to prophesy and scream and challenge and march and stand in front of tanks and shake people awake. Some of us are built to be the love and stability and support and listening ears and strong shoulders for those "big system changers". Some of us cry out in the streets, and some of us embrace the hurting girl who climbs in through the bathroom window.
(though, I agree, "Strawberry Fields" could be the anthem of many churches: living is easy with eyes closed…)