Skip to main content

Are we worth saving?


In the famous film The Fifth Element, Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) poses a challenging rhetorical question to Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) : What's the use in saving life when you see what you do with it? (Watch here). She is speaking 250 years in the future, where life as we know it is threatened by the arrival of Evil. Only Leeloo (the "Fifth Element") can stop Great Evil from extinguishing life. Leeloo is the vulnerable but "supreme being" that comes as a human being to save humanity.

To accomplish her task she has to activate the four elemental stones of earth, wind, fire and rain, with her self in the middle as the "fifth element" that is forged into the ultimate weapon against Great Evil. It is at this point of salvation, inside the temple of stones, that Leeloo becomes disillusioned and unwilling to perform the role. She comes to realise that human beings are themselves so evil that they are not worth saving. Any “salvation” will be temporarily at best because in the end human beings are destined to destroy themselves.

Just when hope seems lost, the smitten Korben steps in to resolve her moral quandary. He has fallen in love with her and can't bear to lose it all now. He reasons with her that human beings are worth saving because we are basically good - and more importantly we have love! And so he puts it into practice by professing his love for her, embracing and kisses her. And with that spark of"divine light of love" a weapon is forged in her that reaches to the cosmos and causes Great Evil to become a new moon in Earth's orbit. Human beings are saved. Love conquers all!

Director Luc Besson stated in an interview that the film's theme was an important one. He wanted viewers to reach the point where Leeloo asks that question and actually agree with her. Presumably not into despondency but in order for them to share Korben's response that we are worth saving because of the "sparkle" of divine light within us. This love is the source of our saviour. Through that light of love we are able to extinguish all great evil when are in harmony with nature, like Leeloo does in the film! 

Besson is certainly right that Leeloo's rhetorical question is an important one. It seems obvious that in a world without God, life is without purpose, coupled with the fact that there appears something within the human nature that gravitates towards evil. At the same time Leeloo points to an anomaly in the human drama. Life appears not to function as we expect it to. We desire for life to be unending, but yet we confront mortality at every corner. On this point Leeloo rightly recognises the depravity of man and necessity of judgement! 

If Leeloo question is helpful, Korben's response is erroneous. To be sure he is correct that human beings are valuable. The real question is the basis and nature of that value, and what it consequently means for man's salvation in general. Korben says we are valuable because we are capable of loving. We have the light of love in us that makes us worthwhile. But such a basis for man's uniqueness immediately runs into many problems. 

Love in the movie is largely expressed "erotically". Is that really what make us unique? But even if we allowed for different forms of love, we face the challenge that love means different things to different people. And what of those who have no love for others? Are they not worth saving? Then comes even harder questions. Are we worthwhile as human beings because we love or do we love because we see worth in others? But even if love in life is the ultimate reality, we still need to ask: why should the fact that we are loving beings ground the value of salvation? Who gives this supposed love in us value, to warrant saving it? 

Once again it seems man's attempt to ground meaning to our existence runs into trouble. The Bible alone offers the answer to our deepest problem. It starts with, "In the beginning God" (Genesis 1:1). The words alone mean there's no meaning to anything independent of God. Human beings are valuable because we are created by God in his own likeness. But crucially the Bible reminds us that being God’s creatures alone does not mean we are worth saving! We are fallen and sinful creatures. There's nothing desirable about us worth saving! Rather God in his infinite and undeserved mercy has chosen to make us objects of His affection. All who repent and turn to him now become His precious children! So at one level we infinitely precious, but that preciousness is not in ourselves but is on the account of the relationship with Him who is Infinitely Precious! 

So then armed with this knowledge we must reject the dangerous teaching embedded in the film. The Fifth Element cleverly uses Leelo's challenging question to open a gateway of idolatry. It wishes to encourage us to dismiss the sinfulness of man by appealing to the “divine light of love”, declaring boldly we deserve living forever without condemnation or judgement. It wishes to encourage us to look inwards to our inner light of love rather than turn to Jesus our God for repentance and forgiveness. 

From the beginning to end the Fifth Element is riddled with dangerous new age motifs. In the final scene it reminds us that all reality in effect belongs to the same energy which takes many forms. So accordingly we have the bizarre outcome of Great Evil becoming the "second moon" ( a metaphor perhaps of "helpful evil" often taught in the occult). Even the score echoes the same dangers. The final song is Serra Eric’s “Little Light of Love” which says “only one religion will lead us to the love we aim for…”. What religion? He answers “a little light of soul religion”. The film’s dangerous subtle messages are a reminder of the need for us watch cinema with eyes wide open! Lest we are led astray!

Copyright © Chola Mukanga 2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pornography as Occultism

There is a kind of helplessness that a man engaged in pornography exhibits. He often speaks of it in terms of a “struggle” or an “addiction.” Now both of those terms are accurate, I believe, but they distance a person from his sin in a soul-decaying manner. Pornography is not just an addiction; it is occultism. The man who sits upstairs viewing pornography while his wife chauffeurs the kids to soccer practice is not some unusual “pervert”; he is (like his forefather Adam) seeking the mystery of the universe apart from Christ. That’s the reason the one picture, stored in his memory, of that naked woman will never be enough for him. He will never be able to be satisfied because he will never be able to get an image naked enough. I say pornography is occultism because I believe the draw toward it is more than biological (though that is strong). The satanic powers understand that “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). They understand that the pornographic ...

The Wound of Sin

Bless the Lord, O my soul, that when you were playing with the bait, unaware of the hook like so many others, He opened your eyes—allowing you to see your folly and danger so that you might flee from it. And now, be careful that you do not grasp at any of the devil's temptations, lest he ensnare you with his hook. For though you may be restored by grace, it will not be without a wound—just as a fish sometimes escapes the hook but swims away injured. That wound may bring sorrow and take long to heal. And you have already known this to be true. THOMAS BOSTON  ( Source : The Art of Man-Fishing) A sobering truth from Thomas Boston. Sin always damages. God always restores His children when we fall but it is never without the wounds. We often carry the scars of our sins. This is another m reason for us to avoid sin altogether. Sometimes in our presumption of His grace, we tend to be antinomian. Boston is warning that such an attitude is foolish since sin always damages. It always leaves ...

Pussy Riot as the Messenger

I have always thought there was something uneasy, or something not quite right about Pussy Riot and the western media reaction to it. It was not just the desecration of the Orthodox Church Cathedral. I could not placed my finger on it until I read this assessment by Vadim Nikitin : How many fans of Pussy Riot’s zany “punk prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova’s erudite and moving closing statement were equally thrilled by her participation, naked and heavily pregnant, in a public orgy at a Moscow museum in 2008? That performance, by the radical art group Voina (Russian for “war”), was meant to illustrate how Russians were abused by their government. Voina had previously set fire to a police car and drew obscene images on a St. Petersburg drawbridge. Stunts like that would get you arrested just about anywhere, not just in authoritarian Russia. But Pussy Riot and its comrades at Voina come as a full package: You can’t have the fun, pro-democrac...