The Illusionist

cosette_valjean and I saw "The Illusionist" on Sunday. I enjoyed that movie. It was about the question of whether a 19th-century stage magician could truly perform supernatural magic. His childhood sweetheart was a Baroness and the fiance of the Crown Prince for political reasons. They knew he would hunt them down and kill them if they tried to run away together; they could never be safe. When they tried to escape anyway, the Crown Prince murdered her. That began a murder mystery about the supernatural. Or... is it all a con-man trick story? Director and co-screenwriter Neil Burger worked very hard to keep both theories plausible, and the audience couldn't be sure until the very end. The tension was kept alive by the fact that I knew he could satisfyingly resolve the plot either way. From one point of view, a love that can be conjured from beyond the grave is a more emotionally powerful story. But the trick version of events is a smarter story. I believe those two facts, and the characters' awareness of them, were what the movie was ultimately about. These are two different things that audiences go to movies to see, and this technique permitted us to enjoy both of them.

Isolation And Communication In Subcultures

temujin9 posted an interesting rant which seems to be directed at his fellow Pagans, SubGeniuses, Burners, and other permissive groups within fringe culture.

First, he seems to allege that some of their members wrap themselves in a subculture so insulated from the world that opposes them, that the weirdness of which they are so proud does not require courage. In fact, they don't know how serious conditions have developed against them in the world outside. This can cause surprise and unpreparedness, especially in court.

He then seems to allege that this unpreparedness results in an inability to communicate effectively. When some of them do interact with normal people, they are so unable to see the world through a mundane person's eyes that they cannot make peace; they deal in an out-of-touch uncompromising way that inflames a backlash instead of bridging the gap.

I think all of these points are also true of strict fundamentalist fringe groups on the opposite end of the spectrum. I'll never forget watching a 1993 television interview with Jack Hyles when a deacon had been convicted for child molestation at First Baptist Church of Hammond, where Hyles pastored. He and his megachurch were not friendly to this investigation (or the other numerous allegations of sex abuse of minors) or to the prospect of examination of the facts before the law.

Interviewer: "But he's convicted. Guilty."
Hyles, with a big grin: "Jesus was convicted. Was he guilty?"

His congregation had blind faith that the work of Jesus cleansed the deacon from all sin, forgave him in advance for anything he may or may not have done, and according to 2 Timothy 3:12, guaranteed that the world would persecute him. For a Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, all too often love tends to be the most important thing that matters to deciding what the truth is.

Successful persuasion employs what the person you are talking to already believes, and shows step-by-step how you get from where they are to where you are. It seemed difficult for Hyles to find that common ground and use it. Indeed, he didn't know how to appeal to any beliefs but his own. I'm sure that works well when preaching to a congregation of clones who huddle together for maximum separation from the world of differences. But it doesn't work when talking to the rest of us.

It made clear that First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana was an abusive cult of personality, as further evidenced by this YouTube video produced by the church.