Stickybuffalo.com

First of all, peace; I am not planning to start a regular movie review feature. But I did see this remarkable film recently, and I think it’s deserving a bit more notice. Those of you with kids might find The Secret of Kells especially laudatory as the wee’uns approach that age of watching movies over and over and over; Kells would almost have to offer more charm than Cars 2 or Shrek 17. Of course, I’m frequently among the last to know, so maybe you’re already way ahead of me. If so, well, I still want to make one or two remarks on this fascinating work.

So, summary version just in case: The Secret of Kells is an animated fantasy-story about the origins of the famous Book of Kells, the product of Irish monastic scriptoriums during the years when Viking raids were a constant danger. The key figures of the film are the young apprentice boy, Brendan, and the lupine forest spirit Aisling whom he discovers and befriends.

As an all-ages animated film, The Secret of Kells is in rare company. It probably raises a serious challenge to anything produced by Studio Ghibli, and that’s not a suggestion I make lightly. Visually, Kells is just a near-constant delight; Miyazaki’s Ponyo had many breathtaking, dazzling scenes, but I think Kells raises the bar even further. It’s a treat to watch during both the acid-trip fantasy scenes and during the relatively pedestrian scenes.

The voice-acting is wonderful, as well. And the story is more than adequate, even if the reduction of the “Northmen” into grunting non-human monsters will seem a bit ham-fisted to the adult viewer, and one or two plot points will seem a bit forced.

What I find most remarkable about The Secret of Kells‘s script, however, and what I really wanted to comment on somewhere, is the overwhelmingly pagan perspective of this story about a holy book produced by Christian monks.

From any kind of neutral perspective, The Secret of Kells would seem to be a fascinating and odd, almost baffling, cultural artifact. I struggle to recall any direct reference to God, Christ, the cross or Christianity anywhere in the film. The Book of Kells is presented as a kind of anachronistic expression of “art for art’s sake,” at most it is held up as a means to “inspire hope among the people in dark times,” but its means for doing so appears to be the wonder and glory of human creative achievement, rather than any sort of divine message. It was only after searching online that I could confirm what the actual content of the real Book of Kells is (the four gospels of the new testament).

In contrast to the movie’s secularized, outline image of Christianity, meanwhile, the pagan world is shown alive, well and absolutely, literally real. Aside from the worldly and druidic nature-worship themes of long parts of the story, the forest spirit Aisling and the monstrous Old God Crom Cruach are named, seen and afforded significant roles in the plot. One would have to really reach to place them in some sort of “Hundred Acre Wood” world of Brendan’s imagination, and even if their literal existence were debatable, what is actually seen and mentioned in the The Secret of Kells would still be far more pagan than Christian.

And I realize that this isn’t completely without precedent, yes. For one thing, much of northern Europe was still pagan in its beliefs at the time the Book of Kells was written. For another, my understanding is that early Christians didn’t necessarily dispute the literal existence of the old gods and spirits, though they generally re-classed them as demons. And, of course, in the long run a lot of pagan traditions were incorporated into “Christian” beliefs and practices. (Indeed, one can make a pretty good argument that the very core of Christianity was just a repackaging of old pagan myths.)

Grounds for the extensive use of pagan elements in The Secret of Kells still don’t really explain the film’s determined avoidance of the Christian religion behind the book of Kells and the organization which produced it, however. There is, again, some precedence for this kind of thing, admittedly. It does seem like there is a persistent strain of readiness to use mythological and religious figures freely except when it comes to the “good guys” of the Abrahamic faiths. The decades-old American comics publisher Marvel may offer one of the best examples of this, as the Marvel “universe” has featured regular appearances by nearly every non-Christian god and goddess ever invented, and has freely employed the Christian Devil and Hell with only the most perfunctory of disguises. Whereas, when it comes to God, Jesus, angels, et al., Marvel’s stories as a whole have shown a skittish hesitancy that positively leaps out.

And I don’t think it’s just Marvel; The Secret of Kells‘s approach to religion and mythology certainly feels Disney-ish even if I can’t think of specific parallels among Disney productions right now. (Disney owns Marvel, actually, but this development only goes back a few years.)

Whether it’s just The Secret of Kells, or a larger cultural attitude, though, I can’t actually explain it. Just a lingering reflex to hesitate before doing anything with God and his subordinates which might be considered flippant or blasphemous, even in a relatively secular age (especially in Europe, where Kells was produced)? Something like that, I suppose; as an atheist who wasn’t even really raised with any sort of religious indoctrination, it’s difficult for me to say and ultimately I don’t really care. It is curious, certainly, but otherwise absolutely fine with me if people are comfortable with humanist themes, but shy about nattering on about Christ and Christianity.

In fact if they could also stop leaving those stupid magazines in the doorway of my building, next, that would be just peachy…