Movie: Thor (2011)

(Image from IMDb)

I interrupt your previously scheduled entry, the second half of my discussion of Stephen Hawking’s episode of Curiosity, to bring you a post about Kenneth Branagh’s movie, Thor. I have never read the graphic novel that the movie is based on, so I cannot say what aspects of the story and characters are in the original story and what was created just for the movie. However, the story of Thor stands out amongst its fellow Marvel superheroes for its charm and depth, which I attribute to the mythology upon which it is originally based.

Surprisingly, for a story that is not supposed to be related to Norse mythology in any way other than using it as a source of characters and places, it does a good job maintaining some of the appropriate characteristics of the more important characters that it uses. Odin is still the wise All-father who may seem a little cruel and stands in opposition to the brash physicality of Thor, his son. Loki, although here raised as Odin’s son instead of his bonded brother, is still a trickster, the son of giants, who is essentially neither good nor evil in the strictest sense, despite how Thor’s companions wish to portray him.

Of course, since the story bears no real resemblance to Norse mythology, the characters are updated to fit into a modern world and sense of heroism. Thor actually learns to see beyond his limited sense of self and image of the world and eventually begins to understand some of the reasoning behind Odin’s actions. By the end of the movie, Thor proves himself to be a well-rounded leader, as one would expect from this type of hero film.

As in most movies based on mythology, whatever it may be, there are a few questionable character choices and decisions that I will never understand. Why maintain the lady Sif as one of Thor’s companions, since she is his wife in Norse mythology, while creating three brand new characters as his warrior friends instead of using his other known companions, such as Thjalfi and Roskva? And why on earth does Asgard look like a pipe organ? I cannot take it very seriously and I really cannot take Loki or Heimdall seriously either, with their utterly ridiculous helmets. Loki in particular looks more like an insect than anything and it just makes me want to laugh in his face. Again, I assume these are all aspects of the original graphic novel and thus do not need to make any sense from a mythological standpoint, but I cannot help but wonder.

Overall, the movie is not a particularly magnificent piece of storytelling. Very little actually seems to happen and is almost entirely predictable from start to finish for anyone familiar with hero tales. While, as mentioned previously, I do like their treatment of Loki, keeping his character ambiguous rather than evil, I think there could have been more of his development as well as Thor’s. I understand that Thor is the primary hero, but I have always found Loki to be much more interesting and would have liked to see more happen with both Loki and Odin. This film serves its purpose well as the introduction of the hero Thor for use in the upcoming movie The Avengers, but does not seem to have that much merit on its own. This does not mean, of course, that it is not an enjoyable movie, because it is still cute and humorous in its own way, but I expected a bit more from director Kenneth Branagh. On the whole though, Thor is a fun movie that does much better than most in keeping the spirit of the mythology upon which it is based.

For an introduction to Norse mythology and many of the characters mentioned in the movie, please refer to the following.

Sturluson, Snorri. (2005). The Prose Edda. (J. L. Byock, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics.

Show: Curiosity episode 01 pt. 1

Also known as The Benefits of a Liberal Arts Education pt. 1

Discovery channel’s new show Curiosity explores some fundamental questions about human life. In the first episode, aired Sunday August 7^th at 8 pm, Stephen Hawking set out to answer the question, Did God Create the Universe? As a cosmologist who has been investigating the origins of the universe for the majority of his life, Hawking is certainly the right person to explain the current scientific theories about how the universe began. Over the course of the 48 minute long program, he gives an excellent, easy to understand explanation of his perspective on how the universe works. He begins by making the argument that the universe is governed by the laws of nature, such as gravity and other laws that dictate motion and force which are exerted on all matter universally. After explaining some of these fundamental laws of nature he then goes on to explain the big bang theory, and the idea of the singularity, from which the universe began. The singularity, infinitesimally small and infinitesimally dense, a primordial black hole, spontaneously generated (the way protons can according to quantum mechanics) and spontaneously exploded to create the universe. Hawking argues that according to the laws of nature, there did not need to be a creator because the laws of nature allow for the spontaneous generation of matter and that all of the matter (positive energy) and space (negative energy) in the universe adds up to zero, and thus cancels itself out to a perfect balance. Furthermore, Hawking argues that time, which stops in a black hole, was simultaneously created along with space and matter, and thus there could be no time before the singularity. If there was no time before the singularity, then there was no time within which a creator god could have created the universe.

Having watched the episode again, listening much more carefully, I can find no fault with any of Hawking’s logic. I grew up in a household with two organic chemists and have maintained a passion for science ever since, so I am able to understand what Hawking is saying and follow him to the appropriate conclusions. The big bang theory makes a lot of sense as an explanation of how the universe began. However, I do have a problem with Hawking’s assertion that his explanation of how the universe began is scientific fact.

In my understanding, science is supposed to be the quantifiable, measurable study of something. There are the soft sciences, such as anthropology and sociology, which struggle with the ability to meet scientific standards of quantifying and measuring human behavior, and then there are the hard sciences such as chemistry, biology, and physics, which are almost entirely numerically based. In order to be considered a true scientist by today’s standards, there are many procedures that must be followed and carefully detailed records written that chronicle all observations of any scientific study. The whole point behind such careful record keeping is that all scientific experiments are supposed to be repeatable by other scientists, and it is only when they have been repeated enough times that the conclusions drawn from the data can be considered fact, or scientific truth.

When it comes to explaining the origins of the universe, there has to come a point when the science stops being science. By its very nature, the origin of the universe is not something that can be observed or repeated; thus, it cannot be quantified in terms of science. I will not argue that by observing the laws of nature and through careful calculations, conjectures can be made about how matter behaved long before the earth was formed. But even if all of the scientists repeat the same calculations based on the same data, it still remains that the big bang theory is just that, a theory. Until the spontaneous generation of a universe can be observed today, there is simply not enough data to conclusively prove how our universe started.

This raises the question then, can science study god? My answer, which I think many spiritual people will agree with, is that no, science cannot study god because god is not measurable and quantifiable. Hawking’s assertion that there is no god because there was no time for god to exist within prior to the big bang, rests on the assumption that god is subject to the laws of nature. However, for most people that I know who believe in some kind of higher power, the whole point of believing in god is believing in an entity that exists outside of the laws of nature. If god is not subject to the laws of nature, then god does not have to work in ways that can be measured according to our current understanding of nature and science.

If what Hawking describes within the program is thus not considered to be science, because it is not observable and quantifiable, then what is? The entire episode is, in my opinion, a prime example of storytelling. It is the creation myth for the scientific age, beautifully explained and endlessly engaging. It is amazing to listen to the language that Hawking uses to explain his theory, because it sounds remarkably similar to the language that is often used to describe religious beliefs and other creation myths from around the world. In place of “god,” the “laws of nature” is repeated often enough as the ultimate explanation. For Hawking, science has become his religion and nature is his god.

To be continued.

Book: The Secret Life of Bees

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

The Secret Life of Bees By Sue Monk Kidd may seem like an odd book for me to be mentioning in a blog about mythology and folklore and to be honest, it is. Set in 1964 South Carolina it is a novel about a young white girl, Lily, who escapes her abusive father and leaves town with her black “stand-in mother”. They are taken in by three black, bee-keeping sisters who have an elusive connection to Lily’s dead mother. Even though the three sisters introduce Lily and Rosaleen to the religion of the Black Madonna, the story is not overtly religious in nature, but chronicles Lily’s coming of age.

I am mentioning it here, however, because I think it makes an excellent example of something I hope to be talking about again later this week: the importance of stories in the construction of identities. The religion of the Black Madonna is not particularly well defined or all that strict, but it plays an important part in building the community of the Daughters of Mary, who become Lily’s adoptive family of sorts. At the heart of the religion lies the story of how a particular statue that fell off the bow of a ship washed up on shore and got taken in by a group of slaves as a symbol of the virgin Mary, and their hope for salvation.

The story’s importance is highlighted by the introduction that August, eldest of the three sisters, gives the tale at the first meeting of the Daughters that Lily and Rosaleen attend. August astutely observes, “Really, it’s good for all of us to hear it again… Stories have to be told, or they die, and when they die, we can’t remember who we are or why we’re here” (p. 107). This is an idea that is especially apparent when talking about mythology and folklore, but here it also highlights the importance of everyday happenings. All experiences can be recorded and mythologized over time, since every experience plays a part in building history and identity.

Another way this is illustrated is through a short instance later in the book when Lily’s friend Zach gets arrested. Since Lily wants to become a writer and English professor, she keeps a notebook of stories where she fictionalizes many of her experiences since she’s come to live with the sisters. When she visits Zach in jail she says, “ ‘I’ll write this all down for you… I’ll put it in a story.’ I don’t know if that’s what he wanted to ask me, but it’s something everybody wants – for someone to see the hurt done to them and set it down like it matters” (p. 185). Again, this highlights the idea that all experiences, especially trials of opposition, play an important role in shaping identity, especially when written down and shared in the form of a story. It is through the sharing of stories that experiences are shared and common ground can be found.

Although these pieces do not play major parts in the overall story and message being told in The Secret Life of Bees, I thought it was important to highlight that sometimes themes can be found in stories even when we least expect them. I suppose that storytelling is naturally going to be a theme that is part of all books on some level, but I honestly was not expecting to find much about storytelling and identity when I picked up this book. The idea that all experiences can feed into stories that shape identity is an important one to consider carefully before I jump into my next subject, which might come as even more of a shock (but you will have to wait to find out what it is).

Kidd, Sue Monk. (2002). The Secret Life of Bees. New York: Penguin Books.