PicoBlog

Movie rating: 9/10

Now I know how viewers of The Sopranos must have felt. For most of First Reformed the movie seemed like a surefire 10/10. Director and screenwriter Paul Schrader was grappling with some of the most serious issues of our day, especially the climate crisis, along with spirituality and personal despair. The script, the performances, the cinematography, and editing were all superb. Unfortunately, the ambiguous ending—or arguably, lack of an ending—took the film down a notch for me. It continues a frustrating trend of such endings in movies, shows, and books, which to me reflects a postmodernist hesitancy of writers to attach themselves to a specific narrative.

Let me say up front that Paul Schrader is one of the great screenwriters. This is a guy who, after work as a film critic, first gained wide recognition for writing the script for Taxi Driver. He went on to write or co-write other Martin Scorsese masterpieces like Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ, as well as directing his own films. The man knows how to write a screenplay. But I disagree with the choices he made in ending First Reformed the way he does.

Like much of Schrader’s work, First Reformed centres around an alienated man facing an existential crisis. The film revolves around the Rev. Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke), a pastor at the First Reformed Church in Snowbridge, New York who is struggling with his faith, alcoholism and past tragedy. A former military chaplain, Toller suffered the death of his son in the Iraq War after encouraging his son to enlist. “My wife was very opposed,” he recalls. “My son enlisted anyway. And six months later, he was dead in Iraq. I talked my son into a war that had no moral justification.” After a divorce he found himself as pastor at First Reformed.

The First Reformed Church is a historic site, but like many congregations today is facing dwindling attendance. The church is now mostly known as what Toller calls a “souvenir shop”. One of its few regular attendees is Mary Mensana (Amanda Seyfried), a young woman who asks Toller one day if he can speak with her radical environmentalist husband Michael. Mary is pregnant, but Michael believes it is wrong to bring a child into a world facing climate catastrophe. He wants Mary to get an abortion. Michael’s struggle with despair comes to mirror Toller’s own.

The first words that comes to mind when I reflect on First Reformed are “thoughtful” and “meditative”. Like Toller, the film is asking big questions about life, spirituality, and the state of the world. Our protagonist keeps a daily journal into which he pours his thoughts, fears, and anguish. Toller is reading the works of theologians such as Thomas Merton in an attempt to find answers. Outwardly, he still manages to present a positive front in his ministry. Consider what Toller says after Mary has asked him to speak to her husband about his concerns. “Courage is the solution to despair,” the pastor tells Michael. “Reason provides no answers. I can't know what the future will bring; we have to choose despite uncertainty. Wisdom is holding two contradictory truths in our mind, simultaneously, hope and despair. A life without despair is a life without hope. Holding these two ideas in our head is life itself.”

In the language of dialectics, Toller is speaking here about the unity of opposites. Much of the film involves characters grappling with such contradictions. Unlike formal logic, which is based on the law of non-contradiction, dialectics might be described as the “logic of contradiction” and sees contradiction as the motor force of change. Everything turns into its opposite. Toller in essence says that life involves recognizing this unity of opposites. But another concept in dialectics is the transformation of quantity into quality. Mounting despair can ultimately lead to a qualitative change in how one responds. In First Reformed, we see how this process affects both Michael and Toller.

Spoilers follow.

Mary realizes how far Michael’s despair has gone when she finds a suicide vest in the couple’s garage. She contacts Toller and they agree not to contact police because they believe this would be counterproductive given Michael’s current state. Before their next appointment, Toller receives a text message from Michael asking to meet him in a park. When he arrives in the woods, he finds Michael has blown his brains out with a shotgun. Suicide is what happens one’s personal despair reaches such proportions that the thought of continuing life becomes unbearable.

In the aftermath of Michael’s suicide, Toller grows closer to Mary, yet his own despair continues to grow. His drinking gets worse as he faces mounting health problems that his doctor believes to be stomach cancer. Meanwhile, having taken Michael’s laptop, he comes to share Michael’s despair over the global climate emergency.

While preparing for the reconsecration of First Reformed Church for its 250th anniversary, Toller learns that Edward Balq, owner of a polluting factory, is also a major financial backer of Abundant Life, the megachurch that owns First Reformed. During a meeting before the reconsecration with Toller and Pastor Joel Jeffers (Cedric Kyles) from the Abundant Life Church, Balq takes issue with Toller having honoured Michael’s will by presiding over his funeral at a toxic-waste dump, with a choir singing Neil Young’s ecology anthem “Who’s Gonna Stand Up?” Balq describes this as a political act and wants “no politics” at the reconsecration. Toller responds that concern for the planet is not political, but stewardship of God’s creation, yet Jeffers agrees that there will be no “politics”. On the day of the reconsecration, at which he is will be presiding and Balq will be present for, Toller puts on Michael’s explosive vest and plans to detonate it in the church.

Hawke and Seyfried give excellent performances, as expected, with the former ably conveying Toller’s personal, physical, and spiritual disintegration. As his alcoholism, illness, and distress at humanity’s seemingly wilful destruction of the planet increase, Toller’s own humanity seems to erode. An early warning sign is when he cruelly rebuffs Esther (Victoria Hill), a worker at Abundant Life who had a liaison with Toller in the past and is clearly still in love with him. “I know what you want, and I can't bear your concern, your constant hovering, your neediness,” he tells Esther. “You are a constant reminder of my own personal inadequacies and failings. You want something that never was and never will be. I despise you. I despise what you bring out in me. Your concerns are petty. You are a stumbling block.” One can trace a line from Toller’s disregard of Esther’s feelings to his eventual willingness to engage in a suicide bombing, to achieve—what, exactly?

As much as I appreciate First Reformed for treating the climate crisis with the alarm it deserves, it also seems to play into the trope of depicting any activist seriously concerned with the environment as extremist “whackos”. In their first conversation together, Michael outlines to Toller the scientific consensus about the effects of unchecked climate change: rising sea levels, lethal temperature rises, and so on. “The bad times they will begin, and from that point everything moves very quickly,” he tells Toller. “You know, this social structure can't bear the stress of multiple crises. Opportunistic diseases, anarchy, martial law, the tipping point. And this isn't in some like distant future. You will live to see this.” He justifies his antinatalism on this basis. But it’s unclear what Michael is hoping to accomplish with his explosive vest. I got the impression his plan was to detonate it in Balq’s factory. But this seems exactly as pointless as Toller’s eventual plan to blow himself up at the reconsecration.

In the absence of a revolutionary Marxist perspective, Michael and Toller in their despair and impatience turn to individual terrorism. This is a classical trend among the petty bourgeoisie, who lack faith in the working class to transform society and turn to what anarchists historically called the “propaganda of the deed”. The Narodniks in 19th-century Russia were notable proponents of this tactic, which they used to justify the assassination of tsarist officials. But ultimately this individualist tactic doesn’t effect any positive change at all. On the contrary, all it does is invite greater state repression. The ideas of Bolshevism partly arose in direct response to the ineffectiveness of the Russian terrorists, whom Marxists often referred to as “liberals with a bomb”. As Leon Trotsky wrote in his 1911 article, “Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism”:

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the “propaganda of the deed” can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more “effective” the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.

What would be the result of Michael or Toller killing Balq, along with many innocent people? This is just the owner of one factory, not even a drop in the bucket in terms of global pollution. Someone else will take over ownership of that factory. If Michael was planning to blow up the factory itself, that damage can be repaired. Even if it can’t, capitalist business as usual will continue around the world. Millions more tonnes of carbon will be pumped into the atmosphere to keep profits rolling in. It’s noteworthy that although Michael says that “this social structure can’t bear the stress of multiple crises”, he never defines exactly what that social structure is. In their despair, the worldview that Michael and Toller seem to move towards more closely resembles ecofascism and the idea that “humans are the virus”. Rather than viewing capitalism as responsible for the climate crisis, they blame “humanity” as a whole. This leads into a misanthropic view that human beings are a blight on the planet.

In the end, the reason Toller decides not to through with his suicide bombing at First Reformed is an individualist one: because Mary, whom he feels great affection for, is present at the reconsecration even after he told her not to go. Toller removes the suicide vest and instead wraps himself in barbed wire. Rather than a suicide bombing, he prepares to drink a glass of drain cleaner to kill himself. This leads directly into the movie’s ending—or should I say non-ending?

Mary appears and interrupts Toller just as he is about to drink the drain cleaner. He drops the glass on the floor and walks over to her. The two embrace and kiss as the heretofore static camera swirls around them and a hymn sung by Esther swells on the soundtrack. Hard cut to black. Roll credits. That’s all, folks.

When I saw this ending I first took it literally, but after reflection I wasn’t so sure. About two-thirds through the film, there’s a key scene where Mary visits Toller while he’s been drinking. The two participate in what Mary and Michael used to call the “magical mystery tour”, a non-sexual act of physical intimacy in which they lie on top of each other and feel their breathing, heartbeats, etc. During this earlier scene, Mary and Toller are shown to levitate and appear to fly over scenes of mountains, forests, ocean. Then we see scenes of pollution around the world.

In light of this scene, a user on Reddit made some salient points that we should take note of when considering the ending:

So if we can’t this ending at face value, what actually happens? How does this movie really end?

Schrader has been ambiguous about the ending of First Reformed and what transpires. An analysis in Vulture notes that Schraeder was strongly influenced by Carl Theodor Dreyer’s film Ordet. The ending of Ordet (spoiler alert) sees the literal resurrection of a woman by her brother-in-law, who had claimed to be Jesus Christ. In his 1972 book Transcendental Style in Film, Schrader explains how he sees this ending, which sounds very similar to the ending of First Reformed:

The decisive action breaks the everyday stylization; it is an incredible event within the banal reality which must by and large be taken on faith. In its most drastic form, as in Dreyer’s Ordet, this decisive action is an actual miracle, the raising of the dead. In its less drastic forms, it is still somewhat miraculous: a nonobjective, emotional event within a factual, emotionless environment. The technical stops employed by the everyday are to varying degrees pulled out — the music soars, the characters emote … the decisive action suddenly and inexplicably demands the viewer’s full emotional output.

The Vulture article quotes Schrader on his interpretation of the First Reformed ending:

“It’s calibrated to be read in different ways,” Schrader said, “because when you look at it closely, she suddenly appears, the room is much lighter, the footsteps go away — so [I was] trying to find the right balance between it being a kind of intervention of grace, a kind of miracle, or an ecstatic vision, which is also a kind of miracle, I guess.”

In a conversation with Sofia Coppola on A24’s official podcast, Schrader offers two possible explanations for the final scene in the movie. “One, that a miracle has occurred, and his life is spared,” Schrader says. “The other is equally, in my sense, optimistic, which is that he drinks the Drano, and he’s on all fours. He’s throwing up his stomach, and God comes over to him.”

Here’s my problem with this: Schrader is not an ordinary viewer throwing out fan theories about a film. He’s the writer and director of the film. Obviously no artist is under an obligation to publicly state the “correct” interpretation of their work. But these comments from Schrader suggest he intentionally designed the scene so it could be read multiple ways. To me, that says there is no real ending here. What we’re seeing is not literally what happens to Toller; we’re witnessing some kind of spiritual experience. I’m sure that’s the point. Vulture again:

First Reformed is a parable about hope. It takes one of the central proclamations of Jesus Christ — “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” — and attempts to provide, if not an answer, than at least a response, one tailored for what will likely become the great dilemma of our age. And if the ending of the film is open to interpretation, if it’s concerned less with what did or didn’t happen — Mary did intervene; Toller did go insane — and more with the ineffable notion of encountering grace, then that’s fitting. Few modern films take spirituality as seriously or as thoughtfully as First Reformed does, and even fewer strive to accomplish one of the great purposes of art: to express the inexpressible, to shine a light where it would otherwise be dark.

Maybe my fundamental issue is that while the film can explore spiritual concerns, I’d rather it did so within the limits of material reality. Throughout the film, I followed a pastor trying to grapple with contemporary problems in a secular age when organized religion is in decline. What are we seeing at the end? Are we seeing a vision that Toller is having? Are we seeing an actual miracle? From a modern scientific, materialist perspective, miracles don’t happen. But even if that’s what we’re seeing, I think Schrader should have made clear if this is a vision, a miracle, or whatever. To put it another way, he should have resolved the story.

Ambiguous endings have a place. One of the reasons I love Paul Verhoeven’s Total Recall is because you can interpret the movie two ways: either the protagonist Quaid is actually experiencing all the events in the film, or the story is taking place in its head. But the film still has an ending that feels like a satisfying resolution. More recently, however, ambiguous endings have become a way for writers to avoid the thorny problem of having to wrap up their stories.

Even if the final scene in First Reformed is just a vision Toller is having, somehow it doesn’t feel like a real resolution. The Whale is an example of a film with a similar ending that may simply have been inside the protagonist’s head, yet it felt satisfying. Maybe my problem is that ending First Reformed with an extended makeout session between Toller and Mary almost feels like it comes out of nowhere. Yes, the two characters have developed a close relationship and shared a moment of physical intimacy, but it’s almost ramping things up too quickly. That’s why I lean towards it being a vision.

First Reformed is still an excellent movie overall, but I think it’s a classic example where an ending that doesn’t quite work for the viewer can mar their impression of the work as a whole. Maybe I’ll feel differently after I watch Ordet.

ncG1vNJzZmilkanBqbHWqaydnJmowaa%2Bjaysm6uklrCsesKopGioX5u2s7%2FTZqmenp%2BnuqawjGtnam8%3D