Art does not occur in a vacuum, even if that vacuum is an atheistic one.
I admit to being fascinated by the worldviews and beliefs that fuel someone’s art. What life experiences and philosophical foundations (or lack thereof) inspire someone to write, draw, or compose a certain piece? Can savage paganism or a bleak metaphysical outlook spawn something meaningful? Especially if the owner of said beliefs doubts anything is meaningful? Which is one reason why dark fantasy, pulp horror director, Guillermo del Toro is so intriguing.
Not only is del Toro one of the most gifted celluloid myth-makers, he is “a raging atheist.”
John Morehead at TheoFantastique in his review of del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth, touches upon some of the “forces” that framed the auteur’s aesthetics. Morehead summarizes a snippet of the director’s interview at NPR this way:
A portion of the interview is heart-wrenching as del Toro describes growing up with a stern Catholic grandmother who saw his identification with monsters and fairy tales as somehow demonic. These experiences, coupled with his work in a morgue, the kidnapping of his father, and his reflections on the Spanish Civil War, all shaped his negative views of Catholicism and organized religion, so much so that in the interview he says he had to jettison the belief that there was an ordering Being beyond the universe and that as a result “we are all on our own.”
Del Toro is not the first person to be driven from the religion of their youth by “stern grandmothers” and such graphic, “heart-wrenching” experiences. He may, however, be the first with this big a platform. And such a wild imagination.
An expose in The New Yorker entitled Show the Monster, builds upon the biographical tidbits, and their devastating existential outcome:
Del Toro had been raised Catholic, but this sight [of a pile of dead fetuses], he said, upended his faith. Humans could not possibly have souls; even the most blameless lives ended as rotting garbage. He became a “raging atheist.”
Call me narrow-minded, but whenever I see an artist of del Toro’s caliber profess godlessness, it breaks my heart. There is something natural, right, about a talented individual acknowledging Something / Someone outside themselves — even Fate or Fortune — that has blessed them. Otherwise, it’s like painting the Cistene Chapel in hell — no matter how beautiful, fantastic, or captivating, it just doesn’t matter.
If the museum of oddities birthed from Guillermo del Toro’s imagination is any indication, one’s religious outlook may have little to do with their creativity and craft. Either way, it’s evidence how the impulse to create is inherent in humans, even if the acquiescence to a Creator isn’t.
As much as del Toro refers to himself as an atheist, this appears to be less than an accurate self-description. I’ve covered this in an interview with Victoria Nelson on del Toro and his views of a Gothik cosmos:
TheoFantastique: On the one hand del Toro is critical of theistic forms of belief in God, but yet tells cinematic narratives about alternative magickal realities that might be interpreted as spiritual in nature. In his films, especially in Pan’s Labyrinth, he seems to leave open the interpretation that Ofelia is not having an escapist fantasy, but instead is taking part in another realm of reality that only certain people can see. Does it seem that there is some kind of tension in del Toro that may eschew Christianity and claim atheism yet still present a monstrous and Gothick fantasy that can be spiritual in nature?
Victoria Nelson: In my opinion, he’s an atheist in name only. What he presents in Pan’s Labyrinth — the one film besides Cronos that’s his own original conception — is a kind of alternative Christianity spawned from Victorian fantasy. The Underworld palace where Ofelia/Moanna reigns is a faux Gothic cathedral with a Celtified rose window. He’s suggesting that our world is ruled from an alternative spiritual reality that’s mostly beneficent, even if it’s also populated by morally ambiguous creatures like the Faun and truly dreadful ones like the cannibal Pale Man.
The complete interview can be read here: http://www.theofantastique.com/2011/05/11/victoria-nelson-guillermo-del-toros-gothick-cosmos/.
Del Toro is a gifted and imaginative storyteller and a fascinating figure for reflection.
John, thanks for this. I also failed to mention how much I like your writing on this subject, especially the idea of replacing a religious narrative for one of faeries and monsters. It reminds me of the Bible verse that describes Man as having eternity etched in our hearts. Which means that even an atheist, perhaps without knowing, would instinctively grapple for something Other.
Interesting points, Mike. The search for meaning has always been an important one for man. We want to think our lives mean something. Have significance. And as Solomon discovered, if it doesn’t involve a purpose higher than ourselves, higher than this life, there is no meaning.
Naturally, an atheist sees Christianity and most religions as man seeking to find meaning in the “myths” they create for that purpose. We see it as the Creator giving us meaning and purpose instead of us inventing a purpose for ourselves.
If he doesn’t already know by now, he will.
There are two “reasons” a person chooses to NOT believe in God. One reasons is simply that the person has not seen or considered the evidence for God. When presented with the evidence for the existence of God, this person will reply, “I never considered that before. Let me think about your evidence and I will consider that God does exist.” Note that there is no emotion attached to this type of unbelief. It is purely “academic”.
The other reason someone does not believe in God is because of a painful, disastrous experience in their past with someone or some entity that claims to represent God. This sounds like a perfect example of such disbelief. In this kind of disbelief, there is a strong emotional quotient to the “atheism”. These people are militant, angry, bitter and often attack anyone who claims to be a believer. Why? Because their disbelief is based on emotional grounds and the intellectual arguments are too convincing. If they keep us all in an emotional state, we cannot think rationally and have a rational discourse about their disbelief.
What I find interesting is that these individuals become very “creative” in trying to defend or justify their disbelief. It might by Richard Dawkins writing eloquently about “The God Delusion” or Hitchens claiming “God is NOT Great” and writing a bestselling book. This is often a fascinating subject and you have rightly pointed out the “eternity” that lives in the hearts of all men. Our creative juices are a reflection of the Creator. No matter how hard Del Toro strives to promote his “militant atheism” as long as he is creating from the pure, creative part of his soul, there will be spiritual values surfacing in his work. Even in Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene” he waxes eloquent and uses frankly spiritual descriptions in talking about the power of the gene to bring about life.
An interesting post, Mike. Good work. I wish someone could reach Del Toro on a spiritual level and help him with his emotional struggles. He might reverse himself as Anne Rice did and wouldn’t the subsequent works be earth shattering? Imagine what he could do for the Kingdom!
See also H.P. Lovecraft. Not surprising that del Toro wants to dramatize At the Mountains of Madness.
I think it should strike everyone, both atheist and non-atheist, that, by far, the most prominent and memorable and overt and vocal atheist artists consistently evoke something outside of the material world in their work.
Lovecraft, del Toro, Pullman, Douglas Adams, Asimov, Andre Breton, Arthur C. Clarke, Harry Harrison, Heinlein, Seamus Heaney, Orwell, Ayn Rand, Francis Bacon, heck! Even Berke Breathed.
Every last one of them a promoter of atheism: every last one of them obsessed with a new heaven and a new earth and every strange angel in between.
On a side note: What is with everyone’s new obsession with Lovecraft? I went for many a blessed year without hearing a peep about the fellow, and now every third person and every third blogpost evinces some sort fascination with him, with Cthulu and the rest of his world.
I like Lovecraft but have never been able to be among those who embrace his aesthetic. For me he is a lot like Lewis Carroll in that aspect.
I don’t know about “everyone” else, but my obsession is far from new. Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith (and Lewis Carroll, for that matter!) are beautiful prose artisans, and detectives of mood.
As far as aesthetic goes, I’m completely fascinated, particularly in the case of Lovecraft, with this notion of an atheist author gobsmacked by a vivid, passionate extra-material cosmos that was originally intended by the author himself to illustrate a godless, material universe. The more he wrote, the more vivid and supernatural his stories became: its as if Jesus Christ Himself was playing a joke on Lovecraft’s muse, and Lovecraft happily played along.
I think this explains why August Derleth got away with doing what he did to Lovecraft (both at all and for so long.) It is very natural to make the small leap from Lovecraft’s arcane and passionate cosmology to a shocked respect, if not faith in, the Living Word.
He would have been far more successful in his mission of demonstrating the godless and material by submitting blank Income Tax forms to Weird Tales and other pulps back in the day. Instead, his vivacious, terrifying meditations on the horrors of loneliness only point to the one Monster that he could not, in good ideology, accept.
To boot, he could tell a real ripper. Rats in the Walls and the Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward (just for example) are so evocative, so creepy, and such a memorable gut-punch that I can retell the tales in their entirety from memory, not having read either again in decades.
He and Smith were masters of whatever is the literary equivalent of music’s indelible earworm.
Clearly, del Toro would miss the logic in the CS Lewis quote “When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all.” It is wholey appropriate, but would miss the mark with him.
I fell asleep in Pan’s Labrinth and never went back to watch it again, but am intrigued by the spiritual and religious structure you are indicating it has. In many ways it could be similar to the belief that everyone else has created and called religion. Yet again it is an excellent example of someone who has chosen to worship the created and not the creator, but this time the shoe is on the other foot. Hypocritically he wants our praise for both the creation (his movies) and the creator (him) but does not see how it could possibly work the other way around.
Oh, I missed this Lewis quote, it also sums up del Toro nicely: “God, in the end, gives people what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair?”
Whenever I read about someone wrenching theirselves from Christianity (a denomination or not), it brings to mind two people: a friend of mine who worked at a local Zumie’s who was raised Catholic but ended up atheist. The other is the female singer of the death metal band Arch Enemy, Angela Glossow, which my brother loves (and he’s a borderline agnostic/multi-pagan), who was raised in an orthodox Christianity and broke away from it. I can agree that religion without room for any kind fo creativity, but instead has overt strictness can become nothing short of an atheism factory within the church.
Well, there’s also the person. Sometimes the seed is sown well. The soil just isn’t right.
I know a number of kids raised (as far as I can see) right by believing parents who nevertheless reject faith.
I know a lot more kids raised atheist who have come to the cross full well knowing what the joys of 2nd (or 3rd) generation atheism is like. (Hint: not nearly as fun as 1st generation atheism seemed at the time.)
1st Generation atheism has the additional benefit of “freedom” within the unhanded shield of faith. By the time the 2nd Generation rolls around, all they can hope for is direct exposure to the cold disregard of the devil.
I’m with you, Mike. It’s sad to see someone who’s gifted with such a bad outlook on things.
I actually think his take on Hellboy was VERY favorable towards Christianity.
Well said, Mike. And I’m with you on the “heartbreak” part.
I can only trust God that He will continue to work on GdT’s heart and mind to draw him to Himself.
In every athiest, I have always believed there was a core, a jumping off point, that needs to be dealth with; hurt that continues to fester. I’ve tried in conversations with athiests to get to that core, but they run far from it and we end up talking details trying to prove God instead.