THE NINTH CONFIGURATION, a drama set in a scenic castle functioning as a mental ward, and asking fundamental questions about life, goodness and evil, was written and directed (and even performed in in a small role) by William Peter Blatty, who became practically a household name in the 70s after the worldwide success of the dramatization of his work, THE EXORCIST (1973). CONFIGURATION is his directorial debut, and reveals him to be a highly talented director; it is really too bad he did not make any other films beside EXORCIST III (1990), for which a director's cut LEGION (2016) was released right around his death.
The spectacular direction, acting and cinematography cannot, in my mind, completely compensate for the implausibility of the plot reveal, which occurs about 2/3 of the way. That implausibility, at least as presented, distracts in turn from the treatment of the serious existential questions the film asks because after the reveal, events to make the movie's point seem contrived to be "just so".
Evidently, the expression "ninth configuration" is supposed to refer to the improbability of proteins randomly rearranging themselves to give rise to life. An astronomically small number is mentioned,and compared unfavorably to the probability for the existence of God, but I must admit that, as a scientist, I had never heard this term before. Nor does it seem to me that anyone could seriously calculate the probability of life arising on earth, given that the sample size of planets where this is known to have occurred is exactly one (there is something called the Drake equation for estimating the number of alien civilizations, which requires estimates for the probability of life in other worlds, but there are too many unknowns to make it possible to perform a serious calculation).
I have found that theological arguments are sometimes dressed up in mystical-sounding mumbo jumbo, and can't escape the suspicion that this might be the case here, too. However, that does not diminish the importance of the question itself of how life could have arisen.
The main philosophical question this films asks, however, is this: if we are really just a collection of atoms, perpetuating a phenomenon involving proteins which originated in an incredibly improbable random event long ago, then whence comes goodness?
The premise behind the question is strongly reductionist: for example, we have at least some biology-based frameworks for understanding altruism in higher organisms, and even if some proteins may play a role in these, the behavior of atoms at that level has long faded into explanatory irrelevance.
The movie is idiosyncratic and plays really well with our expectations. There is a hilarious scene in the beginning involving a short exchange between the protagonist and the man himself, which both foreshadows events to come, and sets us up to question what is real and what is not.
Scene after scene, we are sprayed with rhetorical snippets and actions by the mental patients (and even the attending physician) which seem nonsensical, but then, every once in while, there is follow-up dialogue which makes clear that what we thought was nonsense actually makes perfect sense.
No doubt Blatty did all this to disorient us, the audience. I can only speculate, but I suspect he sought to achieve a state of disorientation in the audience because it is, in a way, the best possible state to be in when asking the most fundamental questions: since we are not certain of anything, we cannot attach ourselves with certainty to any side of the debate.
And not taking sides is nowhere more important than when we try to really get to the bottom of things.
If my speculation is correct, then the set-up is nothing short of a stroke of genius. It makes how the aforementioned plot-reveal was handled all the more disappointing.
My problem is that an impossibly far-fetched set of events is presented to us straight. If, instead, it had taken the movie, say, in a surreal direction, then it would not have cheapened the film's attempts to provide an answer to the main question. As presented, it makes the final sacrifice, and especially the very last scene, seem like plot devices which betray that the author has, after all, taken sides.
Despite this criticism, CONFIGURATION is an impressive debut.
Films with similar elements:
1. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
2. AMARCORD (1975)
3. KING OF HEARTS (1966)
The spectacular direction, acting and cinematography cannot, in my mind, completely compensate for the implausibility of the plot reveal, which occurs about 2/3 of the way. That implausibility, at least as presented, distracts in turn from the treatment of the serious existential questions the film asks because after the reveal, events to make the movie's point seem contrived to be "just so".
Evidently, the expression "ninth configuration" is supposed to refer to the improbability of proteins randomly rearranging themselves to give rise to life. An astronomically small number is mentioned,and compared unfavorably to the probability for the existence of God, but I must admit that, as a scientist, I had never heard this term before. Nor does it seem to me that anyone could seriously calculate the probability of life arising on earth, given that the sample size of planets where this is known to have occurred is exactly one (there is something called the Drake equation for estimating the number of alien civilizations, which requires estimates for the probability of life in other worlds, but there are too many unknowns to make it possible to perform a serious calculation).
I have found that theological arguments are sometimes dressed up in mystical-sounding mumbo jumbo, and can't escape the suspicion that this might be the case here, too. However, that does not diminish the importance of the question itself of how life could have arisen.
The main philosophical question this films asks, however, is this: if we are really just a collection of atoms, perpetuating a phenomenon involving proteins which originated in an incredibly improbable random event long ago, then whence comes goodness?
The premise behind the question is strongly reductionist: for example, we have at least some biology-based frameworks for understanding altruism in higher organisms, and even if some proteins may play a role in these, the behavior of atoms at that level has long faded into explanatory irrelevance.
The movie is idiosyncratic and plays really well with our expectations. There is a hilarious scene in the beginning involving a short exchange between the protagonist and the man himself, which both foreshadows events to come, and sets us up to question what is real and what is not.
Scene after scene, we are sprayed with rhetorical snippets and actions by the mental patients (and even the attending physician) which seem nonsensical, but then, every once in while, there is follow-up dialogue which makes clear that what we thought was nonsense actually makes perfect sense.
No doubt Blatty did all this to disorient us, the audience. I can only speculate, but I suspect he sought to achieve a state of disorientation in the audience because it is, in a way, the best possible state to be in when asking the most fundamental questions: since we are not certain of anything, we cannot attach ourselves with certainty to any side of the debate.
And not taking sides is nowhere more important than when we try to really get to the bottom of things.
If my speculation is correct, then the set-up is nothing short of a stroke of genius. It makes how the aforementioned plot-reveal was handled all the more disappointing.
My problem is that an impossibly far-fetched set of events is presented to us straight. If, instead, it had taken the movie, say, in a surreal direction, then it would not have cheapened the film's attempts to provide an answer to the main question. As presented, it makes the final sacrifice, and especially the very last scene, seem like plot devices which betray that the author has, after all, taken sides.
Despite this criticism, CONFIGURATION is an impressive debut.
Films with similar elements:
1. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
2. AMARCORD (1975)
3. KING OF HEARTS (1966)