The film Pearl Diver portrays all Mennonites as simple farmers who avoid confrontation. There is a lot of confrontation between Marian and Hannah but I am thinking more in the sense of confrontation with the outside world in the way that they seem to keep to themselves. They are tight knit in their Mennonite sphere but they don’t really venture away from that sphere. They keep their business private. They are simple and strict and do not get mixed up in the ways of the world.
The film seems to perpetuate a lot of stereotypes about the way Mennonites dress and act and the churches they attend. Most Mennonites I know don’t wear such plain clothes or hair coverings.
I think that Goshen is a good location choice because of its high Mennonite population. People can watch the movie and know that it is a real town that actually exists and not a set created to fit the movie. However, it does seem to narrow the audience. People from Goshen may understand things that others do not. Some inferences may have more meaning to some than to others.
The film seems to use technology to connect the main characters back to the old traditions of the church through the typewriter and the tractor and the burying of the necklace in the land. There is still that attachment to the old ways no matter how things may change.
Through Hannah’s manuscript, the film suggests that the Mennonite Writer and the Mennonite community will not often see eye to eye because the writer writes so that others will see their work while the community does not want their stories out for the public to see. The work of a writer is not something they particularly agree with.
Yes, it appears that Marian and her family try to have as little to do with the "world" as possible, but this may also be heightened because of the violent intrusion of the "world" -- in the form of two criminals -- in her childhood. We also find, at the end of the film, that Marian is carrying a lot of guilt for her reaction to the murderer when he plead with her to save him and she (perhaps wisely, certainly instinctively) did not.
ReplyDeleteMarian does not want Hannah to publish her story, arguing that writing for those outside of the community is not as important as serving the community, but Marian also has personal reasons for taking this position.
What is interesting in this film to me is that the writing does benefit those in the community when it becomes the trigger for Isaac to explain the story of the necklace, which is what the burglars were after. However, after the writing has served the community, it is sacrificed.
In terms of "serving others," then, through the written word, it seems that there's a big distinction between serving insider and outsiders. These are two different audiences that are valued very differently by the two sisters.
This issue of audience, and who Mennonite writing is for, will continue to come up as a theme in the work we are reading.
I like how you mention that Hannah and Marian are “tight knit in their Mennonite sphere.” I think that Marian was closer to her heritage than Hannah but she (Hannah) still shows some connections with her heritage. The movie does narrow the audience but for the broader audience, there may be something from the movie that reminds them of something else (heritage, farming, hospital, etc.). I agree with how the writer and the community will not see eye to eye. This unfortunately does happen in any heritage, between any two groups (Mennonites and non-Mennonites, Russian and German, etc.), and in any family.
ReplyDeleteJamie--good point that this tension between the writer and the community happens in many groups, not just Mennonite ones.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in your last paragraph, where you talk about what the film suggests is the role of the Mennonite writer. I agree somewhat with your interpretation of the film -- that the MEnnonite writer will always be at tension with his or her community because the community doesn't want the stories to come out.
ReplyDeleteThis made me think about the martyrs, and whether or not people were resistant to having their stories written down, or whether it was seen as simply a fulfillment of their martyrdom, a natural step in order to not waste a life or a story? Is the difference simply that Hannah and MArion's mother is a victim, not so much a martyr, and this makes her story one that oughtn't to be told?