Weeks ago a friend invited me to see Lucy (2014) a film starring Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, and directed and produced by Luc Besson. Although I am a fan of Besson's early filmography such as Le Dernier Combat (1983), Lion (1994) and The Grand Bleu (1988), I was skeptical about attending, due to Besson's most recent and disappointing work and the terrible reviews of the film circulating on the Internet. We finally ended up going to the movies anyway.
The film is an action-packed film in the style of the director's latest works that exploits the not unfounded premise of the “hidden capacity in the brain.” From my point of view the film is riddled with silly synecdoches of the action interacting with wildlife footage, which instead of producing a new understanding of the scene, only acted as a pleonasm interrupting the continuity of the film. Either way I know Luc isn't going to read (or care) about my film perception, so let's skip the film analysis.
Regarding the story, Lucy is kidnapped by some bad people and used as mule, to transport a new drug that increases the capacity of the brain. Using the power granted by the drug, Lucy manages to escape from her captivity and her main objective for the rest of the film is to recover the packages deposited on the other mules to save them... ten minutes later she achieves her goal with the help of her newly acquired skills. The problem is that this happens about halfway through the movie. So speaking in terms of storytelling, if the character doesn't have a purpose, there's no point in existing.
I think this is the point where the movie lost me. And from this point on he loses his thread and rambles meaninglessly to the point where the character ends up turning into a USB memory at the end of the movie. Judging the film based on the Heroine archetype, the film fails terribly.
Weeks later I was connecting different thoughts and Lucy came to my mind, but this time I judged her in the opposite way. What if Lucy, instead of being the heroine, was the villain? The antagonist?
This is a crazy idea but think about it: When Lucy saves the other mules, she could have gone home and had a quiet life. Instead, she modified her goal, and her objective became devouring the entire drug herself in the most selfish act the history of cinema has ever seen—even considering Trainspotting for those addicted to drug-addict movies. (Following the rules established by the movie) Why not allow humanity to increase their brain capacity by 1%, when they can eat it all and increase their capacity to 100%?
The leader of the Korean gang—labeled the bad guy—her only desire was to share the drug (knowledge) with people and get paid for it—a fair enterprise—but is stopped by the selfish desires of the antagonist, Lucy, and the manipulated authorities (police). Does it make sense now?
Most people will debate that Lucy “sacrificed herself” for science (or at least that was the filmmakers' intention to portray), but I ask, for what purpose?
The cornerstone of the story in the film is when Lucy with her newly acquired powers can travel in space and time and is able to present herself before "Lucy" the Australopithecus Afarensis, the iconic first woman in our family tree, and to say—figuratively—"I am your God"
That is the point at which the circle is complete.
Because?
At the beginning of the film, the rogue romantically related to the main character convinces Lucy to make the deal—deliver the drugs without knowing it—and to convince her, he mentions that he saw the first "Lucy" (portrayed as a horrible, more ape-like woman) in the museum. Obviously the correlation outrages her, because she is not related to that horrible beast.
This is the way the movie deals with her selfish quest to prove herself better than everyone, to the point of becoming the God of what she hates so much about her personality.
This is what I call Lucy's Complex: Humanity's desire to mold itself into the image of the God we worship—or at least the image we believe he has—alienating ourselves from who we really are.
I have said many times that as humans we have the power to be Gods, because we collectively share the process of creation, but the problem is the image we have of God.
The vast majority of people believe in the divine figure living in the paradisiacal place that contemplates creation with omniscient presence and power. But they cannot explain how His will manifests itself in our daily lives, and they have trouble explaining why their God was not present at the moment of vicissitude. If you merge those two perspectives we have an omnipresent but inactive God.
So I tell people, “Why worry? Go and be happy, you are a God now,” And they respond: “What do you mean?” And I say: “Sit in the comfort of your home, created and decorated to your will—your personal paradise—watching the television that allows you omnipresence to complete the entire world and the universe and remain inactive no matter what the screen presents to you. . You must be a God, at least the God you believe in, the God you have created.”
This provides the foundation for the next question he proposes. The Lucy Complex: Is it the human that is made in the image and likeness of God? Or do we create the image of God and then try to force ourselves to fit into that divine but incomplete image?
In the movie, when Lucy gains omnipresence, she sits in a chair changing channels that allow her to travel in time (just like we do watching TV), but she was passive, inactive, just contemplating... she didn't change anything, she didn't transform lives, not even the people close to her (there is a scene where she talks to her mother.) Her greatest achievement was being stored on a 16 gigabyte USB as knowledge hoping to survive the passage of time and somehow—no one knows. —be useful…this is why the movie really fails.
What is the image of what we want to become? Is it really that of the God we worship?
Are you planning on searching for the answer to those questions, or will you stay on your couch idly contemplating creation all day?
M. Ch. Landa
