Left Field Cinema

WARNING: Contains possible spoilers but will not affect the viewing of the film for the first time

In 1984, filmmaker Philip Gröning made a request to the Carthusian monks of the Grand Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps to film them, only to be told it was too early to do so. Eventually, around 16 years later, having had a deep and trusted relationship with the General Prior, the director was given permission to film, thus creating a near-silent, 162 minute documentary on the lives, the structure and order, of the monks at the monastery that is called Into Great Silence.

Unlike most documentaries, the filmmaker eschews conventional techniques to bring the viewer into this environment more closely. No voice-over, musical score, interviews, or archival footage is used at all in the running time, the closest to these traditional documentary tools being extreme close-ups of individual monks staring directly at the camera interspersed throughout. By not using these techniques, the viewer is left to follow the monks on their day-to-day lives instead of watching them from afar as one would traditionally do in these factual documents. This is furthered in both the use of the camera and sound. The camera is completely static, either up close to the persons or overlooking them from above from the roof of a hall or from the other side of a snowy peak. Without a music score, the sounds that would be heard everyday in this environment, of chanting, of the giant bells when they are rung, and of nature and the outside itself, create the mood; the effectiveness of these sounds, because they are part of monastery life, far surpasses what a traditional score would be able to imply. There is talking and dialogue between the monks, but for the most part there is almost complete silence as you watch a monk praying to himself or reading from the scriptures for long, protracted shots.

The film’s length is the result of the director’s aim for the film. The viewer watches the monks, both young and old, from season to season, go about as they do traditionally, eating, praying and on their goal to be closer to God. Rather than being off-putting, one is drawn in to seeing them as a mass group, a brotherhood to be precise, practicing traditions centuries old which are both unique, because they are devoted to their Christian God, but are not that extra-ordinary from anyone else’s life. Except the fact they are living in buildings of incredible architecture surrounded by a beautiful environment, most of what they do is what anyone does in their days. There are members who you recognise after a while, from two newest members who we see being indoctrinated into the order, to an elderly gardener who looks very frail as he tends to his work in the snow but yet seems contented. When the monks talk about the symbolism of washing their hands at one point, it is with good cheer and warmth. Then of course there is the sight, near the end of the film, of some of the younger monks sliding down a snowy slope on their behinds for fun while their peers laugh on with them. It is a hilarious sight that also made me rethink the daub, serious image of monasteries. They are still human after all.

Since this tackles a very religious subject, I would be concerned how a non-religious or atheist viewer could find the documentary engaging, but for the most part you do not have to be spiritual to get the most out of it. It is a look at the lives of those we rarely see, and regardless of the spiritual beliefs of the viewer this film is still a valuable document. The only parts that are directly about faith are the scenes with a old, blind monk who gives his opinion on belief, and the quotations from the Bible that are shown through the film and inter-cut between different strands.

There are very few flaws to this documentary. I will admit that I thought it was slightly too long, but that does not detract from it for me, and the opinion on the running time will be completely different to whoever views it. The only real technical flaw is the on-screen quotations. While they add to what is shown, the same two are repeated numerous times, too many times, almost giving the impression the director is ramming them down your throat. What is shown should be the most important part.

This will not be for anyone, or will only be watched once, but it is a completely different documentary that fascinates and offers a view of somewhere that would be unseen any other time. Before this documentary, no other person from the outside world had been allowed into the monastery and record what takes place there since 1960 when the last photos were taken. That in itself makes this documentary important.

Michael Hewis